Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But to be fair these companies are receiving lots of resumes and don't have the time to respond and acknowledge them all. But now if they call you for an interview and you go and then they don't let you know something, then that tells you something. The very least they can do after an in person interview is to let you know something, but in some cases they do not.
How expensive would it be to send an automated e-mail to job applicants not hired? Some of those companies may regret being so callous once the job market improves and they can't fill positions because they've pissed off too many applicants and developed a bad reputation.
Here's an idea to put a curb on this: Require employers to pay interviewees for their time, plus travel expenses (mileage and parking, etc).
I have had a number of interviews over the years where I was reimbursed for mileage and other travel-related expenses by the company doing the interviewing.
If they were really looking to hire somebody, they wouldn't need 8 or 9 rounds of interviews. Why do they do it?
1) Keeps HR busy, thus employed
2) Allows some companies to claim, "Oh, woah is us - we can't find any qualified people! We need to import more visa workers and pay them low wages to fix the lack of 'qualified' Americans!"
3) Keeps the illusion of The Recovery going, as well as "the unemployed deserve to be out of work."
Any job with that long an interview process is probably not real unless it is some sort of expert-level or executive position, and even those don't need 8 flippin' rounds of interviews.
Considering how many "job" postings I've seen floating around online and in company emails for almost 3 years, I can safely say that none of those jobs are real, and I went on interviews for plenty of them - multiple rounds, sometimes - and nobody was hired in the end.
How expensive would it be to send an automated e-mail to job applicants not hired? Some of those companies may regret being so callous once the job market improves and they can't fill positions because they've pissed off too many applicants and developed a bad reputation.
I have gotten a few (very few) automated messages and acknowledgements when I have sent a resume online. However, often times I have received nothing. There have also been occasions where I was chosen for an in person interview and did not hear anything.
If they were really looking to hire somebody, they wouldn't need 8 or 9 rounds of interviews. Why do they do it?
1) Keeps HR busy, thus employed
2) Allows some companies to claim, "Oh, woah is us - we can't find any qualified people! We need to import more visa workers and pay them low wages to fix the lack of 'qualified' Americans!"
3) Keeps the illusion of The Recovery going, as well as "the unemployed deserve to be out of work."
Any job with that long an interview process is probably not real unless it is some sort of expert-level or executive position, and even those don't need 8 flippin' rounds of interviews.
Considering how many "job" postings I've seen floating around online and in company emails for almost 3 years, I can safely say that none of those jobs are real, and I went on interviews for plenty of them - multiple rounds, sometimes - and nobody was hired in the end.
Regarding the bolded: I have seen a couple of jobs that are constantly advertised online and has been for nearly 2 years. I would guess that the jobs are probably not real or either they are holding out for the perfect person that can hit the ground running.
About 10 years ago, I would usually interview one or two times and a decision was made. Now, I have had instances of 4-5 rounds of interviews, before a decision was made. Seems to be commonplace these days.
Regarding the bolded: I have seen a couple of jobs that are constantly advertised online and has been for nearly 2 years. I would guess that the jobs are probably not real or either they are holding out for the perfect person that can hit the ground running.
I'm going to put my money on the fact that the jobs were fake.
It depends on what you mean as a "round".
If a "round" is one person then 8-9 "rounds" isn't uncommon.
If a "round" is one in-person session which involves multiple interviews then 8-9 "rounds" seems excessive.
"Mr. Sullivan has received eighth- and ninth-round callbacks for positions at three different companies. Two of those companies, as it turned out, ultimately decided not to hire anyone, he said; instead they put their openings “on hold” because of budget pressures."
It's interesting that companies decided not to hire because of "budget pressures," yet they had the money to advertise the position, contacted the interviewees and pay the salary of the interviewers. It's expensive in terms of manpower to have such a prolonged interviewing process.
If they were really looking to hire somebody, they wouldn't need 8 or 9 rounds of interviews. Why do they do it?
1) Keeps HR busy, thus employed 2) Allows some companies to claim, "Oh, woah is us - we can't find any qualified people! We need to import more visa workers and pay them low wages to fix the lack of 'qualified' Americans!"
3) Keeps the illusion of The Recovery going, as well as "the unemployed deserve to be out of work."
Any job with that long an interview process is probably not real unless it is some sort of expert-level or executive position, and even those don't need 8 flippin' rounds of interviews.
Considering how many "job" postings I've seen floating around online and in company emails for almost 3 years, I can safely say that none of those jobs are real, and I went on interviews for plenty of them - multiple rounds, sometimes - and nobody was hired in the end.
The article cites Google as a company with a prolonged interview process. Of course, Google uses h-1b visas and is lobbying Congress to expand the program. The so-called "labor shortage" didn't ,however, prevent Google from giving their chairman a huge pay package. Ex-CEO Schmidt gets $101M pay package in new Google job
Of course if they didn't spend so much on such compensation packages that would be able to offer a higher wage to rank and file workers and there would be no phony "labor shortage."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.