Ask HN: Why don't companies make applicants pay a fee to apply to a job?

[doomroot]

Rental property management companies do this with little issue. Is it possible that this is the way the hiring market moves? Would that be a net positive or negative for employees?

[dave4420]

In the UK, most letting fees charged to tenants were banned a few years ago, because it was felt that letting agents were acting abusively. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/tenant-fees-act

If I had to pay a fee to apply for a job, I’d assume that it was a scam and that there was no job on offer.

[pavel_lishin]

> Would that be a net positive or negative for employees?

In what world would this be a net positive for employees?

[vunderba]

In the same world where algorithmic HFT could be nerfed by charging a token transaction fee - this would likely kill 99% of automated resume application systems... assuming that it could be implemented fairly/properly which is by no means a certainty.

[doomroot]

If it guaranteed that you got a phone screen, I imagine a lot of SWEs would take that deal.

[theoreticalmal]

The “AI generated resume shotgun applied to every company that uses AI to parse the resume” pipeline could be broken. Separate the wheat from the chaff

[lbhdc]

I would totally pay for this if there were a real advantage (fewer applicants, guaranteed face to face screening, etc).

[Ekaros]

So how would you ensure that companies don't just make this revenue generator? As to me that would be very effective way. Get people apply string them around a bit with LLM. And then collect the fee. Have some actual hires bypass the whole thing.

[ossm1db]

companies would post ghost jobs to collect a fee. it would be widely abused.

[bdangubic]

if company needs this type of income source they will likely be on the verge of bankrupcy anyways :)

[tacostakohashi]

I think it would be interesting / beneficial to have recruiters that work for / get paid by the candidate, much like a real estate buyer's agent.

It gets awkward and weird applying for multiple jobs through different recruiters that all work for the employers, and they all want you to be exclusive with them and sell their employers/jobs hard and trash talk any other options you have, and tough keeping track of all the different jobs / applications.

It seems like it would be nice to have one recruiter that manages your whole job hunt, lets you choose the best option, and gets paid no matter which job you end up choosing so they're not motivated to push you towards particular jobs.

[wryoak]

Well isn’t part of the issue that people are using automation to mass apply? If so, they’ll just redirect their money from compute cycles toward application fees and we’ll be in the same situation.

[doomroot]

$50 is a common application fee for a rental apartment in a city in the US. I would imagine no one would be interested in paying $5k to apply to 100 jobs.

[jethronethro]

Maybe because they'd receive few, if any, job applications?

[MultifokalHirn]

I think you should ask this to people in person. Their responses will tell you a lot more than what you are willing to hear through the computer screen.

[theoreticalmal]

Applying for a job in person de facto means you have skin in the game: you spent your time and energy to go down and apply. I think the point of the application fee is to get applicant’s skin in the game

[palata]

Try to contact people and say "I am a headhunter, if you pay me <that much> I will get you an interview" and tell me how many people are willing to pay.

And that's just a headhunter. Now what message do you send, as a company, if you try to get money from applications?

I definitely will never pay a company to apply. I would rather not work for them.

[dakiol]

As applicant, I would pay if:

- it guarantees less competition

- I’m guaranteed to get an interview. I’m not paying to get directly a No as an answer

- it guarantees the company is actually hiring for that role

Unfortunately, I don’t see how one can enforce anything on companies unless it comes via regulations

[timcambrant]

I would pay a monthly fee for the reverse, setting up a paywall for companies to interview me; by which I mean paying a recruiter actively sell me on the job market and set up interviews with matching companies only after I passed an initial screening. But given my horrible experience from even the most expensive recruiters and their unfocused shotgun approach, this product will probably never exist.

[Quinzel]

I think this is a terrible idea.

You could have a really great candidate who for what ever reason, couldn’t afford to apply then and there, and the company would then miss out on amazing talent.

It would be a net negative for employers and prospective employees. Who would want to apply for a job at a company that charges you to submit the application? What service are applicants paying for?

Absolute nonsense.

[theoreticalmal]

What’s the overlap of “really great candidates” and “people who can’t afford $X application fee”? If the fee is a couple hundred, sure. But $20? What percent of bona fide job seekers who are good fits can’t afford $20?

[quintes]

Negative bro. Imagine fake jobs ads become a huge revenue stream

Seek au terms: 29. You may not ask or require any candidate to pay a fee, charge, cost or any money whatsoever in connection with the hiring process for any job advertised on our websites and apps (including to apply) whether such fee, charge, cost or money is asked or required of the candidate in the job advertisement itself or in any communication with the candidate that takes place as a result of a job advertisement placed on our websites and apps

[doomroot]

You probably mass apply to jobs you aren’t remotely qualified for.