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

41–50 of 99 posts

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

#41

Post by bsbechtel »

skolor wrote: post #39
mjbellantoni wrote: post #20

Hiring velocity is one area where small companies can use their agility to advantage when competing against larger companies for talent. As a hiring manager, I always endeavor to make this process as streamlined as possible. A couple of anecdotes: I was able to hire an outstanding candidate simply because I got them through the process and extended them an offer. Our competition was a reasonably high-profile company…

I work for a pretty large company, and the more involvement I have with the hiring process the more painful it is to see. We just move so incredibly slowly, with frequent false starts, and we've lost a number of good candidates because of it. I'm fairly concerned we're going to lose someone I referred because of it, but there's only so much prodding I can do and that doesn't serve to fix the problem.

This sounds like a major cost that maybe isn't really considered when studies are done that evaluate the cost of potentially hiring a bad employee.

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

#42

Post by fecak »

arethuza wrote: post #8
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.

Another tiresome tactic that recruitment firms use is to leave up ads for roles that were actually filled months ago - either to attract CVs and/or make them look busier than they actually are. Edit: There's probably a book waiting to be written on the dodgy tactics of recruitment firms. Mind you, I became a bit less harsh on individual recruiters when I was in an office that shared a floor of a building with a recru…

I've been recruiting for almost 20 years and have been considering writing a book about various tactics. My blog regularly exposes some of the recruiter tricks and strategies on topics from counteroffers to candidate control. If I become convinced there would be even modest demand, I'd write it.

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

#43

Post by maze-le »

bediger4000 wrote: post #34
aidos wrote: post #9

23% of interviews have a drug test. What's the incentive behind that?

To avoid having to actually do some real human thinking. Fail a "drug" test, you can just treat those people as scum, not worth your time, disgusting pariahs. You don't have to look at them as human, and actually use your wits to decide. People who, for example, smoke marijuana, will fail a drug test. Will they miss work because they're hungover from a Big Weekend? No, mostly not. Will some straight arrow call in sic…

Good, point.

It is also noteworthy, that drug-tests are not as precise as people might think. Most of them look for traces of metabolic byproducts of a substance, not the substance itself.

There are some (legal) medications, wich can indicate optium- and methamphetamine-addiction.

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

#45

Post by madcaptenor »

dagw wrote: post #6
s_dev wrote: post #2

I personally have little confidence in job postings that I've seen available for at least three months. Similarly with apartments rentals - in a market where developers and apartments are high in demand I usually see it as a red flag if a job or apartment has been available for three or more months. It begs the questions - why didn't others take it? I never considered that the average interview process is getting lon…

The other difference between job postings and apartment rentals is that only one person can rent an apartment, but lots of people can be employed to the same position. You could have same ad out for 6 month, and over that time hire 5-10 people.

Only one person can rent an apartment, but a large apartment complex will have many similar apartments that could be fairly represented by the same ad.

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

#46

Post by airza »

pjc50 wrote: post #35
airza wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those are unrealistically low applicant volume numbers, surely? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/10949825/Employers-r...

It's not clear to me how many of those applicants would actually be valid for the job, so i'm not sure. The companies that i've worked at which had stagnant wages had barely 1 candidate per position most of the time, so i've seen it somewhere at least.

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

#47

Post by mattbrewsbytes »

pjc50 wrote: post #32
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…

An ex-girlfriend of mine applied, on graduating, for a job at a prestigious investment bank. She heard nothing back. Eighteen months later , after she'd been through two jobs and emigrated, they sent her a letter expressing interest.

I thought there are laws in the US about how long employers are allowed to keep candidate info in the system something like 12 months is what I remember hearing.

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

#48

Post by Lawtonfogle »

jackgavigan wrote: post #28
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.

Sounds like they are working on job security in the same way a developer does when he make undocumented code only he can understand. Considering how many developers actually think like that, it shouldn't be surprising to see this in HR as well.

Some places where I've worked at, if you fail to hire (say you select a candidate and they get a better offer), you have to start all over at square 1. Square 1 being justifying to HR why you need the position (a multi-week process).

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

#49

Post by airza »

termain wrote: post #31
airza wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC all US government contractors have to be tested on hire. Most of the large temp firms also do drug testing in the US (in my experience at least.) Never tested for booze, though everywhere I've worked on site has made it clear that you will be drug tested and breathalyzed in case of an on-the-job accident. As i've moved up in job quality it has gone from "we will test you aggressively to see if you do drugs" to "…

"IIRC all US government contractors have to be tested on hire" That must be a new -- post 2007 -- thing, then.

Sorry, you're right, it might be DoD only.

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

#50

Post by Lawtonfogle »

aidos wrote: post #9

23% of interviews have a drug test. What's the incentive behind that?

Drug use is a seen as a moral failing. A morally weak person is seen as someone who will be a bad employee (steal, not put in a good day's work, cheat the clock, etc.).

Does it make sense? Often it makes none at all.

Post reply on HN