I don’t usually have sufficient motivation to post much on any social media platform. This is rare for me. I am putting this out in the world in part hoping for some validation, in part hoping it sparks some kind of social action to save some semblance of privacy and dignity in this modern world.
Warning: this is long.
I just wrote an email to a recruiter withdrawing my interest in pursuing a job (it’s a recruiter hired by the hiring company). I am a software engineer with decades of experience who has been unemployed for almost a year with almost no interviews. I’m hungry for paying work. Yet. I did this. Below is the email I wrote, and it is hopefully self explanatory.
I think my career might be over - especially if the kind of process I experienced is now the standard for hiring. I want nothing to do with it.
I wrote this after multiple days of trying to set up my system for the “assessment”. I ended up having to install Windows 11 (I’m a Linux guy) because the assessment environment simply didn’t work. I tried FireFox, disabled plugins, tried two versions of Chrome - neither would work. It apparently had to be the Google version.
I upgraded an old version of Win 10 (because Microsoft pretty much forced it). Got it to work on Firefox for Windows.
Twice, mid-way through the assessment, it reset itself to square one. I didn’t try a third time. This assessment software monitored my face and would raise an alarm if I looked away. It controlled my microphone. It required full access to every aspect of the browser and had me do an alt-tab partway through this “test” in order to ensure I wasn’t using any other software. Insulting. Invasive. My equipment. My home.
---- the email ----8<----
First, I appreciate your understanding and that you gave me what information you have on how this software works. Now, the hard part. My disappointment will show in the text, and it is not directed at you or your company.
I’m inclined to cease pursuing this. I feel insulted by the process in the first place, but went through it understanding that we, as job seekers, have to accept compromises we would not otherwise accept because having a job is a fundamental requirement to literally survive and provide for our children.
However, the more I’m expected to change my personal, owned equipment and software in an invasive fashion just so some stranger can have 100% surveillance on my activities in my home in order to be considered for a job interview, the more insulted I become.
Granted, I’m unusual. I’ve dedicated myself to protecting my electronic privacy by installing malware and advertisement blockers on my phones, computers, tablets. I use VPN. I built my own home NAS because I am uncomfortable with placing all my personal, financial, and health records into “the cloud” (and being charged for the privilege). I am teaching myself how to use AI by downloading and running models in my home lab because I don’t want to give out my privacy and income to strangers.
I stopped using Windows at home years ago because I could not stand the way it was dictating to me how to run my computer and constantly seeking to part me from my money with distracting advertisements while siphoning everything about me back to their servers to better market to me. Worse, it was forcing me to buy new hardware in order to simply run the system after upgrades.
Here I am, faced with a stark choice. Debase my values for the sake of the possibility of a job with a company that apparently doesn’t consider applicants worthy of dignity, or remain unemployed - possibly forced to exit the career I love if everybody is doing this - and potentially fall into poverty.
If they’re doing this before they even talk to me, it tells me that as an employee I will have at minimum this same level of surveillance. Knowing this in the back of my mind will burn me out in under six months.
Unfortunately, I don’t think I could live with myself if I chose the first option, so I respectfully withdraw myself from this process. I’m a professional. I expect to be treated like one. If there are companies who are serious about hiring a professional, I’m all in. Please engage me.
I am also a software developer. The interview process in our industry has become increasingly offensive over the last 30 years. That started out with high-prestige companies who provided exceptional pay and benefits. Some people were willing to put up with that, so they mostly got away with it. Now most companies assume they have all the power and can demand whatever they want from applicants.
Refusing to participate is perfectly legitimate. It may keep you from finding a job, at least in this industry, but that may be better than giving up your self-respect for basic survival. And there are still decent software companies to work for, although they are hard to find. Changing careers is also a viable option.
Our overall economy is so broken in favor of the super rich and their corporations that individuals really do have very little power. Organized actions, of various types, give us some counter-leverage. Collective bargaining, strikes, and political efforts to push for better regulations all have the potential to improve things, at least in the middle- to long-term.
We all need to keep the big picture in mind while we do what we need to get by individually.
this kind of disaffected ‘we’ll get to it later’ politicking is what got us here in the first place. sucks to be u, CA
You did the right thing, and you did it gracefully. I would have told them to fuck the fuck off, and probably would have reported them to the department of consumer affairs and to the fair work commission (aus)
I’m a professional. I expect to be treated like one. If there are companies who are serious about hiring a professional, I’m all in. Please engage me.
That’s really well said.
I remember being in the same situation a couple years ago in which I was accepted to an interview through a video chat web application hosted by the company.
To my horror, when I joined the meeting, it was not a video chat interview. It was a series of recorded clips of their HR person reading off questions, the clips pausing, and then a timer showing up on the screen noting “You have 15 seconds to answer”.
I was so put off by this that after the first question, I decided to spend the rest of the time I was being recorded explaining to them under no uncertainties that this was one of the most unprofessional interview processes I had ever engaged in, and that they had made it clear that they did not value my time whatsoever, so I had no reason to reciprocate.
“Speak your answer. You have 15 seconds to comply.”
Yeah. I half expect that if I went to the next step, I’d be in an AI Zoom interview next.
I went through the exact same thing with Dyson back in ~2018 worst interview process I’ve ever experienced.
Unfortunately I’m inclined to believe this is on purpose to filter out people with self-respect such as yourself.
It’s not just a cost-saving thing (though I’m sure that’s also a factor), it’s a way to make sure the only people who go through with such interviews are those who are very desperate. Because people who are desperate are more willing to subject themselves to poorer work conditions.
Companies will only stop doing this when it actually stops working, which is unlikely given the massive inequality in our world today.
Way too clever. It’s probably just to cut costs, as per usual.
Jesus. That’s brutal. I’m not in the software world and have never experienced an process like you just described.
I do remember feeling similarly disgusted years ago applying for a retail job where I had to do an insulting “phone” interview/test where a computer asked me a bunch (like 20-30) of dumb fucking questions like:
- “Have you ever stolen money from your job?”
- “Do you think it’s okay to come to work drunk?”
- “If you put money in a vending machine and got two items instead of one, would you put additional money in for the second item?”
That last question very specifically is one I’ll always remember because of how incredibly stupid and insulting it is.
I hope you find work at a company that respects you as a human being and as a professional.
The last one isn’t one that would generally disqualify you, more to catch you lying. There doesn’t exist people who would put more money in a vending machine because it’s a stupid idea and vending machines don’t work that way.
Ethical answers to that range from the utilitarian give it to someone hungry to the deontological leave it since it’s not yours. But putting more money into a malfunctioning vending machine is chaotic stupid on the ethical charts.
That’s a fair point.
“If you put money in a vending machine and got two items instead of one, would you put additional money in for the second item?”
I’ve done this twice in a row. First off, it is not my problem how the person stocking the vending machine puts two pieces of product together to make it happen. I’m not in their shoes, it’s not my job, therefore not my problem. Anybody who pays twice is a fool in that situation.
Also, if you put in money it’s going to either attempt to vend another item or return your funds. It’s pointless.
Besides, if the machine works correctly, you will get a third one. If you don’t choose, the next person gets a freebie.
Wtf – if you put more money in a glitchy vending machine, you’re gonna get yet more items.😑
That’s not even how vending machines work. You would just be paying for a new third item not the free second one.
“If you put money in a vending machine and got two items instead of one, would you put additional money in for the second item?”
That is wild.
The vending company factors this into the prices they charge for the items, the amount they spend on the machine to ensure accuracy, and the amount they pay the people who stock the machines to do it properly.
If you take it upon yourself to unilaterally re-balance the equation, you’re not being noble, you’re just a fool.
Exactly! That question was later in the “test”, and my eyes were already rolling so hard. When I got that question I was dumbfounded by how stupid it is
“If you put money in a vending machine and got two items instead of one, would you put additional money in for the second item?”
No, I fucking wouldn’t, and I wouldn’t like to work for anyone who wouldn’t hire me because of that fact.
I answered it “No”, because it’s so dumb. Back then I needed the job so I made the compromise, and I was so happy when I was able to leave that job.
No, I fucking wouldn’t, and I wouldn’t like to work for anyone who wouldn’t hire me because of that fact.
“no, i fucking wouldn’t” is the right answer. answering otherwise would not lead to you being hired (or at least not based on that answer), it would lead to you being considered extremely untrustworthy in your responses in the questionnaire.
I half convinced myself the test session blowouts were actually a personality test. Would I keep trying the same thing 5, 10, 15 times? Am I supposed to contact them calmly seeking support? Does the way I respond reveal something undesirable? These thoughts enraged me even more.
If they’re looking for integrity and honesty, their tests engender a different response. Anybody who expects those positive behaviors from me loses access to them the moment they deny me the same on their part.
I half convinced myself the test session blowouts were actually a personality test. Would I keep trying the same thing 5, 10, 15 times? Am I supposed to contact them calmly seeking support? Does the way I respond reveal something undesirable?
i don’ think so. it works similarly when kids do some online assessment tests as part of entrance exam in schools for example. all the interviewer, whoever they are, just try to offload all their expenses on the other side and they get away with it because people usually don’t have a choice 😔
How dare you not compensate the Coca Cola company for its loss, through its own actions, of a few pennies! You monster! Terrorist!
I had it happen to me occasionally in a work setting many years ago. I was calling it getting a crit from the vendor machine. Happy times.
Neither would I. They can deduct it from the running tab of money vending machines have stolen from me over the years, the pricks.
I’d probably give the extra item to someone, even if a stranger, but I certainly wouldn’t put more money in the machine. Especially considering most machines just give the money back if there’s no purchase made. What a dumb question.
Valid
As a dev with roughly 10 years (or more depending on how you count) of experience, I would have done the same. Beyond maintaining self respect, I feel like we have a duty to each other to ensure companies that treat candidates like this have the hardest time possible finding someone willing to put up with it. I don’t even entertain companies that won’t let me use my choice of distro - especially considering I’m web UI focused.
In the back of my mind, this was a factor. I felt I needed to be at least one person who would not debase myself just to get a job in which I’d constantly be told to debase myself.
We need to bring back Unemployed Councils.
I had to read up on that to know what it was about. While I’m all in on unions and collective bargaining, I’m not keen on Communism as a political approach. the original idea was a plausible answer to the woes of the struggle between groups of people, but it does not acknowledge that the problem is human behavior. Specifically, a portion of the population that will always seek dominance, regardless of the means or declared ideology. This is what happened with Communism. The assassination of the white revolution in order to insert the red revolution is class 101 in that fact. The United States’ founders understood this, which is why I’m still behind the checks and balances approach to power.
Yes, it eventually is subverted and must be re-established (sometimes forcefully) but it is as Churchill said, Democracy is the worst form of government… except for all the rest.
That is absurdly fucked up on the recruiter’s part. Your response was a good one.
Thank you.
I think not pursuing a position (or doing a lot of other things) due to your own values is always the right choice assuming no one else’s health and well-being is on the line. In this case I distinctly support your decision (I mean if anyone would it’s the people on Lemmy). I cannot stand that in every situation where an individual has even the slightest amount of desperation, like needing income to feed you and your family, a company will always, without fail, take advantage of it to save themselves the slightest bit of money. I’m not even inherently against the idea of digital pre-screening type processes like this assessment, but because the job seeker is usually in need of income, they will jump through these ridiculous hoops to make it work and companies know it so they put no effort into making it an easy process.
These are real human beings who, if they ever need to find a job again, will have to go through these SAME things and no one (with the power to do so) ever stops and thinks… man this sucks… we should make this easier.
The hiring company failed the interview. It happens, and IMO you’ve exercised good judgement here.
My personal suspicion is that this sort of inhumane, inhuman, hiring process filters for people who are either desperate for work, or who don’t see anything wrong with this sort of thing.
I totally agree. It’s a test of submission. I bet my life savings that job would have increasingly creeping amounts of unpaid work and extended working hours, with the implicit threat that saying no means you’re fired.
You mean like my last job. Yes, it was the insulting treatment at my most recent employer that gave me an extra bit of self respect that pushed me to make that decision. The proverbial last straw.
You did the right thing. We in general have to willing to inconvenience ourselves to hang on to what privacy we still have. I’m sorry the situation is so difficult for you, but I applaud your determination. To thine own self be true.
I’ve told recruiters that if they don’t allow remote work then they can fly me out for an interview if they want more than a phone call.
That’s the funny part - they have offices about 15 minutes from where I live and it’s a hybrid job.
Then could you not do this testing on a machine at their office? What the heck?
Probably because they moved there executive offices last year to someplace far away. Funny how we have to be creative and figure how to “git 'er done” but "they’ don’t, isn’t it?
The more people who demand better out of their employers (and services, governments, etc.), the better we’ll get of those things in the long run. When you surrender your rights, you worsen not only your own situation, but that of everyone else, as you validate and contribute to the system that violates them. Capitulation is the single greatest reason we have these kinds of problems.
We need more people doing exactly as you did, simply saying no. Thank you for fighting, and thank you for sharing. Best wishes in your job hunt.
You set and communicated a healthy boundary. I think your email clearly communicates your reasoning and expectations and hopefully the recruiter passes it along to the company itself so they can receive the feedback, or at the very least uses it to tailor what sort of opportunities they send your way.
I remember declining a job offer (I had the contract to sign) long ago because one of the people I’d nominated as a reference contacted me and said “I legally can’t answer the questions they’ve asked about you”. Turns out their pro-forma reference questionnaire asked things like “Is this person punctual?”, “what issues has this person had?”. General dirt digging
If anybody were to answer that and the job offer got revoked, I could take that person to court for libel. Companies should know better than to ask anything but factual details in a reference.
So I turned it down stating that if they were so unprofessional around recruitment I wouldn’t trust them to be a good professional employer if I worked for them.
Wow. It’s as bad as I feared. We’re not human to them any more.
This was 2005. It’s not new.
