[AnimalMuppet]

> Did you ever hire any duds when you were not hiring remote?

That only worked a couple hours a week and collected multiple paychecks? Probably not.

Sure, they hired duds. Just not that level of dud. And if they were, they found out much more quickly.

[jacquesm]

That doesn't happen remote either. Unless management is utterly incompetent, another variable a study like this should probably compensate for by increasing the sample size and pool diversity.

[Aurornis]

> That doesn't happen remote either.

I don't know where you got this idea, but this happens all the time. The two most common topics in the remote channel of the big management peer group I'm in are:

1. People cheating on remote interviews (including substituting another person to take the interview)

2. People getting multiple jobs and being too obviously distracted to get work done, or the increasingly common getting a new job and not resigning from the last job because they know they can collect potentially $100K+ in paychecks and/or severance by waiting to get let go instead.

If you don't believe these things happen in remote jobs then I understand your resistance throughout this thread to any suggestion that remote and in-office are different.

[parliament32]

It absolutely happens, and often. I don't know when the last time you tried to hire was but things are absolutely brutal right now. The most common is personnel who think they can get away with an hour or two of work a day (whether they're working multiple jobs or just screwing around at home is hard to say). Second is bait-and-switch where the interviewee is not the person who shows up day 1.. after four (!) incidents in a quarter we had to mandate at least one in-person interview during the hiring process which seems to have helped.