Seen that job listing for a while, its no coincidence • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by madcaptenor » Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 1:45 PM UTC

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...

They get 39 applicants per job, but how many of those are actually going through the hiring process? In my experience most resumes end up getting looked at and not considered as a candidate.

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

#52

Post by dec0dedab0de » Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 1:46 PM UTC

aidos wrote: post #9

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

I think the idea is that if you can't manage to stay sober long enough to pass the test then you have some serious problems that will likely affect your work performance.

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

#53

Post by atwebb » Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 1:46 PM UTC

aidos wrote: post #9

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

You got some...interesting replies. I think it's mainly a CYA/insurance thing as well as a simple test to weed out undesirable traits. It's generally well known that you'll be tested prior to hire (at least in the US). My view is accept that and either

a) stop/pass the test

b) find somewhere that doesn't care

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

#54

Post by k__ » Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 1:46 PM UTC

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…

Sounds strange to me.

If I want to work at a big company, I would only consider small companies if the big ones don't want me and not if the big ones just want me a month later.

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

#55

Post by joezydeco » Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 1:55 PM UTC

atwebb wrote: post #53

aidos wrote: post #9

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

You got some...interesting replies. I think it's mainly a CYA/insurance thing as well as a simple test to weed out undesirable traits. It's generally well known that you'll be tested prior to hire (at least in the US). My view is accept that and either a) stop/pass the test b) find somewhere that doesn't care

I was confused by this part of the article. Are 23% of candidates being screened at the interview phase, or at the pre-job-offer phase? Drug screening isn't a cheap thing that you just do to everyone that walks in the door.

My company puts a common clause in the offer letter that says "this offer is contingent upon your successful completion of a drug screening, confirmation of your references, and the verification of your education and work history".

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

#56

Post by joezydeco » Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 1:57 PM UTC

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #50

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.

If I'm running a factory or warehouse and I need sober, alert workers that will not destroy merchandise with equipment and/or kill themselves or others around them, you can be damned sure I'm going to eliminate any risk of their personal time seeping into their work time.

Screening for recreational drug markers doesn't mean I'm judging their morals, but I'm zeroing out my risk factors.

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

#57

Post by arethuza » Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 1:59 PM UTC

fecak wrote: post #42

arethuza wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I love this book "exposing" management consulting:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rip-off-Scandalous-Management-Consul...

I'd like to read an equivalent for recruiters and as more people encounter recruiters than management consultants I expect the audience would be much larger!

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

#58

Post by notahacker » Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 2:01 PM UTC

k__ wrote: post #54

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…

Sounds strange to me. If I want to work at a big company, I would only consider small companies if the big ones don't want me and not if the big ones just want me a month later.

If you want to work at a company offering more responsibility and/or more money, you consider the company that's offered it to you more favourably than the bigger company that says they like you very much and will decide if you're good enough after a week or two. Especially if you suspect that reflects how the respective companies will respond to any future requests you might wish to make if working for them.

If you only want to work at a big company, you probably don't interview with the smaller company in the first place.

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

#59

Post by joezydeco » Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 2:01 PM UTC

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…

then HR insists on collecting CVs for 4 weeks

I'm not sure what things are like where you are, but I have recently gone through a hiring cycle for an engineer and it honestly took this long to gather resumes that were worth pursuing.

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

#60

Post by vonmoltke » Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 2:03 PM UTC

k__ wrote: post #54

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…

Sounds strange to me. If I want to work at a big company, I would only consider small companies if the big ones don't want me and not if the big ones just want me a month later.

Some people want to work in a certain domain and don't care much about the size of the company.