The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It would be far more effective to just never apply to them, than wait for them to be made illegal.
That should be one of the biggest ***"this employer is untrustworthy"*** flags, and should be treated as such.
It wouldn't take long for any employer -- especially a 51-200 person organization -- to stop using this tactic, if the next 4 jobs they posted received no applications because people saw that **remote-oops-not-remote** deception as the massive red flag that it is, and refused to apply.
And then rejected the job as soon as they realized it was 1000 miles away, because it wouldn't be practical. Those scammy postings are a waste of everyone's time. They don't help the employer get more applicants. If anything, they get less, because those lies are a massive red flag.
Oh, people definitely want to be protected.
They just don't want to be inconvenienced in any way, or have to change their behavior in any way, or have to be vigilant in any way, for that protection to happen.
They want bodyguards who let them do whatever they want, and just swoop in to protect them at the last second. *(And that's even a misunderstanding of how bodyguards really work overall.)*
Definitely not holding my breath waiting on job seekers getting real legal protections against deceptive practices. We might get that somewhat after job havers might finally have the legal protections and healthcare of a civilized country. Or after companies figure out that paying decent wages and not being dicks results in greater productivity. That was definitely a "if I was king for a day" law proposal.
But, I'm sure this job is going to get plenty of qualified engineers willing to relocate to very rural Wisconsin at their own expense by using this tactic.
/s
>But, I'm sure this job is going to get plenty of qualified engineers willing to relocate to very rural Wisconsin at their own expense by using this tactic.
LOL
>But, I'm sure this job is going to get plenty of qualified engineers willing to relocate to very rural Wisconsin at their own expense by using this tactic.
Is this Epic?
Like how many people actually look at Glassdoor before applying to a place?
It's a tiny percentage of job seekers, unfortunately.
Having said that, why would you need a Glassdoor posting to tell you that the application for the organization itself is egregious?
It's one thing if the nature of the information is something that one cannot find out before getting deep into the interview process or employment itself -- but when the issue is that the job description *itself* is contradictory in a way designed to be deceptive... Why would anyone need a warning in a separate place about that?!?
I look at almost every job on glassdoor before applying.
I would say the comment and review function is really the big win for job seekers on glassdoor. I don't even use indeed or other recr
uitment agents anymore.
Either knock the doors of big companies directly or use sites that have a review function.
Not only jobs that post misinformation need to be eliminated, job recruitment sites that favours companies need too.
>Not only jobs that post misinformation need to be eliminated, job recruitment sites that favours companies need too.
Well, that's where they get all their funds, so don't expect that dynamic to change.
When I cross these I report them for inaccurate description and then I apply just so I can include a cover letter that says how scummy it is to list the position as remote when it isn’t. The word “cunty” may or may not appear.
I had a job list as Hybrid with 80% travel.
They asked me if I planned to move halfway across the country. I replied no. I am fine with the 80% travel and 20% WFH.
Oh, no. The 20% is onsite, the 80% travel is considered Hybrid.
I was like, no that is an Onsite job with 80% travel - There is no WFH therefore NOT HYBRID.
Like they would not even admit on the screening call that they lied.
Not to take their defense, but this is mainly fault of how LinkedIn works.
When you select “onsite”, LinkedIn obliges you to specify one city, and the job is advertised only to searches focused on that area.
This company offers relocation, so the job poster did this to open the advertisement to all areas and be more visible in searches.
This could have been handled better if but it’s mainly on LinkedIn’s shitty way of managing job ads
I hate how they are listed as *onsite in my city* but then, buried in the middle of the JD, it says relocation to another city halfway across the country is required.
Exactly the company I had in mind! I see multiple postings for a single job all listed as onsite for every city in my area, but it requires relocation to Wisconsin. I report them to LinkedIn for having the wrong location, but LinkedIn doesn't care.
Okay but if I was open to relocating to certain areas I would be looking at jobs posted in those locations. You can also search worldwide on LinkedIn so again, if I were open to relocation I, as a job searcher, could do that.
I hate how they are listed as *onsite in my city* but then, buried in the middle of the JD, it says relocation to another city halfway across the country is required.
💯 I tried reporting one to ZipRecruiter and they responded saying it gives people more options or whatever. Job boards are encouraging this scammy behavior. That's why we can't find jobs and employers can't find workers. It's making everything worse for everyone.
I stopped using it after receiving this response and I'm probably not alone in that. I'm guessing that employers will also stop using their service if it doesn't help them get qualified applicants (getting applicants 1000 miles away who don't have the option to move won't help them hire anyone). So it doesn't actually help their KPIs.
These occur on linked in all the time. It’ll show up for say Tulsa Oklahoma but it’s actually in San Antonio Texas. Like really? It’s like an immediate report
What information is shown on the employers job posting? LinkedIn and Indeed are notorious for inaccuracies, and it seems to be getting exponentially worse recently.
I’m actually working on a tool that will provide a better search experience exactly for these kinds of stupid job postings. It will run the JD through chatgpt to get the actual state (remote/onsite) amongst other things
Still a bit of work needed until I get to that point, for now it only automated job searching so you don’t havw to manually go through each job site
https://first2apply.com/
When I applied for my current position they advertised as wfh after 4 week training period. After the 4 weeks they changed it to, depends on what your manager says so had to wait another 4 weeks, then changed to wed-fri mandatory. I wouldn’t be as annoyed if they’d been straightforward in the ad
I’d blame companies for some but for most legit companies it is probably linkedin/indeed/?? Scraping for words or defaulting things and wasting everyones time.
>Scraping for words or defaulting things and wasting everyones time.
When your job description **about me** says that it is not remote, when elsewhere it says that it is, this is not because of poor defaults. They knew what they were doing.
That's acceptable imo, if they're paying for my travel. Remote means that I can do my job from anywhere, but it doesn't mean I'll never have to visit an office.
I’m out here trying to find remote jobs because I literally do not have a drivers license and companies found this is the biggest pain in the ass. Like what’s the point of sorting by remote on job sites if the sites just let companies get away with lying
I had remote jobs asking for a drivers license and access to a vehicle. Yet no travel was mentioned and it was supposedly remote. Made no sense at all.
Is there a reason you didn't post the whole ad so people could see it, check it out on the corporate site, and if true report it themselves? I find it hilarious how many posts here are of complaints that are easily verifiable as true or not, *if only* the OP had included information that there's no reason to redact.
I'm not a recruiter but I have posted tech jobs in Indeed and Linkedin let me tell you that THE PLATFORM ADDS THIS TAG. I had a bunch of people applied because it said Remote but I had never added a remote location anywhere nor did I checked any Remote boxes. I had to update the description (like the one in the post) to make sure it was clear.
I apply for interview and then during the interview waste their time as much as possible. When they finally get annoyed for “wasting” their time, I suggest they change their linked in posting so as to stop wasting everybody else’s time. I’m gainfully employed and not really looking for a job unless the offered pay suggests otherwise.
The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I report those for inaccurate descriptions.
Me too.
LinkedIn never gives a shit about it. I report them anyway.
"a member of our trust and safety team found that it does not go against..." fuckers
Same here. Some get removed and reposted a week later on LinkedIn. Bastards.
Flag it as scam. That's what I do.
It would be far more effective to just never apply to them, than wait for them to be made illegal. That should be one of the biggest ***"this employer is untrustworthy"*** flags, and should be treated as such. It wouldn't take long for any employer -- especially a 51-200 person organization -- to stop using this tactic, if the next 4 jobs they posted received no applications because people saw that **remote-oops-not-remote** deception as the massive red flag that it is, and refused to apply.
I bet you they still get 100+ people that saw remote and blind applied.
And then rejected the job as soon as they realized it was 1000 miles away, because it wouldn't be practical. Those scammy postings are a waste of everyone's time. They don't help the employer get more applicants. If anything, they get less, because those lies are a massive red flag.
Sure. But that's just the point. It is ridiculously hard to protect people from themselves when they aren't willing to take any steps to be protected.
The people, unfortunately, don’t want to be protected. They want to apply for remote jobs.
Oh, people definitely want to be protected. They just don't want to be inconvenienced in any way, or have to change their behavior in any way, or have to be vigilant in any way, for that protection to happen. They want bodyguards who let them do whatever they want, and just swoop in to protect them at the last second. *(And that's even a misunderstanding of how bodyguards really work overall.)*
They’re actually doing a great service for everyone by wasting the companies time and money with an interview for a job they won’t pursue.
Definitely not holding my breath waiting on job seekers getting real legal protections against deceptive practices. We might get that somewhat after job havers might finally have the legal protections and healthcare of a civilized country. Or after companies figure out that paying decent wages and not being dicks results in greater productivity. That was definitely a "if I was king for a day" law proposal. But, I'm sure this job is going to get plenty of qualified engineers willing to relocate to very rural Wisconsin at their own expense by using this tactic. /s
>But, I'm sure this job is going to get plenty of qualified engineers willing to relocate to very rural Wisconsin at their own expense by using this tactic. LOL
>But, I'm sure this job is going to get plenty of qualified engineers willing to relocate to very rural Wisconsin at their own expense by using this tactic. Is this Epic?
Like posting on Glassdoor?
Like how many people actually look at Glassdoor before applying to a place? It's a tiny percentage of job seekers, unfortunately. Having said that, why would you need a Glassdoor posting to tell you that the application for the organization itself is egregious? It's one thing if the nature of the information is something that one cannot find out before getting deep into the interview process or employment itself -- but when the issue is that the job description *itself* is contradictory in a way designed to be deceptive... Why would anyone need a warning in a separate place about that?!?
I do, always. Granted, some reviews are obviously going to be disgruntled employees.
I look at almost every job on glassdoor before applying. I would say the comment and review function is really the big win for job seekers on glassdoor. I don't even use indeed or other recr uitment agents anymore. Either knock the doors of big companies directly or use sites that have a review function. Not only jobs that post misinformation need to be eliminated, job recruitment sites that favours companies need too.
>Not only jobs that post misinformation need to be eliminated, job recruitment sites that favours companies need too. Well, that's where they get all their funds, so don't expect that dynamic to change.
also companies can pay to have glassdoor content removed so it's not at all trustworthy
When I cross these I report them for inaccurate description and then I apply just so I can include a cover letter that says how scummy it is to list the position as remote when it isn’t. The word “cunty” may or may not appear.
It seems like anything even hybrid is listed as remote on those sites which is super annoying
Yeah, super annoying to see remote then in the bottom of the job description, it says hybrid! They need a separate “hybrid” label for these jobs.
Report it.
I had a job list as Hybrid with 80% travel. They asked me if I planned to move halfway across the country. I replied no. I am fine with the 80% travel and 20% WFH. Oh, no. The 20% is onsite, the 80% travel is considered Hybrid. I was like, no that is an Onsite job with 80% travel - There is no WFH therefore NOT HYBRID. Like they would not even admit on the screening call that they lied.
Not to take their defense, but this is mainly fault of how LinkedIn works. When you select “onsite”, LinkedIn obliges you to specify one city, and the job is advertised only to searches focused on that area. This company offers relocation, so the job poster did this to open the advertisement to all areas and be more visible in searches. This could have been handled better if but it’s mainly on LinkedIn’s shitty way of managing job ads
exactly
I hate how they are listed as *onsite in my city* but then, buried in the middle of the JD, it says relocation to another city halfway across the country is required.
Epic does this, listed as onsite in Portland OR but actually no you have to move to Wisconsin
Exactly the company I had in mind! I see multiple postings for a single job all listed as onsite for every city in my area, but it requires relocation to Wisconsin. I report them to LinkedIn for having the wrong location, but LinkedIn doesn't care.
If I wanted to move to Wisconsin I'd be looking at jobs located in Wisconsin!
Okay but if I was open to relocating to certain areas I would be looking at jobs posted in those locations. You can also search worldwide on LinkedIn so again, if I were open to relocation I, as a job searcher, could do that.
LinkedIn sucks, only trust the written description Never anything auto populated by LinkedIn
The jobs whose actual location is buried in the fine print because they spam every goddamn metro market deserve a special place in hell.
I hate how they are listed as *onsite in my city* but then, buried in the middle of the JD, it says relocation to another city halfway across the country is required.
💯 I tried reporting one to ZipRecruiter and they responded saying it gives people more options or whatever. Job boards are encouraging this scammy behavior. That's why we can't find jobs and employers can't find workers. It's making everything worse for everyone.
Their KPI is engagement, not usefulness
I stopped using it after receiving this response and I'm probably not alone in that. I'm guessing that employers will also stop using their service if it doesn't help them get qualified applicants (getting applicants 1000 miles away who don't have the option to move won't help them hire anyone). So it doesn't actually help their KPIs.
These occur on linked in all the time. It’ll show up for say Tulsa Oklahoma but it’s actually in San Antonio Texas. Like really? It’s like an immediate report
And you'd have to relocate to Osseo? Absolutely fucking not
REPORT their ASS!
What information is shown on the employers job posting? LinkedIn and Indeed are notorious for inaccuracies, and it seems to be getting exponentially worse recently.
I’m actually working on a tool that will provide a better search experience exactly for these kinds of stupid job postings. It will run the JD through chatgpt to get the actual state (remote/onsite) amongst other things Still a bit of work needed until I get to that point, for now it only automated job searching so you don’t havw to manually go through each job site https://first2apply.com/
When I applied for my current position they advertised as wfh after 4 week training period. After the 4 weeks they changed it to, depends on what your manager says so had to wait another 4 weeks, then changed to wed-fri mandatory. I wouldn’t be as annoyed if they’d been straightforward in the ad
Same energy as a 21yo on Tinder who says "I'm actually 19 idk why it says I'm 21 lol"
Apply anyway and act surprised. They wasted your time; waste theirs.
I’d blame companies for some but for most legit companies it is probably linkedin/indeed/?? Scraping for words or defaulting things and wasting everyones time.
>Scraping for words or defaulting things and wasting everyones time. When your job description **about me** says that it is not remote, when elsewhere it says that it is, this is not because of poor defaults. They knew what they were doing.
Entry Level but require x+ years of experience likes to enter the chat
There's also the ones that say remote but you have to go through training on site. Then it's not fucking remote.
That's acceptable imo, if they're paying for my travel. Remote means that I can do my job from anywhere, but it doesn't mean I'll never have to visit an office.
I’m out here trying to find remote jobs because I literally do not have a drivers license and companies found this is the biggest pain in the ass. Like what’s the point of sorting by remote on job sites if the sites just let companies get away with lying
I had remote jobs asking for a drivers license and access to a vehicle. Yet no travel was mentioned and it was supposedly remote. Made no sense at all.
Yeah I grew up around Osseo…not much there! I bet it’s GFS of one of the few companies there.
So many of these. I see them constantly.
Is there a reason you didn't post the whole ad so people could see it, check it out on the corporate site, and if true report it themselves? I find it hilarious how many posts here are of complaints that are easily verifiable as true or not, *if only* the OP had included information that there's no reason to redact.
I'm not a recruiter but I have posted tech jobs in Indeed and Linkedin let me tell you that THE PLATFORM ADDS THIS TAG. I had a bunch of people applied because it said Remote but I had never added a remote location anywhere nor did I checked any Remote boxes. I had to update the description (like the one in the post) to make sure it was clear.
Yes, fuck these companies! But it is nice they give you the big ass 🚩before one applies
I apply for interview and then during the interview waste their time as much as possible. When they finally get annoyed for “wasting” their time, I suggest they change their linked in posting so as to stop wasting everybody else’s time. I’m gainfully employed and not really looking for a job unless the offered pay suggests otherwise.