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.
Love it.
Unfortunately, then there would be professional candidates who just never accept a job.
There’s no way that would be a viable career.
Your argument sounds similar to anti-welfare arguments. Sure, some people may abuse the system, but it wouldn’t pay that well, and the positives to society would greatly outweigh any abuse.
I agree with all of that actually. I’m just used to trying to find the failure mode of anything that sounds good lately.
Yeah if it could be enforced I think it might be viable.
Exactly, for every one person who abuses the rule to get 10 hours of labor paid to them in exchange for doing no work, you’ll have 999 people that are actually using the system as intended.
Are you really the kind of person that’ll fuck over 999 people just to make sure that one person doesn’t get ahead in a sneaky way?
Not to mention, some companies right now are abusing interview candidates to get free work with “trial project” type assignments, or “How would you fix this problem, if you were hired?” type of free consultations. If some candidates abused the companies in return, I’d call that fair play.
But think of the shareholders. Who’s helping them out?
Then there would be professional candidates who
just never accept a jobstart getting blacklisted really quickly from a means of income that’s vastly more difficult, less fulfilling, less stable, and less efficient than just having a stable job.*FTFY
Ah, so you are thinking there would be a centralized system to track applicants* (perhaps the same one that handles payment) - this sounds feasible, the infrastructure mostly already exists (in the US) in state unemployment departments.
*(without it centralized, each company only sees a person once and doesn’t know if they accepted another offer or whatnot)
The rest of your points are also good, I don’t actually think it would be a big issue, I just had the knee jerk reaction to think about how any good idea would fail these days.
You could probably do a professional interviewer job for something like restaurant work in a major metropolitan area (but restaurants probably won’t do this and would just start hiring through referral or from resumes instead), but most industries are small enough that companies would talk. I haven’t worked in my previous field for five years, but checking now, I still know people at all of the major companies for it. If I were to apply at any of them, someone would see that I’d worked at companies X and Y, then they’d ask all of the people at their company who’d previously worked at company X or Y, to see if anyone knew me. If I were to try to be a vocational applicant like this, I’d develop a reputation pretty quickly.
Companies would just get even more suspicious about long resume gaps or people trying out a new field.
Ok, the money goes to a local college, using companies inability to find candidate to fund producing better candidates seems fitting.
Maybe calculated as 1.5 days labor for the posted salary or median compensation for that job, whichever is greater.