Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
IT

Are 'Career Catfishers' Justified In Not Showing Up for Work? (fortune.com) 47

Posted by EditorDavid from the career-catfishing dept.
Fortune reports 18% of workers have engaged in "career catfishing" — getting a job offer, but then refusing to show up on the first day of work.

And when someone posted Fortune's article to Reddit's antiwork subreddit, it drew 2,100 upvotes -- and another 84 comments. ("I love doing this...! This feels really great to do after a company has jerked you around, and basically said that several other people were in line ahead of you... after five interviews.")

But Fortune reports there's other sources of frustration: At the moment, Gen Z is contending with an onerous battle to land an entry-level, full-time role. The class of 2025 is set to apply to more jobs than the graduating class prior, already submitting 24% more applications on average this past summer than seniors did last year. Furthermore, the class of 2024 applied to 64% more jobs than the cohort before them, according to job platform Handshake. To make matters all the more bleak, the number of job listings has dwindled from 2023 levels, generating deeper frenzy and more intense competition for the roles listed.

That adds up to a hiring managers' market and senior executives are playing hardball; only 12% of mid-level executives think entry-level workers are prepared to join the workforce, per a report from technology education provider General Assembly. About one in four say they wouldn't hire today's entry-level employees. Yet, that's not really the point of entry-level roles, points out Jourdan Hathaway, General Assembly's chief business officer. By definition, it's a position that requires investment in a young adult, she explained. "The entry-level employee pipeline is broken," Hathaway wrote in a statement. "Companies must rethink how they source, train, and onboard employees."

The especially competitive hiring landscape could be forcing Gen Zers to accept the first gig they can get because the job market is so dire — only to later regret it and not show up the first day.
The article also acknowledges that "employers themselves have a role in the two-way communication — or lack thereof — between hire and hirer." Almost 80% of hiring managers admitted they've stopped responding to candidates during the application process, according to a survey of 625 hiring managers from Resume Genius.

Gen Zers say that their ghosting is in reaction to the company's behavior. More than a third of applicants who have purposefully dropped the ball say it was because a recruiter was rude to them or misled them about a position, according to Monster... In part, it's likely AI that's fueling said ghosting. AI has become more integrated into the hiring process, becoming a screener that rejects resumes without ever reaching a human person's eyes. That phenomenon possibly fuels both sides' tendency to be non-responsive...

Are 'Career Catfishers' Justified In Not Showing Up for Work? More | Reply

Are 'Career Catfishers' Justified In Not Showing Up for Work?

Comments Filter:

  • Why not link to the near Dupe? (Score:3)

    by Vlad_the_Inhaler ( 32958 ) on Sunday January 19, 2025 @07:44AM (#65100659)

    This story has a lot in common with Career Catfishing' - 34% of Gen Z Workers Didn't Show Up for a New Job [slashdot.org] 21 hours ago, although that one claimed 34% and this one just 18%.

  • 2 Wrongs (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wierd_w ( 1375923 ) on Sunday January 19, 2025 @07:51AM (#65100669)

    This isn't hard.

    No. Wasting an employer's time like this is wrong.

    Additionally, trying to 'weed out' potential hires in ways that basically *force* job hunters to apply to hundreds of openings to have even just the 'statistically guaranteed' prospect of a callback, because of how paranoid you are that 'a bad one might slip through!', is ALSO wrong.

    (So is creating job postings for openings that dont actually exist, or that you have precisely 0% interest in actually seponding to applicants about, ever, because you either want to hire a very specific person internally, want to play fast and loose witu Equal Opportunity law, or, just to justify telling congress you 'neeeeeeed' more H1B visa placements, to avoid paying SS and pals on them.)

    Given there are like, 5 different reasons employers ghost applicants, and usually only 1 actual reason applicants ghost employers, I would suggest that maybe the phenomenon is a natural consequence to the employer's behavior, and NOT the other way around, but this is STILL a '2 wrongs' situation.

    The CORRECT behavior, is for none of this shit to be happening in the first place.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hjf ( 703092 )

      The CORRECT behavior, is for none of this shit to be happening in the first place.

      While the correct behavior is that I shouldn't get mugged, I'll keep carrying my pepper spray. Thanks anyway.

      • When the reason your risk of mugging keeps going up is rampant income dispartity, and refusal to own up to the consequences of that, (which is more or less what seems to be happening with ghosting), pepperspray will quickly become insufficient to fend off the torches and pitchforks.

        An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hjf ( 703092 )

          mental gymnastics champion 2025

      • At least carrying pepper spray may benefit you.

        That's what I don't get about 'career catfishing.' If you got another job in the meantime and don't bother responding to solicitations afterwards, that's one thing.

        But doing all the work of landing an interview just to jerk somebody around by not showing up for it seems like a lot of work for no benefit. Is that really what people are doing?

    • No. Wasting an employer's time like this is wrong.

      The correct moral thing is to do to others as they do to you and to start with treating them correctly if they haven't treated you badly.

      I don't see that if an employer has already been misleading or has a reputation for ghosting people you have any duty whatsoever to behave better to them. Sure, there's a "bridge burning" fear, but actually bad employers can be really damaging, are normally pretty visible in the hiring process and are able to suck people in so getting it clear you won't ever go there might

      • The correct moral thing is to do to others as they do to you and to start with treating them correctly if they haven't treated you badly.

        Um, no, the correct moral thing is to treat others as you want to be treated.

        • That's what I'm proposing. With an appropriate system of justice where misdeeds, such as the behavior of the employers, do not simply get ignored. I want a society where actions get fair and just responses.

      • No. Wasting an employer's time like this is wrong.

        The correct moral thing is to do to others as they do to you and to start with treating them correctly if they haven't treated you badly.

        The opposite of treat others like you wish to be treated? If one employer treats you badly, that you are morally obligated to treat others badly? Indeed, the best thing about a person who ghosts an employer is that it shows that the employer dodged a bullet.

        I don't see that if an employer has already been misleading or has a reputation for ghosting people you have any duty whatsoever to behave better to them. Sure, there's a "bridge burning" fear, but actually bad employers can be really damaging, are no

        • The problem with "ghosting an employer" is that you are really ghosting the hiring manager and the team that you would have worked on. Maybe it's a bad company. But that doesn't mean they are bad people. Those might be connections that you want in the future. This is much less about a moral right or wrong than a practicality. Taking a job and then not showing up is definitely going to cause you harm. It might cause harm to the people who would have been your future teammates. It's unlikely to cause en

          • The problem with "ghosting an employer" is that you are really ghosting the hiring manager and the team that you would have worked on.

            Very good point.

            Those might be connections that you want in the future. This is much less about a moral right or wrong than a practicality. Taking a job and then not showing up is definitely going to cause you harm. It might cause harm to the people who would have been your future teammates. It's unlikely to cause enough harm to the employer overall to change behavior.

            Also 100 percent correct.

            It turns out to be not much more than virtue signaling.

            This whole post gets me to thinking. What kind of person would do this? I'm very welded to the team concept, and would never do something to harm my team, other than normal actions like retirement or leaving for a new job. A person who would accept a job, then simply not show up for it has no other outlook than themselves, and has no concern for others.

    • Gen Z doesn't look at this as reciprocating one wrong for another. They see themselves as facing an all-out assault of wrongdoings from corporate America from the moment they were born, so if that's the game being played, they're just following the rules.

      It took me a while to get it myself. (FWIW, I'm an older Millennial, not a Gen Z.) But after reading this article [bbc.com] and watching this Ted Talk [youtube.com], I realized Gen Z behavior can be summed up in just one word: Nihilism. They know the deck is stacked against th

  • Gen Zers say that their ghosting is in reaction to the company's behavior. More than a third of applicants who have purposefully dropped the ball say it was because a recruiter was rude to them or misled them about a position, according to Monster...

    Is it deserved? Sure. Is it a good plan? Nope. When queried employers can share facts as long as they don't come with judgement, like "they didn't show up for their first day". What they cannot say is anything wrongful, inaccurate, and/or malicious, what they can say is anything that is factual and accurate. A lot of employers won't share details beyond dates of employment because they fear lawsuits which are expensive even when they win, but that doesn't prevent them from doing so. And it's probably safe to assume that the incoming administration will do whatever it can to protect them more when they do than prior administrations, especially if they are large.

    You can take the job or not, but don't take the job and then not do it. That's a real bad plan for your future. If the job is the kind of trivial bullshit that lots of people flake on, it's probably not a big deal. If it's a large employer, don't. They will never forget and they will tell other large employers.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hjf ( 703092 )

      "Do not do anything that may anger the Corporate Machine, or else".

      • "Do not do anything that may anger the Corporate Machine, or else".

        Do you want to know why that's a stupid take, or do you already know and you're just trolling? I'm not familiar enough with your work...
        wait, I can fix that ...Oh, I see, you're fucking delusional [slashdot.org].

        Your comments only make sense if you believe the published unemployment rate, which is and always has been a deliberate and willful lie, and it gets to be more of a lie by design the longer people are out of work — the worse things get, the more it undercounts.

        The corporate deciders are not going to decide t

        • Then I guess the worker should feel justified in not showing up. The next job you apply for isn't going to call the job you didn't show up at unless you are stupid enough to use them as a reference.
          • I think the worker may want to worry a bit today. Did they post they got the job on FB or some other social media site like linked in? If they did, does some clever startup troll the databases, package it up, and provide for a fee of course a history for the person? After all, there already exists your credit score, your bank score, renter score, driving score, and of course the grand daddy lexis nexis that knows pretty much everything about everyone, the closest thing the US has to the Chinese social score

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hjf ( 703092 )

          oh yes, working for the corporate machine is the only line of work out there.

      • Do not jeopardize your entire future career for a trivial moment of satisfaction!

    • The proper response to inquiries about a job seeker from other employers is either:

      'They are eligible for rehire'

      or

      'They are not eligible for rehire'

      Any more detail is unnecessary and risks complications.

      • If they took the job and didn't show up, I would make then not eligible for rehire. If they declined the job, the answer would be that they never worked there. Either way taking a job and not showing up is harming yourself and nobody else.

    • Gen Zers say that their ghosting is in reaction to the company's behavior. More than a third of applicants who have purposefully dropped the ball say it was because a recruiter was rude to them or misled them about a position, according to Monster...

      Is it deserved? Sure. Is it a good plan? Nope. When queried employers can share facts as long as they don't come with judgement, like "they didn't show up for their first day". What they cannot say is anything wrongful, inaccurate, and/or malicious, what they can say is anything that is factual and accurate. A lot of employers won't share details beyond dates of employment because they fear lawsuits which are expensive even when they win, but that doesn't prevent them from doing so.

      Agreed about the not good plan. Not showing up for the first day of a job is a career killer. Like you note, it is a fact that will follow the person.

      Getting references from previous employers is tricky. There are some questions you are legally not allowed to ask. So many times, we ask a simple question, "Would you hire this person back?"

      side-note Off-record conversations are often held, as a part of networking. If Joe has a habit of harassing the staff assistants, we probably want to know about that. I

  • ... and posted a dupe?

    Would they get the sack the first time?

    How about the hundredth?

    • ... and posted a dupe?

      Would they get the sack the first time?

      Bit early to say. Will they do this repeatedly in future or is this just a one off? I'd not overreact the first time

      How about the hundredth?

      Does it get lots of people moaning about and posting comments about dupes? Does it appear to drive advertising revenue? I'd say that once it's clear it's something that sustained and repeatable that's good for a pretty big bonus really.

  • Let's rephrase this problem: Job seekers don't trust or respect potential employers. Also potential employers don't trust or respect job seekers.

    The solution to this is a mutually trustworthy entity that can vet candidates and employers. It can be a website. Candidates would not be vetted for being good employees but for being honest and responsive candidates. Employers would not be vetted for being good employers, but for being honest and responsive hirers. People on both sides of the desk would sign up t
    • This will inevitably end up being in control of the financiers (employers) and will be used as a means of disciplining and threatening workers. You're essentially asking for a common database with which employers can blacklist employees from all companies or spy on them if they want to leave their current jobs.

    • Let's rephrase this problem: Job seekers don't trust or respect potential employers. Also potential employers don't trust or respect job seekers.

      You believe that is universally true it appears. Good luck with that.

      I've worked for employers who were bad, and I've worked for employers who were really good. Trying to have a universal statement is a part of the problem.

      The solution to this is a mutually trustworthy entity that can vet candidates and employers. It can be a website. Candidates would not be vetted for being good employees but for being honest and responsive candidates. Employers would not be vetted for being good employers, but for being honest and responsive hirers.

      Won't work, because many prospective employees will simply say it is yet another tool of the employers who don't trust or respect job seekers. Too many people simply hate employers, and have no intentions of ever changing their minds.

      To me, if an applicant has ever ghosted an emplo

  • I am skeptical this is a real thing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sinij ( 911942 ) on Sunday January 19, 2025 @08:31AM (#65100711)
    Such behavior from applicant's point of view is illogical - you spend time and effort interviewing to not follow up on this. More so, you have to take time off work for in-person interviews, so this isn't zero-cost endeavor. Yes, spite is one possible explanation, but would that be widespread?

    Here is what I think is happening. This is manufactured story, where media is colluding with big tech to justify H1B visa increases. If they can discredit US applicants (i.e., push the narrative that they don't show up even when hired) then you can hire more cheap migrants. More so, it is trivially easy to organize no-shows by maliciously sending acceptance letters to a wrong address or wrong email.

    • >Such behavior from applicant's point of view is illogical - you spend time and effort interviewing to not follow up on this

      In today's market, job seekers have to spam their resumes out just to get a response or two. Long gone are the days where someone would actually respond with a 'thanks but no thanks' letter.

      So you get a couple of interviews. That's already 'lucky'. They still don't bother to call you unless they want you, so when one does... well, it's not your dream job but you have bills to pay

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sinij ( 911942 )
        Sure, there are circumstances where applicant would accept a job offer and not end up taking a job. One you mentioned (multiple offers in a short time) is a plausible scenario. Another scenario, where your current employer matches your new salary, is also possible. The issue I have with all this is the narrative that this is a widespread phenomenon. I don't think it is widespread and I think this is artificial narrative.

        • I'd say it can be (and likely is) a combination of these things:

          1) employers dont want to accept the actual consequences of discarding 99.9% of the labor pool, because 'they only want the creamiest cream', at 'bargain, wholesale prices', resulting in billions of gallons of 'skim milk' looking for a place to go in the market.

          2) even with the despressed wages caused by desparation of all that milk in the economy, if they feel they *must* have to begrudgingly accept that milk, it wont be at market prices, so t

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Njovich ( 553857 )

      Are you saying we should be sceptical of a small online survey from some no-name foreign company held in some foreign country?

      What are you going to ask for next? Journalistic standards?

      I can sort of buy that young people skip out on simple jobs like dishwasher or even one time event jobs, and then you asked them 'did you ever skip out of a job' some answer yes. That has absolutely no bearing on real world jobs that they'd care about.

    • I worked at a video store and we had people apply and get accepted for jobs all the time. At the time, to continue to get unemployment benefits after a certain length of time, you had to prove you were applying for new jobs. People would apply for a new job, interview, we'd send out an acceptance letter and never hear from them again. It happened a lot.

      When they changed it so you had to actually work to reset the benefits clock, people would work for the minimum amount of time (one or two months) then stop

  • Employment is at will, meaning you can quit or be fired at any time. If employers don't want their employees to quit before their start date, then make the job attractive enough that they actually show up. This is honestly just employers complaining "Nobody wants to work!!! (For minimum wage where a full day of work barely pays for dinner)"

    • "(For minimum wage where a full day of work barely pays for dinner)"

      In Arizona the minimum wage is 14.70. Maybe $70 a day net after taxes.

      If you need dinner better than that, you should be able to work at something that's worth more than minimum wage. Like maybe as clerk at Home Depot? Average pay $19+/hr, you get cab fare home

      Actually, why not do what was done 50 years ago and eat cheap at home. But hey, Gen Z expects it all now, entry level wage for them seems to be expected to cover a mortgage, nice car,

  • We need indentured servants, err..H1-B because American workers are ghosting us. Someone familiar to me has literally dropped close to 800 resumes and got 3 interviews, and no jobs. We need to crack down on the ghost job listings by these "sad" employers. And if a recruiter is not getting back to an applicant, that recruiter should be fired. We have no standards in the job application market anymore.

  • I would recommend that you instead do it like the assistant manager that got hired back in the 90s at a university that I worked at:

    He showed up, worked two weeks, then announced that he didn't really like the job, and wouldn't be coming back.

    He had taken vacation from his other job, to see if he liked this one before actually committing to it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Blessed be those who initiate lively discussions with the hopelessly mute, for they shall be known as Dentists.

Close