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

61–70 of 99 posts

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

#61

Post by vonmoltke »

bsbechtel wrote: post #41
skolor wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The glaring problem I have seen with nearly all of those studies and discussions is that they all seem to underestimate or even neglect the costs of losing good candidates.

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

#62

Post by surge »

vkjv wrote: post #5
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…

This fails to take into consideration a growing team. We have had a single job listing open well over a year, but that single listing at one point represented 7 open positions. It's interesting to see this possible view. We might be better off posting duplicates to make this nuance more obvious.

Probably saves money where most job listing sites post per listing. You can simply list that you're hiring for multiple open positions in the listing itself.

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

#63

Post by poikniok »

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…

I am confused by your point. Would you rather sick people come into work and get even more people sick?

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

#64

Post by auxym »

rm999 wrote: post #37
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…

Shoot to get another job offer. HR treats you much better when they know they have to compete for you - they'll speed up every step of the process, and they'll be more willing to negotiate. Also, you may end up liking the other offer more :)

Thanks for the tip, I'm also quite far into the process with a second company, and still making calls to friends at other places. I do have a question though.

When asked about whether you are interviewing elsewhere, what should I answer? Be vague and 1 or 2 other places? Or name specific companies/roles? What should I say when they ask what your first choice would be if you were extended similar offers at all these places (it also seems to be a standard question)?

Sorry for being off-topic. I've read Patrick Mackenzie's Salary Negotiation advice post 3x now, and it left me wondering about the above.

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

#65

Post by HarryHirsch »

aidos wrote: post #9

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

To cover the company's ass in case someone is injured on the job by an impaired person. Without drug testing, the injured party has a good case, saying management was asleep at the wheel. But with drug testing, management can say they did screen for drugs, no mutter how asleep they are.

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

#66

Post by notahacker »

cmuir wrote: post #22
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.

It's pretty much the default position if an actual vacancy exists but then gets filled; unless your mailbox is being overwhelmed by new applications, taking down the job offers takes more effort than leaving it up.

Many companies have more or less phantom job listings on their websites and the free boards because whilst they haven't got any positions that need filling, they can afford to create role(s) for the right candidates. And as you've said, some probably can't afford that yet but at least they look like they're growing and get the resumes of people interested in what they might be able to offer in future.

Larger companies often have job ads up for positions they expect to fill internally, because policy requires they advertise it externally.

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

#67

Post by southphillyman »

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…

Unfortunately, drug tests are yet another hurdle poor people have to clear in order to earn a living wage.

Outside of the red tape domains, like banking and government, I've never been drug tested as a developer. The idea that a low skill worker is more likely to be on drugs is classism. Low skill workers really get no autonomy. They are drug tested, have to clock in and out, and even have monitored lunch/bathroom breaks. It's kind of disgusting to think about.

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

#68

Post by vonmoltke »

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…

The article said 27.3 days before being filled. I would consider a position filled once a signed offer is in hand.

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

#70

Post by bsbechtel »

vonmoltke wrote: post #61
bsbechtel wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The glaring problem I have seen with nearly all of those studies and discussions is that they all seem to underestimate or even neglect the costs of losing good candidates.

Exactly...that's what I was trying to convey.
Post reply on HN