

Would you pay $30/m to move your resume to top of applicant list? - lambersley
http://www.forbes.com/sites/nextavenue/2013/09/03/has-linkedin-crossed-an-ethical-line/

======
dragonwriter
> Would you pay $30/m to move your resume to top of applicant list?

Maybe, but if I was hiring, why would I use a service that allowed an
applicant to do that (unless I can easily identify and disregard the
applicants that are placed by payment rather than qualification)? I mean, if
it was a fee to move their application to the top of the list for a particular
opening, it might be vaguely useful as a screen for motivation or interest
level, but paying $30/month to make themselves a "featured applicant" for all
applications means that, as a hiring party, the system just became less useful
for me. And if hiring parties stop using it (or continue to use it because
they can easily disregard the out-of-order listings), the paid premium service
isn't useful for job seekers.

------
tompko
"your application will move to the top of the pile...regardless of your
qualifications."

I've not used the LinkedIn job boards, but the rest of the article implies
that the rest of the list is sorted with the "most qualified" at the top. If
the second part of the above quote is true, I'd be skipping straight past the
"featured applicants" to the ones who are there because they have the best
qualifications.

------
lambersley
I have paid for express postage, line-bypass at a club, 'rush' passport
service, expressway tolls and many similar services, so why wouldn't I as a
serious job-seeker, pay to have my application move to the top of the pile?

~~~
yogo
Yep, I like the idea, but as the article points out it can potentially cause
an employer to look at you differently because you paid to be placed there. At
the same time it's not different from paying for advertising so I guess it's
all about how you look at it.

