Scammers gaming India’s overcrowded job market
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
On my first day, I was given a script to learn and placed near a senior guy to listen in on his phone call to learn from him. The scam was simple, they had a website similar in name to yellowpages.com but not the real thing. They would call up small businesses (mom and pop stores) in the US and tell them their yellowpages listing was chargeable from that year, and if they don't pay 500$ , it would be removed. If someone other than the owner was attending the phone and said they don't want it , they would use scare tactics like ,"this would get your listing removed.Are you authorized to do that ?" etc. The main targets were old people and less technologically savvy ones I guess. Once someone agreed , the call was routed to another team some place else.
Long story short, I didn't go back after the first day- but my friend chose to stay back. Many of them who attended the interview did . I don't have contact with any of them , but now I wonder how many of them turned to bigger scams. None of them had joined there thinking they would be scamming people. At no point in the interview process did the company appear to be scam artists.
If anyone is wondering what I did after that, I borrowed some money, checked out the cheapest training course available near by - it turned out to be php (around 120$) and I landed a web dev role in 4 months.
First day he sat at his desk browsing the internet all day. Second day, the senior dev asked if he needed help and by the third day he was bringing in several .Net programming books to try and help him.
By the end of the week he was out. Both founders said they would only hire domestically from now on and do a better job of screening people.
Perhaps a solution to this could be to give the interviewee something that only he can give the interviewer back when they meet. Something that the interviewee cannot pass onto the 'real' candidate who will appear on the first day. On the other hand, fining the real candidate is the worst way possible, it has to be better than that.
It can help prevent this attempt of 'baiting and switching' to a lesser competent candidate in the first place.
The attitude should change from 'Oh I can give this test, I'll pass it for sure and you can pay me $X for it', to 'Screw that, they'll find out immediately that it wasn't me.'
I fail to understand why this is unacceptable. If I take a test for you, we both get in trouble.
Some do this because they think that the job market is skewed against them, and might also have the sentiments that these 'seats' within the companies are reserved for 'rich people' or the 'upper castes', when that's hardly the case. Bear in mind some companies/universities/schools only hire from a certain caste, that is a thing. One's caste is clearly mentioned in the Ration Cards, not sure if it's the case on the Aadhar Card.
Fining them for an opportunity they thought they were going to get by 'gaming the system they were gamed out of' is just kicking them repeatedly, and does no one any good.
And because the consequences are low. Anticipated shame [1] is an observed determinant in cheating frequency.
> does no one any good
It deters cheating. This does the honest test takers, e.g. those without the resources to pay "a non-decent amount" to cheat, a favor. It does employers, by being able to better trust exam results, a favor. And as a result, it does the entire economy a favor.
[1] https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/46025357/bf0...
Fining them is a way, I agree with you on that. But it's far from the best way.
The paper you provided[0] also goes on to talk about the future actions of an offender who has been caught in the act previously.
> It should be noted that being caught cheating in the past does not necessarily provide an accurate measure of high perception of being caught cheating in the future.
I'll concede to cherry picking for my arguments, but even anecdotally, cheaters will cheat, cost is an afterthought. People negatively affected (caught cheating and fined) will only remember the part about being fined. From their perspective, the organisation has just exploited them more, and you have just bred more resentment for your organisation within this community.
[0] https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/46025357/bf0...
Unlikely though it possible that I am living in my own bubble since I haven't applied to shoddy places ever so who knows.But as someone living here it really amuses me and seems hard to believe.
Edit: I'm really interested in who downvoted my comment, considering it's based on something I've personally seen happen multiple times.
A video call as part of the hiring process, instead of a phone call, solves the solution trivially. Since we're talking about software engineers, which are (supposedly) used to these tools, there are no associated costs (I refer human, not monetary ones).
I should have added the fact that skype would solve the issue as well.
But to this day, I don't understand why companies do a telephone interview. Its certainly not cheaper than a skype interview.
Maybe you could argue against a video call by saying that the person might grow a beard/shave their beard, put on weight/ lose weight, change their appearance drastically by the time they come to the first day on the job. Or the interviewee might be at their current job when they are interviewing for the next, so that might throw some people off the process. Thirdly I think some research somewhere might have said that a skype interview is more daunting, and hence less people will apply for the job/qualify to the next round as a result of the stress it causes and the telephone interview is just less stressful on the candidate.
All possible, all equally rubbish reasons imho.
No wonder it's the mess as it's presented
A video interview should be the minimum.
This was totally different.
While interviewing the first guy, in-person interview, we asked about process flows at his last job. The answer was uncannily similar to what we were doing. We were intrigued and dug deeper. It became apparent to us that he was describing our process back to us. When we asked about what OS his current employer was using for prod systems, he folded. So, we ended the interview.
The 2nd guy, again in-person interview, repeated the same process flow. And he came prepared. He said the prod systems were Windows. When we pushed about the Windows flavor he answered Windows 10. He had never heard of the server version of Windows like 2012 R2. The best part was that he somehow thought the job was already in the bag. So whenever we asked a difficult questions his answers were pretty passive aggressive.
Though I complained to both HR and developer's US manager, nothing came out of it. All reports were ignored.
A few years back a neighbor called upon us with his young son who had just completed his graduation. It turned out that wanted to seek my opinion on a job offer his son had received. His son had graduated from a tier-III institute in India; below average academically and all that. Apparently he received an email offering him a job in London, some 110K pounds/annum, all without an interview.
I attempted to explain that it sounded fishy if not outright scam, but they weren't ready to listen.
A couple of weeks later these guys told my Dad that the ones who offered the job were asking for money under some pretext or the other and that they've decided not to move ahead with it.
----
The scammers realize that people are desperate, gullible and keep on tricking people for years, even decades. Just like the Nigerian prince who was finally nabbed last week [0] after a couple of decades.
[0] https://www.theroot.com/white-nigerian-prince-email-scammer-...
1: https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2013/08/whos-calling-not-g...
My wife reminds me of this regularly =)
I would say that it is a part of what "tech literacy" is. I've also got family members who lack it entirely. It's rather bizarre to see someone affected so wholly by new information without knowing how to even challenge that information. "If X is true then why do we not see Y occur?" will usually be met with a shut-down in conversation and a bring-up of hostility.
People are used to this when getting a call from a call center. They imagine the IRS being the kind of behemoth that might need to outsource to a large call center.
> tells you they are from the IRS
It's not inherently apparent that the IRS would never call someone. Although the IRS would rather use mail which can be certified and better archived, it's not apparent that recorded calls couldn't do the same thing.
> you need to pay them "taxes" with an Apple gift card
If you're not up to date on "fancy new things happening with banking" and you're the kind of person who only ever uses checks and thinks your debit card is a credit card because of the Visa logo maybe this is just legitimate enough to trick you. Assuming the person fell for the first two aspects of this, they're probably flummoxed, thinking the "big bad IRS" is trying to go after them and want to resolve it with zero friction, so you're easily influenced. These used to be prepaid debit cards until crackdowns on Moneypak cards used for scams, maybe the person says "Get the prepaid debit card with the Apple symbol on it".
>I guess a fool and their money are soon parted, but this is a pretty unbelievable level of gullibility.
It's not being a fool, these scams target vulnerable people. Often times fear of being shamed the way your post does only furthers the harm as people stay in denial they're being scammed so they can avoid that shame.
Though scammers can also contact by mail.
This is not only a problem in India. We need to stop dealing with companies that have bad ethics or values, so that they go out of business. Do not work for them and do not do business with them. Sure you might lose money in the short run, but we all win in the end.
So ya, you can take a stand, but you aren’t going to go far enough in your career for the stand to make much of a difference, cynicism or not.
China's policy is fairly sane. Nobody except for the inner circle of the party can take anything for granted. If you bribe somebody for advancement, if caught, both you and the person you bribe get brought down and punished. Probably a jail sentence, confiscation of any property that you might possibly have gotten through dishonest means, and in severe enough cases, death.
These ARE due to the sheer population numbers, but you cannot ignore the fact that everyone is on a very quick race, you can run it and die in the process, or you can scam some guy with a bicycle/scooter/car/heli/jet and get there quicker + safer.
[0] http://ncrb.nic.in/StatPublications/ADSI/ADSI2014/adsi-2014%...
May be they don't have any respect for their job and their organizations. It is not about the technique of hiring, it is the lazy unskilled people in the hiring team who don't care about the employee's career and the organizations growth.
So they get what they deserve.
May be if Facebook introduces a button for Add Employee, they will find it more convenient and browse Facebook and start clicking Add Employee after reviewing their profiles.
LOL, So funny.
Organization needs to pay attention and setup a hiring team who want to do a good job in the task at hand.
Great read, and full of issues that are discussed on HN everyday. Also, not a new topic, the call centers have been on the decline for long, and for good reasons.
> -today, young people from agricultural castes want to work in offices and not farms. I wondered what other options were open to them.
> Poojary read it out to me in his best American accent, which he had perfected by the end of his first week. He insisted that I play along as the unwitting American.
I'm South Indian, I didn't grow up there, but I can vouch for the condescending tone of Snigdha (the author of this piece). It's very much like how a condescending North Indian talks about a South Indian. And she's the 'educated' North Indian here talking to an 'un-educated' one. The condescension is palpable, and present throughout the piece. I have not read her other 2 pieces, but they're on similar topics, and I expect a similar tone. I'm not sure if it is a reflection of her distaste for the people in these highly questionable occupations, or just sprinkles of editorial hate.
> “America is full of old people who live alone. They have no one to turn to if anything goes wrong.”
I've heard many arguments about how its a cultural thing, old people in the west (more weighted towards N-America) are treated as a burden. A burden on the economy, a social burden (damn those annoying grandpa's and grandma's). Isn't that why the 401k and MediCare/MedicAid exist? (excluding the set of population that doesn't qualify for them) to pay them(selves) back for their 40+ years of service? I'd like to hear some fresh arguments/data on why they are treated as such. I'd be grateful to anyone who points me to more reading material on this topic.
> “It’s very easy to scam Americans. They are very gullible.”
It just becomes easier to exploit the opposite side if you just demean them a little. Americans are fat and stupid, the British choose to chew their crap food with their crap teeth, and don't get me started with those vodkaholic Russians. Why don't we go a bit further, dehumanise them, then you're off to war aren't you. I'm just pointing out the micro scale from which these sentiments can snowball, nothing more.
What, you don't like curry? :)
(cue "no true Scotsman" vis-a-vis UK curry!)
Well, that doesn't provide you with emotional support and caring, just material goods.
Even if all your needs are provided for, if you're all alone in that nobody wants to speak to you or see you except one or twice a year, you're still alone and isolated.
In addition, 401k is a plan you pay into, and you get taxed one way or another. Some employers match, but besides for that, you're on your own.
Usual disclaimer: This is my opinion, yada yada yada. I am probably wrong on some (if not most) of this.
The elderly, especially in America, have an incredible amount of sway over national politics. Nearly 1/2 of voters are 50 or older [1]. As such, they generate a lot of ire in the US among the less-elderly because it feels like their needs are often met at the expense of the nation.
Medicare, for example, represents a huge amount of US entitlement spending [2] - though this is somewhat of a misleading number because Medicare funds quite a few things besides strictly healthcare expenses (like it funds most physician residencies, IIRC). Coming out in opposition to Medicare is often viewed as a bit of a political death sentence, because your primary goal as a politician is (at least it feels this way sometimes) to pander to older voters.
Additionally, steadfast conservatives tend to be elderly [3], which often puts the elderly in opposition to younger generations. Since politicians tend to listen primarily to their actual voters, you can sort-of understand the young liberal's decree that "things will be better when all the old people die."
Now, none of this is really the elderly's fault (aside from maybe that last part). Medicare is a reaction to an out-of-control healthcare system, and that's not necessarily your grandma's fault. If politicians listen to the people who vote for them, the logical answer would seem to be "go out and vote", not "get angry at the people who do vote."
But, if you're someone who does vote but feels like your voice still isn't being heard, you can probably start to understand some of the animosity.
1: http://www.post-gazette.com/news/nation/2011/05/04/U-S-votin...
2: https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/sta...
3: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/09/the-politics...
Maybe I just didn't pick up on it, but as someone who doesn't know anything about the background of the author (nor about Indian stereotypes) this article didn't seem condescending to me at all. Are you sure you're not just projecting your own stereotypes about North/South Indians onto the author here?
I mentioned I was South Indian to emphasise my bias towards such a tone.
But as I have acknowledged in my above comments, I may have looked at the article through biased eyes, but I still think I'm right in my assumption about this author's tone.
I did try to go through the paragraphs again to see if I could get a better read on it, unfortunately I came out with the same conclusion.
One thing which is never talked about in these articles is the failure of Indian government (past and present) to find effective family planning policies. Population growth is through the roof and hence unemployment is huge. With not much left in terms of job prospects lot of people turn to shady stuff.
And while the article makes a case for IRS and Microsoft scams, slowly these guys are running domestic scams too. Lot of people receive calls claiming to be from a particular bank/digital wallet company/phone provider. The victims are asked to share the OTP sent to their mobile for "verification". These OTPs are mainly for digital wallets. Once the scammers reset the password they withdraw or spend most of the money in the wallets.
They are simply dealing with the normal issues for a rapidly developing nation. Plus the new generation entering the work force is based on their population growth rate ~20 years ago.
http://www.simplydecoded.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/TH01...
The last decade was the only one where the population growth has slowed. And even then the growth was ~17% in 10 years.
Looking at the actual data https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?location... it's not clear that the government could have found more effective family planning policies, save for rather draconic China-like measures.
Plenty of opportunity out there in the farms, most of my friends have moved back to India to start (new-ish) farming practices.
It's this pervasive attitude that cities will provide you with growth, a big salary package and all for a degree that you've not been trained well in. Only a few universities in India are actually universities. The others are just as abhorrent money making scams as these call centers, comparable to Trump's University.
I propose we train them in maintaining our agrarian economy well, we're still reliant on the monsoon for many crops, which is not acceptable for this day and age. And most of all, this will get you votes, this will get you the MOST votes.
You're describing all democracies, in every country. Education has nothing to do with it. It's a well-studied structural problem with democratic rule in general.
I never said that.
And besides, "authoritarianism" isn't the opposite of democracy, as evidenced by authoritarian democracies.
I think that these kinds of jobs are morally acceptable. You can't expect the poor to behave ethically while the rich are screwing them over 24/7. You can't have a fair society without some degree of chaos and allowing people to take matters into their own hands.
If we accept capitalism, then we must accept all the nasty things that come with it.
Many people pretend that capitalism is just a matter of rewarding intelligence over stupidity and hard work over laziness, but it's just as much about rewarding selfishness over selflessness, deception over honesty, short-term thinking over long-term thinking, etc...
If someone wants to take my money, they'd probably have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands.