undefined | Better HN

0 pointsFredPret1y ago0 comments

There is a cost to the employer.

Any smallish 1-2 hour meeting with a couple of people on it can easily cost thousands if you work out people’s hourly wage.

Add on the context-switching costs impacting the rest of their workdays.

Then add the reputational damage among jobseekers - when word gets out that a company is a timewaster, qualified people will be less likely to apply.

0 comments

toomuchtodo1y ago

Talent acquisition is the cost of being in business. Hiring is hard, I admit. Being efficient while remaining within legal and regulatory frameworks is fine and expected, fraud and misrepresentation through job postings with no intent to hire is not.

FredPretOP1y ago

I know; I’m saying it bites these companies in the ass when their hiring is broken.

johnnyanmac1y ago

it does, but the damage isn't proportional to job seekers and there can even be malicious incentives to do this. That should be punished and discouraged.

We've seen for a long time now that companies will put up with a lot of inefficiencies for various other bottom lines.

1 more reply

rightbyte1y ago

I guess there is some cost for the job ad too.

It is quite common with some sort of time consuming application process before interviews, where only the applicant waste time. Like, the employers seem to use "willing to waste time" as some sort of filter.

E.g. my brother applied for a job this summer and was pre-screened by some sort of chat bot, which I guess will become way more common.

shiroiushi1y ago

>Any smallish 1-2 hour meeting with a couple of people on it can easily cost thousands if you work out people’s hourly wage.

Companies expect employees to work late, for free, to get their duties done, so time spent on time-wasting hiring meetings only affect the employees, not the company's finances.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse