Why is the job market so bad right now? (HR roles)

Understanding the Current Challenges in the HR Job Market in NYC

As the job market continues to evolve, many professionals are noticing significant shifts across various industries—particularly within Human Resources (HR). For those actively seeking opportunities, especially in competitive metropolitan areas like New York City, these changes may raise questions about current market dynamics and future prospects.

The Current Landscape of HR Employment in NYC

Recent observations indicate a tightening of available HR roles in NYC, with some reporting a notably low inventory of open positions. Several factors contribute to this cooling demand:

• Seasonal Fluctuations: The final quarter of the year (Q4) often sees a slowdown in hiring activities as companies conclude budgets and finalize year-end staffing decisions. This seasonal trend can temporarily reduce the number of available opportunities.

• Market Saturation and Competition: Data from professional networking platforms reveal a high volume of applicants per opening—sometimes between 300 to 1,000 applicants for on-site HR roles. Such intense competition can make job searches more challenging, regardless of the candidate’s experience.

• Economic and Business Uncertainty: Broader economic factors, including inflation pressures, shifts in corporate hiring strategies, or organizational restructuring, may also influence the demand for HR professionals.

Implications for Job Seekers in HR

Given these market conditions, HR professionals seeking new roles might need to adjust their strategies:

• Timing and Patience: Recognizing seasonal patterns can help in planning job searches—allowing for increased activity during periods of higher demand.

• Enhanced Skill Sets: Demonstrating specialized skills or niche expertise can help differentiate applicants in a competitive pool.

• Networking and Local Insights: Tapping into local professional communities and networks can provide exclusive opportunities not widely advertised.

Conclusion

While a limited job market can be discouraging, understanding the underlying causes enables professionals to adapt and strategize effectively. As the market stabilizes and economic conditions evolve, opportunities for HR roles are likely to rebound. Maintaining adaptability, expanding networks, and refining skill sets remain key to navigating these challenging times.

If you’re currently in NYC and pondering your career trajectory, staying informed about market trends and leveraging professional connections can make a significant difference. Remember, periods of low inventory are often temporary, and preparation today can lead to success tomorrow.

Scummy internal recruiter told my candidate “it would be better if you came to us without a recruiter”

Unprofessional Conduct by Internal Recruiter Tarnishes Potential Hire: A Cautionary Tale for Employers

In the competitive landscape of talent acquisition, professionalism and integrity should serve as the foundation of every interaction. Unfortunately, there are occasions when internal recruiters or hiring managers exhibit behavior that not only undermines the company’s reputation but also jeopardizes promising candidate relationships. Recent experiences underscore the importance of maintaining respectful communication standards throughout the hiring process.

A Disconcerting Encounter

One of our candidates recently faced an unsettling comment from an internal recruiter. The recruiter suggested that it would be preferable if the candidate applied directly to the company, bypassing recruiters altogether. This statement was not only unprofessional but also dismissive of the candidate’s efforts to explore opportunities through proper channels.

In response, the candidate astutely remarked, “If it wasn’t for the recruiter, I wouldn’t even know about your company.” This highlights a critical point: recruitment professionals often serve as vital links connecting talented candidates with potential employers. Denigrating that role can damage the company’s reputation and deter high-quality applicants.

Impact on Candidate Engagement and Company Image

The comment left a negative impression on the candidate, who was an excellent fit for the role. Such remarks can create a sense of disrespect and diminish the employer’s attractiveness in the eyes of talented professionals. In today’s competitive job market, maintaining a respectful and professional hiring process is essential to attracting and retaining top talent.

Internal Responses and Organizational Implications

Upon learning of the incident, the hiring manager was understandably upset. Recognizing the severity of the situation and the potential fallout, they expressed strong dissatisfaction with the internal recruiter’s conduct, advocating for immediate disciplinary action, including termination if necessary. This reaction underscores the importance of accountability within recruitment teams, especially when internal staff demonstrate a lack of professionalism such as unproductive candidate sourcing and inappropriate communication.

Lessons Learned and Best Practices

This case serves as a reminder that every member of the hiring team plays a pivotal role in shaping the company’s employer brand. Here are some key takeaways:

• Maintain Professionalism: All interactions with candidates should reflect respect and courtesy, regardless of circumstances.
• Support Recruitment Efforts: Internal recruiters should view themselves as ambassadors of the company, fostering positive candidate experiences.
• Address Unprofessional Behavior Promptly: Organizations must establish clear protocols to handle misconduct swiftly to protect their reputation.
• Value External Recruitment Partners: External recruiters and internal teams should collaborate harmoniously, recognizing each other’s contributions to successful talent acquisition.

Conclusion

The recruitment process is a delicate balance of professionalism, communication, and strategic engagement. Incidents of unprofessional behavior—like dismissive comments from internal recruiters—can have far-reaching consequences, including losing top-tier candidates and damaging the company’s reputation. By fostering a culture of respect and accountability within hiring teams, organizations can build stronger relationships with prospective employees and position themselves as desirable employers in a competitive talent market.

You’ve heard of scam jobs but what about scam candidates…

The Hidden Threat: When Scam Candidates Slip Through the Hiring Process

In the competitive landscape of tech startups, especially those in the rapid growth phase like Series-C companies, hiring the right talent is crucial. However, what happens when a promising candidate turns out to be a scammer? Recent experiences underscore the importance of vigilance not just during the interview process but also throughout an employee’s tenure.

A Cautionary Tale from a Remote Start-Up

Our company, a fully remote startup with fewer than 200 employees, encountered a troubling situation a few months ago. We had just onboarded a full-stack engineer, having seemingly conducted a thorough interview process. The candidate passed technical assessments, engaged in multiple video interviews, and impressed during conversations with our VP of Engineering and the team. Everything appeared legitimate on the surface.

However, our hiring manager sensed something wasn’t quite right. Despite the candidate passing all standard checks, she felt there was a disconnect—something about their responses or demeanor didn’t align with earlier impressions. This intuition proved prescient.

Uncovering the Identity Theft

Unexpectedly, one of our social media accounts was approached by an individual claiming to be the new hire. A deeper investigation led us to realize that we had inadvertently employed someone who had stolen another person’s identity. This revelation prompted us to involve law enforcement authorities.

Alarmingly, this isn’t an isolated incident. Law enforcement indicated that this team of cybercriminals operates in organized groups, meticulously crafting their schemes to avoid detection. Their targets are often small to medium-sized companies, where the fraudsters aim to establish a credible work history—to later leverage for securing loans, credit, or other financial benefits.

Insights and Lessons Learned

Our experience was eye-opening. Despite a comprehensive interview process—including live technical assessments, multiple video calls, reference checks, and background screenings—the scammer managed to penetrate our defenses. Their tactics included:

• Using a stolen identity with authentic details, including an actual address, which even secured initial background clearance.
• Providing a reference that was later discovered to be a close associate or an accomplice.
• Receiving company swag at the stolen address, raising suspicion, and further alerting us to inconsistencies.
• Attempting to apply for a loan under the stolen identity, ultimately revealing their true intent.

Key Takeaways for Employers

1. Enhanced Verification Processes: Standard background checks might not suffice when dealing with stolen identities. Consider developing more robust identity verification measures—such as verifying official documents or cross-referencing multiple data sources.

2. Employee Monitoring and Vigilance: Pay attention to early signs of inconsistency or misrepresentation, even if initial assessments seem favorable.

3. Cross-Check Personal Details: Be cautious when contact details, addresses, or references raise red flags, especially if they match or are suspiciously similar.

4. In-Depth Reference Checks: Avoid relying solely on standard references. Confirm the authenticity and relationship of references, and consider reaching out through alternative contacts or channels.

5. Implement Continuous Security Training: Educate your HR and hiring teams about emerging fraud tactics and red flags to watch for.

Final Thoughts

While hiring the right talent is vital, safeguarding your organization from increasingly sophisticated scams is equally important. As this case illustrates, scammers are becoming more organized and resourceful, often infiltrating organizations under the guise of legitimate candidates.

Have you experienced similar challenges? What strategies have you adopted to prevent or detect employment-related fraud? Sharing experiences can help strengthen collective defenses against this hidden threat.

Note: Our hiring practices are strict—we only hire candidates authorized to work in the United States, and we do not outsource or sponsor visas. This incident underscores the importance of thorough vetting, regardless of how promising a candidate may seem.

Stay vigilant, and prioritize security in your hiring processes to protect your organization from unseen threats.

Candidates scared of camera?

Title: Addressing Candidate Hesitation Toward Video Interviews: Insights and Best Practices

In recent weeks, I’ve observed an unexpected trend during the interview process that warrants attention. Specifically, some candidates are expressing reluctance or even canceling interviews upon learning that the session will be conducted via video conferencing platforms like Zoom.

For instance, one candidate canceled abruptly after discovering the interview would take place on Zoom, while another terminated the call when asked to activate her camera. This behavior was surprising to me, as I typically conduct all interviews on camera, and our initial invitation explicitly states that the interview will be a video call.

This phenomenon raises important questions about candidate comfort levels with video interviews and whether underlying concerns or misconceptions might be influencing their behavior. It’s essential for hiring professionals to understand these dynamics and consider strategies to foster a more comfortable interview environment.

Understanding Candidate Reluctance

Many candidates today are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with video interviews, especially if they are new to remote hiring processes. Factors influencing their hesitation can include:

• Privacy concerns
• Anxiety about being on camera
• Lack of familiarity with technology
• Cultural or personal preferences for in-person interactions
• Fears of being recorded or misrepresented

Best Practices for Employers

To mitigate candidate discomfort and ensure a smooth interview experience, consider the following approaches:

1. Pre-Interview Communication: Clearly communicate the format of the interview, including the use of video, and reassure candidates about confidentiality and the purpose of camera use.

2. Offer Alternatives: If a candidate is uncomfortable with video, be flexible where possible—such as switching to a phone call or an in-person interview, if feasible.

3. Build Rapport and Trust: Initiate friendly conversations before diving into technical requests to reduce anxiety and establish rapport.

4. Provide Guidance and Support: Offer tips on how to set up their environment for the interview, including lighting, background, and camera setup, to help them feel more confident.

5. Respect Privacy and Comfort: Recognize that not all candidates will be equally comfortable with video and strive to accommodate their preferences when possible.

Reflecting on the Current Climate

While it may seem unusual or even suspicious that candidates are hesitant to appear on camera, it is often a reflection of broader concerns about privacy and comfort rather than an indication of malicious intent. As remote hiring becomes more prevalent, developing empathetic and flexible interviewing practices will be crucial in attracting and securing top talent.

Conclusion

Candidate discomfort with video interviews is an emerging challenge that calls for thoughtful navigation. Clear communication, flexibility, and understanding can help alleviate concerns and create a more inviting interview environment. By addressing these issues proactively, employers can ensure a fair and effective hiring process that respects candidates’ needs and preferences.

“I can’t talk about my employment gap. I signed an NDA!”

Title: The Hidden Risks of Concealing Employment Gaps: Why NDAs Shouldn’t Be an Excuse

In today’s competitive job market, transparency and honesty are vital components of a successful application. Yet, some candidates believe that citing non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) as a reason for avoiding discussion about employment gaps is an acceptable strategy. Unfortunately, this mindset can do more harm than good.

Recently, I came across a social media post where an individual claimed, “I can’t talk about my employment gap. I signed an NDA!” While NDAs are legitimate legal tools used to protect sensitive information, using them as an excuse to withhold employment history can be problematic.

Why Using NDAs as a Cover-up Raises Concerns

The primary purpose of an NDA is to prevent the disclosure of specific confidential information related to a current or former employer or project. It is not intended to bar a candidate from discussing their employment timeline or career progression, especially when it involves standard gaps like personal development, caregiving, or education.

Employers and recruiters value honesty. An unexplained gap or an inability to discuss your career history may inadvertently raise red flags, suggesting a lack of transparency or potential red flags. Conversely, proactively addressing gaps with a straightforward explanation—while respecting NDAs—demonstrates integrity and professionalism.

The Importance of Transparency in Job Applications

Candidates should be prepared to discuss employment gaps honestly, framing them in a positive light. For example, if your NDA restricts details about your previous role, you can still explain that you took time for personal growth, further education, or to handle personal commitments. When necessary, emphasize your skills, experiences, and readiness to contribute to a new role.

When is it Appropriate to Mention NDAs?

If an NDA legally prevents you from sharing specific details, you can briefly mention that certain information is confidential and that you’re happy to discuss your experience in general terms. This approach maintains professionalism while respecting legal boundaries.

The Risks of Avoidance and Misinformation

Attempting to hide employment gaps or misrepresent your situation based on NDAs can backfire during interviews or reference checks. Employers value honesty and often appreciate candor about career trajectories. Using NDAs as an excuse to conceal information may be perceived as evasiveness or dishonesty, ultimately jeopardizing your chances of securing employment.

Conclusion

While NDAs are essential tools for protecting confidential information, they should not be used as a blanket excuse to avoid discussing employment history. Transparency, combined with creative framing of your experiences and respectful acknowledgment of legal restrictions, will serve you best in your job search. Remember, in recruitment, honesty remains the most compelling approach—concealing your employment gaps out of fear may do more harm than good.

I fucking hate everyone [Rant]

Understanding the Frustrations of Corporate Hiring: A Professional Perspective

In the fast-paced world of corporate recruitment, patience and efficiency are paramount. However, the reality often involves navigating complex organizational dynamics that can significantly hinder progress. Over the course of six weeks, I have been tasked with recruiting an administrative assistant for a senior leader within my company, and the experience has been a microcosm of the challenges many recruiters face daily.

Initial Candidate Submission and Managerial Hesitation

On the very first day the position was opened, I submitted a carefully curated pipeline of qualified candidates. The hiring manager conducted interviews with two candidates who impressed them immediately. Despite this promising start, they opted to pause and explore additional options, preferring to see what else might be available. My insistence that we move forward promptly was met with resistance, highlighting a common issue: organizational indecisiveness.

Such hesitation often stems from the perception that hiring is an intricate puzzle, requiring exhaustive exploration rather than trusting the initial qualified candidates. Senior leaders, especially those in influential roles, understandably have high standards—they seek the “best,” considering themselves at the forefront of their field. Yet, this often translates into extended searches and delays that impact the recruitment timeline.

The Protracted Hiring Process

Weeks passed as we continued sourcing and interviewing candidates without much progress. It’s worth noting that the process isn’t as straightforward as submitting a resume and making an offer. In our organization, the workflow includes submitting paperwork to the Compensation department to determine salary brackets—a process that can take up to a week and often tests everyone’s patience.

Throughout this period, I was frequently contacted by the hiring manager, expressing urgency and concern about losing the candidate we initially identified. While I understand the importance of filling the role, constant demands for updates—despite there being little to report—can be draining. Their repeated assertions that the candidate was “almost six weeks ago” in the interview stage underscored the disconnect between organizational procedures and the desire for swift action.

Final Stages and Frustrations

Eventually, the compensation approval came through, and I was prepared to extend an offer. However, the hiring manager requested additional steps before proceeding—specifically, scheduling an interview with a subordinate to “double-check” the candidate’s fit. This additional layer of bureaucracy, while perhaps well-intentioned, further delays the process and exemplifies the frustration many recruiters and candidates experience in corporate hiring.

Reflections on Organizational Hurdles

The experience illustrates a common pattern in corporate recruitment: initial enthusiasm gives way to prolonged indecision, bureaucratic bottlenecks, and managerial micromanagement. These factors can lead to frustration, burnout, and a sense of futility among recruitment professionals.

For organizations aiming to attract top talent quickly and efficiently, it’s crucial to streamline internal processes, foster trust in the recruiting team, and prioritize decisive action when suitable candidates are identified. Recognizing the human element—both for recruiters and candidates—is key to building a more effective hiring culture.

In conclusion, navigating the corporate hiring maze requires patience, strategic communication, and organizational willingness to adapt. Only then can companies hope to close roles swiftly without compromising on quality—a goal that benefits everyone involved.

Disclaimer: This article is based on real-world experience and aims to shed light on common corporate recruitment challenges. It encourages organizations to reflect on their internal processes and seek improvements for a more seamless hiring experience.

Just had the best experience ever with a recruiter; he told me my salary expectations were too high for his client

A Refreshing Encounter with a Recruiter: When Transparency and Respect Shine Through

In the often challenging landscape of job searching and recruitment, positive experiences can feel few and far between. However, I recently had a refreshing interaction with a recruiter that stood out remarkably—and it’s worth sharing.

Breaking the Norm: Transparent Salary Expectations

Many job seekers and professionals know the routine all too well: after submitting a resume or receiving a message from a recruiter, the first question or statement often revolves around salary expectations. Over time, this approach can become almost ritualistic—sometimes leading to frustration, especially when there’s a disconnect between candidates and employers on compensation.

My history has led me to adopt a straightforward approach: I openly state my salary expectations early in the conversation. While some may consider this blunt or even rude, I’ve found it to be a practical way to avoid wasting time navigating multiple interview rounds before discovering that the numbers don’t align.

An Unexpectedly Respectful Response

Recently, I was contacted via LinkedIn about a potential opportunity with a reputable company in my industry. As usual, I responded by specifying my minimum acceptable base salary, aiming to set clear boundaries from the outset. I expected the typical back-and-forth—questions, perhaps some negotiation, or the usual runaround.

Instead, I received a reply that genuinely surprised me:

“Thank you for the follow-up. Blunt is perfectly okay. I think your target is going to be outside of the range my client is looking at, unfortunately, but please let me know if I can be a resource for you in your search!”

This simple acknowledgment and respectful honesty were a breath of fresh air. There was no mid-journey chase, no delays, no dismissive attitudes—just clarity.

Why This Matters

This interaction highlighted a few important lessons:

• Transparency breeds trust: Being upfront about salary expectations saves everyone time and effort.
• Respectful communication matters: Even if an opportunity doesn’t align financially, kindness and honesty foster professional respect and potential future collaborations.
• Positive experiences are possible: Not all recruiters operate within the same transactional mindset. Some genuinely prioritize transparency and professionalism.

Final Thoughts

While the job search process can often feel like navigating a maze of hoops, encounters like these remind us that professionalism and honesty can make a significant difference. If more recruiters and employers embraced this level of transparency, the recruitment experience for everyone involved would be much more efficient—and, dare I say, enjoyable.

Here’s to more candid conversations and respectful interactions in the professional world.

These AI recruitment companies are pissing me off

Critical Perspectives on AI Recruitment Tools: Are They Living Up to the Hype?

In recent years, the recruitment industry has experienced a surge of artificial intelligence (AI) solutions claiming to revolutionize the hiring process. While innovation is essential, many professionals are beginning to question whether these tools truly deliver on their promises or merely add superficial efficiency without addressing the core of effective recruitment.

A Growing Frustration Among Recruiters

Seasoned recruiters with over a decade of experience are voicing concerns about the plethora of so-called “AI recruiter” platforms entering the market. Many entrants present themselves as game-changers designed to streamline talent acquisition, but a common theme among users is skepticism about their actual utility.

Misguided Expectations and Real Challenges

A recurring criticism is that these AI tools often focus on automating initial stages—such as asking preliminary questions or filtering resumes—yet fail to significantly reduce the workload or enhance candidate quality. Instead, recruiters find themselves spending additional time reviewing video responses or manually verifying profiles, which seems counterintuitive to the promised time savings.

The Human Element in Recruitment

Recruitment is fundamentally about people—building relationships, understanding motivations, and assessing cultural fit. Several professionals contend that many AI solutions overlook these nuances. They argue that true hiring success depends on human judgment and interaction, aspects that current automated tools struggle to emulate effectively.

Are These Tools Falling Short?

There’s a growing consensus among experienced recruiters that many AI recruitment platforms are still in their infancy, often providing superficial functionalities that do not align with real-world hiring needs. This disconnect raises questions about how many of these companies develop their products—whether they have genuine insight into recruiting or simply follow trends without addressing the profession’s complexities.

Conclusion

While technological innovation remains vital for the evolution of recruitment, it is equally important for providers to develop solutions that genuinely add value. As it stands, many AI tools on the market seem to miss the mark by prioritizing automation over human-centric hiring practices. For recruiters and HR professionals, staying critical and discerning is crucial to navigating this rapidly evolving landscape. If you’ve experienced similar frustrations, you are not alone—this is a conversation worth having as the industry continues to innovate.

How frustrating is it hearing that a candidate only wants remote work?

Navigating Candidates’ Preferences for Remote Work: Challenges and Considerations

In today’s evolving job market, work flexibility has become a pivotal factor for many professionals. A recent personal experience highlights the complexities involved in aligning candidate preferences with employer expectations, especially regarding remote work.

During a job interview with a recruiter, I was asked about my willingness to commute for my next role. My response was clear: I am seeking a fully remote position, so I have a zero-mile commute in mind. The recruiter appeared visibly frustrated by this answer, yet maintained a professional demeanor. He then inquired, “If you had to commute, how far would it be?” To be honest, if a commute were mandatory, I would consider exploring other opportunities that better fit my preferences. Shortly thereafter, I was connected with a higher-level decision-maker within the organization.

This experience is not isolated. Many professionals have encountered similar interactions, which often stem from recruiters being tasked with filling roles that require on-site presence—roles that may no longer align with modern work expectations or candidate desires. These situations can create friction and leave candidates feeling misunderstood or undervalued.

The shift toward remote work has significantly transformed the recruitment landscape. Candidates increasingly prioritize flexibility, work-life balance, and the ability to work from home. Conversely, some organizations still hold traditional views regarding in-office presence, which can hinder their ability to attract top talent.

Final Thoughts

For employers and recruiters, understanding and respecting candidate preferences is crucial in today’s competitive job market. While logistical or operational requirements may necessitate some on-site work, aligning roles with employee expectations can lead to higher satisfaction and retention.

Professionals in the job-seeking arena should feel empowered to articulate their priorities clearly. Finding a role that aligns with your work environment preferences isn’t just about convenience, but about ensuring a healthy and sustainable professional life.

What has your experience been with remote work preferences during the hiring process? Share your insights and stories in the comments below.

Every time I open LinkedIn Recruiter I lose brain cells

Understanding the Challenges of Using LinkedIn Recruiter: A Critical Perspective

In the competitive landscape of talent acquisition, LinkedIn Recruiter has long been regarded as a vital tool for sourcing and connecting with potential candidates. However, many recruiters and hiring professionals are increasingly expressing frustration with the platform’s efficacy and value proposition.

Cost Versus Functionality

With an annual subscription surpassing $10,000, LinkedIn Recruiter represents a significant investment for organizations. Yet, users frequently report that the platform does not meet expectations in terms of data accuracy or usability. Complaints include outdated candidate profiles, ineffective search filters, and low response rates for InMail messages—often comparable to cold calling in the early 2000s.

Search Capabilities and Data Quality

The search functionality is often criticized for being unreliable. For example, attempting to find a backend engineer with expertise in Python and Kubernetes can yield a flood of irrelevant results, such as customer success managers, professionals from unrelated fields like dentistry, or profiles untouched for years. Boolean search operators sometimes fail to work as intended, and filter options may contradict each other, reducing the precision of searches. Additionally, geographic mismatches, with many matches residing outside of the targeted location, further diminish lead quality.

Candidate Engagement and InMail Response Rates

Sending InMails remains a common outreach method; however, response rates are generally low—sometimes as low as 20%. Many developers and technical professionals have become desensitized to unsolicited messages, often ignoring or automatically filtering out recruiter outreach amidst a deluge of spam. This phenomenon has, to some extent, trained a generation of engineers to dismiss recruitment messages outright, complicating efforts to engage passive candidates.

The Cost of Monopoly

The recurring theme among users is a sense of compulsion—continuing to pay for LinkedIn Recruiter despite widespread dissatisfaction. It has been likened to a monopoly, a necessary evil for accessing talent pools that, while frustrating, remains the primary gateway in many industries. This scenario fosters a perception that recruiters are paying a premium for a platform that offers diminishing returns.

Looking Ahead

The recruitment software landscape is evolving, and there is optimism that innovative platforms could disrupt LinkedIn’s dominance, particularly in effectively engaging passive tech talent at scale. Until such alternatives become viable, LinkedIn Recruiter remains an indispensable yet heavily scrutinized tool—one that many in the industry would prefer to replace.

Conclusion

While LinkedIn Recruiter offers unparalleled access to professional profiles, persistent issues around data quality, search functionality, and engagement metrics continue to challenge its perceived value. Recruiters must weigh these frustrations against the platform’s importance in their talent acquisition strategies and remain hopeful that future innovations may provide more effective solutions.

Note: This article reflects ongoing industry conversations and personal experiences. Potential users should consider their specific needs and evaluate multiple tools to optimize recruitment outcomes.