
Should Employers Pay to Interview You? - alanfalcon
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2013/05/ask-the-headhunter-should-empl.html
======
adrianhoward
I've had a policy of paying folk I interview for a while. Not for any initial
phone interview or brief (hour to half day interview) - but for any "work"
style exercises we do (either design for UX folk, or coding for dev folk).
Usually 50% of "normal" day rate.

Not everybody I've dealt with likes the idea (on the employer side I mean -
had very few interviewees dislike it ;-) - but I've found it effective. For
few reasons:

* If you actually look at the total cost of hiring, adding in paying folk isn't actually that much more money.

* Interviewees fucking love you for it. There's a real "You're taking me seriously, so I'm taking you seriously" moment.

* It shouldn't really make a difference to the employer side (because most of the costs are for your time - not the interviewees) but it gives you some real clarity on whether it's worth interviewing some candidates. It encourages you to make smarter decisions earlier in the interviewing process.

* You seem to get less hassle from folk you reject. I assume because the payment makes people see the process as taking them seriously.

~~~
idoh
I like this idea! I think that it makes sense for prospects that are either
already contractors, or perhaps the unemployed.

If you already have a job, then I can see some challenges though - I'd imagine
a candidate for Google would not be able to accept payment for doing work
while being employed by Facebook, for example. Did you ever run into an issue
like that?

~~~
gingerlime
Good point. But I suppose you can maybe get round this by, say, giving
candidates amazon vouchers or something? (I don't know what the employment
contracts stipulate on either companies though with regards to gifts and such)

~~~
rubinelli
It is common for large companies to have policies stating employees have to
report a gift above a certain value, but that's mostly to prevent outright
bribery (which still happens anyway, in most procurement departments).

Paying cash can create some tax complications that vouchers avoid too.

------
_lex
Employers already do - but they pay places like linkedin, craigslist,
monster.com and every other job board out there instead of paying you. Listing
a job can easily cost $400.

~~~
adrianhoward
... and job listing is pretty much the cheapest part of the process. The
really expensive parts of filling job roles are:

* the agency slice of the pie if an agent is involved (often at least a five digit number)

* the people costs on the employer side of recruiting (writing job specs, managing adverts, weeding resumes, phone interviews, actual interviews, etc.) can easily take weeks worth of time from multiple people.

Recruiting is expensive, and hard ;-/

------
alexhawdon
I would argue 'No'.

The candidate wants a job. The employer wants an employee. They are BOTH
investing their resources (time, money, opportunity cost) to achieve their
respective goals.

The employee doesn't want to attend interviews any more than an employer
doesn't actually want to hold them; they'd both much rather skip to the end,
but the whole process is a necessary evil for both parties.

I certainly don't agree with the rudeness, mind.

------
octo_t
As a student, having to fork out £40/£50 for train tickets was a pretty tough
decision - having to weigh whether or not I thought I might get the job vs
having the cost of train tickets.

Most companies would reimburse travel either way, which was fine but some
companies wouldn't.

------
LanceH
One category which I definitely think should be billable is the interview when
there is no actual job or no job as advertised.

There were a bunch of stories going around about some insurance company
calling people in to interview for database jobs and then trying to sell them
on insurance cold-call sales positions.

Another one is those interviews at large companies where they must conduct x
number of interviews, but they already have the person they want and they're
just going through the motions. This would be difficult to prove, but I've
heard managers directly say they are doing this.

~~~
theorique
In the case of a company that is willing to cross the business ethics line and
be blatantly misleading or run a bait-and-switch, I am extremely skeptical
that they would respond to any request for billing based on lost/wasted
candidate time.

You would probably need to take them to small-claims court.

------
rschmitty
Should or shouldn't, is there any legal ground for billing?

Someone who hasnt been responding to you is suddenly going to pay you? I would
foresee them simply rejecting your "bill" and don't see how it could hold up
in court. They are spending their time too afterall, whats to stop them from
billing you?

~~~
cobrophy
Well without a contract (even a verbal agreement) in place for them to refer
to in court, as a case it seems pretty thin. It also seems like the lawyers
will make more out of this than any of the parties.

But there's no reason why when asked to do the work, you couldn't say I'll do
it for a price and see how the employer responds.

------
goatforce5
Red Gate in Cambridge UK was offering a free iPad to anyone who came in for an
interview (after being pre-screened, of course):

[http://smyword.com/2010/04/red-gates-free-ipad-and-an-
offer-...](http://smyword.com/2010/04/red-gates-free-ipad-and-an-offer-you-
probably-missed/)

------
MarkMc
Relevant Dilbert cartoon: <http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2006-05-06/>

------
shard
In Korea at least, it's not an unknown practice for companies to pay
interviewees for their time, although not all companies do it. Being American,
I was taken by surprise the first time it happened, but it was a pleasant
surprise in that the company showed that they valued my time. I'd say its not
mandatory, but it's a classy thing to do.

------
ziko
It sounds like it's coming from people who waste their days at job interviews,
not getting the desired job and then propose a thing like this. I understand
it must be tough but in my opinion, you shouldn't be paid for turning up at an
interview.

"If you're good enough, you will get a chance."

~~~
cs02rm0
Yeah... you can almost imagine people making a career out of being interviewed
if you take this to the nth degree, which undoubtedly, someone would.

~~~
finnw
But if you are a competent recruiter, you should be able to spot these people
quickly.

~~~
ziko
Needless work for personnel department.

What you're suggesting is doing two things (paying an interviewee + check,
often though to make sure, if he's in it for the sole purpose of interviewee
fee) instead of none which has been working just fine for decades.

~~~
jwoah12
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but "it's been working just fine for
decades" is not a good reason to not change something. In fact, most things
would never improve or change at all since most people are terrible at
determining what "works just fine" is until they see "works really well".

------
jschuur
Better question: Are people who genuinely ask this (as opposed to for the
topic of a blog post) the kind of person you'd want to hire?

~~~
finnw
No, but it does not matter. Either you have already decided not to hire them,
or they have decided not to wait any longer for you to make your decision.

------
meric
Its called probation.

~~~
gingerlime
I believe that in some countries, probation is a much more complicated deal. I
think it might be the same as an employment, just with an extra section about
early termination.

In this example, the post is about charging on a freelance-basis for the
interview alone, as a clearly-defined piece of work being delivered. The
comment above about paying candidates to interview goes along the same lines
too. Both should be simpler to set-up and less legally entangling than a
probation.

------
michaelochurch
I'd say no. I'm pretty serious about employee rights, but this is not a
consideration that I feel employees are entitled to, at least not as
originally framed. Who sets the market rate? Anyway, legally you have no
standing to charge for that when the going protocol is that interviews are
free.

I'm not sure that I want to step away from that protocol, either. Employers
have as much ground to charge sloppy candidates for wasting _their_ time.

Employers should pay all costs (e.g. travel) and they should _volunteer_ so it
isn't socially awkward-- no one should have to ask to be reimbursed for train
tickets-- but they shouldn't be expected pay for the employee's time. Search
costs are shared; that's just social protocol. Besides, the absolute last
thing I want as a job candidate is to compete with spam candidates taking an
outside shot at getting in and collecting a day's pay. Yes, that would
seriously happen if companies started paying unsuccessful interview
candidates.

However, companies should be upfront about how long the process will take.
Unexpected follow-ons are irritating and I usually wouldn't start running a
clock, but I feel that I should have that right. What you can't do (legally,
you have no standing) is retroactively decide that the clock was running
because the company didn't have its house in order and missed deadlines. Also,
if you try to "collect" and threaten reputation damage, there's a thin line
between that and extortion. You probably won't go to jail in that particular
case, but your leverage is gone.

What I _do_ support charging for (in event of not getting the job, which
hasn't happened yet) are reference checks. I haven't had to give references in
a while, but here's the best way that I can come up with to do that. Send an
email with the contact information of your references in it. Then, generate a
PDF with the first page having phone numbers and emails of your references
(the exact same information, so it looks redundant; you'd prefer that the PDF
not be read). Have the second page be either blank or garbage. On the third
page, put that you consider any contact regarding you between employer and any
reference to be extension of a job offer and that, if they contact a reference
(provided or "back channel") and pass on you, they are liable in amount of 3
months' salary, Then make sure one of your references is someone who'll tell
you if they get a call from that company.

If they pass on you and you can't prove that they contacted references, you
don't collect. However, if they call your references (and you can prove it)
and still decline you, you usually will have legal standing to collect; since
you allowed them to take a risk with your professional reputation, you have a
right to appropriate consideration.

~~~
vacri
How is a one-sided contract legally enforcable? If you put in your email
signature "By reading this email you have agreed to mail me $5", the nature of
that one-sidedness is much clearer.

Besides, 'risking professional reputation' by calling referees and then not
offering a job? Risking it to whom? Only the referees will know, and if they
were the deciding factor, then they already have a particular opinion of your
abilities.

~~~
michaelochurch
_How is a one-sided contract legally enforcable?_

It's not one-sided. You've furnished them with information (in this case,
about your past). If they choose to use the information, then they're in a
contract and on the hook to pay you a consulting fee if they don't offer you a
job. If they don't use it (i.e. they don't call your references but decline
for some other reason) they don't owe you anything.

 _If you put in your email signature "By reading this email you have agreed to
mail me $5", the nature of that one-sidedness is much clearer._

Not the same thing. I can't legally say, "for reading this comment on HN, you
owe me $10" because that's ridiculous. There is no contract when you read my
post on a message board. I've given the information freely; the intent is
clear.

I could, however, offer you information (that I would have reason to charge
for) upfront (without asking for payment) and say _if you use any of this
information, you owe me a finder's fee_. That's legal: to give information and
charge a fee for the use of it. (Of course, most people who are in that sort
of business-- selling data-- charge for the information upfront, because it's
difficult to charge per-use.)

What you are saying is that any checking of references constitutes a job offer
(and promissory estoppel applies). If they don't check, and decline you for
some other reason, they didn't make you an offer and don't owe you anything.

For junior-level roles, this may not be worth doing, because reference checks
aren't competitive (i.e. you just need not to have horrible references, but
turning up 7.5-ish references won't sink you because some other guy has 8.0's)
and failing one is really rare (you have to seriously fuck up). However, for
executive roles where reference checks are competitive and colon-searching
("back-channel" references not provided by candidate) is common, it's probably
a good idea to have something buried in the fine print that entitles you to a
consulting fee if they check any references and pass on you. Make sure there's
a clause that also makes it apply to back-channel references (on the argument
that they were discovered using private information you furnished) as well.

That's the real reason why I don't have my resume on LinkedIn. I can treat
previous jobs as "private information" and if I'm ever dinged on a back-
channel reference, have all sorts of legal recourse I wouldn't have if I put
that information on the web. It's not something that I need to worry about
now, because reference-checks aren't competitive until you're in the running
for CxO-level roles, but 10 years from now when I'm looking at high-level
roles that involve double-digit reference counts and penetrative back-
channeling; if I'm ever dinged on a back-channel reference, I want to be able
to say, "You, sir, owe me for misuse of private information". (They can
attempt to prove they didn't misuse private information-- remember that
neither they nor I want to go to court-- but that would at least give me the
identity of the show-stopper.) If I put my employment history on the web, then
it wouldn't be "private".

That's also why I regret attacking Google (although I didn't specifically
mention that I worked there; I was "outed"/doxed) in March 2012. The company
does have severe managerial problems (despite excellent engineering and great
people overall) but I wish I hadn't been the first one to haul that out into
the open. It now means that my having worked for Google is public information
and I wouldn't have the same legal ground if someone back-channeled Google;
they could argue that they already knew it based on my web presence.

~~~
vacri
If that's the case, why do you plan on using shady obfuscatory methods to
achieve that goal? Stinging someone with and _intentionally surprising_
contract is nothing but unethical. It sounds more like you want a vindictive
revenge-stab at the people that don't give you a job rather than a
professional payment for supplied services. You're not even proposing
something on the level of a sleeper clause or the tiniest of fine print,
you're engaging in wilful misdirection.

------
madaxe
No. I don't expect my prospective clients to pay me for the honour of me
coming to sell our services, so why should there be an expectation for me to
pay a prospective employee? Were this the case, there'd be an entire
profession called "interviewee", whereby you go from interview to interview to
interview wasting all and sundry's time while being paid.

Poor idea.

------
rweir
no.

~~~
rasur
Short and to the point, but for the benefit of those of us that cannot mind-
read, care to explain why "no"?

