Much easier to reject bad CVs. On the other hand every job post is the same and you have to check Glassdoor and Crunchbase before applying to a potential bad company

  • SCB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you’re spending a lot of time on applications, you’re doing something wrong.

    You find out if it’s a good company during the interview. Trying to figure it out before hand is like running a background check on someone before swiping on tinder.

    Your resume should be ready, your cover letter ready with just a few sentences to swap per job app, and the entire thing should take like 2-5 minutes, max.

    • ChexMax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      60
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I have to disagree. Job postings straight up lie. My husband got to his second interview at a place before they revealed everything from the posting and first interview was a lie and it was a door to door sales job.

      Or they’ll lie about the responsibility or the pay of the job and he won’t learn that until deep into the interview process, which is costly in time, and stress, not to mention dressing up.

      • ShunkW@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        40
        ·
        1 year ago

        I just recently got to the third interview for a software engineering job. 5 minutes in, they asked about my requirements for compensation and I gave a conservative range for a senior engineer role. They said “thanks for your time” and ended the interview. I spent 4 hours total on this to be told my comp request was too high. So fucking sick of this bullshit

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Their recruiter sucks, because that should be one of the first discussions you have after initial qualifications.

          I am genuinely curious how often this is policy vs just recruiters being bad at their jobs. Maybe they’re incentivized to generate leads/candidates instead of actual hires? That kind of makes sense if senior leadership is dumb enough.

          • ShunkW@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            The thing is that we discussed it in the initial call. They seemed fine with it. I’m guessing they got some sucker to take a lower rate

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              What a bizarre interview process man. Sorry you even had to be part of that. That’s so dumb.

        • stolid_agnostic
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Then these people acted in bad faith. When hiring someone, even if you have decided that this person isn’t going to be the one, based just on salary or whater thing, you should still go through the process like normal and send off a rejection letter after. Cutting things short like that was just rude and unprofessional. You dodged a huge bullet here, honestly, because you’d never want to work for people who would treat you like that.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        You don’t qualify a lead before talking to the person. That’s rule 1 of sales efficiency.

        It’s far better to waste an hour once figuring out a job posting was a waste of time than to waste 5 minutes 200 times finding out job postings are a waste of time.

      • candybrie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You vet them once they ask you for an interview/phone screen. Vetting takes a lot more time than applying. So apply, then if it matters, check them out.