|
wateroverfire posted:No call, no show, and the interview was set up yesterday afternoon. This is the second one today. Why???? Each of these people is presumably looking for a job. They indicated interest literally 18 hours ago. And then...nothing. This happens a lot, at least here in Chile. I'd say the no-show rate for applicants is about 60%. At times like this I start thinking about what obligations we have to each other in this match making process. interviews tend to take place during the week during standard business hours, and there's a bias towards hiring folks currently employed so prospective hires have to waste their paid time off, or eat a loss in pay just to interview. I agree they should at least call if they no longer want the job, but part of this is an "effort vs position" kind of thing, and the hiring process should be appropriate for the position. Like if this is a minimum wage part time job with no real security, they shouldn't need to submit a full resume and block out an hour plus interview time. Hell, I'm currently looking to jump ship from my company and I've had a few annoying interactions ranging from this Screener: "[After phone interview] Great, we'd love to interview you in person, can we schedule something?" Me: "Sure, I'm actually going on a trip next weekend, and took a day or two off to do some prep [and have a few other interviews scheduled too] do [these dates work]? Screener:"Oh, we're actually looking for something sooner, could we meet this week instead? Let me follow up with the management you'd work for and get back to you with dates." Me: "Sure, just give me a day or two notice, since I'd need to balance my schedule. Wednesday is the only day I'm not free since I'm meeting with a client." And they never called back. A company requested I fill out and bring a generic application after my second interview. They've already seen my resume, they've already met and talked to me. Now they want a sheet with my hobbies, and 3 professional references? To silliness like a company expecting a bilingual candidate with a master's degree in an incredibly specific field, 5-10 years experience doing literally the exact same job at pretty much their company, and offering roughly 30% below industry standard for the position (which usually requires 2-5 years experience OR a bachelors in a relevant field). Coolness Averted fucked around with this message at 17:11 on May 9, 2019 |
#
¿
May 9, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
yeah it's also weird that there's so much drat kabuki theatre that has to go on during interviews and hiring 90% of people leaving their current job are leaving it because their current employer or supervisor sucks, or because of the dumb way wages and raises never keep up with the market rates, so you're always gonna get a better deal as a new hire with your experience and credentials vs sticking around. But you can't say that, you can't even say "I liked the company, but my boss's new boss has some bad ideas and my boss's hands were tied." You have to have maxed out your room for growth there, or be looking to learn from new experiences. They're gonna lowball you, and you both know what industry standard pay is so you need to say "I make X and would need that plus some incentive to leave, but incentives and perks such as blah blah blah or good benefits can factor into that." but X isn't really what you're making, it's actually your target salary or closer to market rate, so you can actually haggle a decent pay. it's a transactional loving relationship, but both parties have to feign it's more. One party is just far more on the hook for pretending
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
Prokhor Zakharov posted:You aren't paying enough. If you were paying what the work was worth people would show up. yeah that's another fun thing, the whole masking compensation shtick. Out of the 30 or so places I've applied and 5 or 6 that have headhunted me this go round, only about 10 have upfront disclosed a compensation range in their posting or solicitation. All of the others won't go into that until the screener, and most wanna play "Show me yours and I'll show you mine" first, and there's a bunch I didn't bother with for the same reason. I'm just glad I'm currently employed so can flat out refuse to go beyond the screener call or phone interview without knowing they'll offer me at least my asking price. Coolness Averted fucked around with this message at 19:03 on May 9, 2019 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:If anything the unemployed have less explicit security here than in the US though, so idk? Yeah a degree of social safety net (even if it's more family or community than from the state) will also influence things. Oh have you found out if your going rate is competitive locally, rather than just compared to the national or industry average? That's been something I've seen too. for example I live in a high cost of living area, so it doesn't matter if a wage is higher than industry standard if it doesn't cover rent here.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2019 19:03
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:It's also consistently ranked one of the top handful of cities in the world to live in. That's how living in big cities works. The cost of living goes up because of the demand, and people pay it because they want to have easy access to the nightlife, food, and events that happen there. There's always people who will accept marginally higher wages and a significantly higher cost of living to live in a place like that, and the number of immigrants coming to Vancouver is a testament to that. Canada's issue is rooted more in its demographics. It's got a very old workforce, to the point that immigration is only a band-aid. Counterpoint: people need to eat, and consistently those population hubs are where more of the jobs are. So while there are certainly people who flock to the city for all of the cool perks of metropolitan life, I'd argue there's a bigger chunk of people playing triage. Since they need to eat, and a company can work at 'reduced efficiency' or just squeeze more out of current workers longer than prospective hires can go without food or shelter, negotiations are skewed in the employer's and landlord's favor. That's why people accept a marginal pay bump for significant cost of living increases.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2019 15:09
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:That's a common reason why people would move to some of the other big regional cities in Canada, but not Vancouver. Like no retail worker is moving to or living in San Francisco because it makes the most sense financially. But there are retail and 'entry level' workers in those areas generally making negative money, but eating. I just don't buy they're all doing it for the glamour of living in the big city. Or commuting 2-4 hours a day for the prestige of that workplace.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2019 16:26
|
|
|
Flannelette posted:My small sample of this is usually the person has a bunch of other interviews and jobs and they get something better first or something more important comes up in their life and since all the employers have been ghosting them when the reverse situation happens they just think that's what's expected in return now. Yeah, hell I've even had property managers no show/stop answering phone calls while I was literally standing outside the building after I made an appointment to view a place because they had found someone to rent it while I was driving over. The lack of common courtesy shown by businesses when they have the slightest whiff of imbalanced power is what leads to people greeting them in kind.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2019 15:01
|
|
|
How are u posted:When you think about it it's really your own fault for being so powerless that I"m forced to exploit you. Look I think it's incredibly ~toxic~ when you point out in plain language just how raw of a deal you're getting and that this isn't a negotiation in good faith. Couldn't you just smile a bit more and take it? It would make this far more pleasant for both of us. I like to think of Company Inc as more as a family than a business. This isn't transactional, we're building something together -Daddy's vast horde of wealth. In this family analogy, I am the good son and it's my duty to ensure Daddy is treated well, and I get certain benefits for that. It's your job as the family mule to do whatever I want, otherwise you get the rod. Also when you get too old or costly to keep around, we'll put you out of your misery. Daddy would never do that to me.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2019 17:29
|
|
|
Alternatively, we may be hiring a second good boy, in which case it is your job to make sure the mules work and Daddy is happy with us. Once again I want to remind you Daddy would never treat us like the family's mules.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Wait so they get paid 7% less but they get to choose which other knobhead gets it? depends on how it's implemented, medical costs, and how much out of pocket expenses the insured is expected to foot. If for example it's just the US model, where there are copays and deductibles, so in practice insurance doesn't really kick in until you've paid 14% of the median household income, plus that 7% of your check they automatically get) and a ton of other weasel bullshit like "Oh yeah we covered that surgery and the hospital was in network, but not the anesthesiologist who worked there, so you owe the half a year's median pay he charges," yeah that's awful. If there's better controls or it's pretty much just "Yeah you pay 7% of your income, but are guaranteed healthcare with no time of service charges" yeah that's okay.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Something like 2.5% of the workforce aged 16+ make minimum wage so nah, it's a rare few that don't move on to bigger and better things. Besides wampa's very obvious and relevant "What about people making a penny more?" that percentage is very misleading. That's just full-time employees paid an hourly wage making the federal minimum (or less due to exempted categories). 29 states and DC have a mandated wage above that NY and CA included. It's also worth noting the drop from 10%-ish of the workforce making the federal minimum to the current 2.5 between 2010 - 2017 also lines up roughly with the heavy shift to part time workers and contractors. You're just flat out wrong if you believe poverty wages are for teens https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-workers-older-88-percent-workers-benefit/ this is slightly older data, but I've seen no reason to assume zoomers have taken over the economy since 2013. edit: paineframe'd! 
Coolness Averted fucked around with this message at 21:39 on May 14, 2019 |
|
#
¿
May 14, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
So sticking with the general hiring practices thing, I recently had an interview with the most bizzare question I've ever been asked. 'If our company <did a crime> knowingly for profit would you as <position in charge of preventing that crime> report it to authorities?' I had to give a long 'I can see how these situations pop up, and why someone focused on another metric/day to day operations could make that choice. In my experience explaining the risk they're taking or going above them to their supervisors and if need be corporate usually solves the problem.' They still pressed for a direct answer, and my response was 'If the risk is great enough to push into mandatory reporting requirements, and I went all the way up the chain of command -I would have to report it, yes. The extra liability of getting caught hiding it outweighs any benefit from sweeping it under the rug" In a seperate interview HR also tried negging me/seeing how I'd react to a casual 'Oh if you had a consulting firm auditing your work quarterly, that means they were really the ones doing your job, right?' Lol it's gonna rule if I don't get a job because I didn't say I'd risk jail time and losing licenses during interviews.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2019 02:13
|
|
|
The Aardvark posted:1300 is cheap for San Diego. Average rent is $1960 now. It's kinda funny that article comes very close to spelling out why mean is a lovely stat easily thrown off by outliers by directly admitting new 3k a month luxury developments significantly skewed the data. The 'real' average was closer to 1.7k (still pricey) but then they also admitted they weren't differentiating between different room counts or unit sizes, but that big 2 bedroom units were the most common. Compared to most areas of LA and Orange County (let alone bay area or Sacramento) 1.7k for a nice 2 bedroom is a good deal.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2019 07:07
|
|
|
Y'all know (besides being outdated) those figures for 'livable wage' are just what it requires to stick to the classic 'rent and utilities are 1/3 of your income' for a 2 bedroom apartment, right? It doesn't actually consider other expenses. Also no one is trying to loving doxx volker, But I do agree 'lol your parents must be rich' is a bad tact. The problem with the economy isn't that no one can ever be comfortable unless things were heavily rigged in their favor, it's that so many gotchas are in place that when things don't work there's always something a just world pedant can point to as the 'obvious mistake' made. Like for example I've made the 'obvious mistake' of choosing a disabled partner, who also made the obvious mistake of working in education. So they don't pull their full weight in making our numbers go up. Luckily we haven't made the mistake of adding non-economically productive members to our household. But if we ever do, and actually suffer economic hardship from it, there'll be a braingenius ready to explain that surely we're outliers and he's never heard of a child costing that much, or surely it was our own fault for not having had a child during prime breeding years. Or maybe we should've crunched the math and figured out only the top 60% of earners should breed. Here's an article with California's more recent number, which is 67k. It also shows the hourly full time wage needed for each state to keep that same ratio. https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Over-30-Dollars-a-Hour-is-Needed-to-Afford-Decent-Rent-in-California-485861801.html
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2019 14:30
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Hopefully if they offer it to you you're going to run far, far away? O.o It kinda depends, the company that negged me, yeah that's probably gonna be a pass without a generous offer. But the "Would you report <crime>?" question could be a useful test of "Is this applicant looking to just say what I want to hear, or are they going to enforce the policies that keep us compliant?" if anything their not making an offer would be more damning since then it would look like they passed on a skilled candidate for saying he wouldn't break the law. I've just never directly been asked that as a hypothetical. Coolness Averted fucked around with this message at 23:25 on May 16, 2019 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2019 22:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
doverhog posted:Do you wanna justify that position and tell us why anyone would want to train to become a doctor under those conditions? Some people will do things because society needs it, they have a proclivity or skill for it, or they actually enjoy doing an activity. Also in the same way capitalism has figured out medics, nurses, nurse practitioners, medical assistants and OR techs can do some of the stuff doctors used to exclusively do. Additionally certain roles are less required than others so you could take a position because of scheduling too. Also medical school and doing your rounds is largely hell now as a way of creating artificial scarcity while making doctors feel they 'earned' their high wages.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2019 01:18
|
|