Are Hiring Tasks Turning Into Unpaid Labour For Companies?

A post on Reddit’s “recruitinghell” forum captures a feeling that many job hunters seem to share. Writing four years ago, user LongStreakOfMisery described an interview process for a mechanical design job that required what he called “a RIDICULOUS amount of work that took me well over a full day to complete.” He explained that he completed the assignment using unfamiliar CAD software and submitted work he felt “showcased my skills fairly well.” A few days later, the company replied with a one sentence rejection and no feedback.

The experience left him uneasy, especially when he saw the job reposted again.

“The fact that the contents of the assignment that you have to produce can be put into production and ultimately used by them is another red flag,” he wrote. He added, “Recruiting sucks, I’m still in the market for a job and I’ll now be forever leary of any assignments I have to do as being free work to be done for the company.”

The Link Between Applicant Anxiety And Ghost Jobs

Applicants are (rightfully) suspicious, because they’re operating in a market where ghost job adverts are becoming a serious issue. An analysis of almost 100,000 UK listings across an 8 week period found that 34.4% were likely ghost jobs, which refers to jobs that had been posted more than 30 days earlier and were unlikely to lead to a live vacancy.

In Islington, 26.1% of listings are in that category. Across 20 popular occupations, the average ghost rate stayed at 34.4%. Veterinary nurses faced the harshest conditions, with 59.1% of listings classed as ghost jobs, with software engineers at 46.5%.

When more than 1 in 3 adverts may not lead anywhere, spending long evenings on unpaid assignments can feel like a waste of time for some. Campaigners against uncompensated interview tasks describe candidates spending 15 to 20 hours producing marketing strategies, fundraising proposals or curriculum outlines.

At £350 an hour, that’s about £7000 in lost income during a single hiring process. Even at lower hourly rates, the time cost is heavy, especially for people in full time work or with caregiving duties.

What Do The Numbers Say About Application Assessments?

Research from the Society for Human Resource Management shows a different view of the hiring practice. In a survey of 1,688 HR professionals conducted a couple of years ago, it found:

• 56% of employers said they use pre employment assessments to gauge knowledge, skills and abilities.
• 79% said assessment scores are just as or more important than traditional criteria in hiring decisions.
• 36% said a candidate who scores high on an assessment but lacks the minimum years of experience is very likely to reach the final shortlist.
• 28% said a high scoring candidate without the minimum education requirement would be very likely to progress, and 40% said that would be somewhat likely.
• 82% of organisations that require work samples or simulations reserve them for applicants already identified for further consideration.
• 78% reported that hire quality improved through assessments.
• 23% even reported improvements in workforce diversity.

Emily M. Dickens, SHRM Chief of Staff and Head of Government Affairs, described this as a response to hiring difficulties. She said, “With employers still struggling to fill vacant positions, HR professionals are leading the way in using skills-based hiring and skilled credentials to acquire top talent.” She added, “SHRM will continue to partner with government and business leaders to reach untapped talent pools and grow diversity in the workplace.”

These statistics present assessments as a tool that can elevate candidates who may lack formal qualifications or long CVs but demonstrate strong capability in practice. It’s quite fair if you think about it.

Where Should The Boundary Be?

The arguments around which of these perspectives is more true are nuanced and cannot be reduced to a single verdict. Applicants need to be assessed and their skills need to be identified beyond the CV and 30 minute interview.

But also, a shorter, time limited exercise designed solely to gauge skill looks very different from an open ended assignment that mirrors a live business problem and can be implemented within the company.

John Faily, founder and CEO of Uncaged Ergonomics, suggests a practical rule. “When the “test” becomes too indicative of an actual deliverable that could be used in the business, it is no longer a test. It is free labour,” he says. He advises proportionality. “If a test requires hours of work and something the company can use, candidates should proceed with caution.”

He also calls for transparency about intent and limits. “Clarify how the work will be used and if it’s strictly evaluative. Transparency fosters trust within companies. Limit the scope, cap the time and don’t use real business problems unless you’re paying candidates.”

He argues that excessive assignments can distort performance. “Long, high-pressure assignments can create the conditions for exhaustion and bad decision-making, which aren’t indicative of someone’s true abilities.” He concludes, “Shorter tasks, clear expectations and respect for candidates’ time will lead to better hiring decisions.”

So there’s a good middle ground that considers each side of this argument: conduct the assessments, but do so fairly. Job applicants should also understand that these assessments are needed to identify the right candidates.