Brilliant.
I can’t think of a better example of why hiring is broken; of how unequal the power dynamic is between employers and employees.
If it's labeled a "requirement", yea, they were inviting dishonesty. No one should bother to apply since they don't qualify instantly.
If you're a qualified dev, you'd more likely conclude that it's a mistake on the part of whoever wrote the listing. I've seen skills listed like "Microsoft UML" or "Python, PHD, Nodes", so wouldn't think much of seeing "MOVA".
Eh... maybe, but there are obscure languages/platforms that don't search well.
[0] - https://conan.io/
I never assume the "requirements" are actually hard requirements to an application, and I encourage others in the job market to do the same.
Sure, if you miss 3 out of the 5 requirements listed you might pass on that application. But if you've got 4 out of the 5 requirements, and think you could accomplish the job as described, you should still strongly consider sending in an application. Don't lie on your CV that you submit, but you can still submit your CV.
You never know which requirements are actually hard requirements for the org, and which were just listed that way on the job listing.
The advice is still good; the requirements are really more of "strong desire" than actual requirements, and if you look at the typical requirements listing, its' unlikely that they will find enough people at the salary they offer to fit all of them anyways.
They had an opportunity to evaluate your resume or CV before inviting you in for an interview. If it was a hard requirement for them, they shouldn't have invited you in for an interview. The only time you're really wasting is the time of the person who is screening resumes.
> Yes, this has happened to me. On the up side I now have a list of a few companies I know I won't work for unless I'm desperate.
I'm sorry that happened to you! What a terrible experience. It's definitely good to keep that list of places you know you should avoid.
"Did you work with <technology in requirements> at company Y?"
"No, I worked with <technologies listed on resume>"
"Then where did you work with <technology in requirements>?"
"I haven't"
Cue rant about wasting everybody's time...
IMO that’s fair game for monkey business.
It's still lying.
EDIT: If it was listed as "Skills you shouldn't have", it would likely (sadly?) still be effective, without screwing with job applicants.
The how would know it doesn't exist is what separates the chaff from the wheat.
i was naive that time, but still angers me.
Edit: and then go to an interview at Facebook and claim not just that you are an expert in this language but the creator
I’ve worked with body shop contracts at big orgs where the subcontractors are pure scum and will send fake people, etc. if you’re forced to deal with something like that, you need controls to detect deceit so you can take action.
Most experienced interviewees will show up to a face-to-face with copies of their resume in hand because of the way Recruiters fudge things.
I had learnt this by my second or third job, I can't believe that other industries operate this way, doctors, lawyers, accountants, civil engineers, etc.
Most of all of this is an artifact of businesses trying to commoditize human labor, including professional/specialized skills, and these are the sort of responses and gaming you see in such an artificial environment. Intelligent people are going to fight back and game your system when you try to game them.
The side with leverage that dictates the rules of engagement is to blame here and that isn't the labor force at large since there is almost no organization from the labor force, it's the employers that create this mess yet they complain about it continuously.
This happens a lot - it was a running joke for a while, it seemed that every recruiters was touting "functional programming" for what were actually very normal corporate software jobs, with the promise that if you just did a few years of Java then maybe, maybe the company would think about Clojure one day in the future!
I remember people asking for X years of Java experience and thinking, "Gosling was still calling it Oak X years ago and if you want any of his team members you're going to have to double your starting offer."
However, corporations typically don't offer any form of contract negotiations, at least in the US. An employee is often offered a take-it-or-leave-it contract with lots of non-compete and broad IP assignment riders, and their pay is usually based on their previous pay, not the value of their work.
Some folk claim that they're able to negotiate around these, but I've personally never found negotiation to work. Two of my favorite answers I've received from negotiation are (paraphrased): "The IP assignment for 1 year post employment is not negotiable." and, "We know what you made at your last job, so we'll offer you that."
Also, providing a stronger economic safety net gives employees more bargaining power, since it decreases their downside risk.
And ultimately, it's not the government alone which got us breaks, overtime pay, and safety conditions - it was the unions using their dues to push the government for those things.
In practice though, companies can survive for months or even years without filling a position and the hiring manager rarely suffers directly for any inefficiency created by not filling a position, while most people can go only for a short period of time without a job before their quality of life starts to suffer. At the same time, corporate consolidation means that in many areas (both geographic and technical) there are only a few major employers, meaning that being blacklisted by any one could be catastrophic for someone's career and meaning only a small number of individuals need to act in unison to manipulate the labor market (driving wages down, spreading bad hr practices, etc), basically all the problems of any other oligopoly. There is an asymmetry of information: the individual will only take on a few jobs over the course of their career and can not afford to experiment much as they go - for any given point in their lifetime, they're basically working with a sample size of 1; even a moderately sized employer on the other hand might hire dozens and interview thousands of people a year and have records of such recruiting data going back decades. Finally there is a social asymmetry - a company trying to poach an employee will likely not face any negative consequences for it, but an employee simply looking at what options are out there could potentially be viewed as disloyal and either be fired or removed from advancement tracks intended for long-term employees - a simple phone call to check a person's references could potentially put them into a much worse negotiating position. None of these issues are inherent, they pretty much all stem from weak labor laws and inadequate social safety nets.
This would be like me leaving little breadcrumbs of an affair for my SO to find and then have it all culminate in an "AH HA! I caught you snooping!" when they call me out on it.
So... healthy...