‘Ridiculous’: CEO crucified over job search suggestion

A CEO has been slammed online after making a “ridiculous” suggestion which has infuriated ordinary workers.

A CEO has been blasted online after suggesting hopeful job seekers should pay to simply apply for a role.

Mike Cee, the founder of US cannabis company Grow Sciences, asked if it was “insensitive” to suggest people should fork out a “small fee” to be considered for a job.

“Am I insensitive to the world if I think people should pay a small fee ($20?) to apply for a job, as a means to prevent an overwhelming quantity of under-qualified or mismatched submissions?” he wrote in a widely-panned LinkedIn post.

Many were quick to shut down his suggestion in the comments, with some labelling it “ridiculous” and “tone deaf”.

“This is a terrible idea and I would never apply to work for a company who asks me to pay to apply. As a CEO, you should know and do better,” said one person.

“It’s bad enough that you have to pay application fees for homes and school, now you want to add it to finding a job because you’re afraid you might have too many people apply?” another person commented, noting he was “proposing a way to generate money for the company”.

Mr Cee later edited his post, defending his comments as a “thought exercise, not a practice or a consideration”.

He also clarified: “The fee will guarantee an in person interview, but not the job. The fee could be $1, and is not a means for generating income for the company.”

The CEO suggested job seekers should pay a fee to secure a job interview. Picture: LinkedIn

However, that didn’t stop some from pointing out holes in his proposal.

“The fee guarantees an interview? So I could apply, upload my nana’s chicken pot pie recipe as my ‘resume’ and because I paid the fee I’m in for at least an interview? Interesting,” said one person.

“It creates barriers and would be inequitable – not everyone is going to be able to afford ‘paying to apply’ for a job they need, even if it’s a small fee,” said another.

Mr Cee later thanked those who took “took a moment to contemplate the question, and answer productively and professionally” before closing the comments on the post.

However, others continued to voice their opinion on Reddit, after one user shared his post and suggested it should win the award for the “’most out of touch’ statement by a hiring manager”.

“Now we gotta pay their HR employees to do their job?” one person commented on the Reddit post.

“Yes, you are insensitive,” said another.

“Can I get a refund if I am not chosen? Also, does the $20 include taxes too?” asked another person.

Angela Knox, Professor of management at the University of Sydney Business School, agreed even a small fee would be a “slap in the face” for job seekers and could discriminate people of different socio-economic backgrounds entering the workforce, where some are already discriminated against for their age, sex and ethnicity.

“There would be potential applicants who would find it difficult to be able to come up with that sum of money,” she told news.com.au.

“Some people just don’t have that small, discretionary money from week to week, particularly if they are currently unemployed and they looking for work. Every dollar is going to matter.”

Professor Knox said charging a small fee would be a “slap in the face” for potential applicants. Picture: iStock

She also suggested charging a fee is not the “most effective” way for businesses to be attracting the right applicants, and could even “backfire” against them.

“These job seekers could potentially be the most qualified for the job. They’re also potentially going to be very diligent, very keen and very actively looking for employment.”

“So it may actually backfire if put into use and it could work as a disincentive to turn potential applicants off, so you may be turning away the best qualified applicants for the job.”

It’s not the ideal scenario given Professor Knox said a common challenge many employers are facing is struggling to find enough applicants who are skilled and qualified enough to fill positions.

Instead of attaching a fee, she recommended, businesses hoping to limit unsuitable applicants could use online application systems to filter large volumes of applicants who don’t meet the qualification requirements or simply consider the language they use in their job descriptions.

“If they’re writing really targeted specific position descriptions, and thinking very carefully about the right kinds of criteria that are going to be most appropriate to the job, they may find that they don’t get these under qualified, potentially mismatched applicants.”

“So there could be problems with the position description and the advertisement rather than the applicant.”

Originally published as ‘Ridiculous’: CEO crucified over job search suggestion