Recruiters Are Still Complaining About No-Shows At Interviews (kyma.com) 477
An anonymous reader quotes CNN Money:
Chandra Kill had scheduled face-to-face interviews with 21 candidates to fill some job openings at her employment screening firm. Only 11 showed up. "About half flaked out," said Kill.... "A year or two ago it wasn't like this." With the U.S. unemployment rate at its lowest in 18 years, and more job openings than there are people looking for work, candidates are bailing on scheduled interviews. In some cases, new hires are not showing up for their first day of work....
While there's nothing wrong with accepting another job offer, bailing on an employer without notice could have lasting effects. "The world is small," said Johnny Taylor, president and CEO of the Society for Human Resource Management.... He added that he's heard of a candidate being flown out for a job interview only to skip that part of the trip. "I expect that if I send you a plane ticket and block off two hours to meet with you, you will show up." As a result, he said some companies are having candidates agree to reimburse for travel costs if they take the trip but flake on the interview.
In an effort to curb the problem, recruiters have been changing their tactics and moving through the hiring process faster. If they have a qualified candidate that seems like a good fit, they work to get them in for an interview the next day.
Inc. magazine once blamed the problem of no-shows on the low unemployment rate and "the effects technology have had on the communication style of younger generations." But leave your own thoughts in the comments.
And have you ever been a no-show for a job interview?
While there's nothing wrong with accepting another job offer, bailing on an employer without notice could have lasting effects. "The world is small," said Johnny Taylor, president and CEO of the Society for Human Resource Management.... He added that he's heard of a candidate being flown out for a job interview only to skip that part of the trip. "I expect that if I send you a plane ticket and block off two hours to meet with you, you will show up." As a result, he said some companies are having candidates agree to reimburse for travel costs if they take the trip but flake on the interview.
In an effort to curb the problem, recruiters have been changing their tactics and moving through the hiring process faster. If they have a qualified candidate that seems like a good fit, they work to get them in for an interview the next day.
Inc. magazine once blamed the problem of no-shows on the low unemployment rate and "the effects technology have had on the communication style of younger generations." But leave your own thoughts in the comments.
And have you ever been a no-show for a job interview?
Don't no-show (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never been a no-show period. If I won't make it somewhere I've promised to be, I contact the folks I was to meet with and let them know as soon as I know. Basic courtesy folks.
I've been on the other end of this too. Seen candidates not show up and then submit an application to a different job 6 months later. Guess who doesn't get considered for the job?
Re:Don't no-show (Score:5, Informative)
I've never been a no-show period. If I won't make it somewhere I've promised to be, I contact the folks I was to meet with and let them know as soon as I know. Basic courtesy folks.
I've been on the other end of this too. Seen candidates not show up and then submit an application to a different job 6 months later. Guess who doesn't get considered for the job?
Well that has to work both ways. Quite a few HR people and recruiters have this arrogant tendency to consider themselves entitled to treat applicants like trash. I've applied for jobs with certain recruiting agencies and companies and never heard from them again. I've been sent (at my own expense) considerable distances to be interviewed by people who clearly hadn't even read my CV. A recruiter will do that to me exactly once. After that, guess whose job adverts are ignored and whose e-mails and messages go straight into the waste basket? Recruiters should just get used to the idea that if they reserve the right to ghost job applicants, give them the run-around or send them on bogus interviews, applicants are going to treat them the same way. Respect is a two way street.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I've never been a no-show period. If I won't make it somewhere I've promised to be, I contact the folks I was to meet with and let them know as soon as I know. Basic courtesy folks.
I've been on the other end of this too. Seen candidates not show up and then submit an application to a different job 6 months later. Guess who doesn't get considered for the job?
Well that has to work both ways. Quite a few HR people and recruiters have this arrogant tendency to consider themselves entitled to treat applicants like trash. I've applied for jobs with certain recruiting agencies and companies and never heard from them again. I've been sent (at my own expense) considerable distances to be interviewed by people who clearly hadn't even read my CV. A recruiter will do that to me exactly once. After that, guess whose job adverts are ignored and whose e-mails and messages go straight into the waste basket? Recruiters should just get used to the idea that if they reserve the right to ghost job applicants, give them the run-around or send them on bogus interviews, applicants are going to treat them the same way. Respect is a two way street.
You are right, respect is a two-way street. But in many cases this is a three way transaction between you, the employer and the recruiter. If a recruiter behaves badly, you might want to take this up with the potential employer, stating that due to past experiences you will not work with that recruiter/recruiting firm in the future and state the reason. This shows that you are still interested in that particular employer for future job openings, but that you want your application to be treated seriously, an
Re: Don't no-show (Score:5, Insightful)
Headhunters just need to be eliminated from the process. My experience has been that third parties 'selling from the middle' will disrepresent the situation to both sides, the employee and the employer. They just need to go find a real job. (for themselves)
Re: Don't no-show (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Failure to even speak with recruiters can lead to an employer hiring only friends of staff, via word of mouth networking. That _can_ work, but can also lead to inadvertent age, sex, racial, and gender segregation. It can also deplete that pool of friends and wind up hiring less qualified people because the employer is desperate and in a hurry. Even if the new employees from the same university or circle of friends perform well, it can leave a company legally vulnerable to fail to look outside that small soc
Re: Don't no-show (Score:4, Informative)
What you describe is the result of the "open" office plan. Everyone is right in the middle of everyone else's shit, and you can hear everything except your own thoughts.
It's terrible. Even the call center I worked in at the beginning of my career had cubicle walls.
Re: (Score:3)
It is a structural system collapse. Disposable work force = disposable employers = disposable customers. It is a one of those system triangles, where all rely on each other, break one side and the rest collapse. The side that is broken is, work force, once it became disposable as designed by insane psychopath executives, so the employer became disposable, no loyalty for employer to employee, why would any employee be loyal to that employer (normal state of affair for the psychopath, loyal to no one but them
Re:Don't no-show (Score:4, Interesting)
I've never been a no-show period. If I won't make it somewhere I've promised to be, I contact the folks I was to meet with and let them know as soon as I know. Basic courtesy folks.
I've been on the other end of this too. Seen candidates not show up and then submit an application to a different job 6 months later. Guess who doesn't get considered for the job?
Well that has to work both ways. Quite a few HR people and recruiters have this arrogant tendency to consider themselves entitled to treat applicants like trash. I've applied for jobs with certain recruiting agencies and companies and never heard from them again. I've been sent (at my own expense) considerable distances to be interviewed by people who clearly hadn't even read my CV. A recruiter will do that to me exactly once. After that, guess whose job adverts are ignored and whose e-mails and messages go straight into the waste basket? Recruiters should just get used to the idea that if they reserve the right to ghost job applicants, give them the run-around or send them on bogus interviews, applicants are going to treat them the same way. Respect is a two way street.
You are right, respect is a two-way street. But in many cases this is a three way transaction between you, the employer and the recruiter. If a recruiter behaves badly, you might want to take this up with the potential employer, stating that due to past experiences you will not work with that recruiter/recruiting firm in the future and state the reason. This shows that you are still interested in that particular employer for future job openings, but that you want your application to be treated seriously, and that this recruiter/recruiting firm is doing a poor job of representing the employers business and interests.
As you say, paying out of your own pocket to travel to a interview far away only to discover that a recruiter have no idea who you are despite them having your CV is extremely poor form. Those recruiters should be outed and lose any future assignments.
That would be nice but there is usually no way to contact the perspective employer and this is by design. The only thing you can do most of the time is to add the recruiter and the agency he works for to your 'never deal with these a**holes again' list and create an e-mail rule that forwards any mails from their domain to the wast basket. I have never had problems finding work without the help of recruiters and I will never use their services if I can avoid it. This goes double for those agencies where you don't actually working for your employer. You end up working for the recruiting agency who hires you out as a contractor and takes a hefty commission out of your paycheck for the privilege while you get no benefits, worker protection does not apply to you and there are no paid vacations while the employer spends a year or two mulling over whether to offer you a permanent position. Another shitty trick that I have encountered is being sent to an interview (sometimes more that one with the same company) getting told they want to hire you only to get a phone call at the last minute informing you that it will come to nothing due to changes in company budgeting. By then you have turned down a bunch of other offers expecting to get this job. Companies feel entitled to do stuff like this and then they have the temerity to complain people are not showing up at interviews? Tough!!
Re: (Score:3)
And you can share an anecdote with friends and co-workers, naming names. Being sure to use words like "in my experience" and "in my opinion".
Re:Don't no-show (Score:4, Interesting)
Time to step up to the new reality.
Workers want their employers to comply, not the other way around. And they have the clout to make it happen.
That's putting it a bit simplistically, but that's the gist of it.
It is no longer an employer's market. And if they want to get ahead, they'd better start getting on the bandwagon.
And most of established HR (from the last 10-15 years) should be sharply told to change their game, or they will be shown the door.
Re:Don't no-show (Score:5, Insightful)
This is very clearly a case of a worker's market.
Which is very clearly a temporary abnormality. I've been at the same job for over 17 years. It pays decently, and is enough to support a family of four with mine as the only income, but I could make substantially more if I went somewhere else.
I won't though.
The current job market balance may be tilting in favor of employees at the moment, but that will inevitably change in the near future. And when it does, the, "last in, first out" rule will kick in. Secondly, I left my job once for higher pay, and I quickly regretted it. The bosses sucked, the technology sucked, and the people sucked, so I went back to my old job within a week. Most jobs suck, but mine strikes a great balance between responsibilities and job satisfaction that is very hard to find.
Thirdly, I watched how my employer handled its people during the Great Recession. When major cuts had to be made, "things" were drastically cut to preserve jobs. Retirees were't replaced when they retired, and some employees who wanted to retire early were given early retirement with full benefits, but not a single person was laid off. I have a job where my employer actually does value its employees, and that's very hard to find.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen this at my employer which is not in the tech field. They've actually had all staff meetings and told us "You're lucky to even have a job."
Turnover rate is like 30-40% per year. It worked for them when the employees they staffed had to take jobs at McDonalds. Now they are in demand and my employer doesn't know how to keep them. I'm not even sure if my employer realizes it needs to keep them.
Now we have important jobs being staffed by temp workers for months. And often transitioning out one temp wor
Re: Don't no-show (Score:2)
My favorite are the battery of IQ tests and calculus that I haven't seen in years from college before they will even talk to you. Not even applicable to the position at all.
Unless you answer 150 timed questions in a stressful situation on your own time they won't acknowledge you exist
Re:Don't no-show (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never skipped a scheduled interview. I have, on the other hand, had:
No problem for any of these dolts... they weren't the ones who took a half or full day of vacation time for an interview. Now they know how it feels to be treated like dirt during the hiring process. I'd have trouble crying even a thimble-full of tears for them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Recruiters fault?
When I see something like this I wonder if it is the recruiter not passing along the cancellation info. Maybe a little revenge, probably just not caring since the person isn't making them a dime and they have a 100 other contacts up for interviews.
Re: (Score:3)
I've been on the other end of this too. Seen candidates not show up and then submit an application to a different job 6 months later. Guess who doesn't get considered for the job?
This is the reason I'd call and cancel, not just ghost the interview. I mean even in a big city there's probably not a lot of people that do exactly what you do. Statistics say there's about 4.2 million [daxx.com] software engineers in the US. Though that's using a very broad definition, it's more like 3.4 million "classic" developers. But in reality, you're not very likely to see C++ developers apply for creating eCommerce sites or web developers apply to write device drivers. And if you add in some domain/framework
Re: Don't no-show (Score:2)
I have a team in Bangalore that has C++ experience plus every framework for e-commerce in existence
Re: (Score:2)
That's how one does it. If one doesn't come to a meeting unless there are special circumstances (like getting killed or perhaps a tiny bit maimed at an accident) one is an absolute asshole.
Don't be an asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
The candidate who didn't show up before?
No, the weird looking one.
Edit that CV (Score:5, Insightful)
perspective ==> prospective [merriam-webster.com]
<rant>
<del>test</del>: test ...broken ...broken ...broken
<strike>test</strike>: test
<s>test</s>: test
It's bloody 2018 and slashdot still doesn't support strikeout... FFS, no wonder the site is dying.
That should have been able to be written as:
<del> perspective </del> prospective [merriam-webster.com]
...or...
<strike> perspective </strike> prospective [merriam-webster.com]
If the people running slashdot (this week... who is it now?) call you for a job interview, you'd be wise to tell them that you'd really prefer not to work for someone who doesn't properly maintain their software.
</rant>
My peers (Score:5, Informative)
From what I've seen from my peers, they submit applications to 20+ jobs at once. Two or three will get back to them and schedule an interview (sometimes without even asking if the day/time works). The person applying then weighs which jobs seem like the absolute best fit for them from the offers, and go for that, ignoring the others. That's just basically how things are nowadays.
Re:My peers (Score:5, Insightful)
If you get scheduled for a day/time that you cannot make, you ask for a reschedule. If they deny a reschedule, tough luck for them. If you can't, you can't and an potential employer that don't understand that is not an employer you would want to work for. But then that employer should at least get a "sorry to have to say no thanks, I really cannot make that specific time for an interview, but thanks for considering me for the position".
Ignoring an interview, or even worse, ignoring an interview you explicitly agreed to (and they possibly even paid tickets for you come to) is just showing how little you care. I hope you get blacklisted from any future work within that enterprise.
And "just basically how things work nowadays" should not be an excuse for being a poor interviewee. If it is it will reflect show shitty employees these people will be. If you give your word, I trust you. If you break your trust, you are useless to me, whether you are my employee, co-worker or boss. And you will see that in order to be successful in your career, you need to be able to trust other people around you. When you can't, GTFO as quickly as possible. That is a litmus test that shows you a toxic environment.
Re: My peers (Score:3, Informative)
If you get scheduled for a day/time that you cannot make, you ask for a reschedule.
If someone schedules me without bothering to ask whether I can make that day/time, and then don't even bother asking me to confirm, I am absolutely going to ignore them. Serves them right for being presumptuous cubts who think they can dictate my schedule to me.
If I had already confirmed an appointment and then later found out that I couldn't make it, then yeah, I would call to reschedule.
Re: My peers (Score:2)
Where I am from someone who can't commit to an interview time he or she already agreed to is the same person who calls in sick all the time and makes PTO with a sense of entitlement.
When you can't commit it says more about you and I will not want to move further either.
Re: (Score:3)
I've had recruiters not relay messages for me. I tell them I can't make it and can they reschedule, and they just ignore it.
How many of these no-shows are just recruiters and HR not relaying messages?
Re: My peers (Score:4, Interesting)
And how many of those companies will be companies in 9-12 months?
Some of us want to have a career, not a list of failed startups we spent a few months at.
Re: (Score:2)
EXACTLY this. I'm harassed on a daily basis by recruiters by phone and email. For the email specifically, I have my own domain name, and give out a custom email address for each recruiter or job posting site I deal with. Several have sold off my data to others who endlessly harass me no matter how often I tell them I'm not the candidate they're looking for. Tthey all claim to have my resume, think I'm perfect for a particular job, and then ask for my resume (which they just said they had). If they did actua
Re: (Score:2)
Recruiters lie.
I get messages left on my voicemail at work from recruiters who say they have a candidate for us who has looked at our website and wants to work for us. This mythical candidate always has a set of skills that are irrelevant to what we do. Typically, they are web developers and we are not a web-based company. We sell software into a relatively small and very specialized niche.
Recruiters lie.
Re: (Score:2)
You should check your thinker. In no way or form does the post you replied to say anything about (or even implied, hinted, waved towards, ...) what you are ranting about.
I still remember how it was (Score:5, Interesting)
When you sent in a resume and didn't even receive a reply telling you that you weren't selected. If you hear nothing, we weren't interested. Must be painful to find the shoe's on the other foot now...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When you sent in a resume and didn't even receive a reply telling you that you weren't selected.
Yes because sending a piece of paper to be put in a stack with potentially hundreds of others is comparable to many man hours of reading selecting, finely tuning, scheduling, only to have someone flake. /sarcasm
I'm sorry for you if you apply for a job and didn't get a courtesy call, but that's hardly an excuse to go maximum arsehole on others. Speaking of, I have never once had a job *interview* cancelled on me and have never once gotten to the *interview* stage and then received no further correspondence.
Re:I still remember how it was (Score:5, Insightful)
What, do you think the company cannot afford to anger the share holders by spending all of thirty seconds to mailmerge an email stating "thanks for your interest, but we are currently not interested in offering you a position"?
Companies have set the standard for communication between potential employers and employees. Now it turns out they don't like their own standard.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
that's hardly an excuse to go maximum arsehole on others
In the age of "free market" only one excuse is needed, "I can do it because I am free, and I am not losing financially for doing this". This is the world we live in nowadays.
Re: I still remember how it was (Score:2)
That catches up man. Reputation and assholishness works both ways. Sometimes the market favors the employer. Sometimes it favors the employee. How each responds and respects in each era impacts the other.
I have had a job offer given and gave my 2 weeks notice only to be ghosted! I could not even file for unemployment and lost my life savings!! Scum.
As a result I do not trust recruiters nor employers even when they extend an offer. Only after I finish my first day do I celebrate a new job. Ridiculous but par
Re: (Score:2)
That catches up man
I agree, the reason why people are not bothering to show up is exactly because it catches up.
Always be ethical and professional
I mostly agree about this, except for parts where being ethical would seriously screw me (doing exaggarted over time for example). Note that I did not say that skipping interviews is good or that it is something that I do, only that it is an expected outcome of today's culture.
Re: I still remember how it was (Score:2)
Nothing is unethical to ignore and refuse to do business with someone or an entity. After they did the same to you?
It's kind of like an exgf where things went badly. Best to move forward. As humans we have relationships and are relationship based. Romantic relationships are not that different from professional ones where both parties benefit. Leave when it doesn't benefit you BUT don't be shocked when you get your ass dumped either if you've been an ass or didn't follow thru. Work no different.
I still blame
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of, I have never once had a job *interview* cancelled on me and have never once gotten to the *interview* stage and then received no further correspondence.
I have. Recruiters and HR departments do it to me all of the time and I'm left guessing if it's because they are slow, or because they have rejected me. It's made worse by HR departments that can take months to come to any decision at all as if it's our job to wait for them.
I'm not one of the folks who will just not show up and I always properly cancel, but I am glad that lately I've seen a better respect in the way that HR departments deal with me. I have one place spread interviews out over months and t
Re: (Score:2)
When you sent in a resume and didn't even receive a reply telling you that you weren't selected. If you hear nothing, we weren't interested. Must be painful to find the shoe's on the other foot now...
Companies are starting to see what happens when market dynamics move against them. Having been called and said they want to interview me and then hearing nothing, I have little sympathy for companies. I can understand you had a better candidate, but if you expect to be treated properly look to your own behavior as well.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It doesn't make it ok, but is is still the consequence of it.
While I think that one should show up on time for appointments I also think this entire story is "We have been assholes to people for decades and boohoo now they are beings assholes to us."
Yes, being an asshole towards an asshole only means that their are two assholes in the world instead of just one.
I still don't feel very sorry for the recruiters.
If they want to get treated better then they need to start treating applicants with respect first.
It
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, to get all those things, all you need to do is to be a microstate committing wide scale tax fraud on all your neighbours as a matter of state policy.
Then you'll be rich enough to give workers high level benefits.
Turnabout is fair play (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just been routine in the last decade or so, as I understand it, for employers to say things like "If you don't hear from us you didn't get the job." Or for recruiters to post jobs that aren't available, or to interview folks just so they could say that they did so before promoting internally.
Folks learn the rules of the game by playing it.
Re: (Score:2)
The article isn't talking about people not replying to an email.
This would be the equivalent of an applicant showing up for a scheduled interview, sit around waiting for half an hour, and then finally be told, "oh, yeah, no, we found someone else, so the interview is cancelled".
Which I'm sure has happened, too, but is definitely not the norm.
Re: (Score:3)
There are many reasons for this. One is the H1B visa process, where they must advertise the job to American candidates. but can deliberately make the requirements so lengthy and detailed that there every more expensive US applicant can be rejected.
Re:Turnabout is fair play (Score:5, Insightful)
Or are you advocating for recruiters to break the law?
Yes, in cases such as you cited, I am. The recruiter or employer should have balls enough to say something like "The very best you're going to get out of this process is a rejection letter, so now that you are fully informed you can make your own decision." Anything less is pure chickenshit.
We should treat these transactions with respect when we are not being respected by our opposites? Fuck that.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah. It happens a lot. I advocate a universal code for "this is a legal requirement only"
Yes, you should. If you can treat even jerks with respect, it says good things about you. N
Re: (Score:2)
I am willing to bet no one has ever gotten to the interview stage only to hear no correspondence anymore.
I've had it happen 3 times in the past year. Two of those times, the prospective employer responded when I contacted them again, and the other ceased all communication.
Re: (Score:2)
I am willing to bet no one has ever gotten to the interview stage only to hear no correspondence anymore. Neither side has invested much effort in the resume stage,
I’ve looked at a few job postings where someone on the inside said “don’t bother applying for that one; it’s been filled already”. Which is good advice since in a lot of cases it’s plenty of work to submit a resume: you want to research the company a bit, tailor your resume to the position (and get it into their damn HR front end), write a good cover letter, etc. By the time the interview rolls around, the hard work has already been done, after that it’s just travel
Re: Turnabout is fair play (Score:2)
When times were different a few years ago I applied to 300 jobs. Only 8 contracted me back.
It happens man and it's not their fault. They use HR filtering software. 85% of them didn't even know I applied I am sure and it went into a black box after spending hours tailoring.
If you're a developer than luck you! If not this is quite normal.
Re: (Score:2)
I am willing to bet no one has ever gotten to the interview stage only to hear no correspondence anymore.
I've got to laugh at that. Hell I can remember it happening 20 years ago, it's only gotten worse. It's actually worse for those who don't work in specialized fields and companies aren't falling over themselves to one-up on the pay scale right now.
Car analogy: Person slashes your tires and you respond by dumping a gallon of oil based paint on theirs.
Fixed that.
This isn't a competition of arseholishness.
You're right, problem is businesses have been stuck in the "well fuck the interviewees because we can simply outsource them." Most companies haven't seen a job market like this since the 1980's, where they NEED warm bodies and they spent years pissing
Re: (Score:2)
I am willing to bet no one has ever gotten to the interview stage only to hear no correspondence anymore
I have. After a phone screen and two in-person interviews over two weeks that collectively took up about six hours of my time, the prospective employer went MIA, and wouldn't return calls or emails.
Shoe on the other foot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shoe on the other foot (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it's high time people start talking about their experience with recruiters and how useless they can be.
I'd have to second that. The vast majority of recruiters is utterly, utterly, utterly useless. All most of them seem to do is shovel anybody who even remotely fits the description they get from the client into an interview. Half the time they even call the HR person at the company and get their approval before sending you on an interview for a job you are only theoretically qualified for but realistically are certain not to get. Something like an experienced .NET GUI programmer guy being sent on an interview for an position requiring an experienced C++ system programmer with lots of low level network programming knowledge, or vice versa. Those are totally different areas of expertise, programmers are not an entirely fungible type of employee, you can't just replace a C programmer with a Java web developer even though they both have a BSc in Comp. Sci. and are experienced each in their own field. So I'd add that a large proportion of HR people are also utterly, utterly, utterly useless
Re:Shoe on the other foot (Score:5, Insightful)
you can't just replace a C programmer with a Java web developer even though they both have a BSc in Comp. Sci. and are experienced each in their own field.
Sure you can. As long as you can copy/paste large chunks of code from Stackoverflow you're qualified for both.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. While I've never been and never will be a no-show for an interview. In this age of the cheapest communications ever it takes moments to send an email to the candidate that they will not be considered any further for the position. But in my experience the default position of recruiters and companies is that they can't even be bothered to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
All most of them seem to do is shovel anybody who even remotely fits the description they get from the client into an interview.
So you got an interview and you're complaining? Did you show up for the interview only to find it wasn't on?
Useless as people may be the only thing worse is to treat these people like a vindicitive arsehole. It's one of the fastest ways society can go down the tubes. (Not the internet just a bunch of tubes either, the ones that move shit around).
Re: (Score:3)
Ive seen this way too much. Ive been a full stack web developer for over fifteen years. There are lots of parts to that. This comes with rapid change and growth personally. No one is plug and play. Most places have some odd technology combination that youll have to learn to be competent, so I dont expect a perfect match nor do most employers.
It is still amazing how, once in a while, you get an interview offer from some outfit that just lost a programmer, call him John, who knew C++ and <insert long and rare combination of tools and APIs> and they turn you down because they are looking for an exact John replacement who knows all the tools and APIs John knew and was working on a very similar project to the one they are working on.
That being the case, Ive avoided for better or worse Microsoftâ(TM)s stack.
Anyways, given that, I find it weird getting calls from people about senior c# positions. Are they nuts? I know Java, Golang, PHP, JavaScript, Python, etc. I do not know c#. I dislike the oddity that is TSQL. Iâ(TM)ve never written beyond hello world, 15-20 years ago, in ASP.NET.
I seriously think that even given a resumé and a job description in front of them, many recruiters couldnâ(TM)t match the requirements. They donâ(TM)t know tech.
I was sent to an interview only to find out it was for backend
Yeah, I get that regularly when I'm between jobs. I'm C/C++/Java all the way, I can also do PHP/Ruby/Python and
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think it's high time people start talking about their experience with recruiters and how useless they can be.
Yeah let's start talking:
My experience: I have never heard of someone getting to an interview stage and then getting flaked on by a company or an interviewer. Just because at some point in the process you are a piece of paper in a pile of 400 other pieces of paper that may not get looked at, doesn't give you an excuse to be a huge arse after you have been hand picked through a process that takes many hours.
Reply to the interview saying you're not interested. Withdraw your application without notice by all m
Re: (Score:2)
I've known plenty of companies that wouldn't tell you that you didn't pass an interview. Sometimes because you were choice 2 or 3 and they wanted to keep you on the hook in case the others fell through, sometimes because they just didn't give a fuck. But it absolutely happens.
Re: (Score:2)
But if you bothered to look at other comments that last time a recruiter story appeared on Slashdot and this current story, you'd know recruiters and companies do flake out on interviewees too, and it's sometimes not the worst thing they've done.
And just because they've "hand picked" you through a process that takes many "hours" (oh no,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I had an offshore recruiter "hire" an acquaintance away from a job. Then told him on the first day of the supposed new job that there wasn't a job, and his previous boss just wanted him out and paid them to get him to quit, so the boss wouldn't have to pay unemployment insurance. Since the recruiters were out of the US, nothing could be done legally.
A few lottery winners and MANY losers (Score:2)
I think it's high time people start talking about their experience with recruiters and how useless they can be.
Yours was one of the three comments marked insightful (out of almost 50 so far), and the closest approach to an actual insight. Having said that, I think you didn't get there and if I ever got a mod point, I wouldn't have awarded it to that point. (Moot statement, though I don't know why.)
Think about jobs from the winners' perspective. Who's at the top? NOT the people who are looking for jobs via recruiters or ads. The winners are so exceptionally talented that they are paying their OWN agents to maximize t
Re: (Score:2)
Are you trying to agree or disagree or make some other point? It could be interpreted as anecdotal evidence in agreement or some sort of misunderstanding.
Unconvinced (Score:5, Insightful)
The real test of a worker shortage is to ask, "What jobs are paying significantly more?" Simple laws of supply and demand tell us that if there really is a shortage, then we should be seeing salaries jump. Something tells me that these recruiters are desperately attempting to recruit at the same (relatively) low pay as they always have.
Re: (Score:3)
Simple laws of supply and demand tell us that if there really is a shortage, then we should be seeing salaries jump.
That only works if the worker market is efficient. Workers and jobs aren't infinitely fungible, people will only work within some distance of their home and are reluctant to move. Secondly never bet against stupid budgeting decisions and the ability of management to act irrationally.
Re:Unconvinced (Score:5, Informative)
If you follow news sites, economists agree with you. There is not yet a real general labor shortage.
Just like so many other recent labor shortages, and just like the H1B visa debacles, the shortage is in people wanting to work for the rates offered. Companies can create hundreds of job postings for less than people are willing to work, but that doesn't mean the company has a true shortage. It does mean that if the companies keep scraping the bottom of the employment barrel they're finding fewer people willing to take those jobs. Last year the consumer price index (inflation) went up almost 3%, and for the first time since about 1969 have wages increased slightly faster than inflation for multiple years in a row.
Businesses have enjoyed the benefits of wage stagnation for too many decades. The last time purchasing power consistently went up across the nation ran from the end of the Great Depression in the 1930s all the way through the 1960s. The ratio hit a peak in about 1969, stabilized a little lower through the decade, fell sharply at the end of the 1970s, and the ratio has been flat ever since. For a half century the relative purchasing power for nearly everybody has been stagnant. Wages have gone up, but generally on par or less than inflation. Occasionally an industry will have a shortage and wages will trend upward, but it hasn't been broad.
As the better workplaces have known for ages, raise the salary offers and you'll have no shortage of willing workers. Even at the low end, locally we've got stores with great reputations, they visibly post wages they pay, and they've got no shortage of workers. One great chain of gas stations posts that all cashiers start at $12/hr (regionally other places have ads for $8 or so). A fast food restaurant has similar $12 or $12.50 rates with no experience. When I looked in to them they all said they've got strict rules including drug testing and background checks, and no visible tattoos, but workers get a >50% pay increase over what they get elsewhere and the company gets a much better wage slave.
If we see true labor shortages then wages will increase more broadly. This might be happening, and since we're seeing wages outpace inflation (by a fraction of a percent) for multiple years now there is some hope for those who otherwise work in low-skill jobs.
Re: Unconvinced (Score:2)
I think the clients the recruiters are using still think it's 2012. Your redecilous example of a doctor working for 8/HR is not far from the truth during 2002, 2009 - 2012, and the 1980s for other positions.
My friend in Florida wanted to pay $10/HR for an experienced web developer who also knew Cisco level stuff and could wear 2 hats. He found someone who fit the role and was happy to be in poverty!! ... In 2002 after the .com crash. I was offended!
But that's how it roles in an employers market.
HR has stric
Obvious... (Score:2)
Do they realize I get 7 offers in a day? (Score:4, Informative)
Back when I was last unemployed, I had severe issues managing my time to fit in interviews with everyone. I would sometimes get 3 in a day, and you know, there's traffic, or people are stuck in another interview which is taking a lot longer than expected and can't simply text or call the next recruiter in the middle of an interview where they're being bothered with college-level exercises after a 15 year career.
Recruiters are often like mosquitoes, they seem to have interview targets where they have to interview X number of people for each position, or per month, or whatever. They are a waste of my time. They are sales people, after all, who have to pursue leads aggressively in order to triumph. Their career, as with any sales person, consists of bothering people. I will often get a 6-month cycle of the same recruiter asking me for an updated resume and if I want to come in for an interview for yet another generic developer position offering the same pay. They don't even bother reading my resume and offer me bullshit unrelated to my career. No, sorry, I will not suddenly change my mind and find another job, I have a wife and two kids to feed thank you very much. Oh, and they will often lie about the details of a position making it seem more interesting than it actually is. I was once offered a leadership position and the actual work was more of a junior level thing where you just pick up tasks and have no input or anyone to mentor and supervise. I have managed 30 people in the past thank you very much, I would like to get out of coding, not be stuck in your fucking code sweatshop consulting agency where people are so densely packed they can smell each other's farts, forced to type until they get RSI.
Karma is a load of crap (Score:2)
Queue the "this is just karma", "the shoe is on the other foot", "finally they see how we feel", "they didn't tell me I didn't get the job when I sent my resume" posts.
When someone hurts your feelings you don't go to them at night and burn their house down. Recruiters are known for being unresponsive and generally quite poor at their jobs, however how many of you have actual examples of having a fully scheduled part late in a recruitment process flaking out on you without any notification? I'm willing to be
Mismatch in Expectations (Score:5, Insightful)
In many of the comments, I'm seeing folks equating not showing up for a mutually agreed interview as being a misdeed equivalent to not returning a response to an application. This just isn't the case. Once an agreement has been made, it should either be honored or the party that cannot meet its commitment should handle the commitment with due car; if you can't make it, you should inform the other and provide as much notice as possible.
In the game of employee-employer matchmaking, we should dispassionately understand a few things.
1 - Both sides show their values throughout the process, and choices made will be remembered.
2 - Many listings are semi-genuine - On the employer side, many job listings must go up, even if there are likely employees in mind for the position, due to legal and regulatory requirements. In these cases, employers often do consider applications that come in, but the candidates face an uphill battle.
3 - Many applications aren't genuine - they are filled out because the applicant is required to show evidence of having attempted to gain employment as a condition of receiving unemployment benefits.
The Non-Obligation to Return Initial Communication
4. A response to an initial direct communication is a courtesy, not an obligation.
5. If an employer tells you, "if you don't hear back, you didn't get the job" after a meaningful interview, they are doing you a favor. They mean "keep looking." If the employer follows this message with an offer or request for interviews, they are doing so from a less advantageous conversational position than if they had been more cordial.
6. Without automation, the cost of responding to each application is quite high. Many employers don't have this. Employees should understand this.
In a strong economy, a listing may receive three, ten, or twenty weak applicants to respond to. In a strong economy, it may be hundreds.
After Meaningful Communication - The duty of courtesy grows with the relationship.
7. If the employer and employee trade significant conversation, and send signals that plan to continue to pursue the other, it signals to the other that they may want to decline other opportunities or change how they allocate their time. This is where each party should consider the costs the other party may bear. At this point, either party should expect a signal to the other if the relationship is off.
8. Formal commitments, like a mutually agreed, scheduled interviews, should be kept if at all possible. Either side should take commitment failure at this stage to be indicative of the quality of the relationship if formally entered.
9. When an employer takes too long to return a response after formalities, it is sometimes less the result of values at the company, and more the result of an overly complicated consensus culture or dysfunction at that firm. Take it with an eye roll, not as a grievance.
10. Either party may provide *more* courtesy than what is described above. That reflects a higher standard in that person or organization, and the employee should recognize and appreciate it.
- Regardless of the economy, healthy relationships require continued commitment and care. Though it seems to be getting rarer, we should play our part with the expectation of achieving that aim. Otherwise, in our disillusionment, we may leave potentially great relationships on the table due to our own bad behavior.
Re: (Score:3)
Many listings are semi-genuine
vs
Many applications aren't genuine
You're already giving the employer the benefit of the doubt. To an applicant, there are no "semi-genuine" listings. So they should understand they contribute to their situation and should stop complaining about it. Don't want to be snubbed? Don't be "semi" genuine. There's no s
Re: (Score:2)
There are imbalances, both structural and based on scale. Some of our struggle, arguably, comes from emergent properties that come from these differences. For example, we discuss as though one had a relationship with their company. But in reality, there are the individuals in the company, there is the legal relationship between 'corporate' entity and the individual, and there is the structure of the value generated by the role. I don't think we'll be able to get around describing in unbalanced terms, an
Re: (Score:2)
I agree pretty much with all of your response.
We have a generation (millennials) in the US that had worse economic circumstances than many feel was fair. Despite the hard feelings that many have, I argue that taking the optimistic and deferential approach, rather than being cynical, will provide better outcomes for everyone involved.
One point I neglected to make was that there are rare times when it may be appropriate, even at a late stage, for the company to stop communicating entirely. This happened onc
Re: (Score:2)
I have healthy relationships with those with whom I transact. If you can't, it may say more about you than it does about the job market.
Last time you went to a restaurant, how did you tip?
11 of 21? (Score:2)
It's still better percentage than the percentage of _any_ kind of response I got from job applications (SoCal): 2 out of 18, one of which led to an interview process, the other was a no off the bat.The rest, nothing. Good thing I'm not in a rush.
While I agree that not notifying an interviewer about a cancellation is rude, I can also understand by the time some people land an interview, or a job, they can get frustr
Re: (Score:2)
the recruiters are just as rude to the majority of the candidates, not even bothering to contact them to tell them they are no longer being considered.
recruiters rewrite resumes with lies (which is why they want it in word format), post jobs that other recruiters have posted even though they haven't even contacted the other recruiter (linkedin has a lot of these fakers), don't understand the industries they're recruiting for at all...
recruiters are the scum of the earth, treat them as such.
Local Restaurant Opens... (Score:2)
...interviews several people and hires 60 of them.
Two weeks later fires half, "This was only an evaluation period. Here's minimum wage rather than the higher rate the people who are staying are getting."
A year later the restaurant was closed. According to management, "We couldn't find competent employees to stay."
According to me, "You fired the wrong half."
Jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, pulling from experience, let me lead you through a scenario which I think is perfectly viable, somewhat understandable, and yet shows how silly this is:
- A person applying for jobs will easily apply for a dozen or so a day. Especially if they are sought-after, determined to find a new job, and diligent. Nobody "just applies for the one job".
- That could be happening *while* they are still at a former employer (it's a silly thing to do to know you don't like working somewhere and wait until you leave to start job-hunting). Hell, I do this while I'm perfectly happy with my job as it's the best way to ensure I'm being paid market rates.
- Such a person, if they are any good and choosing their jobs carefully, will get replies of interest from most of those.
- That person could then maybe have half a dozen or more interviews with employers from that one day of job-hunting alone.
- Even if the markets are bad, that person could easily get a dozen interviews a month.
- Each of those interviewers expects to set a time and the candidate to just turn up, unquestioningly. I've had interviewers who were completely inflexible ("Oh, no, sorry, we're doing all the interviews tomorrow. The job will be gone by then"). Not only is this ridiculous if you want the best candidate, it's totally unrealistic and prescient of the attitude they'll have towards project deadlines and days-off.
- If the candidate is any good, they'll likely choose a job from the handful of offers they receive. They probably *won't* wait until the end of the month when you could fit them in, unless the job is something amazing and you go out of your way to convince them (i.e. expensive).
- That means that likely, most of the interviews they get will be unnecessary, and it's rude to waste people's time so they'll cancel. However, while I 100% agree that they shouldn't just no-show, that's very unprofessional, the everyday jobs? Yeah, nobody young/inexperienced/cheap is going to ring around to cancel in time.
It just tells me that the whole hiring process is just wrong. The interviewer is looking for a shortlist of "who can do Tuesday", then wanting to choose from that list and they turn up for work on the Wednesday. The interviewee is trying to fit a lot of people around a busy schedule, pick the best job, handle offers, negotiate, etc. when they may not have the money to traipse across town, and then has to reject everyone else.
There's no distinguishing between "has a job with a notice period and will need a long, drawn-out application process" and "desperately needs something tomorrow and can work whenever you want". Employer want the former person, but the latter availability.
I've always said that, to me, the best interview process is none at all. As in, no formal round-the-table meet with people who'll never even remember the guy's name in ten years of him working there, let alone care about whether he can do it.
Just invite people, at their convenience, to come work on the job they need for a day. Pay them if you have to. Give them the job they will need to do, show them where they will do it, treat them as an employee for the day, and gauge their performance. No pressure of timescales. No stupid arrangements. No huge commitments. And a meeting-of-minds as regards whether they want/can do the job or not.
Likely you "haven't got a guy" who does that when you're interviewing, so you can get some work out of them and see how well they could handle it, and do that with candidates until such time as you fill the position permanently.
But I think there's a hidden expectation that the candidate should be "grateful" and "totally committed" to some company they've literally never set foot inside. That they'll turn up when you demand, that they'll drop everything to come work for you, that they'll dedicate their life to you before they even work for you. Trust me... if they do that, they're probably so desperate that you might want to question why.
That drives the good ca
News at 7pm (Score:2)
Employees still complaining about salaries.
Reason (Score:2, Offtopic)
Leftie: "Everyone should go to University! It's a Human Right!"
Normie: "Er, everyone can go to university. What's the problem?"
Leftie: "NOOO! Poor Brown people can't because Poor, Brown, Misogyny, Racism, Patriarchy, NAZIS!"
Normie: "Huh? We have bursary programs. Kids with good grades can fill out a form and get their education paid for. So what's the problem?"
Leftie: "REEEEEEEEEEEE! Everyone should go to University! It's a Human Right! REEEEEEEEEEEE!"
Normie: (sigh) "Ok, assuming you're right, how do you pr
I love it (Score:2)
Hiring has been broken for a long time (Score:2)
Vegetarian Headhunters (Score:2)
In all my professional life, I've never once found work through an employment agency, which I think are disgusting parasitic, often offshore outsourced, rancid vermin. Every job I've had has come from word of mouth or direct ad by the employer. Intermediary agents are horribly stupid. I've never blown off an interview with a company that does show interest, but would happily do it with a recruiter given I have zero respect for them.
On the other hand I understand being ignored by employers who don't reply
This is rampant all over the economy ... (Score:2)
We run a small business. We don't use a recruiter, we place local ads and use word-of-mouth to find candidates. We schedule interviews, not by emailing
Millennials; Your Vindictive Excuse Sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
I see many here championing this behavior with hows-it-feel and shoes-on-the-other-foot excuses to justify it, reminding everyone how it used to be back in the day when recruiters and employers wouldn't bother to notify you that you didn't get the job.
I have three words to address this.
The Golden Rule.
This is entirely a matter of professionalism and respect. Act like a child with some kind of vindictive excuse to justify it, and you'll be treated like a child. If the snowflake generation keeps this up, they're going to find themselves on the wrong side of the technology they adore so much when LinkedIn starts a 5-star rating system to rate the potential job applicant pool . The habitual ghosters will be quickly identified, and will deserve every bit of their blacklisting. Good luck with that 1-start resume of yours. You're gonna need it.
Re: (Score:3)
I see many here championing this behavior with hows-it-feel and shoes-on-the-other-foot excuses to justify it, reminding everyone how it used to be back in the day when recruiters and employers wouldn't bother to notify you that you didn't get the job.
I have three words to address this.
The Golden Rule.
This is entirely a matter of professionalism and respect.
I don’t see many claiming that employers and recruiters have cleaned up their act since back in the day. Employers still refuse to observe the Golden Rule when dealing with applicants (and employees).
So to hell with them, right? Right?
Employers have ratings and reputations to consider too, when they lowball salaries , make unreasonable demands and expect to treat their employees like property.
Clearly you have failed to grasp the entire principle of the Golden Rule. Treat others how you would like to be treated.
If you like being treated like shit then by all means continue to shovel that shit back in their direction. After a few weeks or months of using this tactic, you'll probably hear Dr. Phil's voice whispering in your ear as you stare into your mirror one morning, asking how that attitude is "working out for you."
And yes, employers have a responsibility to treat their employees right as wel
No response (Score:2)
Poor recruiters...awwww (Score:2)
no-showed 1st day of a job (Score:2)
I no-showed the first day of a new job. But it was a total BS job (grill cook at a waffle house) and I applied for the job as a bet with a friend who was whining that he couldn't get any kind of job.
Not the job for me, I already had a job and other commitments, but it was paying almost 2x min wage in the late 80s... my friend could have done OK working it for a few months until he figured out where he was going and what he was doing.
Excersising Opportunity (Score:2)
Most job seekers these days are going to have multiple irons in the fire.
Whatever make it to temp first gets the interest, and the rest just fall off the table.
We hope that something good heats up first, but the truth is, when we get hungry, we take what we can get, and worry about getting something else later, when we have a bit more financial stability.
I'm still waiting for the whole "there are more jobs than potential employees" situation to actually arise. Maybe the wages will increase past minimum wage
Sauce for the goose... (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't it cute how employers expect the whole "gig economy" thing to work JUST for them? We've all heard stories, or actually lived through them: You turn up for work on Monday morning and get told your services aren't needed til after Labour Day. See ya then. Or yes, you can attend your mom's funeral. Just don't expect to get paid for the time off.
So if a better gig comes along and you don't need to go to an interview...oh, well. If you're feeling polite maybe you call. But especially if the company has made you jump through hoops to get the interview, why give them one more minute of your life if it turns out you don't need them?
I have to admit, though, I loved this story for mostly one reason: it appears that there actually is a real human being named Johnny Taylor who bears the title "President and CEO of the Society for Human Resource Management." I couldn't help but imagine a Monty Python sketch starting with those words inscribed on a door in an endless row of offices in a cookie cutter high rise in Anywhere USA.
And this guy Johnny, whose job title is almost as long as my johnson, claims there could be consequences for ditching a job interview because "the world is small". Yes, Johnny, the world is small. And because the world is small, I can ditch three or four interviews with you, and you'll come crawling back to invite me for another one. Because if I'm good, companies will want me, and delivering me into their tender embrace will make it look like you're actually worth whatever they're paying you to recruit guys like me.
So get used to it, Johnny boy. We both know that if the shoe were on the other foot, you'd ghost me without a thought. The entire HR profession is based on tipping the scales as far as legally possible in the employer's favour. Here is your introduction to Law of Unintended Consequences. Welcome to the real world.
Reimburse for travel costs? (Score:2)
Skills (Score:2)
I was never asked to show up for an interview (Score:2)
They hired me as is, from my written application, I worked there for 40 years and retired with 85% of my last paycheck at age 57.
Tempi passati.
AI will displace recruiters (Score:2)
Robotics and Artificial Intelligence software will replace recruiters in the near future. Most of the resume screening is done by software anyway, at least in larger companies. All that remains is the initial "interview" done by the recruiter. Almost all of the recruiters I have ever spoken to I can assure you have never written a line of code in their lives. They know absolutely nothing about the job I am applying for so this so called interview is pointless.
Things like "cultural fit" can be sorted out by
Waitasec.... (Score:3)
...I'm supposed to feel pity for the same recruiters/HR people who after an interview leaves one hanging and hanging without even a courtesy rejection phone call/email/text?
Yeah, sucks to be be dicked around now that the hiring shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
One mistake in this approach (although they should definitely be able to give at least general answers to everything there). Assuming its not a direct recruiter, the first questions should be by them, asking what you're looking for in a job to see if its even a fit. If they don't give enough of a crap to even figure that out, they aren't worth your time.
(If its a direct recruiter that can be skipped, instead it will be more questions about the exact position).
Re:This is GOOD! (Score:5, Insightful)
The interesting part is, that our company still has no problem finding new people. We put our finger in the air, and get enough people that we then can qualify in 6-12 month on-the-job training.
Companies just need to forget the fairy tale that a recruiter can get them a 100% qualified person. They need to create those people themselves, if they want them.