'Career Catfishing' - 34% of Gen Z Workers Didn't Show Up for a New Job (nypost.com) 132
From the New York Post:
Generation Z's recent foray into the corporate world has been an eye-popping escapade plagued by their "annoying" workplace habits and helicopter parents accompanying them on interviews. Now, newcomers to the 9-to-5 grind are inflicting a fresh new level of hell onto the workforce with a trending act of defiance known as "career catfishing."
That means "a successful candidate accepted a job and then never showed up," writes Fortune, citing a survey of 1,000 U.K. employees conducted by CV Genius.
The New York Post notes researchers "found that a staggering 34% of 20-somethings skip Day 1 of work, sans communicating with their new employer, as a demonstration of autonomy." After drudging through the ever-exasperating job hunting process — which often includes submitting dozens of lengthy applications, suffering through endless rounds of interviews and anxiously awaiting updates from sluggish hiring managers — the Z's are apparently "catfishing" jobs to prove that they, rather than their prospective employers, have all the power.
But the rebellious babes aren't the only ones pulling fast ones on new bosses. A surprising 24% of millennials, staffers ranging in age from 28 to 43, have taken a shine to career catfishing, too, per the findings. However, only 11% of Gen Xers, hirelings ages 44 to 59, and 7% of baby boomers, personnel over age 60, have joined in on the office treachery. Unlike their older colleagues, Gen Zs are apparently more concerned about prioritizing their personal needs and goals than kowtowing to the demands of corporate culture.
Fortune agrees that "Gen Z applicants aren't alone in going no- and low-contact during the recruiting process. Some 74% of employers now admit that ghosting is a facet of the hiring landscape, according to a 2023 Indeed survey of thousands of job seekers and employers..." That being said, simply not showing up to work could prove unsustainable in the long run. Like many young workers before them, Gen Zers have garnered a poor reputation with employers. Hiring managers have labeled them as the most difficult generation to work with, according to a Resume Genius report.
The report found employees also admitted to practicing "quiet vacationing" (taking time off without telling your boss) and "coffee badging" (grabbing coffee in the office before returning home)...
That means "a successful candidate accepted a job and then never showed up," writes Fortune, citing a survey of 1,000 U.K. employees conducted by CV Genius.
The New York Post notes researchers "found that a staggering 34% of 20-somethings skip Day 1 of work, sans communicating with their new employer, as a demonstration of autonomy." After drudging through the ever-exasperating job hunting process — which often includes submitting dozens of lengthy applications, suffering through endless rounds of interviews and anxiously awaiting updates from sluggish hiring managers — the Z's are apparently "catfishing" jobs to prove that they, rather than their prospective employers, have all the power.
But the rebellious babes aren't the only ones pulling fast ones on new bosses. A surprising 24% of millennials, staffers ranging in age from 28 to 43, have taken a shine to career catfishing, too, per the findings. However, only 11% of Gen Xers, hirelings ages 44 to 59, and 7% of baby boomers, personnel over age 60, have joined in on the office treachery. Unlike their older colleagues, Gen Zs are apparently more concerned about prioritizing their personal needs and goals than kowtowing to the demands of corporate culture.
Fortune agrees that "Gen Z applicants aren't alone in going no- and low-contact during the recruiting process. Some 74% of employers now admit that ghosting is a facet of the hiring landscape, according to a 2023 Indeed survey of thousands of job seekers and employers..." That being said, simply not showing up to work could prove unsustainable in the long run. Like many young workers before them, Gen Zers have garnered a poor reputation with employers. Hiring managers have labeled them as the most difficult generation to work with, according to a Resume Genius report.
The report found employees also admitted to practicing "quiet vacationing" (taking time off without telling your boss) and "coffee badging" (grabbing coffee in the office before returning home)...
Respect goes both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
After years of seeing employers treat employees as disposable I am not surprised. Like life in general those who dish it out can rarely take it.
Fair play. (Score:5, Insightful)
Once upon a time, getting a job was generally the same as starting a career. The expectation was that one would stay with the company for their entire lives, climbing the corporate ladder at a natural pace, receiving job security in return for job performance. And then, once the job ended, the company would continue to contribute to the employee's life through the pension plan.
Then, the employer's tore all that down. They all united in the plan of downsizing, denying pensions to those who had little-to-no vestment in it, and denying pensions to all new hires. That wasn't enough, they wanted the money that they paid in salary to come right back to them, so they invented the 401k plan which accomplishes exactly that. The notion of staying with a company for your entire career is basically gone now, as companies downsize on a regular basis and show no loyalty whatsover. And, just to put icing on the cake, the wage disparity between the functionaries and leaders is bigger than it ever has been in history.
So, yeah, Gen Z is inheriting this middle finger. It's no surprise at all that they are giving a middle finger right back.
Re:Fair play. (Score:5, Informative)
Great post. One nitpick though:
[Companies] wanted the money that they paid in salary to come right back to them, so they invented the 401k plan which accomplishes exactly that.
401(k) plans don't do that at all. They are managed by a trustee that is separate from the company. You have heard of some trustees (Fidelity, Morgan Stanley, T Rowe Price) and others are less-well-known, but employees don't just give their salary "right back" to their employer.
IDK, perhaps 401(k) plans worked without a trustee in their infancy [wikipedia.org] but not any more. And in any case, the employee owned/owns the funds in the plan, not the employer.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
401(k) plans don't do that at all. They are managed by a trustee that is separate from the company. You have heard of some trustees (Fidelity, Morgan Stanley, T Rowe Price) and others are less-well-known, but employees don't just give their salary "right back" to their employer.
Exactly... Which is why I was super surprised to log into my 401k a couple months before getting laid off last summer, and finding said trustee had invested my 4 different allocation funds in such a way that 70% of my total balance was held in my employer's stock.
T
Re:Fair play. (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly... Which is why I was super surprised to log into my 401k a couple months before getting laid off last summer, and finding said trustee had invested my 4 different allocation funds in such a way that 70% of my total balance was held in my employer's stock.
Would you care to name names? Because that's scandalous. At the very least you should have received a notice to the effect "we're going to do X at date Y unless you take action to do something else." IANAL but it sounds like you and your fellow employees (ex and current) may have a winnable class-action lawsuit here.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you care to name names? Because that's scandalous. At the very least you should have received a notice to the effect "we're going to do X at date Y unless you take action to do something else." IANAL but it sounds like you and your fellow employees (ex and current) may have a winnable class-action lawsuit here.
Well, it did correspond with a 5+ year stock high, which they then mostly protected by performing a DoS attack on their own HR department by laying off large numbers. The trustee portal did flag it for me, and the individual funds did reallocate to something more sane shortly there after. I suspect it was just happenstance from the state of the market at that point, but it should have triggered some kind of review.
But as for names... I'm afraid they inserted a non-disparagement clause in the severance pac
Re: (Score:3)
I'm afraid they inserted a non-disparagement clause in the severance package that added funds over the WARN act requirement, meaning something of value was exchanged... So my hands are tied.
I have seen similar clauses in my time. I have also heard they may not be enforceable. Your call, though. Good luck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why didn't you log in earlier and change the allocations? Or are you saying that you had no control of the allocations?
Sounds like a you problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Why didn't you log in earlier and change the allocations? Or are you saying that you had no control of the allocations?
I set up the allocations three years earlier when I joined the 401k. I did a reasonable split between a couple target year funds, and another split between a global equity and a US only growth funds. It worked quite well for years. Then I logged in near quarter end to see how things were doing, and the portal alerted that I had a 70% allocation across the four funds in one stock, and oh
Re: (Score:2)
And yet it did, just as my employer hit a new peak.
So your employer's stock went up well above the market and somehow this is a problem for you?
Unless you will lose vesting, move the funds to a rollover IRA and then you will have a much wider choice of investment opportunities. This has worked out well for me!
Seriously, life happens, not all of us watch and tweek our 401k every day.
Every day isn't reasonable. Every month is probably too much but you should look at your 401K at least every year, if not every quarter.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, rollover after leaving, don't leave it sit. Never hold significant amounts of your potential retirement in an employer's stock. That was the Enron style and it backfired badly. Company stock should be a bonus only, not the primary payment. And if you put actual dollars into the 401K they need to remain as dollars and not magically become a company's risky stock. Now, if stock was added as a matching contribution to the 401K then that's different.
Re: (Score:2)
So your employer's stock went up well above the market and somehow this is a problem for you?
Consider... I have quite a bit of risk exposure to my employer just being their employee. Literally thousands $$ a week! Add in an unvested RSU that I never got to collect (got the axe 8 weeks from vesting...), and a momentary collection of group-think idiocy by my 401k fund managers, and well... Yes, it became a problem. I am seriously considering doing an IRA rollover for that exact reason, but I need some stable work first.
I lived thru 2001 & 2008. I'm happy my employer's stock went up. But I wou
Re: (Score:2)
It's a "net effect" phenomenon. The group of companies that dominated the entire marked jointly applied their political leverage to make 401k's a thing. And 401k's result in almost all of the investment money going into stocks of the group of companies that dominate the market now.
Though in some cases it is more direct.
I also read about interesting deals that states have offered to large businesses in order to encourage them to bring more jobs to the state. Specifically, the companies get tax credits and
Re: Fair play. (Score:2)
And then, once the job ended, the company would continue to contribute to the employee's life through the pension plan.
Dunno why people keep saying this -- at no point in history were pension plans a common thing. At their peak, maybe a third of the populace ever got them.
Re: Fair play. (Score:2)
Probably a quarter of the population gets them now, since that many people work for the government. Maybe somewhat less in the US since healthcare doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
After years of seeing employers treat employees as disposable I am not surprised. Like life in general those who dish it out can rarely take it.
This is absurd. You start a new job somewhere you don't assume a-priori your employer is going to treat you like shit and preemptively retaliate for something that has not even occurred. People who think and behave in the trashy prejudicial manner you suggest deserve to be "disposable".
Re: (Score:2)
It goes both ways. The guy who catfishes the job too much gets blacklisted - unhireable. But a company that treats the staff like crap often ends up finding it difficult to hire anyone but the most desperate.
office treachery? (Score:3)
Re: office treachery? (Score:4, Insightful)
it's simply treating employers how they have treaded applicants for decades
No, the equivalent would be an employer extending a job offer and then pretending that it never happened on the first day of work.
Re: office treachery? (Score:2)
Iâ(TM)ve never treated applicants like that. Donâ(TM)t do it to me. Iâ(TM)m happy to respect you, but respect is something that is earnt. Respect goes both ways.
Plus, have some self respect and set the standards you expect because you never know if your paths will cross again or if your next interview is with a friend of the manager you were just disrespectful to.
GenZ lazy and dumb - hum de dum (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:GenZ lazy and dumb - hum de dum (Score:4, Interesting)
... I've suffered a bit of IDGAF attitudes from such employees
I'm from the other end of the hiring spectrum- I'll hit retirement age soon and I'm deep in the IDGAF attitude...In the bigger picture, I simply couldn't care less what my company/boss/manager wants.
I'm doing my work but am I giving 100%? Hell no.
Am I giving 50%? Also no. Well, maybe on a good day, but it's not a reliable metric lol.
There are days when there's not much going on, and damn if I'm going to scramble around to find something to do. That's my manager's job- feeding me work. And I'm not going to pester her for more stuff to do. (I mean, seriously, can you imagine??)
So yeah, I'll do the work, but at *my* pace, not theirs, and I'll take plenty of breaks and naps while I do it.
The bottom line is that they could fire me tomorrow and it wouldn't mean squat to me- that's how little I care. I'm all set for retirement and the *only* reason I'd keep working is for the extra $$$.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm from the other end of the hiring spectrum- I'll hit retirement age soon and I'm deep in the IDGAF attitude...In the bigger picture, I simply couldn't care less what my company/boss/manager wants.
I'm doing my work but am I giving 100%? Hell no. Am I giving 50%? Also no. Well, maybe on a good day, but it's not a reliable metric lol.
On the other hand, experience counts for a lot and depending on the task, your 50% might be more productive than a newer/younger employee's 110%. Which doesn't mean you couldn't be doing more, but just sayin'... Perspective also helps. A while ago I was helping a junior software engineer two months on the job, fresh out of school, and he asked when he'd be promoted to senior engineer. I said at the very least sometime after he didn't need a senior engineer to help him with his tasks.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, experience counts for a lot and depending on the task, your 50% might be more productive than a newer/younger employee's 110%.
Yes, there is that. I can do almost anything the younger workers can do in about 1/2 the time. It's part of the reason I can loaf so much and still deliver everything on time.
Re: (Score:3)
When a company goes to down size you could help save someone elseâ(TM)s job if youâ(TM)re willing to leave.
Good point, and actually, that part is all taken care of. I can't really divulge any details but it's all good.
There will likely be a small exodus from my immediate group when I leave. We all dislike our manager and as a result I'm going to warn my coworkers in advance to they have time to move to another department. My manager will be the only one left and suddenly she'll have zero direct reports.
Re: (Score:2)
What I read, is that in a really shitty employment landscape, GenZ kids are still optimising for their self and happiness, rather than scrambling in desperation (which bigger employers enjoy).
That's great, but not showing up when you were scheduled is a great way to convince your employer to continue hiring until they can lay you off. On the other hand, I don't trust anything sourced from the NY Post...
Re:GenZ lazy and dumb - hum de dum (Score:5, Informative)
Re:GenZ lazy and dumb - hum de dum (Score:5, Insightful)
Work, is still called work for a reason. Those who hold the delusion that you must include pure happiness and joy with every job, with that definition needing to align with every spoiled applicants definition, will find themselves being bitch-slapped with the Hand of Reality soon enough.
In general, companies want their employees to be happy, so they'll come to work, be productive, and stick around (i.e., not quit.) The steps employers take to achieve this may differ from the expectations of employees (perhaps especially those in GenZ) but striving for happiness in the workplace not a "delusion."
Modern feminism is finding out real quick how shitty real fucking equality actually is. How ironic they never believed any man before putting on a pantsuit. That same selfish happiness is the reason “modern” feminism is ultimately failing women.
You had to go there. I saw this and hesitated replying to your post at all. WTF does this story have to do with feminism?
Now that we're here ... I would give feminism a big net plus for society. It opened our eyes to the struggles women face in the workplace, and helped to empower half the human population towards contributing fairly and equally to society. It's here to stay, and that's a Good Thing. You may fret about a minority of lunatics in a movement, but the rest of us are comfortable ignoring both of you.
Re:GenZ lazy and dumb - hum de dum (Score:4, Insightful)
I saw this and hesitated replying to your post at all. WTF does this story have to do with feminism?
Everything has to do with feminism when you're a scared, white male. To them, women are evil. They're only good for popping out babies and if she dies in the process, so be it. They're the ones hanging out with their buddies drinking beer and joking about women being raped because "they deserved it" or "because of how they dressed".
They're also upset because now they have to show they're better than women for a particular job whereas i nthe past they got a free ride for being a white male.
These kind of comments are all over and is a testament to how successfull feminism and women's rights are in this country. Nothing is as fragile as a white, male ego.
Re: GenZ lazy and dumb - hum de dum (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How did this turn into a dipshit rant against feminism? Just slashdot things.
All this tells us (Score:2, Insightful)
Tells a lot. (Score:3, Informative)
From TFA:
34% of Gen Z have “career catfished” by accepting a job but not showing up
Seems like a pretty fucking black and white statement to me. That entire statistic based on attitude and arrogance was basically non-existent when I was in my teens and 20s. Perhaps it was how I was raised, but I have no idea how the hell you interpreted that statement in the way you did.
Re: (Score:2)
And there can also be huge differences in how honest people are willing to be on a survey.
Plus the fact that memory has been shown to be very fluid. A lot of those boomers might not even remember the time they decided to sleep in and ghost that backbreaking brick-hauling job that paid 13 cents per hour and started at 5 am.
I like how the summary skips the part where (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Millennials are middle aged now and have their own kids in college. They aged out of getting blamed for ruining things.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: I like how the summary skips the part where (Score:2)
Re: I like how the summary skips the part where (Score:4, Insightful)
More like in the three months you took to hire me and offered no communication even when asked numerous times, I have taken employment elsewhere. Oh but now I'm terrible for wasting YOUR time.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever heard of anyone getting hired and then showing up on the first day to find the office closed?
No but I've heard plenty of horrible stories of how inhumanely people get fired. Like "leave in the morning from the back door that others won't see you", or fired while on medical leave, or fired just before Christmas or after major crunch.
If you don't do what you say you're going to, you deserve a life of destitution.
Would you say that to an employer or the hiring manager, or the life of destitution is reserved only for the serfs?
Re: I like how the summary skips the part where (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard of that case, because the company literally went out of business that day :-)
Age discrimination isn't illegal... (Score:2)
Age discrimination isn't illegal when it's discrimination against the young. The bad seeds are going to hold their entire cohort behind.
Why? (Score:2)
While this article, like most others, is here to make Gen Z look bad, why are they skipping out on work? How many didn't show up because they found out the job they were hired for is not the job that was advertised? How many found a better job than the crap job they were forced to accept? How many got the hiring information and found the job that said it was flexible and included work from home really didn't? I fully applaud Gen Z for taking a stand against employers. Employers have been getting worse and w
Re: (Score:2)
Silly, don't ask questions. Just be mad.
Language (Score:2)
That's some awfully biased language you're quoting there, Slashdot.
If you ever wonder why younger generations think you're an asshole, it's because you use language like this.
—GenXer
Seems crazy to me (Score:3)
Seems crazy to me- go through all of the shit that being hired involves (multiple interviews, drug testing, paperwork, background check, etc) and then after grinding through all of that, you just don't show up?? Why? What's the point?
I genuinely don't understand the reasoning or the thought process behind this. Is it that you have multiple offers and just ghost all the others, or...?
After being put through all the work to get hired, I'm at a loss to understand why someone wouldn't show up...isn't that the whole point of going through the hiring process?
I admit I'm old and out of touch, but this is baffling to me. Would someone care to explain what I'm missing, or the "why" behind this trend?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
they're doing it for the greater good, not for themselves. they are more collectivist than we are. I'm not one, but I see what they are doing and I'm 100% for them.
Gen-Zers are left-leaning in general. But really, more than left-leaning, it's that they saw their parents go through corporate bullshit, and they don't want to play along with that game. I don't know what your age is, but you sound like a millennial. If you are, you saw your boomer parents tell how how "this country is going straight to hell be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for, again, proving with your words that you are disconnected from reality, and your inability to reflect, and understand that the world is completely different from where you grew up in.
I, somehow, don't believe for one second, that it was Gen-Xers or millennials that made college education unaffordable. When you were young, a part time job could pay for college, and a full time job could pay for a house. And it was ALSO YOU, THE BOOMERS who made it unaffordable for everyone else. It was you who
Re: (Score:2)
"Be thankful, because if it wasn't for us, blacks would be still sitting at the back of the bus. I'm so much better than you because I said they should be treated like people"
You all make my blood boil. Every time i hear one of you cunts it makes me hate you even more.
Re: (Score:2)
Up until the late '60s, when a black became successful, they'd almost always move away move to a better, mostly white neighborhood and forget about their old friends. Then, they finally realized the need to help their own people and started g
How is this for the "greater good"? (Score:2)
they're doing it for the greater good, not for themselves.
Can you explain how not showing up for your new job is doing literally _anything_ for the greater good of anyone? If your goal is to do something for the greater good of humanity then it's worth pointing out that you do not decrease the number of arseholes in the world by becoming one yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Kids living with their parents, who even if they got a job, it won't pay enough for them to become independent. Kids who have heard fresh recollections of the 2008 crisis, and who already saw a bank fail, and their money become worthless(*) due to inflation. So they know they can't "save".
Kids who know they have very little prospect of a "Career" in anything when every job posting wants a degree and 5 years experience, and pays entry-level for people with a master's degree. So they know getting 100+K in deb
Re: (Score:2)
Not buying the narrative at all. Kids who have no experience in the the world of employment arent going to be getting revenge on bad employers. These kids are even less worldly than we were at that age because parents don't let them go out into the world as children any more. These things they have absolutely no personal experience with can't possibly be the motivation for a full third of them doing something like this.
"Because their parents had shit employers" doesnt at all seem realistic to me.
Note, I'm
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? the fact that they're young doesn't mean it's their first job. You're assuming it's their first job - it may be to some, but many of them probably have had another job before and have already experienced "entry level bullshit" first hand.
And believe me, nowadays entry level shit is awful. The job market is full of "entry level salary" for positions requiring years of experience and master's degrees.
Dude, they have kids PAYING TO DO INTERNSHIPS nowadays.
Re: (Score:3)
Life is too short for a bureaucracy like that. When a job interview is dragged out it tells me I won't be working at a job but spending my time playing politics or in meetings. I went through it once and left the same week. Background checks and employment history can be done in a day. There is nothing in my background or employment history that would warrant a drug test. Paperwork is just that bureaucracy, just like audits including SOC2 compliance, they don't test what they claim to test but whether the b
Re: (Score:2)
I used to hate meetings with a passion, but I flipped my paradigm.
Now I'm happy for them to pay me to listen to other people blather on and on while I tune out and go work in my shop or lay down for a lil' nap.
Most of my meetings are 100% pointless for me to attend (I have literally nothing to contribute), but now...now I use it as slack time where I relax, goof off, fiddle with my hobbies, and still get paid.
It's all in how you look at it. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, so they wouldn't be rude and waste somebody's time.
They're probably just paying back the employer for wasting their time in multiple rounds of job interviews. More than one interview is bad management, and more than two is complete and utter managerial incompetence. If the article is accurate, and Gen Z really is as described, then that is a generation showing more courage and leadership than all the generations that came before them.
Gen X (my generation) bought into all the "work hard and you can share in the spoils" bullshit. I have a ton of respect for G
did it 30 years ago (Score:2)
I did it 30 years ago, just out of high school. Was supposed to start as a cook at the waffle house, got a call the night before for a much better job, never went back to the waffle house....
To be fair, just before that on my post-high school job quest, I had a job offered and then been fired before I showed up, so I guess it balances out.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I "did" it too, in late '90s, with big-wall-street-corp. After phone and in-person interview, there was blackout of communications... until I hear back from HR on some random Wednesday "Why have I missed my first few days?" I was like "What?".... apparently nobody reached out to me to tell me when I'm starting (or to finalize the offer... done-deal, I guess). I did start properly about two weeks after that though.
Re: (Score:2)
It's weird, but not new (Score:2)
I saw this happen decades ago, when I was working a high security job. People would get through the entire interview process, their background check was fine, they'd sign the acceptance letter and then just never show up.
On the other hand, people would sometimes have the most obvious issues show up on their background check, and you'd wonder how they ever thought they'd get in the building.
I have, more recently, seen someone take a job and be completely unable to interact with other people and quit after a
Re: (Score:2)
I have, more recently, seen someone take a job and be completely unable to interact with other people and quit after a couple of days from the stress of having other people around them. It was so odd, we still talk about it in the office occasionally.
We are becoming more and more isolated on average as it becomes possible to do that. We were always fractious but we had no choice but to interface with people we despised or vice versa in order to exist. Now there are more options for not doing that.
Not "catfishing" - loyalty (Score:4, Informative)
Smartphone: a Skinner box + Jungian Talisman. (Score:2)
No show on day 1 is a win in my book! (Score:2)
From the New York Post: ... (Score:2)
Why is anyone even discussing this? It's from the New York Post, which is to say it's likely complete bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Logical fallacy much?
Re: (Score:2)
So...refuse to hold "employers" responsible? (Score:3)
Seems like this is blaming the symptom, not the cause.
Perspective from a Gen X entrepreneur:
Most "employers" are staffed with people who do not understand the primary principle of long-term success, let alone productive culture.
Gen Zers don't want to entangle themselves with people who cosplay business with lousy personal lives and crushing debt.
This is probably just payback (Score:3)
Interview processes have gotten to a point where they are hugely insulting to many candidates. Respect is a two-way street.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That really depends. Do you want to be polite when the other side clearly is not? Some people chose to go that way and I would probably too. But pissing off too many prospects, as many of these enteroprises do, comes with real consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
The flip side (Score:2)
Really, guys, you should read the TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
The article's lede, which inexplicably isn't part of TFS, is very important to the narrative - in my mind, it changes it almost completely. Here it is (emphasis is mine):
Re: (Score:2)
At my company, it can takes weeks if not months to complete the multiple rounds of interviews. Hiring managers and HR go dark for days or weeks at a time. It's not right, but it's normal. If you walk away during that process, we don't count that as failing to show up to your first day. That happens a lot, of course.
As the article states, some people are going through the motions to finish the tedious process only to bail on it at the end.
You have to actually have signed (even if only digitally) the offer le
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the article speculates about people perhaps being surprised by their total compensation, overall time expectations, etc. - but I would hope even a young'un would know to ask those questions beforehand (I certainly did, way back in the day).
I've seen this at a university library (Score:2)
Would not have been effective in the 20th century (Score:2, Interesting)
When I was young, I typically worked for Vietnam War and Korean War vets. As they were about the right age to be well into their careers and managing or owning a small business.
I've never tried it. But I suspect if I didn't show up to work on the first day, without a plausible reason (like being in a car accident), that they would have given me a little talk about how disappointed they are. And that they intend on finding someone who actually needs and wants a job to fill the position. And that no, they are
Asymmetric perspective. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is it just normal when the demand side operates on a basis of deliberate obfuscation and contemptuous silence; but some kind of exotic malfeasance when the supply side just drops threads that are no longer relevant?
It seems like a fairly shit equilibrium position overall: scrambling to respond to surprises is normally a pain in the ass; and petty revenge basically never makes you feel better to the same degree that endless petty contempt makes you feel lousy; but that doesn't make it any less weird and partisan to write up one half of it like it's a juicy moral panic; while treating the other half as either so natural as to not be worth remarking on; or something that only snowflake losers who need to stop expecting to be coddled would be against.
And don't get me started on the uptick of job posting/hiring platforms promising that their hot new AI tools will help employers cut through the chaff and get right to the real people most worth their time. You think that asymmetry is going to last more than 30 seconds or so?
Lame generational scapegoating (Score:5, Insightful)
If you feel like generalizing about Gen Z...FUCK OFF....It's old, it's lame...and nothing you have to say is insightful or intelligent...you're just old and forgot how shitty you were at that age. As a Gen X-er...we SUUUUUCKED...probably worse than millennials...worse than any Gen Z person I work with....so please fuck off. The people that came before me sucked even more. The new generation isn't soft or woke or whatever old person insult you feel like lobbing...they're just different and your feeble memory can't remember how shitty your cohort was.
Also, the job market encourages duplicity. An employer can hire as many people as they can afford, an employee can only work one place. Employers offer a job on the spot and you have to say yes. You can't say...it's great, but I want to hear back from Netflix, Google, or Morgan Stanley first. If you say...let me think about it, you get 24h to give an answer...and if you decide afterwards you want to work there, you rarely get a job...so...yeah...I say yes to my 2nd and 3rd choice...I certainly tell them once I get an offer from my first choice...but given that I have had 5 places rescind the job offer due to funding...I can see why many would find it smarter to say nothing until the very last minute...and given how shitty most companies treat their employees, I am not sure I blame someone for not saying anything at all...especially if that company was in the news for laying off a bunch of people that year...clearing out the well-paid olds only to rehire a bunch of young people.
This is nothing new (Score:3)
It's not surprising either. With hiring processes being so long and slow, lots of candidates will get other jobs before their start date. I've known a few people who were waiting _months_ for a confirmation and start date, and took work elsewhere.
If companies aren't going to complete their hiring process in a sane amount of time then they shouldn't be surprised when candidates ghost them. They have better things to do than wait by the phone.
Re:Building Reputations (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean the same companies who you have to chase down months afterward only to hear they didn't hire you? They're shocked that their position paying gas station wages is getting gas quality treatment.
Spoiled little ghost-shits better hope the recession doesn’t keep growing.
It's just the beginning. Like right after the election when people were googling "who pays the tariffs?"
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the same companies who you have to chase down months afterward only to hear they didn't hire you? They're shocked that their position paying gas station wages is getting gas quality treatment.
It's not the same thing. This statistic is about people who accepted the job. They agreed to the terms and were hired.
The reciprocal equivalent you're reaching for would be where an employee shows up for first-day training and is told "oh, hey, we gave the job to someone else and just didn't bother to tell you."
Re: (Score:3)
I've seen a number of reddit threads where they accepted a "good" job and it turned out that the actual job offer was quite different than expressed before, once they started the actual "start this job" paperwork. I've seen things like where they use non-standard terms to reduce what sounds like good pay to crap pay, have insane off-duty requirements, etc...
Honestly, while Gen Z might be partially to blame for this, I figure that at least half the blame goes on the businesses. As said before, businesses u
Re: Building Reputations (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have seen that where the job isn't what was advertised, but it's rare. In my life:
- Micromanaging CEO turned that week's incoming developers into professional services and they all quit before the week was out. That was just weird though.
- The stock bonus was nice, but there was a reverse split a week before I started. LOL! But then I always treat the stock stuff as a bonus and the salary as the main thing, and the salary there was decent.
I did have a couple of cases where coworkers thought mistakenly
Re: (Score:2)
Major employers are guilty of their own abuses to be sure but that doesn't mean this isnt a dumb move by these kids. Pissing off your manager on day one is just a bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Pissing off management on day one precludes the possibility of a day two. Day one is absolutely the easiest day to get someone fired. Heck, you don't even need to fire them if they haven't showed up and signed any paperwork.
Re: (Score:2)
Or looking up what an oligarchy is
https://gizmodo.com/a-lot-of-a... [gizmodo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It is a small world. In any given field, it is amazing how often you run into people you know or who know you.
Pulling a stunt like this may seem like fun and games, but it will get your name on the corporate no-hire list. It will also piss off the manager who hired you and leave a minor impression on the co-workers who you interviewed with. Any of whom may remember you at a future potential-employer and speak up against your hiring.
If it happens early in your career, it may not mean much -likely everyone
Re: (Score:2)
If you're giving a peck on the cheek, that was not acceptable even in 1950. Maybe the guy thought it was, but the woman just sucked it up in order to keep the job. It was wrong then, it is wrong now. Did you give the guys a peck on the cheek too? If not, you're being sexist.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, why don't you post this with your real identity?
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno why you're getting downvoted: it's the New York Post, an institution lacking in any journalistic integrity (they're one step up from a supermarket tabloid).
OF COURSE it's a lie.
Re: this is a lie (Score:2)