Hiring is so broken that this just isn't enough. We really need an IETF RFC for open positions. A full-blown TCP-like protocol for an open position, with TTL, SYN ACK handshakes, and data encryption. Anything else is half-assing it. I'm only half joking. It's pretty bad today.
Untitled topic
41–50 of 132 posts
Re: undefined
#42Re: undefined
#43What’s an example of a job scam? How does the scammer benefits from it? I have never heard of this, just looking to learn more about it.
Identity theft: You have to verify your identity for the job, but in reality they trick you into handing over personal data, your SSN or id scans or completing some actual identity verification – that isn't just copying pixels or numbers – where you think you are verifying for the job offer, but in reality you complete the verification for e.g. opening a bank account in your name that they then control. Of course the identity verification service should check that you really know what you are verifying for, but that doesn't mean they actually do or the scammers might have some excuse to explain the discrepancy; like you get a job at a bank and to start working you have to open an account with them because salary or benefits get credited there. Helpfully they create the account for you and all you have to do is do the identity verification.
Variations of advance fee scams: Can be simple like you got a job but have to pay a fee to the head hunting agency that you'll get reimbursed on top of your first salary from your new employer of course, or more advanced: Your job involves buying products or services and testing or auditing them.
Money mules and laundering: As part of your job you have to forward money between your and external accounts. This is less obvious than the advance fee. You get the money first, you just don't know that you are funnelling the money from other scams to the scammers.
These things might seem easy to see through in theory, but they prey on desperate people in hardship. You believe to have finally found a job and all seems well during the onboarding process. Maybe it takes a little longer with a little back and forth or multiple interviews until you are emotionally invested into the job offering. Of course it seems weird that you have to pay out of your own pocket for a product you do QA testing for before you receive any money from them. But you have to deliver if you want to keep the job. After all they have many more options of applicants to choose from while for you this is the only job offer you got after months of searching.
Re: undefined
#44What makes a job verified in this case? You can easily verify a firm exists, but that’s not really the critical part. The question “is this a ghost job with no intention to be filled” is the real struggle.
[flagged]
If I knew that a company had paid a refundable fee (e.g $1000), that was only paid back if the job was filled by someone outside the company within 6 months; then I would take it much more seriously.
Re: undefined
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do what everyone is doing (for better or worse): feed those into a CLI LLM, have it give you a csv of the top 20 candidates based on some criteria, manually review those.
What are the top 20 candidates if you just need a random “full stack developer”? All of their resumes look exactly the same.
If they are actually "exactly the same" and your criteria is a "random" developer then does it matter which you pick? Look for extracurriculars like active github, personal website/blog, open source contributions, vibe coding skills, etc. I bet 75% of the job market right now is being done on referrals anyway. Tap your network.
Re: undefined
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
If I knew that a company had paid a refundable fee (e.g $1000), that was only paid back if the job was filled by someone outside the company within 6 months; then I would take it much more seriously.
I like it. Now, what are you going to do to employees? How do they verify (to the board and/or the employer) that they're who they say they are, and are serious about looking?
I like this for employers. Money talks and baloney walks; if you're serious, prove it. But that could come down badly on desperate employees - Either take a job that you decide you don't like, or lose a significant amount of money. And yet, the "not seriously looking" issue is on both sides.
And even for employers, you have to gate this. Something like, they get the $1000 back if, after six months, the board has not supplied them with N qualified candidates. (Which gets back to the employee issue: How do you prove they're qualified?)
I like the idea in general. Really, I do. But I'm not sure it solves the whole problem. (And maybe it doesn't need to in order to be a good step forward.)
For amusement value, consider the following wrinkle: If a company forfeits the $1000, the board keeps $200. The other $800 gets split among the candidates whose time the company wasted.
Re: undefined
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do what everyone is doing (for better or worse): feed those into a CLI LLM, have it give you a csv of the top 20 candidates based on some criteria, manually review those.
What are the top 20 candidates if you just need a random “full stack developer”? All of their resumes look exactly the same.
If you're truly looking this generic, then what is the problem exactly with taking the bottom 20% of the stack since that's what your pay is going to be anyway?
Re: undefined
#48You have to think through the applicant issue. As a hiring manager every time I post a job i get hundreds of applicants and most are not viable for different reasons. A verified listing does nothing to help me deal with the influx of low quality and fake applicants.
Upwork has candidates buy "connects" with real money that are spent when applying to jobs. Ultimately it seems some form of payment is a proven gate.
Re: undefined
#49What makes a job verified in this case? You can easily verify a firm exists, but that’s not really the critical part. The question “is this a ghost job with no intention to be filled” is the real struggle.
Put some money on the line. I'm not an economist but you could structure a market where you cannot just take up mental space in the job market for practically nil. That's the current malincentive, that companies put up job listings they have no intention of filling, even when candidates who are qualified by their own criteria apply. The current job market maladies are a perverse incentive of the price of posting a job and applying for a job are effectively nil, the spread is too big for anyone to make the trade.
Re: undefined
#50No. Ghost jobs are "verified", too.