i don’t usually respond to these kinds of emails, but this one made me so fucking mad that i blacked out and regained consciousness with this in my outbox

[davidcelis@xoxo.zone]

@cratermoon yeah, some bullshit about how “when companies pay, candidates become the product”… which, yeah? that’s how employment works. we sell our labor, a product, to an employer who has the budget to pay for labor. like, come on

[isagalaev@mastodon.social]

@davidcelis good!

[defractal@infosec.exchange]

@davidcelis Running that company in my jurisdiction would be a crime. Charging for job placement, matching, or application submission are illegal here, as are tying any paid resumé writing or training package to application or to helping a candidate apply. Perhaps such laws ought to be replicated elsewhere.

[tisba@ruby.social]

@davidcelis excellent reply!

[reijomancer@defcon.social]

@davidcelis One step away from paying in scrip - And they'd do that if they could too.

[erisceleste@tech.lgbt]

@davidcelis way back before my current job, out of desperation i tried signing up to an early incarnation of this idea

and from that experience my conclusion is still: when candidates pay, congratulations on completely removing the incentive to provide a product at all
the recruiting model only works because their paying customer is one that comes back when the recruiter does a good job; in this model, the paying customer only comes back when the recruiter fails

@cratermoon

[dss@infosec.exchange]

@reijomancer @davidcelis You already got funded for £3 trillion by a hundred AI bots!

[iwillyeah@mastodon.ie]

@deFractal @davidcelis where's that, if I may ask?

[merospit@infosec.exchange]

@deFractal @davidcelis Is it yet illegal to require an LLM be used to generate a resume?

There was a recent study where over 90% of job applications were rejected by company LLMs if they were not written by an LLM.

At that level any company with a non-human LLM as the first reviewer is already requiring a resume writing service be used.

[cratermoon@zirk.us]

@erisceleste @davidcelis I agree this is a terrible idea, but I find it funny to note, given how often companies are laying off scores of people regularly these days, a candidate-pays recruiter model might actually have repeat customers. Yeah I kind of hate this timeline.

[bhhaskin@social.bitsofsimplicity.com]

@davidcelis haha good luck with that. People aren't going to pay.

[zimzat@mastodon.social]

@davidcelis @cratermoon This reminds me of some job board that advertised itself as helping developers get the best paying jobs or some-such by matching relevant keywords (before the current AI and applicant tools). Submitted my resume and got told "You're not very popular with our jobs; it may help to say you know Python"

[rpbook@gts.phillipsuk.org]

@davidcelis Andre is right that it's a crazy idea

[wtl@mastodon.social]

@davidcelis @JessTheUnstill Perfect response.

[davep@infosec.exchange]

@davidcelis Perfect reply.

[eldersea@expressional.social]

@davidcelis Just like rental agencies where renters have to pay the realtor fees. Absolutely psychopathic/capitalist behavior. Great reply.

[avuko@infosec.exchange]

@davidcelis

Not only are you paying these fucking sociopaths, you’re actually paying to be handled by an AI agent.

I hate the stupid cruelty of this timeline.

hxxps://tryrefer[.]com/

[karlauerbach@sfba.social]

@davidcelis Employers can deduct hiring expenses from their taxes.

Can those seeing jobs deduct their costs? (And, if so, from what income - people seeking jobs sometimes don't have any income from which they can make a deduction.)

[peteriskrisjanis@toot.lv]

@davidcelis what an actual insanity is this

[hatemainstreetsm@mastodon.social]

@davidcelis of course you realize you're a f'n hero, right?