• CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 days ago

    It’s shitty on both ends. For those hiring they have to go through all the applicants, interviews, etc, but all the applicants are going through the same thing: applying to jobs whose descriptions do not match reality, interviews with people who already do not intend to hire them, pay rates not listed or misleading…

    How do you suggest applicants deal with this? Should employers have to pay $20 per application they wish to receive?

    • Marx2k@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 days ago

      Yeah I wish I knew, honestly. I’d hate to make Pele pay to apply. That’s just a money maker for business with no intention to hire.

    • Maalus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 days ago

      The idea is to cut on people who shouldn’t be sending out resumes to this job posting. It’s the same with public healthcare. A lot of older people go to the doctor to talk to someone. All because it’s “free”. The consequences being huge queues to any doctor you might want to visit. But placing a tiny fee like a dollar, automatically makes people stop and think - do I really need to go there to talk about something that has been diagnosed 50 times by now? All the stuff you talk about can be dealt with by new laws - mandating accurate pay rates that cannot be larger than a 10% difference between max and min for instance. You could force employers to state if the position is open to internal hiring too. Hell, it could even be a deposit instead of a fee - so you don’t shotgun 100 job postings by not even looking at what they expect just submitting CVs.

      At the end of the day, there’s potential for abuse everywhere. You can curb it in some places and can’t do anything in others. But just because something doesn’t solve all the problems, doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea.

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 days ago

        And our idea is to cut on businesses who shouldn’t be creating vacancies with wild claims and a 0% chance of actually hiring someone.

        The knife cuts both ways.

        • Maalus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          Yeah, that’s what I said in the second part of my post. There is a way to kick them in the balls when they do that. And it could be codified in law. But we don’t need everything to happen all at once. It might be good to curb the pay rates thing first, then something else, then something else entirely. Let’s not ignore problems that exist though.

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        It’s not that it doesn’t solve all problems, it’s that it creates problems.

        The difficulties in hiring are part of the cost of doing business, like having staff on hand and you end up not needing them all that day.