
Would You Pay $5 to Apply for a Job? - mgav
https://medium.com/@mgav/would-you-pay-5-to-apply-for-a-job-d558b1687e52#.y7da6jsuw
======
lsc
I already pay, usually, north of half a kilobuck in lost wages to interview,
so the fiver doesn't matter except as a signal.

That said, I would never apply for a job that asked for cash up front, just
because it is a signal that it operates like a mlm or other sales related
thing, and that isn't something I have to tolerate.

------
mfluderx
I would pay if it would speed up the recruitment process, as I hate not having
an answer to my applications. The 'We will contact you within 7 working days'
or 'If you haven't heard from us in 14 days consider your application
unsuccessful' automated responses have to end.

~~~
dikdik
Also, if I could be guaranteed completely honest and helpful feedback on any
rejection.

Not just "not the right experience", but "we need someone who has built a
product with xyz framework", or "looking for someone who has had a bigger
leadership role before".

~~~
mildbow
The problem is some people give good feedback, other people don't.

Even if you pay the $5, it doesn't mean the person giving you feedback is any
good at it.

Made-up feedback is worse than no feedback.

------
NonEUCitizen
Absolutely NOT.

A better question is whether companies would pay for the time a candidate
spends to interview (e.g. an onsite interview takes a whole day requiring the
candidate to use up a PTO) or as restitution for the pain caused to the
candidate of having to talk to the companies' recruiters before getting to a
hiring manager.

------
sixtypoundhound
No.

The idea is interesting and there are, in fact, many firms I'd gladly pay $20
- $50 for an audience with (often in the form of buying someone lunch to
network) but there's far too much potential for fraud and abuse here.

I won't pay someone $5 to add my resume to their database.

$100 for an introduction to a highly qualified prospect for my services is
actually a bargain (an obscene, under priced one at that) in the B2B sales
arena....

The problem, of course, is it can be hard to tell the difference between the
two in advance....

And nobody will sue over $5 (so limited options to control fraud)

Finally, in the company's defense, you need a way to screen out completely
unqualified applicants...

------
leopoldo
I replied to the form, but I think this has to be more transparent than 'some
charity'. Also, there is no incentive for the recruiter to put up a quality
job posting (aside from hiring a good candidate), but there are recruiting
"farms" who will just put anything on the web. The incentive here is for the
platform to have as many job postings as possible.

I think a better approach may be charging both the seeker and recruiter the
$2.5 fare (recruiters can set a cap, and does not have to be 50/50... could be
seeker $2, recruiter $10). But there needs to be painful and incentives on
both sides.

~~~
yellowapple
I'd be more amenable to this if all $5 went to a charity of my choice (and if
I'm the one credited for the donation). I'd be even more amenable to this if I
could pay the $5 by some other means (e.g. by volunteering for a charity, or
perhaps by donating blood).

------
mildbow
Hahaha.

I think you would be selecting the exactly wrong applicant. Why would one pay
for a chance to make _you_ money?

Anyone you want to hire probably has enough other places where application is
free.

If anything, you should be paying people for the time they spend interviewing.
That would 1) make sure you are incentivized to only bring in people who have
a good chance, 2) give you a chance to woo great people who might already be
happy where they are.

------
mgav
Survey Results: Would You Pay $5 to Apply for a Job?

Sixty people responded to the survey, or left definitively “yes” or “no”
comments. As the chart above shows, 40% were yes, 53% were no, and the
remaining 7% were either mixed or neutral.

The whole article and maybe 100 comments are here:
[https://medium.com/@mgav/survey-results-would-you-
pay-5-to-a...](https://medium.com/@mgav/survey-results-would-you-pay-5-to-
apply-for-a-job-e39c041eb480#.ipsxvzvht)

Thank you so much to all who participated!

------
metaphorm
No. presumably they are hiring because they NEED my services. When somebody
needs something from you, they pay you, not the other way around.

------
CM30
No.

Even if you could guarantee accurate feedback from the employer (which you
likely can't, since companies avoid giving it to avoid things like potential
lawsuits), it'd just feel counterproductive to pay money on the off chance I'd
get a job afterwards.

It'd also be rather costly (especially if you're not making money as it is)
and would screw things up by taking away the mass submitting applications
thing. I mean, at the end of the day, job hunting is a numbers game. It's not
all about having the first person through the door with the right skillset
hired on the spot.

------
jrnichols
No.

Not the worst idea, but if i want to donate $2.50 to a charity (and who picks
the charity?) I'll just do it myself.

The biggest downside I see here is that we already have a huge problem with
recruiting agencies blasting job ads all over the place just to collect
resumes. Robert Half, for example. Do they ever actually get back to anyone?
Seems like all they do is collect resumes. Why would I pay to apply to
something like that?

I think that companies should be responding to applicants no matter what. It's
just the right thing to do.

------
unleashit
No way Jose. You have to ask how we've come to a state where people are bold
enough to make suggestions like this and actually expect a level of
acceptance. By adding a potential cost of $100s to the average job search
(especially for those just starting out in their field) would certainly good
for somebody, but certainly not good for the job seeker, society or anyone in
a temporary financial rut. i.e. even more distribution of wealth to the
wealthy.

------
cableshaft
I think maybe it should be "pay $5 and you will get a guaranteed response, or
don't pay $5 and you can still apply but there's no guarantee you'll get a
response". That way I'll pay to be able to hear from the people I know I want
feedback from on a case by case basis.

Hell, i might be willing to pay upwards of $20 for a company I really cared
about if I was guaranteed detailed, honest feedback.

~~~
summarite
Freemium applications. That feels a tad surreal.

------
yellowapple
I'll pay the $5 if I'm paid a living wage for my time spent in the interview
process.

Also, I find it amusingly disturbing that the response to such a scheme giving
wealthier candidates a disproportionate advantage is "lol tough luck bud".

------
CamelCaseName
Yes if I get a guaranteed and timely response from a human with real feedback.
Not just a yes/no as described.

I don't care about donating to charity when I'm applying to jobs.

I am already basically already paying with my time and sanity.

------
xiaoma
No.

Would you pay me $5 per unsolicited recruiting email/message you send?

------
mgav
Interestingly, it's quite expensive to apply to college (where the applicant
is hoping to become the customer).

------
hacker_ads
How to create a job board/recruiting firm:

1\. Create a website with a simple form 2\. Put "NOT a recuriting firm" all
over the website 3\. Write a controversial blog post about tech
interviews/recuriting 4\. Submit the blog post to Hacker News 5\. Spam the
post to anyone on Twitter with a lot of followers

~~~
mgav
@hacker_ads, There is ZERO mention of my startup here, OR on the linked Medium
article.

I've tagged SIX people on Twitter, ALL connected to this issue
([https://twitter.com/mgav](https://twitter.com/mgav)). How is this "spamming
anyone on Twitter with a lot of followers"???

~~~
hacker_ads
Right well here's an idea for the next article.

The Problem: 90℅ of job seekers are unqualified

The Idea: Every applicant submits both an IQ test from a Mensa testing center
and SAT score no older than 60 days

~~~
mgav
troll (trōl)

noun: troll; plural noun: trolls

> a mythical, cave-dwelling being depicted in folklore as either a giant or a
> dwarf, typically having a very ugly appearance.

synonyms: goblin, hobgoblin, gnome, halfling, demon, monster, bugaboo, ogre

~~~
mgav
I apologize @ad_blockers. I woke up feeling bad about my comment and realized
I can't delete it. In the moment it felt like a slightly clever nudge back,
but I see now I shouldn't have written anything at all. Lesson learned.

------
draw_down
No

------
mgav
Thanks for your responses. I'll summarize all the feedback from the Medium
article survey and here into another post and link to it in a comment below.

------
aylmao
Nope. Point by point, I have a few comments:

> Two guaranteed responses: (1) confirmation your application is received, and
> (2) if/when you are no longer a candidate for the job.

This should be common decency.

> Responses might be automated emails from “no reply” addresses.

So I'm paying to apply for a job, and not even guaranteed human contact?

> At least half of the $5 application fee goes to a charity

There's something cringy about this. Something along the lines of knowing that
someone is profiting from this, but at the same time they don't want to seem
like they're profiting on your unemployment and desperation, so they go for
the textbook "oh, (some of) this money will be donated to some charity",
treating the "charity" as just a generic economic/marketing tool.

> Even this small fee will cause many job seekers to opt themselves out of
> applying for jobs they aren’t qualified for, resulting in much fewer
> unqualified applications for HR to deal with (huge time savings).

Say this is hypothetically in place. You effectively transferring some of the
cost of HR from the company to the applicants, now that companies can have
smaller HR departments. But who has the upper hand here? Companies that suffer
from this "too many applicants" problem aren't your small mom-and-pop shops;
they are the big players, everyone wants to work for. It makes sense to assume
then that these companies have the resources to hire bigger HR departments and
solve their issue. Applicants, they are seeking for job because they NEED a
job; morally, doesn't it make sense that the important company takes on the
toll of this issue, its recruitment issue, instead of the applicants?

Now, lets think about the applicants. What I see this doing; take two people
with the exact same qualifications.

The first one, applicant A, is well-off, will buy himself a better recruiting
experience. He will throw his resume everywhere, apply 50 times, cause $250 is
like pocket change. In a bigger pool there could well be more hits, so
potentially more offers, which not only increases confidence and reduces
stress, but also gives the applicant leverage to get even more and better
subsequent offers.

The second one, applicant B, has the same qualifications but is not as well
off; he thinks twice before throwing each hook. He wants to keep it under
$100, so 20 applications theoretically would yield half or less than half the
offers applicant A got. This translates to more stress, for there are fewer
backup options, less confidence which could yield to even less offers, and
much less leverage to get more or better offers.

Is this fair? It just makes the process harder inversely proportional to how
big of a deal $5 is to you, and the difficulty of the application process can
translate into differing results, even if both applicants have the same
qualifications.

Hold that thought, and lets explore another comment I have to make. This one
is a bit more speculative, but its worth mentioning too. If none of the money
is going to the company, but only half is going to charity, it must be because
theres an intermediary who is organizing this whole operation in behalf of the
company. This intermediary is arguably another company, a startup, and as it
tends to be with things here, for profit.

It needs to grow, so what stops it from changing the $5 tag? What if it's a
really desired company we're talking about? Why not $10 or $15? In fact, why a
flat rate and not some sort of auction? Surge pricing and all?

Now, go back to that thought you were holding. The unfairness only gets worse
as this intermediary becomes more profitable. Suddenly one applicant can still
do 50 applications, but the other one is stuck with even fewer shots. Same
qualifications, very different opportunities.

Lastly, a closing remark. This is an interesting idea, but it sounds too much
like companies selling the opportunity to work for them, which IMO, is just
not a good notion. And there's a solution at hand already. As I mentioned
before, one can assume that companies have the upper hand and those suffering
from this issue have the resources to fix it. If recruiters are suffering at
all today, it's because companies would rather save a buck and have an
understaffed HR department, or are dumb and overly zealous with their
recruitment and spreading the net wider than they can handle.

------
enhanceye
No.

------
theoneone
Yes

------
thunderstrike
No.

