• 0 Posts
  • 24 Comments
Joined 4 days ago
cake
Cake day: June 9th, 2026

help-circle


  • Two immediate thoughts:

    One key there is ‘savvy manager.’ I’ve met too many who would see a line item for interviews and say ‘why is this so high? Don’t the HR team vet these people. I’m cutting the budget for interviews. Hey, Direct Report, I just saved the company another several thousand dollars a year. Aren’t I great?’

    And neither way explains a reason one would do MORE interviews if candidates were paid than while they were free. The cost increase for doubling the number of interviewees while we still aren’t paying them is ~$0. You could centuple the number of interviews and 100*0 is still 0. There is still no incentive to do something MORE after it has a cost. If you want to hire the right person, you’ll do as many interviews as it takes, until the cost of interviews grows beyond the expected cost of hiring a suboptimal candidate. That’s true now. Why would it be different then?




  • sunsofold@lemmy.ziptoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldNostalgia
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    It’s not just for old people. Anyone old enough to have a beloved piece of media can be targeted through nostalgia. You think Disney was going for ‘old people’ when they made all those direct to VHS sequels? Every stand-alone sequel to any original piece of media is a gimmick to milk your nostalgia, even if the original is only from a year ago.

    Nostalgia needs to be returned to its original status as a form of mental illness.










  • I might have a weird view of things but I don’t want to get rid of royalty, just take away any authority they have over the lives of themselves and others. They already live off others’ work. Let’s keep them as national pets.

    ‘Who’s a good king? Who looks nice and waves for the people?’

    ‘Is it me, <racial slur>?’

    ‘No! No talking! Bad! Smack you on the nose with a rolled up replica magna carta.’


  • How would it make them go up? It currently costs zero, and adding the cost of that pay doesn’t change any other expenses for recruitment contractors. Even if they don’t view it as a significant cost relative to the full HR department, they’d still either ignore it and maintain current rates or view it as an avoidable expense and minimise it. I don’t see a mechanism for increasing them unless the law gave them some backdoors to, say, pay below standard wages while asking candidates to do work as part of the interview, effectively turning them into sub-minimum wage workers for businesses where that might be useful.


  • The point is the difference between the slacker on the shop floor and the slacker in the back office is just the job title, not the approach. If you can let other people do all the work while you collect a paycheck, you’re winning as a slacker.

    Now, you might think, ‘but won’t they just get fired once their direct report gets wind of what they’re doing?’ The answer is yes, but if their direct report is also slacking, when would they see the employee’s work to know they need to be fired?

    And if they’re a good liar, the slacker can say ‘Oops, yeah, I fucked up by trusting Soandso with that. I’ve fired them now so it won’t be a problem anymore.’ Then they burn that employee/contractor and keep collecting a paycheck. Depending on how lazy/stupid/gullible their management is, this can be repeated for years.