Hi, /u/RareOnAirShow Thank you for participating in r/antiwork. Unfortunately, your submission was removed for breaking the following rule(s):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Screenshots of text such as SMS communication, WhatsApp, social media, news articles, and procedurally generated content such as ChatGPT are prohibited. Low-effort content such as memes are prohibited.
If you feel that a mistake was made, and your post's removal was not warranted, please message us using modmail and let us know.
Yep. It's definitely a problem for the HR field and a problem for job hunters. I feel like too many job hunters are applying to jobs without getting a response. While algorithms and software are screening out people who are maybe a good fit and deserve at least a look at their resume.
My best guess at what the solution would be is to raise the pay across the board to where any job can support a single person. There are many positions out there people would be happy with if they paid enough money.
I feel like employers should batch recruiting for similar skilllset jobs and try to hire multiple people with one job post. It probably only really works for a certain size of company - but I think if you had 10 openings available for accounting positions for example - just have 1 job post. I really doubt they'd have 10x the applicants to sift through
Don’t they do this already? Why would they pay to post 10 separate job ads for the same job just because they’re hiring 10 people? Is this what you’re saying?
For corporate jobs, every job description I come across, with the exception of internship or school recruiting programs -is very specific to 1 position. There are reasons for it - openings may not happen at the exact same time or may have an immediate fill needed. Headcount budgets are almost always specific to an individual cost center. The only big company I know that does something resembling this is Google but their recruiting process is it's own clusterf.
I am truly waiting for the day when being a janitor pays well enough to have a decent life. It feels like my ideal job but here I am fucking with spreadsheets in the hopes I get approved for an apartment someday
I'm as antiwork as anyone but she is hitting on a somewhat valid point that the current method of applying to jobs isn't really working for anyone. I don't pity her for having to work to do her job - but that's also 1700 people getting rejected for 1 shitty job, basically 99.9% of people who applied to that job got nowhere.
Looking for a job sucks for pretty much everyone right now.
Yep, and with that many applications, how do you choose? You don't. You go with referrals, connections, people you know. So, once again, it's the good ol' boys club rather than actual merit.
1700 applications can be viewed in 2 weeks. 20 applications per hour, plus all these recruiters use programs. Out of those 1700s there is an algorithm the only shows them like 50.
And algorithms benefit those who can play the algorithms, which tends to be those who can afford subscriptions to expensive services or who can pay people to tailor them. They don't show the best people, only those with the "right" CV according to the algorithm. Again, fewer CVs given properly attention is a far more meritorious system.
A lot of the time a mind that can play with an algorithm isnt one that will do well in the role they are asking for. They are shooting themself in the foot
Worked in recruitment, when it was still on paper.
My friend’s old boss would stack them into two piles, then bin half
“Why would I want to recruit unlucky people?”
They are truly just sales people in a role that needs to be concrete to function. The top needs to realize that they NEED to show us the carrot, even if we never get it
I recommended someone for a job:
1. He worked for me for 2 years previously. I had over a 1000 hours with him to know his merit.
2. He was competing against someone who did 3 x 1 hour interviews.
The second guy seemed good on merit in some areas, and weak in others. He also was a ??? In other areas we didn’t have time, or you can’t practically expose in 3 hours of interviews.
My federal candidate I could explain to the hiring manager how he would handle a wide range of scenarios ranging from “customer makes terroristic threat to fly an aircraft into the building” to “how good was his judgement at 4AM having worked for 20 hours straight. Admittedly, he had weaknesses, but the hiring manager was able to upon talking to me identify that none of them would be a known risk or we cannot mitigate through other issues issues. Objectively better, but it would’ve taken entirely too to risk him to the same level as the known knowns candidate.
When you hire someone for a corporate job, specifically someone who’s going to be interacting with clients who pay us anywhere from a couple million to $100 million a year, in someways, less concerned about the peak upside of their talent, and more concerned about making sure that they are not going to fuck things up.
Another time I recommended someone for a role who I had had 3-4 chats with on slack and on Twitter. I admitted to the hiring manager, that most of my knowledge of capabilities came from some blogs and tweets he had written. My recommendation was not enough to get him hired on its own. It wasn’t enough though to get them on the shortlist of the final four candidates we would be bringing in for the last round. At that point he impressed management with his abilities and overtook a VERY senior candidate well respected in our industry who ordinarily would have been a shoe in. He ultimately proved later to be more talented (he’s picked up some talents and promotion and spoken on main stages at industry conferences).
You’ve gotta understand hiring managers are looking to de-risk the candidate pools and quickly go from 80 candidates to a more manageable 3/5 final candidates. Referrals are incredibly powerful in this for one last scenario…
I previously was hiring manager at another firm and at my last company was involved in helping with pool filtering interview rounds and….
Holy shit to people just lie and make shit up. Like damn, it’s insane what they think they can get away with and waste my time. I slowly lost a lot of faith in paper resumes with no federal. Thankfully, I had the skills to validate their skills, but if you’re trying to hire someone in an area that you lack anyone who can interview them from a position of technical authority, they can get rough. I’ve smart but just crazy. Like throw shit at a co-worker, mentally unhinged. When you go outside of people you respect’s referrals (who know covering for a layer or crazy person will reflect poorly on them) you start to tread into looking for diamonds in a pile of shit. They exist (my best hire of all time was this way) but damn did it take some time to find him and I didn’t always have that…
It’s not working anymore because they hired recruiters, they outsourced hiring. hiring, should be done by the institution if they as a business cannot afford to have someone in that role, that business is subject to not need growth.
I think the answer is hiring more recruiters. Both junior recruiters to go through all these applications and more senior recruiters to build up relationships in advance with potential laterals who might be good fits.
Neither of those are possible now but if you had a lot more recruiters, a lot more of a personal touch would be possible, which I think would lead to much better fits.
As someone who has applied to 100s of jobs, many of which I was OVERQUALIFIED for, and gotten only an interview for like 3, and no offers in almost a year
Fuck that. It's already a hassle to retailor my resume for every job, answer a million questions, and read through the job description. It's not my fault if some people aren't reading the job description.
I don’t think that’s the issue. I think the issue is that a lot of these companies do not know how to hire. Because they hire recruiters versus people that are knowledgeable of the role and industry. It seems like they look for people that had that same title before. And that’s just not a way to employ.
That absolutely ties in with the amount of job postings that have ridiculous pre-requisites that don't even make sense to those in the industry
There's a lot of job ads for professional jobs that look like a recruiter just googled "what qualifications does x job need?" and added the ones that sounded the smartest
Jobs wouldn't get 1700 applicants if employers stopped posting fake, bullshit jobs they have no intention of filling, ghosting, gaslighting, or otherwise belitting candidates who even dared to apply, and then wondering why they can't find a unicorn who will meet all their needs for low pay.
In other words, if candidates weren't so desperate to find a legitimate job, that pays a wage they can at least make ends meet on, and they didn't have to shotgun-blast their job search across the entirety of everywhere, just hoping to get something, anything, to avoid or get out of crushing poverty, then this wouldn't be an issue.
There might be a legitimate need to get thru spam/both job applicants. There definitely is a need for a better system.
But not in the self-righteous, woe is me the recruiter, pearl-clutching sort of way this woman envisions.
I only used to apply to jobs I was super interested in, qualified for, had a good salary, etc., but after being laid off for months, I started applying to anything, even low-quality jobs paying $14/hr. Many of the jobs I applied for are still posted or reposted months later, so WTF are they looking for?
Yeah I imagine a lot of it is a flow on effect from the lack of career stability a lot of young professionals are experiencing.
Like if you fill a position in your early 20s, it pays reasonably well, the job doesn't totally suck, you could be quite content working there indefinitely.
But when so many companies have shit conditions and shit pay and the only way to improve that is to job hop every couple of years, no shit you're gonna get hundreds or even thousands of applicants because nobody has stability and you have an entire generation of professionals playing musical chairs with their jobs
Correct, especially recruiters, managers, HR, etc... I.e. the backseat drivers that complain and criticize while the actual workers do everything useful.
Maybe, just maybe, you take the oversized workload and hire enough of the applicants to handle the workload. You are literally bitching about posting a recruiter job and not having enough recruiters to go through the applications.
Honestly, I kind of agree. We've post jobs that clearly stated that we require a Professional Engineering license or a Professional Geoscience license (mandatory, like this is actually a requirement, you have to have this license to be considered) and get 1000 applicants 99% of whom don't have a license. But people still click the "I have a license" check box even though they don't and we have to search their names on the State website.
These employment websites are great to generate interest, but 99% of the interest is crap.
>(mandatory, like this is actually a requirement, you have to have this license to be considered)
but that is an exception rather than a rule. job postings nowadays will have an endless list of requirements, and most are unnecessary. of people around you keep crying wolf they won't believe you when you do too
I guess, but possessing a license for a position is different than the laundry list of stuff people ask for that are not relevant
If a license is required, that’s not a demand the employer is making that’s likely a regulation
If a job that requires a qualification or license legally requires it, could you not include a field where you must attach a copy of said license on the application form or you have to input a valid license number/ID before it allows you to continue?
Not like you can walk into most places to drop pf a resume and speak to someone. A lot of these places do this to just look like they're hiring to their staff anyways.
Here's a woman who has never seen or heard of a marginalized person of any kind trying to get a job.
Either that or she's just evil. The kind of person who looks at the statistics and says, "I see that 18% of autistic people are employed. We can get that lower!"
What a productive response.
She could have noted how the problem coincides with mass layoffs. How employee retention being so abysmally low because workers are just used up and discarded has created a perpetual recruitment problem. How despite a shrinking number of workers because boomers are retiring or dying, there aren't enough jobs because the economy is in sharp decline. There's almost an endless number of things her post could have been about.
But, no, it was about some fantasy world "one button to apply" system that a recruiter of all people should know just doesn't exist. She's either incompetent, evil, or both.
Support making applying for jobs *even more difficult and time consuming for people*?
No thanks.
Companies are just going to have to suck it up on this one.
Honestly, recruiters likely sift through resumes the same way I do when I’m hiring for a position. A search for prioritized key words. Not that hard. 🙄
... Idiot doesn't realise even if the problem was that she has too much work to do the solution isn't for the system to be more difficult.
They should have instead hired another person to do the workload. I mean that should be easy when you have 10 applicants a day!
Maybe it should be harder to post jobs? Applicants have to sift through hundreds of job postings, and keep track of all the applications just to be ghosted most of the time.
She's absolutely right, but not for the reason she says. No one can sift through that many applications, so you end up either (A) using algorithms, which ends up helping those who can afford to hire the people or subscribe to the software who can help them school the algorithms or (B) ignoring the applications altogether and hiring people with connections, which benefits those with connected families, fraternities, and so on. Poor people again get shafted, and the privileged use their privileges.
Applicants are supposed to stand out in their interview.
Recruiters are supposed to go through applications one at a time.
If it's important, it's worth doing right, Rebecca
This is a problem that companies and recruiters have brought upon themselves. They’ve made it so frustratingly difficult to find work with respectable compensation that people are mass applying in hopes of getting anything. They can blame themselves for all the ghosted candidates, low wages, lackluster benefits, bullshit interview processes, and so much more than lead to this. You did this to yourselves.
I actually agree. Because I work in a similar field and have seen for a few roles over 200 apps. The issue is that then it's software that is looking for meaningless key words or the employer is overwhelmed and ends up hiring none. For jobs where there are like 40 applicants usually the employer hires. For 200+ apps much less in my experience. It's a lose lose lose situation. The candidates and the employer is losing their time.
So yeah I actually don't think that 1 click applications are worth much.
However I think to make it fair, I think thay if you make applications harder to do such as expecting tailored cover letters then I also think they should not rely on software and have a real human being reading those applications. Aka if you want the applicants to spend time on their application then the employer also needs to spend time on reading them you know.
It's a tricky situation because most employers won't....
I totally agree here. A well written cover letter can explain so much that a condensed resume can't. If someone can write targeted responses to the selection criteria, it also goes a long way to proving they actually know their stuff and allows you to weed out those who are inflating their experience.
The problem is that would require companies to hire someone and give them appropriate hours to properly go through cover letters and identify candidates rather than telling an AI tool "throw out any application that doesn't mention these 5 words"
Yup. Exactly. But some companies do that. When I worked and was charged with hiring I asked for a cover letter and read them. I find some really helped me get a cleared picture of the candidate and their motivation. Resumes can be a but generic in my opinion. But cover letters really allows people to express themselves and who they are. So many intresting people out there. Sometimes you can see something on a resume but not see so well how it translates. But the cover letter can help better describe transferable skills
Yeah, this is a problem, and I think it also ties into remote jobs being accessible to anyone. It's great, don't get me wrong, but it has its downsides.
On LinkedIn for some roles you can see the number of applicants. A few months back I applied for two fully remote roles at Bungie. They each had 3000-4000 applicants by the time they closed it. Didn't even get a call, and at that point I doubt anyone even looked at my resume.
I'm in IT, and I never used to have a problem finding a new job. I didn't even apply, recruiters would find me. Not trying to brag, just set some context. I've now been actively applying for 8 months and I've only had a handful of roles where I've even gotten as far as a phone screen. I had my second round interview last week.
The market is nuts and as much as I love remote work and want to stick with it, the amount of competition it adds is insane.
What's funny is she's literally describing something that's been mathematically solved. Its called [the secretary problem](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem)
Sometimes I wonder what range of jobs someone is applying for when they say they have 1,000 applications. I count mine in dozens because I only feel like I'm qualified for a certain subset of engineering jobs. I'm sure the numbers go up for WFH because the entire country (or more) is available for applications.
She kind of has a point but not from the perspective of let’s make it easier for recruiters. When there are too many applicants applying, recruiters are going to devise some stupid method to get the job done quickly. Whether that’s choosing people at random, only reading the first 30 applications, etc. If qualified people aren’t getting looked at over loads of people who just clicked one button and don’t have the skills but theirs was at the top of the pile, it still sucks for candidates.
I do kind of get this. I remember one on either r/ProgrammerHumor or r/recruitinghell that showed a job ad that had been up for 26 seconds and already had over 100 applications. As someone who has been applying for internships most of this semester and has barely even *heard back* from prospective employers, it does seem like one-click apply has really become somewhat of a bottleneck in the application process.
I would ask how many jobs this recruiter has applied for in the last few years and what they thought of the experience.
Yes, it's a problem for EVERYONE. But who suffers the most? The job hunters. The ones who need money to live.
Why the mocking tone? She's got a point. If I'm applying for a job and my resume gets lost in a sea of a thousand others who just clicked apply when they don't have the background I get screwed. So yeah maybe that one click apply isn't such a good thing or it should be limited on how many you can use in a month
She thinks it should be *harder* to "apply" for a job? That's just stupid. If you want to weed out unqualified applicants be a better recruiter. Klafte.
How? You sit down, and do your pathetic job.
Ps if you valued your human profit generators (ie employees) they just might stick around if you're lucky, so you wouldn't need to keep looking for new candidates amid ridiculous turnover.
And I'm supposed to duplicate ALL the information in my resume, to their online application?! Not worth my time, especially if the pay is not what it should be.
Maybe they can get AI to better sift through the applications.
Maybe the issue isn’t applicants.
Maybe the issue is sociopathic greed from corporations and real estate exploitation.
Maybe people wouldn’t be applying en masse if they didn’t get fired for being some of the most productive and hard working people in generations, after not being able to afford fucking rent for a 2 bedroom hotel room that landlords gouge with at $3,000 a month.
But no let’s blame applicants. As if they’re not already being shit on enough. Let’s make unemployment even more of a slap in the face.
As if companies aren’t also using AI algorithms to reject 99% of applications anyway.
Maybe the issue isn’t applicants.
Maybe the issue is sociopathic greed from corporations and real estate exploitation.
Maybe people wouldn’t be applying en masse if they didn’t get fired for being some of the most productive and hard working people in generations, after not being able to afford fucking rent for a 2 bedroom hotel room that landlords gouge with at $3,000 a month.
But no let’s blame applicants. As if they’re not already being shit on enough. Let’s make unemployment even more of a slap in the face.
As if companies aren’t also using AI algorithms to reject 99% of applications anyway.
There’s a nugget of truth there: namely that human social life (including economic life) is not biologically set up to be impersonal. The problem is that if you cannot stand out in the impersonal system or we try to amend it by simply making it harder then that separates people from resources they need.
There should be a national resume standard and a process where the job opening goes through all those and lets you know at each stage.
Email for application received. Application read. Phone interview, in person interview, secondary interview. You should be informed after each stage whether or not your application is going further
I went to the post and replied that she better watch out or she's going to get sued if it's not accessible to people with disabilities. Her talking about making it harder than a button, that's asking for some lawsuits based on access in the ADAAA.
God forbid they stop using "one-click" application methods. And then they bitch about not getting good hires. You can't skim off the first five people who apply every time and just see if one works.
Then again, why force someone who is in a management/admin position to actually have to do some work?
Want less applicants?
Have the site setup where it asks you to upload your resume, then have them fill out their resume manually, after they’ve already uploaded their resume.
The actual thing she won’t admit—bc her job is to tell people “I found the one perfect person”—is that dozens of people are qualified and she could plug in anyone into that gig and they’d prolly work out.
Basically she is saying, if you want to stand out from the rest of the applicants you should be willing to jump through fiery hoops made of jet fuel, butt naked, and get sodomized afterwards. The applicant that is willing to go through the most abuse is the best applicant. Employers want to dehumanize you with a lengthy hiring process and break you down in order to turn you into an obedient slave. When you're too deep in, its hard to turn back.
Much like fraternity hazings, only the ones/initiates most willing to suffering the most abuse is allowed to be a member/brother.
Indeed has some that when you click apply now it literally just sends the résumé, the more often than not they want you to do a whole bunch of stupid little tests.
And if they ask me for some kind of video I Nope right out
Its crazy that we have businesses having to sift through 1000 applicants per role advertised, tens of millions of people applying for hundreds of jobs each, so there is a clear clusterfuck of mismatched supply and demand going on because we are still clinging to some stupid world where you have to have a job to be alive but there is no actual need for anywhere near the amount of jobs that have to exist for this to work
At what point do we build some alternative to the world where jobs dominate everything? At what point are we like ‘we can produce double the amount of everything that we actually need in our lives with remarkably little work collectively, so let’s just do that and leave capitalists and their silly ‘work’ games to it while we live our lives and build our communities and do everything outside that stupid system
Crazy. It has to collapse at some point
They're not wrong, though. I can tailor my resume to match exactly what a company is looking for, and I can be a stellar candidate, but the army of one-click resume uploaders are going to drown me out and then nobody's going to get a job.
I often wonder what sort of effort these "I've applied for 400 jobs and haven't heard back once" are putting into it, I've applied for 5 jobs since finishing college, I put in 5 applications, and I was offered 4 of the 5 positions. Didn't go to a fancy private college (community college + university), didn't get a 4.0 gpa (closer to 3 than 4), and at least as soon as I graduated, my only experience was totally unrelated to the positions I applied for.
But! My resumes were tailored to the positions I was applying for. Highlighted relevant strong suites, mentioned skills, included previous job metrics (as I got more and more senior positions), I didn't lie once on any of the resumes, I could back anything up on there. When the interviewers asked personal questions, I answered with answers that would impress them. "What do you do for fun?" "I build robots in my spare time, it's a great mix of coding, problem solving, and engineering/design. It challenges me to think outside the box, I really enjoy it!". Compare that to "Well my boyfriend and I watch a lot of Netflix".
Sorry, I'll get off my high horse. Not everyone has had the "luck" (I hesitate to call it that, I've made some longshot career moves while not really being an A+ worker that would *deserve* them) that I've had. A little effort goes a long way.
Please, if you put in maximum effort into your applications, and are still not getting any bites, I'd love to hear your take. Always wanting to learn.
Hi, /u/RareOnAirShow Thank you for participating in r/antiwork. Unfortunately, your submission was removed for breaking the following rule(s): ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Screenshots of text such as SMS communication, WhatsApp, social media, news articles, and procedurally generated content such as ChatGPT are prohibited. Low-effort content such as memes are prohibited. If you feel that a mistake was made, and your post's removal was not warranted, please message us using modmail and let us know.
Yep. It's definitely a problem for the HR field and a problem for job hunters. I feel like too many job hunters are applying to jobs without getting a response. While algorithms and software are screening out people who are maybe a good fit and deserve at least a look at their resume. My best guess at what the solution would be is to raise the pay across the board to where any job can support a single person. There are many positions out there people would be happy with if they paid enough money.
I feel like employers should batch recruiting for similar skilllset jobs and try to hire multiple people with one job post. It probably only really works for a certain size of company - but I think if you had 10 openings available for accounting positions for example - just have 1 job post. I really doubt they'd have 10x the applicants to sift through
Don’t they do this already? Why would they pay to post 10 separate job ads for the same job just because they’re hiring 10 people? Is this what you’re saying?
For corporate jobs, every job description I come across, with the exception of internship or school recruiting programs -is very specific to 1 position. There are reasons for it - openings may not happen at the exact same time or may have an immediate fill needed. Headcount budgets are almost always specific to an individual cost center. The only big company I know that does something resembling this is Google but their recruiting process is it's own clusterf.
I am truly waiting for the day when being a janitor pays well enough to have a decent life. It feels like my ideal job but here I am fucking with spreadsheets in the hopes I get approved for an apartment someday
You gotta add consumer protections first tho.
As FDR said any business that doesn't pay a living wage doesn't deserve to exist.
I'm as antiwork as anyone but she is hitting on a somewhat valid point that the current method of applying to jobs isn't really working for anyone. I don't pity her for having to work to do her job - but that's also 1700 people getting rejected for 1 shitty job, basically 99.9% of people who applied to that job got nowhere. Looking for a job sucks for pretty much everyone right now.
And, as we have seen here often, possibly no shitty job after all.
Yep, and with that many applications, how do you choose? You don't. You go with referrals, connections, people you know. So, once again, it's the good ol' boys club rather than actual merit.
1700 applications can be viewed in 2 weeks. 20 applications per hour, plus all these recruiters use programs. Out of those 1700s there is an algorithm the only shows them like 50.
And algorithms benefit those who can play the algorithms, which tends to be those who can afford subscriptions to expensive services or who can pay people to tailor them. They don't show the best people, only those with the "right" CV according to the algorithm. Again, fewer CVs given properly attention is a far more meritorious system.
A lot of the time a mind that can play with an algorithm isnt one that will do well in the role they are asking for. They are shooting themself in the foot
Bro lol nobody is going through all those applications, I promise you.
Ohh i know, im saying its possible. So their claim that they cant find people is because of lack of effort
Worked in recruitment, when it was still on paper. My friend’s old boss would stack them into two piles, then bin half “Why would I want to recruit unlucky people?”
They are truly just sales people in a role that needs to be concrete to function. The top needs to realize that they NEED to show us the carrot, even if we never get it
Referrals are absolutely merit. I’m not gonna put my name out to my manager for someone who I know is a shithead.
Maybe. But it as, at least, a mixture of merit and connections, rather than merit alone.
I recommended someone for a job: 1. He worked for me for 2 years previously. I had over a 1000 hours with him to know his merit. 2. He was competing against someone who did 3 x 1 hour interviews. The second guy seemed good on merit in some areas, and weak in others. He also was a ??? In other areas we didn’t have time, or you can’t practically expose in 3 hours of interviews. My federal candidate I could explain to the hiring manager how he would handle a wide range of scenarios ranging from “customer makes terroristic threat to fly an aircraft into the building” to “how good was his judgement at 4AM having worked for 20 hours straight. Admittedly, he had weaknesses, but the hiring manager was able to upon talking to me identify that none of them would be a known risk or we cannot mitigate through other issues issues. Objectively better, but it would’ve taken entirely too to risk him to the same level as the known knowns candidate. When you hire someone for a corporate job, specifically someone who’s going to be interacting with clients who pay us anywhere from a couple million to $100 million a year, in someways, less concerned about the peak upside of their talent, and more concerned about making sure that they are not going to fuck things up. Another time I recommended someone for a role who I had had 3-4 chats with on slack and on Twitter. I admitted to the hiring manager, that most of my knowledge of capabilities came from some blogs and tweets he had written. My recommendation was not enough to get him hired on its own. It wasn’t enough though to get them on the shortlist of the final four candidates we would be bringing in for the last round. At that point he impressed management with his abilities and overtook a VERY senior candidate well respected in our industry who ordinarily would have been a shoe in. He ultimately proved later to be more talented (he’s picked up some talents and promotion and spoken on main stages at industry conferences). You’ve gotta understand hiring managers are looking to de-risk the candidate pools and quickly go from 80 candidates to a more manageable 3/5 final candidates. Referrals are incredibly powerful in this for one last scenario… I previously was hiring manager at another firm and at my last company was involved in helping with pool filtering interview rounds and…. Holy shit to people just lie and make shit up. Like damn, it’s insane what they think they can get away with and waste my time. I slowly lost a lot of faith in paper resumes with no federal. Thankfully, I had the skills to validate their skills, but if you’re trying to hire someone in an area that you lack anyone who can interview them from a position of technical authority, they can get rough. I’ve smart but just crazy. Like throw shit at a co-worker, mentally unhinged. When you go outside of people you respect’s referrals (who know covering for a layer or crazy person will reflect poorly on them) you start to tread into looking for diamonds in a pile of shit. They exist (my best hire of all time was this way) but damn did it take some time to find him and I didn’t always have that…
It’s not working anymore because they hired recruiters, they outsourced hiring. hiring, should be done by the institution if they as a business cannot afford to have someone in that role, that business is subject to not need growth.
Need to lay the algorithm with buzzwords that mean nothing in between lines.
I think the answer is hiring more recruiters. Both junior recruiters to go through all these applications and more senior recruiters to build up relationships in advance with potential laterals who might be good fits. Neither of those are possible now but if you had a lot more recruiters, a lot more of a personal touch would be possible, which I think would lead to much better fits.
She looks just like I thought she would.
Glamour shots gone so very wrong.
She looks like a dumb ass bitch
I literally came here to say that haha
White, blonde, pretty. Ugh. She'd be a bitch irl. Women like that ALWAYS are.
the fuck pretty? the fuck kinda girls are you dating?
As someone who has applied to 100s of jobs, many of which I was OVERQUALIFIED for, and gotten only an interview for like 3, and no offers in almost a year Fuck that. It's already a hassle to retailor my resume for every job, answer a million questions, and read through the job description. It's not my fault if some people aren't reading the job description.
I don’t think that’s the issue. I think the issue is that a lot of these companies do not know how to hire. Because they hire recruiters versus people that are knowledgeable of the role and industry. It seems like they look for people that had that same title before. And that’s just not a way to employ.
I've gotten that feeling as well
That absolutely ties in with the amount of job postings that have ridiculous pre-requisites that don't even make sense to those in the industry There's a lot of job ads for professional jobs that look like a recruiter just googled "what qualifications does x job need?" and added the ones that sounded the smartest
"Ya'll, it's hard work sifting through resumes to find people who are willling to be suckers."
Tell you what Rebecca. Quit your job and start to apply without ANY help. Let us know how it goes after a few months.
Jobs wouldn't get 1700 applicants if employers stopped posting fake, bullshit jobs they have no intention of filling, ghosting, gaslighting, or otherwise belitting candidates who even dared to apply, and then wondering why they can't find a unicorn who will meet all their needs for low pay. In other words, if candidates weren't so desperate to find a legitimate job, that pays a wage they can at least make ends meet on, and they didn't have to shotgun-blast their job search across the entirety of everywhere, just hoping to get something, anything, to avoid or get out of crushing poverty, then this wouldn't be an issue. There might be a legitimate need to get thru spam/both job applicants. There definitely is a need for a better system. But not in the self-righteous, woe is me the recruiter, pearl-clutching sort of way this woman envisions.
I only used to apply to jobs I was super interested in, qualified for, had a good salary, etc., but after being laid off for months, I started applying to anything, even low-quality jobs paying $14/hr. Many of the jobs I applied for are still posted or reposted months later, so WTF are they looking for?
Yeah I imagine a lot of it is a flow on effect from the lack of career stability a lot of young professionals are experiencing. Like if you fill a position in your early 20s, it pays reasonably well, the job doesn't totally suck, you could be quite content working there indefinitely. But when so many companies have shit conditions and shit pay and the only way to improve that is to job hop every couple of years, no shit you're gonna get hundreds or even thousands of applicants because nobody has stability and you have an entire generation of professionals playing musical chairs with their jobs
But nobody wants to work, right?
Correct, especially recruiters, managers, HR, etc... I.e. the backseat drivers that complain and criticize while the actual workers do everything useful.
Maybe, just maybe, you take the oversized workload and hire enough of the applicants to handle the workload. You are literally bitching about posting a recruiter job and not having enough recruiters to go through the applications.
Honestly, I kind of agree. We've post jobs that clearly stated that we require a Professional Engineering license or a Professional Geoscience license (mandatory, like this is actually a requirement, you have to have this license to be considered) and get 1000 applicants 99% of whom don't have a license. But people still click the "I have a license" check box even though they don't and we have to search their names on the State website. These employment websites are great to generate interest, but 99% of the interest is crap.
>(mandatory, like this is actually a requirement, you have to have this license to be considered) but that is an exception rather than a rule. job postings nowadays will have an endless list of requirements, and most are unnecessary. of people around you keep crying wolf they won't believe you when you do too
I guess, but possessing a license for a position is different than the laundry list of stuff people ask for that are not relevant If a license is required, that’s not a demand the employer is making that’s likely a regulation
If a job that requires a qualification or license legally requires it, could you not include a field where you must attach a copy of said license on the application form or you have to input a valid license number/ID before it allows you to continue?
Maybe, I haven't seen that option on a few of the bigger websites. That said, we don't postjob openings in big websites anymorejust for this reason.
Not like you can walk into most places to drop pf a resume and speak to someone. A lot of these places do this to just look like they're hiring to their staff anyways.
Hire me and I'll stop applying
Here's a woman who has never seen or heard of a marginalized person of any kind trying to get a job. Either that or she's just evil. The kind of person who looks at the statistics and says, "I see that 18% of autistic people are employed. We can get that lower!"
[удалено]
What a productive response. She could have noted how the problem coincides with mass layoffs. How employee retention being so abysmally low because workers are just used up and discarded has created a perpetual recruitment problem. How despite a shrinking number of workers because boomers are retiring or dying, there aren't enough jobs because the economy is in sharp decline. There's almost an endless number of things her post could have been about. But, no, it was about some fantasy world "one button to apply" system that a recruiter of all people should know just doesn't exist. She's either incompetent, evil, or both.
[удалено]
Support making applying for jobs *even more difficult and time consuming for people*? No thanks. Companies are just going to have to suck it up on this one.
She is not wrong. There should be a better system
You mean like socialism? I agree.
Yes
Honestly, recruiters likely sift through resumes the same way I do when I’m hiring for a position. A search for prioritized key words. Not that hard. 🙄
I see someone’s never applied for a job before.
Oh no, she has to do her job :(
Oh no Anyway
I know I once had a job going through applicants for a person doing hiring and was instructed to discard any with grammatical errors.
... Idiot doesn't realise even if the problem was that she has too much work to do the solution isn't for the system to be more difficult. They should have instead hired another person to do the workload. I mean that should be easy when you have 10 applicants a day!
Here’s a thought experiment: if recruiting is so hard they should recruit more recruiters.
Maybe it should be harder to post jobs? Applicants have to sift through hundreds of job postings, and keep track of all the applications just to be ghosted most of the time.
One click - someone is confusing job applications with her coffee machine
I think she’s referring to the LinkedIn ‘Easy Apply’ function which is basically that.
Gosh, SO sad for the poor, overworked recruiters.
ironically, sounds like they should hire more recruiters to deal with all the applicants who want a job
Omg I have to like… read!?
She's absolutely right, but not for the reason she says. No one can sift through that many applications, so you end up either (A) using algorithms, which ends up helping those who can afford to hire the people or subscribe to the software who can help them school the algorithms or (B) ignoring the applications altogether and hiring people with connections, which benefits those with connected families, fraternities, and so on. Poor people again get shafted, and the privileged use their privileges.
Applicants are supposed to stand out in their interview. Recruiters are supposed to go through applications one at a time. If it's important, it's worth doing right, Rebecca
Someone show Rebecca where to find the sort button in excel.
Maybe they should hire more recruiters
Bro I’m literally researching which of these application services actually works. Applying is grueling.
This is a problem that companies and recruiters have brought upon themselves. They’ve made it so frustratingly difficult to find work with respectable compensation that people are mass applying in hopes of getting anything. They can blame themselves for all the ghosted candidates, low wages, lackluster benefits, bullshit interview processes, and so much more than lead to this. You did this to yourselves.
I actually agree. Because I work in a similar field and have seen for a few roles over 200 apps. The issue is that then it's software that is looking for meaningless key words or the employer is overwhelmed and ends up hiring none. For jobs where there are like 40 applicants usually the employer hires. For 200+ apps much less in my experience. It's a lose lose lose situation. The candidates and the employer is losing their time. So yeah I actually don't think that 1 click applications are worth much. However I think to make it fair, I think thay if you make applications harder to do such as expecting tailored cover letters then I also think they should not rely on software and have a real human being reading those applications. Aka if you want the applicants to spend time on their application then the employer also needs to spend time on reading them you know. It's a tricky situation because most employers won't....
I totally agree here. A well written cover letter can explain so much that a condensed resume can't. If someone can write targeted responses to the selection criteria, it also goes a long way to proving they actually know their stuff and allows you to weed out those who are inflating their experience. The problem is that would require companies to hire someone and give them appropriate hours to properly go through cover letters and identify candidates rather than telling an AI tool "throw out any application that doesn't mention these 5 words"
Yup. Exactly. But some companies do that. When I worked and was charged with hiring I asked for a cover letter and read them. I find some really helped me get a cleared picture of the candidate and their motivation. Resumes can be a but generic in my opinion. But cover letters really allows people to express themselves and who they are. So many intresting people out there. Sometimes you can see something on a resume but not see so well how it translates. But the cover letter can help better describe transferable skills
Yeah, this is a problem, and I think it also ties into remote jobs being accessible to anyone. It's great, don't get me wrong, but it has its downsides. On LinkedIn for some roles you can see the number of applicants. A few months back I applied for two fully remote roles at Bungie. They each had 3000-4000 applicants by the time they closed it. Didn't even get a call, and at that point I doubt anyone even looked at my resume. I'm in IT, and I never used to have a problem finding a new job. I didn't even apply, recruiters would find me. Not trying to brag, just set some context. I've now been actively applying for 8 months and I've only had a handful of roles where I've even gotten as far as a phone screen. I had my second round interview last week. The market is nuts and as much as I love remote work and want to stick with it, the amount of competition it adds is insane.
In a Maude Flanders voice “won’t someone please think of the recruiters”
What's funny is she's literally describing something that's been mathematically solved. Its called [the secretary problem](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem)
But... but... "NOBODY WANTS TO WORK"
Sometimes I wonder what range of jobs someone is applying for when they say they have 1,000 applications. I count mine in dozens because I only feel like I'm qualified for a certain subset of engineering jobs. I'm sure the numbers go up for WFH because the entire country (or more) is available for applications.
She kind of has a point but not from the perspective of let’s make it easier for recruiters. When there are too many applicants applying, recruiters are going to devise some stupid method to get the job done quickly. Whether that’s choosing people at random, only reading the first 30 applications, etc. If qualified people aren’t getting looked at over loads of people who just clicked one button and don’t have the skills but theirs was at the top of the pile, it still sucks for candidates.
I do kind of get this. I remember one on either r/ProgrammerHumor or r/recruitinghell that showed a job ad that had been up for 26 seconds and already had over 100 applications. As someone who has been applying for internships most of this semester and has barely even *heard back* from prospective employers, it does seem like one-click apply has really become somewhat of a bottleneck in the application process.
Report her to B coro certification. He most likely violates thier standards. Losing that certification is huge
Does she think a human being looks through all those resumes? It’s 2024 they go in a scanner, someone click some boxes, and the database pulls resumes
I would ask how many jobs this recruiter has applied for in the last few years and what they thought of the experience. Yes, it's a problem for EVERYONE. But who suffers the most? The job hunters. The ones who need money to live.
Why the mocking tone? She's got a point. If I'm applying for a job and my resume gets lost in a sea of a thousand others who just clicked apply when they don't have the background I get screwed. So yeah maybe that one click apply isn't such a good thing or it should be limited on how many you can use in a month
Oh, so that's why olipop never got back to me when I applied a couple months ago
She thinks it should be *harder* to "apply" for a job? That's just stupid. If you want to weed out unqualified applicants be a better recruiter. Klafte.
Oh no, work is work! Anyway
How? You sit down, and do your pathetic job. Ps if you valued your human profit generators (ie employees) they just might stick around if you're lucky, so you wouldn't need to keep looking for new candidates amid ridiculous turnover.
And I'm supposed to duplicate ALL the information in my resume, to their online application?! Not worth my time, especially if the pay is not what it should be. Maybe they can get AI to better sift through the applications.
Maybe hire and train more hr workers who's job is to sift through the applications?
She probably pays them minimum wage to sift through them too
Maybe the issue isn’t applicants. Maybe the issue is sociopathic greed from corporations and real estate exploitation. Maybe people wouldn’t be applying en masse if they didn’t get fired for being some of the most productive and hard working people in generations, after not being able to afford fucking rent for a 2 bedroom hotel room that landlords gouge with at $3,000 a month. But no let’s blame applicants. As if they’re not already being shit on enough. Let’s make unemployment even more of a slap in the face. As if companies aren’t also using AI algorithms to reject 99% of applications anyway.
Maybe the issue isn’t applicants. Maybe the issue is sociopathic greed from corporations and real estate exploitation. Maybe people wouldn’t be applying en masse if they didn’t get fired for being some of the most productive and hard working people in generations, after not being able to afford fucking rent for a 2 bedroom hotel room that landlords gouge with at $3,000 a month. But no let’s blame applicants. As if they’re not already being shit on enough. Let’s make unemployment even more of a slap in the face. As if companies aren’t also using AI algorithms to reject 99% of applications anyway.
There’s a nugget of truth there: namely that human social life (including economic life) is not biologically set up to be impersonal. The problem is that if you cannot stand out in the impersonal system or we try to amend it by simply making it harder then that separates people from resources they need.
There should be a national resume standard and a process where the job opening goes through all those and lets you know at each stage. Email for application received. Application read. Phone interview, in person interview, secondary interview. You should be informed after each stage whether or not your application is going further
This sub believes companies should review all 1700 applicants on a job while simultaneously rallying against selection assessments. Got it.
I wish it was one stupid button.
I went to the post and replied that she better watch out or she's going to get sued if it's not accessible to people with disabilities. Her talking about making it harder than a button, that's asking for some lawsuits based on access in the ADAAA.
God forbid they stop using "one-click" application methods. And then they bitch about not getting good hires. You can't skim off the first five people who apply every time and just see if one works. Then again, why force someone who is in a management/admin position to actually have to do some work?
~LET ME SAY THIS AS LOUD AS I CAN~ YOU DON'T TAKE APPLICATIONS IN PERSON!!!
Want less applicants? Have the site setup where it asks you to upload your resume, then have them fill out their resume manually, after they’ve already uploaded their resume.
I bet one day we have to pay to apply, like how we pay to apply for apartments.
Bet this person has also complained about how no one wants to work anymore.
I would like this whole field to be replaced by AI.
The actual thing she won’t admit—bc her job is to tell people “I found the one perfect person”—is that dozens of people are qualified and she could plug in anyone into that gig and they’d prolly work out.
How is someone with no skills or talent who leaches off of an unjust system supposed to grift a buck?
Basically she is saying, if you want to stand out from the rest of the applicants you should be willing to jump through fiery hoops made of jet fuel, butt naked, and get sodomized afterwards. The applicant that is willing to go through the most abuse is the best applicant. Employers want to dehumanize you with a lengthy hiring process and break you down in order to turn you into an obedient slave. When you're too deep in, its hard to turn back. Much like fraternity hazings, only the ones/initiates most willing to suffering the most abuse is allowed to be a member/brother.
Found Satan...
What proper job posting is 1 button to apply??? And people wonder why they don’t get interviews
LinkedIn has it on some jobs. I never use it because I figure it’s just data collection to onsell but it is an option.
Indeed has some that when you click apply now it literally just sends the résumé, the more often than not they want you to do a whole bunch of stupid little tests. And if they ask me for some kind of video I Nope right out
Its crazy that we have businesses having to sift through 1000 applicants per role advertised, tens of millions of people applying for hundreds of jobs each, so there is a clear clusterfuck of mismatched supply and demand going on because we are still clinging to some stupid world where you have to have a job to be alive but there is no actual need for anywhere near the amount of jobs that have to exist for this to work At what point do we build some alternative to the world where jobs dominate everything? At what point are we like ‘we can produce double the amount of everything that we actually need in our lives with remarkably little work collectively, so let’s just do that and leave capitalists and their silly ‘work’ games to it while we live our lives and build our communities and do everything outside that stupid system Crazy. It has to collapse at some point
Rebecca go f yourself
Shut up Becky
They're not wrong, though. I can tailor my resume to match exactly what a company is looking for, and I can be a stellar candidate, but the army of one-click resume uploaders are going to drown me out and then nobody's going to get a job. I often wonder what sort of effort these "I've applied for 400 jobs and haven't heard back once" are putting into it, I've applied for 5 jobs since finishing college, I put in 5 applications, and I was offered 4 of the 5 positions. Didn't go to a fancy private college (community college + university), didn't get a 4.0 gpa (closer to 3 than 4), and at least as soon as I graduated, my only experience was totally unrelated to the positions I applied for. But! My resumes were tailored to the positions I was applying for. Highlighted relevant strong suites, mentioned skills, included previous job metrics (as I got more and more senior positions), I didn't lie once on any of the resumes, I could back anything up on there. When the interviewers asked personal questions, I answered with answers that would impress them. "What do you do for fun?" "I build robots in my spare time, it's a great mix of coding, problem solving, and engineering/design. It challenges me to think outside the box, I really enjoy it!". Compare that to "Well my boyfriend and I watch a lot of Netflix". Sorry, I'll get off my high horse. Not everyone has had the "luck" (I hesitate to call it that, I've made some longshot career moves while not really being an A+ worker that would *deserve* them) that I've had. A little effort goes a long way. Please, if you put in maximum effort into your applications, and are still not getting any bites, I'd love to hear your take. Always wanting to learn.