Should Employers Pay to Interview You?

[CaptainCrunch]

I think just to re-iterate, a companies filtering process usually involves several hunderd resumes being filtered down to 5 to 10 resumes and then multiple interviews. If they bought 10 people in for interviews that's probably an hour of so of giving feed back to unsuccessful candidate. So there is a time and effort thing happening there.

On top of that no HR person is going to give you the brutal honest feed back that you require, because of political sensibilities they could open the company and themselves up to things like discrimination suits or human rights violations or agism issues or whatever. Companies no longer want to expose themselves to that possibility by a vindictive failed candidate. Its the same reason why companies are hesitant to give references especially if they're negative because that can be actionable.

Any HR manager will basically state that the hired candidate was a better fit and not go into specifics.

I get some people and myself are saying that your not getting notified when your eliminated and that communication from the hiring company is poor. However remember at the same time that the hiring company is evaluating you, you should be evaluating them and if your not happy with that communication and it grinds your gears then its probably not the company for you.

You do have a right to call and ask about the process and why you didn't get the job, but they are not obligated to do anything but the basics that are laid out in their procedures guides.

As far as the paying interview.

when I worked in HR consulting the latest buzzword was counterfeit candidate, these were professional job seekers that were canny enough to get interviews fake their way into interviews and know how to talk the talk. They would have immaculate references (fake) and sometimes fake educational levels. Their intent was to get a job, get a paid vacation for a few months and then move on.

If companies suddenly started paying you would see fraudulent candidates go through the roof.

Some companies get around that with a retaining bonus instead of a hiring bonus. If you get passed the probationary period and are on your way to being a valued employee you will get that bonus.

The day of signing bonuses is slowly fading out of sight

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Because there was the sentiment that the interviewee shouldn't expect anything in return because they didn't pay the company to interview them, and they should just be happy to have had the opportunity to be interviewed in the first place.

Similarly, any kind of care you got for your pet, because it was free, you should just be grateful for.

An interview is not a guarantee of anything and its not a mutual transaction. Its a sales call. You should be happy to have the opportunity to interview.

The dog thing is a service or business transaction even if its freea nd there should be an expectation of service.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Because there was the sentiment that the interviewee shouldn't expect anything in return because they didn't pay the company to interview them, and they should just be happy to have had the opportunity to be interviewed in the first place.

Similarly, any kind of care you got for your pet, because it was free, you should just be grateful for.

This is just bizarre. The lack of expectation for anything in return has nothing to do with payment, it has to do with the fact that this is an interview, not a favor done by a friend. If you asked your friend to do you the favor of putting you through a mock interview then you should expect feedback, if you interview for an actual job you should not.

An interview is a business transaction, think of it as a sales call where the product being sold is you.

If you were selling software and went into a sales call and had someone say 'I think we're going to go with something else' would you feel entitled to an explanation?

[IgiTang]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

It would also lead to a specialized field of applicants that can stay unemployed and make a nice living by being a counterfeit candidate who's sole goal is to get to a paid interview stage but have no interest in actually getting offers.

Lets say that you could set an interview cost at $100.00, all you'd need to do is set up 2 interviews a day and you would basically make at least $4000.00 per month and it would literally be nontaxable and untraceable.

.

Uhh, thats suggesting this type of "worker"? would get an estimated 40 job interviews a months, considering weekends. 60 interviews including weekends. That would be between 480 - 600 interviews a year. Earning between $48K and $60/yr. If that was possible..

I dont think the market could sustain such a high rate of employers doing interviews for 1, for 2 who would want to drop off that many resumes a year in hopes (or lack there of) for a job.


And to answer another poster... If the date in which they said they would announce the winning candidate goes by, start looking for another prospective employer... Dont look for a loophole to "make them pay" lol.

[Flames89]

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Because there was the sentiment that the interviewee shouldn't expect anything in return because they didn't pay the company to interview them, and they should just be happy to have had the opportunity to be interviewed in the first place.

Similarly, any kind of care you got for your pet, because it was free, you should just be grateful for.

I was hoping you had a more convincing reason than that. That is a HORRIBLE comparison.

What you're doing is comparing a job interview, to actually being given a job and then proceeding to do it poorly. You picking that friend to watch your pet is the equivalent of hiring them (ie: post interview). You've agreed upon an amount for compensation, "free" or "you watch my pet next time" or whatever.

[Minnie]

To clarify, I don't agree with the paying to interview part of this. I do recognize the frustration at a company not getting back to you within the time frame they say they will but as I said, I just can't figure out how this would even work, aside from getting you blacklisted/blackballed within your industry. Thought it might make for a slightly interesting discussion though.

[V]

Originally Posted by valo403

5 minutes adds up. If I took 5 minutes to write a helpful email to everyone I interviewed during the last hiring season I'd have spent at least 2 hours writing emails. And asking people to tell you what you did or didn't do that lead to you not being chosen is asking for career guidance, I'm not sure how you can call it anything but.

I have no idea what relevance your example has on this. Prospective employers are not your friends and they are not doing you a favor. That example makes no sense.

It's entirely unprofessional to not even call someone you interviewed if they didn't get the job. While you're on the phone you may as well take the 30 seconds to give a reason why they didn't get the job. 5 minutes is a little silly.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by V

It's entirely unprofessional to not even call someone you interviewed if they didn't get the job. While you're on the phone you may as well take the 30 seconds to give a reason why they didn't get the job. 5 minutes is a little silly.

Perhaps if you're only interviewing a few candidates that's reasonable, but for me that would literally be calling dozens of people. It's not reasonable and it's not expected in my industry. Is that expected in any industry?

[V]

Pretty much every industry that I know of. It's bush league not to call unsuccessful applicants. Comes off a little yellow, to be honest.

Last year I hired 17 people. For each of those hires there were at least 3 unsuccessful candidates, sometimes as many as 6. So I had to call about 75 unsuccessful applicants. Each phone call probably takes about 2 minutes. So over a year that's about 2 1/2 hours of phone time, and I'm guessing most hiring managers don't hire that many people in one year. I can tell you I spend more time on CP in a year than 2 1/2 hours.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by valo403

Perhaps if you're only interviewing a few candidates that's reasonable, but for me that would literally be calling dozens of people. It's not reasonable and it's not expected in my industry. Is that expected in any industry?

I think it depends entirely on whether the interviewer said they'd call or not. Many job ads say they'll only contact successful applicants. If you're upfront about it, I don't see the issue. If you tell people you're going to call them back during the interview, you probably should. Some of the complaints are about that specifically.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by V

Pretty much every industry that I know of. It's bush league not to call unsuccessful applicants. Comes off a little yellow, to be honest.

Last year I hired 17 people. For each of those hires there were at least 3 unsuccessful candidates, sometimes as many as 6. So I had to call about 75 unsuccessful applicants. Each phone call probably takes about 2 minutes. So over a year that's about 2 1/2 hours of phone time, and I'm guessing most hiring managers don't hire that many people in one year. I can tell you I spend more time on CP in a year than 2 1/2 hours.

I have never, in any industry, received a call from someone to tell me I wasn't hired and why. I don't know that I have ever even heard of that happening.

Not saying it doesn't happen, just that I don't think it's at all commonplace.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by valo403

I have never, in any industry, received a call from someone to tell me I wasn't hired and why. I don't know that I have ever even heard of that happening.

Not saying it doesn't happen, just that I don't think it's at all commonplace.

I have, in the past, received one letter from one place and one phone call from another place, telling me I was not going to be granted the position.

The place I received the letter from, later hired me for a different position when I applied a couple years later. That same company may be one of the few that I know does actually call unsuccessful applicants, at least in the department I worked in. I was privy to the phone calls, simply because I shared a space with the supervisor who had to make the calls. I don't think it's typical, by any means.

[Wormius]

I don't expect employers to be that forthcoming, but if they email me the standard PFO response that I wasn't hired, and I query why, I believe it's reasonable to expect a constructive reply. If employers are concerned with lawsuits over discrimination, that's one thing, but if they thought you were weak in some area, there isn't any reason why they can't state that.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I don't expect employers to be that forthcoming, but if they email me the standard PFO response that I wasn't hired, and I query why, I believe it's reasonable to expect a constructive reply. If employers are concerned with lawsuits over discrimination, that's one thing, but if they thought you were weak in some area, there isn't any reason why they can't state that.

A blanket policy of not commenting is much safer than one that opens the door to an HR staffer saying/writing something that could be construed as discriminatory. Policies should never allow non-lawyers to determine what is and isn't okay to say, it's just bad practice.

[V]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I don't expect employers to be that forthcoming, but if they email me the standard PFO response that I wasn't hired, and I query why, I believe it's reasonable to expect a constructive reply. If employers are concerned with lawsuits over discrimination, that's one thing, but if they thought you were weak in some area, there isn't any reason why they can't state that.

There are a lot of reasons, actually.

I know for me that there is one chance for contact, and if company policy is like valo says, where you just send an email, I wouldn't be communicating outside of that. Even in my case, where I call people to let them know, you're getting about 30 seconds, and that's it. I'm not your career counsellor. I mention 1 or 2 things and that's it. It's not a debate.

[Minnie]

I wish I could find it again but I read an article just the other day about questions you can ask at the conclusion of an interview, when you are asked if you have any questions to ask of the interviewer. It was pretty interesting. Among them was to ask "if you were to decline to hire me, what would be the reasons for that decision? In other words, what area of this interview did you not find me to be strong in, and what do you think I could do to improve?" I'll google and see if I can find it again.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I don't expect employers to be that forthcoming, but if they email me the standard PFO response that I wasn't hired, and I query why, I believe it's reasonable to expect a constructive reply. If employers are concerned with lawsuits over discrimination, that's one thing, but if they thought you were weak in some area, there isn't any reason why they can't state that.

It's a tough area. I know I wish I could give more feedback to an applicant, but it comes down to a couple things:

1) Finding out that you didn't get a job can be a pretty emotional thing for an applicant - then subsequently piling on and telling them why can make things a lot worse. I have had candidates ask for feedback on the phone, then proceed argue or plead their case about it.

2) You don't want to go anywhere near a human rights tribunal. A standard response is always the best to avoid any sort of liability. If you proceed to give feedback to an applicant that they don't particularly think is fair, they could easily turn it around on you.

[albertGQ]

Originally Posted by Minnie

I wish I could find it again but I read an article just the other day about questions you can ask at the conclusion of an interview, when you are asked if you have any questions to ask of the interviewer. It was pretty interesting. Among them was to ask "if you were to decline to hire me, what would be the reasons for that decision? In other words, what area of this interview did you not find me to be strong in, and what do you think I could do to improve?" I'll google and see if I can find it again.

That sounds like a defeatist attitude

I go into interviews believing that I'm the best candidate. I give them the perception that there is no other choice than myself. I don't even want them to think of not hiring me.

I don't like that advice at all.

I always research the company and ask questions based on that.

I interviewed with Resmor 18 months ago. I found out they had $5.9B worth of mortgages on their books. I asked them what their action plan was in order to get to $6B and beyond. They loved that question and was more than happy to talk about themselves for a bit (after all, we did just spend 45 minutes talking about me).

IMO, that's much better than getting them to think about reasons not to hire me.

[Minnie]

Ok I did remember it wrong. I was trying to go simply off memory and a quick skim of the article. It's vaguely similar.

It was 'Is there anything that stands out to you that makes you think I might not be the right fit for this job?' - it's supposed to give you a chance to redeem any hesitations the employer might have about you and demonstrate an ability to take constructive criticism and show that you are eager to improve.