jpg0rd0n's comments

I agree that unsolicited requests are an imposition because there is no exchange of value. Whether or not it is a veiled job interview, for someone to ask for advice/time from someone else without even trying to first develop some kind of relationship is asking for something of value without offering anything in return.

H-1B status is a form of slavery for the visa-holder, unless they are smart and get a second visa somehow. If an H-1B is terminated, they must leave the country immediately - the employer's final responsibility to the visa-holder is to buy them a plane ticket hom. They could potentially sue their employer for wrongful termination but if they cannot stay in the country to pursue their case, this is extremely difficult.

What is all means is that for an abusive employer, H-1B employees are perfect. They are supposed to get paid more than the prevailing wage, but can be worked to death, and effectively deported if they won't and can't do what they're told to do.

I thought that was a bit ignorant to throw in there too, but sadly, have gotten used to seeing nonsense like that in "serious" articles.

I used to object to the idea of driverless cars. Then, while driving around NYC, it occurred to me that driverless cars, however reckless, would be an improvement over the other cars on the road. In fact, not just in NYC, but wherever I've driven across the US driverless cars would be a step up.

The driverless cars being tested now drive more deliberately and consistently, if a bit slower. This means that accident rates should come down, and with them the collateral congestion that they cause, hence effectively increasing the average miles per hour of a commute.

> it sounds like they started out with a open house for everyone who applied, regardless of qualifications, instead of phone screens.< I'm the CEO in the story. Oversimplifying a bit, we didn't invite everyone who responded to our ad to come to the open house, but put the responses into three buckets: those who get an invitation immediately (the "positive" email), those who get a second chance to say something interesting (the "negative" email), and those who were basically ignored because their background matched those who didn't do well in the past. As we have iterated and refined the approach, we emphasized the value of speaking to us in the first communication and dropped the negative email.

I understand your point about the phone screen, but found that this is a trade-off. The phone screen was very ineffective for us in letting people know who we are, our size, our location, what we do on a daily basis. The open house format lets the prospective employees see us as we are, where we are. Inevitably, people drop out of the process, and it's fine with us, as it opens up slots for those who like what they see. In an open house format, the candidates ask questions as a group, which means that any particular person benefits from the questions that others ask. They see our existing staff and can decide if this is a group they want to work with.

We are upfront with the candidates that we can't hire all of them, and therefore it seems like a fair exchange to do something for the "unchosen" as a bonus for coming in. Brooke and Noah have helped by providing guidance for them, and we have all tried to create a community of the unchosen.

The core concept being promoted here is that the current recruitment system is broken, and it is the fault of all of us who unquestioningly perpetuate it. My response is to experiment with different ideas until we find a model that works for all parties involved. I don't have a magic wand to provide the solution, but do keep notes on what hypothesis is being tested, what seems to work, what doesn't work and what possible improvements we should try.

The bigger question is whether this experiment will inspire others to try something new and different. If most companies do not adopt such an approach, will the adopters have a competitive advantage?

Isn't the "switch" just self-awareness? Or maybe just a kind of common sense. Ultimately, we all make our own choices, and live with the consequences. When we blame others, the "blame" is what we call the act of deflecting responsibility for our actions. When we say we are forced to do something, isn't that no more than saying that we said yes in order to avoid a consequence that we thought was worse?