I think at one time the advice to “play the numbers game” was correct for online job apps. Not anymore.
Even more saddening, Glassdoor uses a temp/test sample job ad. It’s for cat sitting. $15/hr. That will get hundreds of apps in 48 hours if someone forgets to take it down (is only supposed to go up for 60 mins max but things happen).
I noticed a local company I follow had fluctuating review counts between 30-45. I wrote a web scraper to see if reviews were being taken down, and for this company, over 20 1 or 2 star reviews have been taken down, but any new 5 star reviews stay.
Our company had a slew of negative reviews suddenly. Upon closer look, the reviewers were working in positions we had never employed anyone for. They were posting about an office they worked at in Israel (we are in the USA).
Turns out there was another startup in Israel who had a very similar name to ours. That company closed a big seed round and started hiring a bunch of people (and apparently they don’t treat their employees well, based on the reviews mistakenly left on our page).
The process of getting the reviews removed was a major pain. It requires multiple emails and phone calls with Glassdoor. Ironically, Glassdoor sales reps started up selling us on a premium Glassdoor account after we had a sudden uptick if views on our company (which were actually from people trying to see reviews for the other company in Israel) so we also leveraged the sales process to push Glassdoor into looking at the legitimacy of the reviews.
I definitely wouldn’t say it was an easy process. Glassdoor was, by default, resistant and skeptical about any complaint relating to a request to remove a review. It took multiple months (and persistence) to convince them the reviews were not for our company.
It’s easy to jump to conclusions about Glassdoor moderating reviews and removing bad ones. But also remember there are cases when reviews are not legitimate and should be removed.
(In addition to the example I provided above, another example is competing companies leaving negative reviews on competitor profiles to sabotage their hiring efforts).
Did you scrutinized positive reviews the same way or just glanced them over and went "yeah, five stars, this is good"?
All negative reviews were 100% accurate from my point of view and not insulting in any way. So if you see the "managed account" flag at Glassdoor, be careful ;)
It seems the trick is to say that the reviews contain "company internal information",...or something like that.
I do understand that they have their "own" system that automatically reviews posts and removes them. Sadly that hasn't worked out fantastically at my employer, they mostly remove these 5 star reviews.
- [Your review should be truthful and constitute your own personal opinion] -- Any review that contains false information that the company can easily prove is wrong can be removed.
- [Each individual is allowed one review, per employer, per year, per review type.] If the company can prove a review is a dup, it can be removed
- [We do not allow reviews that include negative comments about identifiable individuals outside of this group.] - A review saying "My coworker Alice was a real A Hole." can easily be removed
- [We realize talking about work can get emotionally charged, but we don't approve reviews that include certain profanities] -- Anything that's aggressively worded "I worked at this company, it fu* sucks" will be removed
I'd guess than 90% of Glassdoor reviews removed blatantly break their guidelines. There is probably another 10% that consist of companies trying to game the system, but it's impossible to know for sure.
So, why does Glassdoor apparently listen to CEOs an lawyers when they claim employers cannot have reviews removed, when they appear to be doing just that?
You can flag them, and they'll get looked at - and their definitions of falsehoods or private info are obviously subjective, but it's been made clear to us they can't do anything just because we've paid.
Will see how the contract plays out, but I'm minded to believe them, part of the sales patter is that negative reviews actually help you weed out people who wouldn't fit in so they're already lining you up to think about having negative ones up.
That being said, and though I find their business model disgusting, we definitely weren't a hard sell for them.
It had the effect of flooding it with 4 and 5 star reviews from people who hasn't been around long enough to see any downsides to their job.
Meanwhile, as the company began imploding, the folks jumping ship mostly didn't bother to write a 1 star review on the way out.
Definitely rubbed me the wrong way, but besides that they were really great people. I don't know if they realize what bad taste this is, just don't care, or if it's really just one person with too much influence creating policy.
This was a while ago, so I can only imagine it's become more prevalent. I've come to believe this is pretty much accepted behaviour for SV companies, and I wouldn't put much weight into Glassdoor reviews beyond just checking for red flags.
On more than one occasion I've seen a blistering one star review, followed by a bunch of positive reviews that all came in within days. It was clearly a situation where someone at the company saw the low score, had an "uh-oh moment," and called in the cavalry to write positive reviews.
Plenty of startup founders boosted their rating by telling HR, family, friends, and foreign clickfarms to post 5 star Glassdoor reviews.
It's extremely easy to inflate your rating this way. Glassdoor does nothing to prevent it. There are small startups with more 5-star Glassdoor reviews than employees.
As long as your bots also upvote every other 5-star reviews, anyone looking at your review pool, sorted either by recency or "most helpful", will have to scroll through dozens of these bogus 5-star reviews before they get to any real negative review. By that point, the negative review will seem like a biased exception posted by a disgruntled employee - if they even get to it.
The worst aspect of this is how easy it is for truly terrible companies to royally screw their employees yet retain an eye-popping 4.2+ rating on Glassdoor. I've seen a couple of cases where companies badly mistreated employees, got a well-deserved torrent of 1-2 star reviews as a result, then flooded their pool with hundreds of fake 5-star reviews. Now these terrible companies, that truly do mistreat and abuse their workforce, have a Glassdoor page and review pool disguising them as a top 1% employer.
Are you sure about that? Most of the posts I see from devs who just got well-paying jobs show them applying to 20+ companies. Usually more. Then they'll get interviews at several, offers from 1-5? It's absolutely a numbers game on both sides.
You're missing an adjective from your observation: qualified.
For any given position, even when you're pretty specific on the requirements, you will get an onslaught of applicants who have absolutely no business trying to apply for said position, but they do it anyways just because it vaguely matches a skillset they have and they need a job.
This isn't a criticism of such persons; it's foolish for people to think that a word for word perfect job exists just for them, and kudos to those willing to be a bit flexible on what they previously felt were non-negotiable aspects of jobs (I am referring to things I personally consider trivial, in this case, but I feel that when it comes time to start negotiating, said items are thrown out first as bargaining chips)
We have many employers seeking a specific type of qualified person; we have qualified and unqualified people all looking for jobs; it can be a bit messy to sort the two. This is why the interview process exists.
The best jobs still require an inside recommendation. It is very rare that you’ll be able to score those just by applying online (if the JD even goes up at all online).
This works for smaller businesses that can be flexible and are not really liable/viable targets for anything.
Once a business gets even some traction and size, this becomes a wasted effort, if not an annoyance to the manager. Most of the time I choose not to respond as it's just the safest option for us, or I redirect the email to our HR.
Most of the managers making the decisions do not do hiring as a full time job, it's just an aspect of their job. While it can be enjoyable, it's also very emotionally draining and physically taxing (non-stop interviews on top of regular responsibilities) and when people go outside of the normal process like this (and worse, raise a stink if you don't respond to their deviation well), it just adds more headaches for me.
So the above advice might work sometimes, but be aware there is another side.
(*and will accept what we're paying)
I've seen people in other fields with a lot less education do a lot better. It really makes me sceptic about the shortage of developers in Europe. If there really would be a shortage, surely developers would get paid more.
Or are you saying that if they paid more, already employed applicants would jump from another company, leaving a job opening at their current company? If this is the case, it still means that there are fewer qualified candidates then openings, and no amount of raising pay will (in the short term of ~4 years) mean there are enough qualified candidates.
There are two reasons for that wide distribution:
1. Lack of preparation/expectation management. I have seen people apply for development jobs with no skills or experience thinking the job is there to train them. It is no surprise (except maybe to the applicant) that they are quickly disqualified. It is absurd how commonly this occurs.
2. Selective bias. How do you define competent or qualified? This is completely subjective and varies by organization. I have encountered several organizations where the developers cannot read code. They compensate with assertion testing, frameworks, external packages, layers of tooling and so forth. The unwillingness of a candidate to accept that stupidity is certainly an incompatibility and can be seen as a lack of competence. If the interviewing party likely struggles with literacy it is not something they are likely to test for, for example.
In my experience under-confident hiring teams always want super competent applicants until they see what super competence actually is. It sounds absolutely fantastic in theory until they see it in practice. Then the insecurity sets in. What is really tragic about that is not that incompatibilities happen, but that insecure teams often don't see it until far after they have wasted people's time or after they have hired the applicant only to wish they hadn't.
My recommendation for experienced developers is to always identify these incompatibilities as early as possible. Unless equity is attached this is so much more important than compensation.
In a perfect world people would learn to read and write code before applying for jobs, which implies literally reading and writing (not tooling or dicking around with layers of abstractions). We don't live in a perfect world as evident by many applicants and employers.
Expect to reject 95%+ of applicants.
I pity the people that have to filter that.
Really it was exactly in my wheelhouse where I do things a thousand times more complicated every day to general acclaim of the people I work with.
And I had the panic/freezing thing I've read about other people having before but never experienced (at least not that extreme) and as a result I totally flopped. I mean I sort of did what was wanted but not completely. I'm not explaining exactly what it was they wanted because it is too embarrassing to even talk about.
This has made me consider that maybe the number of applicants I hear about who cannot do the simplest thing has to do with some sort of personal panic/problem/not liking the particular testing method and not some actual permanent incapacity.
on edit: and not just embarrassing but also distressing like a guitarist suddenly unable to play guitar. It is actually hard to describe what the experience was.
If it's any comfort, stage fright is something you can overcome. It's not easy, but it's doable.
At any rate I do pretty well for myself and while it was unpleasant, it is past, just - made me wonder.
The amount of cut-and-paste I've seen on "take home" assignments is just staggering.
I've only ever used it for pre-screening before scheduling phone interviews, and so only a handful of very simple questions as I'd have considered it unfair to ask anyone to put much effort in that early in the process. I always cut and paste a few sentences into Google. One hiring round in particular stands out to me, as a substantial majority of candidates had cut and pasted answers. There were always some, but that was extreme.
The worst thing was that many of them got the answers wrong. I'd have been open to considering them if someone honestly told me they didn't know the answer but was able to find an answer on Google, and showed me they'd been able to look up the correct answer.
But we got things like someone trying to pass of a one page cut and paste from an Oracle manual to a question about MySQL that required a one sentence answer as their own. And someone who cut and pasted a reply to the same question from a forum post, but who failed to read on to where other commenters had explained at length why the answer they'd cut and pasted was wrong.
I mean, I often search for solutions to things I don't know by heart. Knowing how to find the right solution by search is a skill itself and a developer that knows how to learn can be valuable, but the combination of dishonesty and apparent failure to be able to ascertain the quality of the responses they found was terrifying given that many of these applicants had believable CVs that included years of working as developers elsewhere. (Of course given their willingness to lie about their answers, I can't really trust CV's either given we never got far enough in the process to request references; I'd like to think their CVs were fake too, because the alternative is worse)
It's a small world out there sometimes.
There are some major Corporations here in DFW, some that have hired 1000's of H1B's (Car companies, Airlines, etc). It doesn't surprise me that Americans are desperate for work.
The h1b program requires paying a local market wage. Even if you don’t believe it does the effect would be to just lower wages, it would still be better to hire the qualified American at reduced wages rather than sponsor an h1b.
Because as surprising as this may sound to you there are plenty of qualified talent already in the USA that can't compete with the lower wages companies can pay H1B employees. I see plenty of H1B employees who will literally eat shit from management over the fear of losing their status.
I'm not against bringing in hard to find talent that we don't have, what I'm against is bringing in cheap labor to replace US Citizens/IT Workforce which is the norm with these companies.
Here is a link breaking it down for Texas.
So if this large pool of workers in the US can't "compete" what are they doing? Refusing to work and therefore making $0 rather than making $98k? That doesn't make sense. You seem to be implying these workers are displaced into other industries. These industries must clearly pay into the six figures, otherwise these workers are still better off competing with their h1-b friends. What industry are all these displaced American software engineers pushed into, pray tell?
Your link doesn't prove shit about market wage levels, as often H1-B offers are skewed towards more entry level positions, so of course the H1-B wage of all workers in broad job category may be lower than all native workers of all experience levels.
I'm not going to argue the point of whether H1-B's are offered lower pay. As I said, that merely lowers the market price of labor where the H1-Bs are allowed. If the companies were really saving money they could use the mere fact that they have access to H1-B workers and offer that pay level to natives. It would be cheaper and easier.
Please explain to me, if there is such a large pool of qualified workers, why they don't work for the reduced H1-B wages that you claim are setting the market rate. What is their better negotiated alternative?
You might not understand how things work. The wages are representative of what the staffing firms who contract out the labor charge for the H1B employee. They make substantially less than $80k even though that's the rate a company pays to avoid hiring a US employee.
as you say the $80k is the rate to avoid hiring a US employee. maybe that's lower than what it would be with no h1-b, but then what are these displaced american workers doing for more than $80k?
Being unemployed and making 0k. Avoiding hiring US employees for over $80k doesn't mean they're hiring those who accept below $80k. They're not being considered for those jobs at all in the first place. I assure you there are legions of very smart lawyers who work very hard on the process for employers - I would know, I've prepared the petitions, and the sham job postings with intentionally obscure and unnecessary skill requirements placed in print newspapers when the H-1B worker was our client and already chosen for the job ahead of time. There is often no intention to consider American workers. There are entire IT departments at companies like Disney, for instance, that are de-facto off limits to American workers. H-1B workers are very attractive to employers not just for the low wages, but also for the fact that they're dependent on the particular company sponsoring them and will often stick around forever and endure the shitty wages, hours, and work environment.
what I hear from people who work or used to work in IT at Hollywood media companies is that Disney is not alone in that
> shitty wages, hours, and work environment.
A "shitty" wage is better than being unemployed and making 0k. Perhaps not if we were talking about at or near minimum wage. But we're not. We're talking nearly double the median income of the location in question and well beyond the poverty line.
If there were really this untapped market of native talent to replace H1-B imports, that are on average making $80k (actually $100k for tech), then that immense pool of workers can settle for $70k, $60k, $50k, $40k, $30k... and why wouldn't these companies take them at some low price between $100k and minimum wage? Why would these companies insist on hiring H1-Bs at a $100k a head if there was this large population of native, qualified, unemployed workers making $0 that would be lucky to get a measly $40k (to throw a number on it).
"Legions of smart lawyers" also sounds expensive. You don't need a legion of smart lawyers to hire from this large, unemployed, qualified, bonafide American talent pool that you insist exists.
The mental gymnastics H1-B paranoiacs go through does not fail to impress. During the first dot-com bust and post-recession at least it had a whiff of plausibility. But tech employment is at all time highs, it's beyond ludicrous.
And another thing that doesn't add up, the average for non H1-Bs in that pdf was close to $200k. And the unemployment rate in Texas is lower than the national average which is already low. In tech heavy cities like Austin it is even lower (near 2%!). So I have seen no strong evidence that H1-Bs are pushing American tech workers out of the middle class, the opposite in fact.
If you really know someone in tech that is unemployed and making nothing, then either they are not qualified or they have some other limitation making them unemployable. There are plenty of job listings at all levels across the US that are not open to H1-B sponsorship and some that are open just to US citizens (and do not require an existing clearance). Scapegoating H1-B programs in this economy isn't even offensive, it's just sad.
true, but I think the point is that the lawyer fees are less than the extra costs and risks associated with hiring from the existing pool of local US workers (i.e. losses from employees who freely leave the company after a short period, transfer knowledge to competitors, shop around for higher salaries, and confidently exercise the fuller collection of employee rights which H1Bs may lack)
> If you really know someone in tech that is unemployed and making nothing, then either they are not qualified or they have some other limitation making them unemployable.
That's certainly one interpretation of the matter. Here's another: If the labor pool lacked exogenous labor inputs, it is possible (though far from guaranteed) that corporations would be willing to use their resources to hire more from the existing pool of US candidates and then train them and/or help them to overcome other limitations.
Most tech workers wouldn't take a $40k job because they realize that's a gross undervaluing of their skillsets. It's a much smarter decision to continue applying and hope somebody recognizes your ability and pays you what your labor is worth, rather than tie up your schedule and possibly relocate to work the low-paying job. You can ask these bad-faith questions all you want, and they might be helpful for confusing and misleading people online, but I assure you, employers have thought about them more than you, and have long since found their answer.
It seems to me that you're in outright denial about companies getting cheaper labor through the H-1B system. Instead of asking these "if companies really want to save money, why don't they just x" questions, I'd ask you why Disney DID lay off hundreds of IT workers at a time and had them train their H-1B replacements who often lacked the same skill level as their predecessors if it wasn't a significant cost savings? These aren't allegations, they're reality. What was found in court wasn't that Disney isn't guilty of replacing workers, it's that they did do it and it's perfectly legal! Wages have dropped, many Americans have switched to other professions they wouldn't have otherwise, and profits for IT firms have gone through the roof due to the H-1B program. Try reading rather than theorizing all by yourself. https://www.nber.org/chapters/c13842.pdf
And go tell the Disney workers they didn't really lose their jobs.
I don't normally post opinion pieces, but this is very devastating and well-researched: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/07/27/bill-gates...
Business executives and politicians endlessly complain that there is a "shortage" of qualified Americans and that the U.S. must admit more high-skilled guest workers to fill jobs in STEM fields: science, technology, engineering and math. This claim is echoed by everyone from President Obama and Rupert Murdoch to Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates.
Yet within the past month, two odd things occurred: Census reported that only one in four STEM degree holders is in a STEM job, and Microsoft announced plans to downsize its workforce by 18,000 jobs. Even so, the House is considering legislation that, like the Senate immigration bill before it, would increase to unprecedented levels the supply of high-skill guest workers and automatic green cards to foreign STEM students.
As longtime researchers of the STEM workforce and immigration who have separately done in-depth analyses on these issues, and having no self-interest in the outcomes of the legislative debate, we feel compelled to report that none of us has been able to find any credible evidence to support the IT industry's assertions of labor shortages.
If a shortage did exist, wages would be rising as companies tried to attract scarce workers. Instead, legislation that expanded visas for IT personnel during the 1990s has kept average wages flat over the past 16 years. Indeed, guest workers have become the predominant source of new hires in these fields.
So they found that H-1B, etc increased native worker incomes overall.
So they mentioned some distributional issues ...
"wages for [high-skilled] US computer scientists would have been 2.6% to 5.1% higher in 2001"
Oh that kind of blows a little bit. But let's put this in perspective. 2.6%-5.1% higher in 2001 would be the difference between 100k and 103-105k. Sure I would love to have had that dough... but this 1) fails to demonstrate a substantial savings to firms 2) completely burns your argument workers making $0k.. they're doing quite fucking well. (100k was close to the average for mid-level software engineers in my neighborhood in 2001). This is not standard of living altering stuff.
And overall the economy did better with immigration.
> Most tech workers wouldn't take a $40k job because they realize that's a gross undervaluing of their skillsets.
What do you define as "undervaluing?" What sets this number? What makes $80k a fair wage vs $40k? Well the ultimate is the market. It is absolutely true that the mere act of bringing in more labor via H-1B will lower wages. I will not dispute that, that's basic microecon.
But how do you determine what your "labor is worth?" Because your labor is worth whatever that market price is, there is no "hope" to it. If a population is refusing to work for offers of $40k, because that "undervalues" their skills then that implies that the market has jobs that are correctly greater valued. If this were not the case then these people should just stop and take the $40k job, why continue applying for something that doesn't exist?
Of course not everything is smooth. The lag in filling these positions is what contributes to frictional unemployment. This is a good chunk of what makes up the unemployment figures. The fact remains, and what you just ignored... the unemployment rate in all industries, but especially IT and most engineering disciplines is the lowest it has been in years.
The Disney issue ultimately displaced not much more than 100 workers which is less than 0.2% of their tech and IT workforce, if that is the worst of the "bad news", it doesn't diminish my point.
Again, there is no disputing that a foreign worker program will lower certain wages in the short-term, possibly longer. There is plenty of evidence that this has not affected employment on higher skilled jobs.
The other weird thing that is always mentioned by H-1B foes is how shitty these Indian workers with no experience are (it was mentioned multiple times in the article you linked). So how does that square? If these workers are truly that crap, then why would anyone be surprised that Disney or anyone would want to get rid of expensive workers that can be replaced by these crap workers. Why should Disney or anyone pay top dollar for someone that can be replaced with the human equivalent of a shell script. If these crap workers really don't work out (and yes this has happened), well then the market isn't really harmed then is it?
What about automation and consolidation of services. Both have had tremendous effects on the IT industry. There were well paying jobs for "Computer Operators" a few short years ago.. now there are literally a handful and they pay barely above minimum wage. The influx of H-1B holders had little to do with this.
Finally, I'm not going to argue this, this is just a question: What do you feel gives you more entitlement to a job that an immigrant will willingly bring themselves over here and do for less?
we can't really know the detailed impact of the immigration policy without also knowing how those occupation switchers fared. did they get jobs that paid the same, more or less? what were their new working conditions like? and, if their new careers are outside of STEM fields, would they have been better off majoring in something else in the first place?
it's possible that the economic efficiency gains of the corporations resulted in reduced efficiency in the individual lives of these job switchers. it's quite possible that these workers paid the price and corporations reaped the benefits.
anyway, economic, labor and immigration policy are determined by factors that go beyond corporate efficiency and profitability. and corporations advocate their own narrow interests, not just the interests of "the overall economy" or GDP maximization or some other umbrella. it seems reasonable that a sector's workers bear as little obligation to advocate for the "overall economy" as corporations bear.
workers who feel severely impacted by these changes are certainly free in a democracy to advocate for policies that benefit them. after all, that's precisely what corporations do. this is a political balancing act more than it is some sort of ethical argument.
If a high-profile company like Disney can pull this off, think about how many smaller outfits would be doing this and flying under the radar.
What are you even asking? Do you know how many hoops they have to go through to get an H1B in the first place, and how many conditions they have once they are here working on one? Do you understand what it's like to be a month or so away from being deported if you get fired and can't find a new job, and living with the pressure every day?
To answer your question: no they don't, and the situation reflects that. Why did you capitalize "Citizen"?
That's the biggest reason why H1-Bs cause problems for American workers: people on those visas are under immense pressure to accept deals that natives and more secure immigrants would not. The pressure on American workers would be reduced if all H1Bs were converted to citizenships.
I am not Indian, but I am not going to tolerate your vile, racist shit about being "overrun" and "indians bring down the standard of living wherever they move to".
I have found immigrants to the US, regardless of origin and regardless of culture of prior social status, take citizenship a hundred times more seriously than most native born Americans, because they don't take it for granted.
And that isn't the reason at all that 200k people applied to Amazon, either. H1Bs aren't the problem, they are a scapegoat.
If groups of Indian immigrants tend to bring down the "standard of living" in your experience it probably has much to do with the fact that these are often young, unmarried men.
Anyone that has visited a college dorm knows that this low standard of living has nothing to do with race.
It just means shit parenting but that applies to a child of any ethnic background.
(Yeah, I know you were being sarcastic, but the economy IS in good shape)
That actually doesn't seem so great.
It's even less impressive when it's incredibly easy to get a ton of low-quality matches when recruiting.
So if Amazon execs wanted to tout a big number of applications they could just advertise these positions in a wildly aggressive way so as to get a ton of poor quality matches. And I'm willing to bet this is exactly what they did.
This actually makes me a lot less inclined to work at Amazon - it seems like they're just playing a numbers game, not really trying to recruit for cultural fit.
I wonder how many of these people will be laid off within 3 years of being hired.
One of the locations is Arlington Virginia, the future location of HQ2, but they're only hiring 400 there now. In future they expect that will go up to 24k, which is about 10% of the population of the city!
I did a 15 miles radius arround Arlington on that tool  and it say 2,787,933 people, thus closer to 1% of the population.
That said, I really didn't read the article :o
1.) Used the wrong name repeatedly even after correcting them.
2.) Asking me to apply to a role that is a step down.
3.) "The position you are applying for is in Seattle." - After saying I was not interested in Seattle.
Can't even do a mail merge from 1983, wow, AI ML expertise at amazon on show there. I bet it makes you feel valued as an employee too.
And that when the first line of my profile very explicitly states that I would never work for Amazon.
Not sure if they are so desperate to get any warm bodies in, or just general Amazon's incompetence.
200k people applied for 30k jobs that's less than 10/1 anyone who has done hiring in IT knows that roughly 1/10 applicants are even qualified for a particular position.
Edit: The articles seem to be completely identical. That's a lot of recycling!
Of course there are also less reputable methods like just scraping articles from your competition.
Either way, it doesn't really _prove_ anything regarding it being a seeded PR piece, though my gut also tells me that it's likely.
I don't doubt that you know specific people who are having the opposite experience - Amazon culture varies a lot based on which vp/director you work for. But your friends' experience isn't indicative of all tech employees.
For people reading these comments you need to understand these people who say it's blown out of wack and FUD (lmao no) it isn't. And typically the people who get themselves into positions where their job is butter at Amazon is because they threw a bodies on the fire to get there.
It's an awful company to work for if you're a deg. It's even worse if you're a warehouse employee.
When people go on the record stating they have to piss in Gatorade bottle because they don't get sufficient bathroom breaks it's not FUD it's a shitty employer. /Rant
I’m on-call at this moment too. Like I said previously, either there’s a concrete reasoning for this or it’s just plain elitism.
Is ~$145k TC bad to you?
Looks like they don't really want my traffic. Oh well.
How you're describing it it sounds like they only block the first sound you try to auto play - if the latter is the reason then that's really surprising.
When I see people complaining about the hiring processes for many low qualification jobs they often have no idea just how many people they are up againt. They get annoyed because they didn't get an interview, but if you are getting 50 applicants for every position you're not going to interview even half of them.
As my boss likes to say, bulk recruitment is an exercise in saying "no" as efficiently and quickly as possible, whilst pissing off as few as possible (you want them to reapply or not hold a grudge against your brand).
Recruitment is very easy to screw up.
You can do all the basics right, but a lot of people are still going to be pissed off when they get automatically rejected based on a computer scoring the 100 candidates for the position, even if you explain why that is necessary.
I do think more companies need to be more honest about applicant to hire ratios, but the reality is that a lot of people treat anything short of hand-written letter from the hiring manager explaining in detail how they could have done better as a slap in the face.
The last back-end position I applied for had like 15 applicants
I firmly believe we are getting closer and closer to the truth here...
I am a lifelong Amazon customer but choose never to be an employee of theirs.
Pretty much this.
- Everyone is preparing for a recession (for the last three years now)
- Jobs are posted online and get tons of applicants now. That makes it easier to switch cities and not have to go through a period of unemployment but that also means they get tons of applicants. Are many of them bots? You bet.
Why would someone create bots that apply to jobs? Just nuisance or any intention behind it?
Like, I'm staffed at a company that isn't Arthur Anderson right now on an internal project and our SM/PO came back from scrum of scrums and said everyone was massively overestimating tasks to make sure they got them in on time. If you finish early you get pushback on starting something else because it looks 'so bad' if work goes from one sprint to the next.
Slow work and hitting metrics > everything, I guess.
She applied for 800 job postings. That was the only thing she did the whole day - apply job after job. She maintained an excel file with all the details. Which company she applied for, who responded, who rejected. It was demoralizing. She got a job now but she started the job hunt last November.
A lot of people get filtered out.
> Amazon said all of the openings are for full time positions and come with benefits. And the company said the openings are not related to the usual increase in hiring it does to prepare for the busy holiday shopping season.
Wish for MORE traffic? The race to the bottom is over, and...no one has won.