Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Seen that job listing for a while, its no coincidence

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 99 posts

Re: Seen that job listing for a while, its no coincidence

#21

Post by spacemanmatt »

aidos wrote: post #12
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To avoid addictive folks who will have a high incidence of no-show when on a binge. Or long absences while in jail.

I can imagine what the theory is, but does it make sense in practice? Do you know which industries it tends to apply to? Would a developer be asked to take a drug test? It's interesting, because I've worked with a lot of people in a lot of places over the years and I've never seen drugs as a problem that impedes workplace attendance / performance. Alcohol / hangovers, sure - plenty of times - but they're not testing…

Developer here. Asked to take a test, to work as an Austin-based employee of a Chicago company, owned by a Texas company, that owned (among other things) a warehouse that shipped guns purchased through their brick & mortar stores.

Re: Seen that job listing for a while, its no coincidence

#22

Post by cmuir »

pjc50 wrote: post #3

Some long-term job listings, especially the vague ones, are dummies put there by recruitment firms who are keen to get you on their books.

Definitely true, but it's not just recruitment firms that leave dummy jobs up. Startups do this all the time, especially for competitive roles like software engineer and UX designer. It allows internal recruiters and hiring managers to perpetually keep an eye out for good talent. It also makes the companies look like they are doing well and growing.

Re: Seen that job listing for a while, its no coincidence

#23

Post by iamthepieman »

the article mentions 27 days as the average time from job candidate to actual employee. This seems like a very reasonable amount of time for anything that is not traditionally high turnover like retail, certain service industries etc.

I like to give at least 3 weeks notice simply because it usually takes that long to transfer all my projects and responsibilities. That only leaves 6 days for the active screening and interviewing process.

The article seems to be covering very general employment and job statistics so most likely the 27 day average vacancy is quite high for service and retail positions and fairly low for tech positions.

Re: Seen that job listing for a while, its no coincidence

#24

Post by culturestate »

aidos wrote: post #12
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To avoid addictive folks who will have a high incidence of no-show when on a binge. Or long absences while in jail.

I can imagine what the theory is, but does it make sense in practice? Do you know which industries it tends to apply to? Would a developer be asked to take a drug test? It's interesting, because I've worked with a lot of people in a lot of places over the years and I've never seen drugs as a problem that impedes workplace attendance / performance. Alcohol / hangovers, sure - plenty of times - but they're not testing…

You tend to see drug tests a lot in retail, fast food, and many other low-wage low-skill jobs. I truthfully have no idea how effective that is in weeding out people who would be generally unreliable, but that's often the justification given by managers.

I'm sure there are some ultraconservative companies that drug test everyone — including developers and senior managers — but those are few and far between in comparison.

Re: Seen that job listing for a while, its no coincidence

#25

Post by goodJobWalrus »

aidos wrote: post #12
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To avoid addictive folks who will have a high incidence of no-show when on a binge. Or long absences while in jail.

I can imagine what the theory is, but does it make sense in practice? Do you know which industries it tends to apply to? Would a developer be asked to take a drug test? It's interesting, because I've worked with a lot of people in a lot of places over the years and I've never seen drugs as a problem that impedes workplace attendance / performance. Alcohol / hangovers, sure - plenty of times - but they're not testing…

They made me do it when I worked at an investment bank.

Re: Seen that job listing for a while, its no coincidence

#26

Post by pjc50 »

airza wrote: post #19

Business-oriented publications and companies that are hiring always seem to carefully avoid the easy way to fix long hiring times: Increase wages.

The long hiring times seem not to be due to lack of applicants, but due to internal hiring politics and process. Rising conservativism about making a "bad hire", perhaps.

Re: Seen that job listing for a while, its no coincidence

#27

Post by Siecje »

iamthepieman wrote: post #23

the article mentions 27 days as the average time from job candidate to actual employee. This seems like a very reasonable amount of time for anything that is not traditionally high turnover like retail, certain service industries etc. I like to give at least 3 weeks notice simply because it usually takes that long to transfer all my projects and responsibilities. That only leaves 6 days for the active screening and i…

What if you are not working?

Re: Seen that job listing for a while, its no coincidence

#28

Post by jackgavigan »

auxym wrote: post #15

As a fresh grad interviewing for (real, non-internship) jobs for the first time, I'm really surprised at how long the hiring process is. The article mentions 23 days average. I'm currently interviewing for a BigCo where I already had done an internship, so they knew me. After I contacted my former supervisor, it took him 2 weeks of wrestling bureaucracy to open a position, then HR insists on collecting CVs for 4 week…

HR are a major problem in many large companies.

Oftentimes, they're lazy (outsourcing most of their job to expensive recruiters and agencies), obstructive (creating all manner of stupid, bureaucratic, red-tape hoops you have to jump through before they'll approve whatever it is you're trying to do), and add zero value to the actual process of recruiting an employee.

My hat of HR know no limit.

Re: Seen that job listing for a while, its no coincidence

#29

Post by fennecfoxen »

culturestate wrote: post #24
aidos wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can imagine what the theory is, but does it make sense in practice? Do you know which industries it tends to apply to? Would a developer be asked to take a drug test? It's interesting, because I've worked with a lot of people in a lot of places over the years and I've never seen drugs as a problem that impedes workplace attendance / performance. Alcohol / hangovers, sure - plenty of times - but they're not testing…

You tend to see drug tests a lot in retail, fast food, and many other low-wage low-skill jobs. I truthfully have no idea how effective that is in weeding out people who would be generally unreliable, but that's often the justification given by managers. I'm sure there are some ultraconservative companies that drug test everyone — including developers and senior managers — but those are few and far between in comparis…

There's at least a few places out there run by Mormons who do hair-tests on their employees and won't hire you if you've been drinking alcohol. Even for high-level managers, executives and the like. (Enough of them that I've run into one person talking about her employer doing that, anyway.)

Re: Seen that job listing for a while, its no coincidence

#30

Post by airza »

pjc50 wrote: post #26
airza wrote: post #19

Business-oriented publications and companies that are hiring always seem to carefully avoid the easy way to fix long hiring times: Increase wages.

The long hiring times seem not to be due to lack of applicants, but due to internal hiring politics and process. Rising conservativism about making a "bad hire", perhaps.

You can't discount the role of applicant volume in that, though; if you have a 20 day hiring process with one person going through it at a time, the odds of it taking 40-60 days are a lot better than if you have 2-3 going through at once.
Post reply on HN