Amid ’90-hours work week’ row, GenZ employees are opting ‘career catfishing’; here’s all about it
Amid ’90-hours work week’ row, GenZ employees are opting ‘career catfishing’; here’s all about it
The new phenomenon involves Gen Z employees accepting job offers but not showing up on their first day without informing their employers.
Anybody got a better source for this story? It sounds fake asf and it's literally written by AI on some Indian news website
This article is such shit too. Riddles with spelling mistakes and it repeats itself over and over and then shifts to something else entirely. Someone in Australia turned down a job for 37k? What's so special about that? That's what you're supposed to do if the salary doesn't match up with the job and the region otherwise you get fucked. What does that have to do with ghosting a job you accepted? Then it just abruptly ends. Cool.
The fact that an article about protesting shit jobs for shit pay is written by AI kinda emphasizes the shitty part.
Not only Gen Z but also millennials—aged 28 to 43—are participating in this trend, with 24 pec cent admitting to the practice. However, only 11 per cent of Gen X employees—44 to 59 years old—and 7 per cent of baby boomers—aged 60 and above—have adopted this tactic.
Holy shit that's crazy if those numbers are accurate.
1 in 4 Millennials and younger are signing job offers and then just ghosting.
Fuck yeah i need to start doing that too.
1 in 4 Millennials and younger are not checking the work week expectations assuming it is 40 hr a week, finding out it is 90, and saying fuck that and just not showing up
What are the odds that a Gen-X or Boomer prospective employee is vying for a 90 hour job that pays shit? Boomers are eligible for social security and Gen-X is probably getting the choice jobs due to experience, leaving Gen-Z and younger millennials shit out of luck and justifiably rebelling. (Obviously generalizing)
What's the benefit to the employee for doing this?
Teaches the employer a lesson
This is how you raise wages when the government doesn't want to set a min wage
On avg it costs an employer 25k to hire someone up to 40k for places like Microsoft and Google. If you do this when a company is giving bullshit expections or shit pay ans benefits. Then it drives up their costs putting pressure to get a candidate or worse drive them out of business. Think of it as when we keep scammers on the phone so we waste their time to reduce their access to someone that is vulnerable.
I did this once accidentally, I accepted a job and they said I needed to do a dell certification and they paid for the training but refused to pay me an hourly wage to do the classes so I just stopped responding to them. I was hired and had done the paperwork. They ended up verbally assaulting me in voicemails for weeks.
Congrats on your matrix-style bullet dodge.
Source of this information is questionable - Mint is owned by the Hindustan times and this article cites a Hindustan Times article. This is just odd laundering of HT content, which has a poor reputation for misleading and outright false claims at times. As others have pointed out, the content is also poorly written and potentially AI slop.
If you're going to post OP, please respect the time and attention of others by vetting your sources a bit prior to posting a headline looking for engagement - especially hard to believe innocent mistake as you are a 4 day old account. Suggest that you delete this post, or remove the link to the questionable story at least, and then you can ask the community if they've seen or heard of this approach first hand and what people's general thoughts about it are.
Thanks for the heads up. I'm not at all familiar with Hindustan. I just thought it was funny.
And I just came from Reddit and still figuring out what's what here.
Sure. Benefit of the doubt to start. That said, here on Lemmy you should be able to edit that post and add a clarifying note without issue. So feel free to do that.
Maybe explain that you chose a source quickly without vetting it, you aren't sure of the validity, so you removed it - and then remove the link.
You could also try to replace it. Find a credible source discussing the same and swap. Just be sure you make a clear note of the change in source and the reason.
Or, you can just delete the post to avoid confusion and repost.
Please consider this a friendly, early warning though. If you make no change here to this post and continue the behavior of posting from non-credible sources, those posts will be removed and you may be banned from participating in this community.
I like the sentiment but this is fake news
If anyone is actually going to do this (and you feel the company is large enough or somehow lacks business ethics to the point that you see the action as justified) may want to consider completing any training the employer offers prior to no show - that training costs the company a good chunk of money that they see as an investment they are hoping for a return on.
Based.
