Not only does this disincentivize HR from running fake vacancies or stringing multiple candidates on just to keep their options open, but it also solves the problem of unemployed people job-searching effectively working full-time for free. The fact that companies would have to pay to hire workers would mean they try to make the selection as short and effective as possible.

Edit: From the business POV:

  • Businesses would have a limited budget for hiring so would limit process to 10 applicants and would have to pick those randomly. Less time spent on interviewing but also might miss the ideal candidate. Although the difference would fall sharply with larger pools.
  • And 000s of people now stuck wo any appls at all (although better than writing fake, futile appls), and no money. Not enough jobs on the market would translate into not enough paying applications for them to be able to substitute unemployment benefits.

Edit: this post seems to have gained some traction. Do you think I should try writing to my MP and suggesting it? I live in the UK where fake interviews are a real problem right now

  • Flagstaff@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 hours ago

    True, then there could be a charge to accepted candidates who then reject the job to block the emergence of such an “occupation” as well. But then if one legitimately declines because of the salary, hmm… idk… Maybe to avoid this, the money should go to some governing board…