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.
Yeah, this reminds me of the "interview" I did for SpiderOak. I had built and launched various products by myself by then, so my experience in Web apps was very prominent in my resume. They asked me to spend a few hours implementing a commenting FAQ system or something like that, which was pretty much just some CRUD views with CAPTCHAs etc.
I said I didn't really feel comfortable spending hours of work on something for an interview, but I did it anyway, because it sounded like an interesting company to work for. They took my submission, said something about "we'll see if we can arrange some compensation" and then never emailed me again.
A few weeks later, their FAQ section was updated with pages and a commenting system. Worst interview ever.
This is exactly my worry when asked to do some 'real' work for a company I'm interviewing with. There are many unscrupulous companies out there so you have to be careful.
A better way might be to get the candidate to do a task that isn't on company todo list, but instead is something the candidate is interested in. That might even open up a few conversations about the candidate which may help the decision process.
Just a thought anyway, no idea if that could actually work. I do know we need something other than the series of pointless brain-teaser style questions companies are asking these days.
The best interviews I've done were ones where we just talked about what technologies we like, where we've used them, etc. You just know you're talking someone who enjoys development as much as you do, and you can share your experiences with stacks you haven't used, etc. My favorite was one (I think I was the one doing the interview) where we talked about CouchDB, its pitfalls, its strengths, etc (the other guy had used it somewhere), and it was just honest chat between two people with the same interests. We ended up hiring the guy and he was great.
Much better than a "spend three hours implementing something we need and send it to us, and we'll never talk to you again" faux-interview.
The problem is that there are some people who are very, very good at bullshitting. They can talk the talk - but not walk the walk.
I've had several occasions where somebody I was sure would ace the coding has fouled up badly. And not "little bit nervous" badly, but "wow - you have put significant effort into learning how to lie during an interview" badly.
One was early in my career, when I didn't do coding tests, and they got hired. It was an expensive mistake. I've encountered enough of 'em to want to stop myself ever making that mistake again. Never hire a juggler without seeing them juggle (http://raganwald.com/2006/07/hiring-juggler_02.html).
Sure, but there's a huge difference between a coding test and writing a CRUD app that's 99% chore, 1% knowledge. The interviewee can demonstrate their knowledge by writing a few simple views of a few lines each, for example.
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?
That particular objection has never come up. If it did I'd do as others have suggested and offer to donate to charity, amazon vouchers, or similar.
The issue that has come up is, as @rubinelli identified, tax hassles. In those instances we've gone the charity route.
(It's interesting actually. Now that I think of it the payment isn't really the issue. It's that we are visibly demonstrating how we value the interviewee's time.)
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)
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.
Wow, that's a great idea. You're absolutely right, compared to the total cost of hiring, it's practically nothing. Throw in the fact that you're in about 100x as good a position to evaluate talent, and it seems like a no-brainer. Like scouting football players by watching them play football vs. measuring their broad jump.
I also think this is a good idea. If I was asked to spend an afternoon solving problems that aren't theoretical 'how do you sort an array of a billion integers' type then I wouldn't want to do it for free.
If it gains traction it might reduce the crazy interview only questions from circulation.
This is an excellent attitude - and especially in software development where there is often a not insignificant amount of coding done by the candidates. Several interviews I've been to have involved a full day of pair coding with various members of the dev team on current production code - it seems fair to at least offer something for the work.
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
Not really. If I'm in a probation period then I'm employed by that company. If it doesn't work out then I'm back on the job market.
What this is talking about is compensating you for doing a trial as part of the pre-employment process, in addition to the standard interviews. If I was looking to change jobs I'd still be employed if it didn't go so well.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's certainly non-conventional to charge for reference checks, and the balance of power isn't employee-favorable enough to do so in the general case. For junior roles, just give the "Classic 3" (three references you choose) and be done with it. Don't try to set it up as a consulting contract. You probably won't be dinged on references so there's no point.
It's more of an issue for upper-tier roles where reference checks are actually competitive-- i.e. turning up 6's and 7's means you don't get the job because they expect 9+, some of your references have to be supervisors/executives, and more than 3 plus back-channel are involved. That's when you should seriously consider charging. Hiding it in a PDF that no one reads is preferable.
Honestly, I'm inclined to give the "Classic 3" for free: 3 references that I pick to validate that I'm a capable person. I'm not going to play Internet Badass and claim that I charge for that; that's free. I know, at this stage in my career, that I'll usually get the job given that (if they really need 9.5+ level references and I can only give 9.0; then they weren't that into me to begin with). However, if they start to play "We need to speak to a supervisor" with me, then I start to charge because they're making me do above-board consulting work and I'm only willing to do that for free if I get the job.
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.
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.