Not only does this disincentivize HR from running fake vacancies or stringing multiple candidates on just to keep their options open, but it also solves the problem of unemployed people job-searching effectively working full-time for free. The fact that companies would have to pay to hire workers would mean they try to make the selection as short and effective as possible.

  • thevoidzero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Interviews actually cost the company. They have to pay those people interviewing you, and not working for clients at that time. That’s why I don’t see many applications going to interview phase at all. Most applications are just filtered by AI, or some HR and it never goes to the actual hiring manager. And they don’t interview unless they are pretty sure about wanting to hire the candidate. At least the companies without ghost jobs do that.

    But HR only interviews are probably different, they might do interviews to justify their job.

    • zbyte64@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      OK, but who does it cost more? The person being interviewed is also burning opportunity and time but we assume it’s free because no one is paying them?

      • HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Sounds like it wastes both sides’ time and money, but measuring up to determine who is wasting the most time and money doesn’t really help anything other than furthering Whataboutisms.

        Ideally, we change to a system that doesn’t do that (nearly as much).