[ghaff]

I'm not sure what you think is a reasonable alternative. In general, having some F2F on-site interviews is in everyone's interest. I'll agree that there should be some reasonable pre-screening before everyone makes a significant time investment. But the reality is that if you're job hunting you may well have to take some time off--especially if the opportunities aren't local.

[em-bee]

i was mainly responding to this: I think asking candidates to get a day off for interviews, which happens like once per year or even less often for each candidate is more reasonable than asking your employees to work evenings each week.

by stating that it is most certainly not just once as i am likely interviewing for multiple jobs.

i don't know what the solution is, but i think it is reasonable to say that some compromise is necessary, and as much as i value your (and my) time with family, if we want to grow our team so that we are not having to work overtime as much and actually get more time for our families, then we'll just have to make some sacrifices.

apologies for being a bit polemic.

actually, i do have a solution for myself. i only hire young people fresh out of university who don't have a job yet. higher positions are filled from within. ask me in a few years how well that's going.

[ghaff]

>i think it is reasonable to say that some compromise is necessary

I'm honestly not sure it is. Half-a-day to a day of on-site interviews (possibly after a phone screen) is how most companies have been filling professional roles for decades. Certainly it's an easier process for people doing it out of university. And it's easier to do locally when a candidate can often just take a few hours off. But, while many debate some of the specifics of how companies screen for technical talent, I don't see widespread pushback against candidates coming in for on-site interviews of some sort.