Skill-based hiring is more complex than “traditional” experience/education based hiring but it can work really well for orgs. that really invest in this method of hiring.

And by investing I mean they train and empower their recruiters to spot and assess the skills the business is looking for.

Many businesses talk the talk but don’t set themselves up skills-based hiring.

Bad candidate experiences suck and Workday is the absolute worst.

In my most recent round of job hunting about six months ago, I had a pretty decent rate of getting a screening call with a recruiter at the company. Maybe around a quarter of applications got me there.

Despite my pretty decent odds of getting a call, it was never worth applying to a company with Workday.

I don’t want to sign up to their shitty candidate portal with another set of login credentials I have to manage.

I don’t want to repeat what I wrote on my CV, because their parsing is abysmal.

I don’t want to have to use a desktop because it doesn’t because feel like working on mobile that day.

I’ve had friends refer me for positions at the companies they work at. I’ve had talent acquisition reach out on LinkedIn, who’ve been professional, friendly and knowledgeable about the role and their company. But in both cases, if they ultimately needed me to create a profile in Workday I’ve told them I’m not interested.

Given how good ATS’ have become about highlighting potential good fit candidates to recruiters - there is no reason candidates should have to input anything other than their CV, basic contact info / screening questions and a cover letter (depending on role). And it should all work smoothly using a mobile device.

I’m sure this is entirely out of Meta’s concern for user privacy and not the looming EU regulations on tracking required to be opt in rather than opt out.

RCS was meant to be a SMS replacement spec for carriers to implement but it never reached ubiquity like SMS did.

And of the carriers that rolled it out, not all of them rolled it out to the same spec either so they’re not even completely interoperable.

Then there’s the fact that many of the Google Messages features such as E2E encryption aren’t a part of the RCS Spec. They were built on top of it by Google.

And unless you’re Samsung, good luck on building a messaging app that’s interoperable with the Google version of RCS they use in messages.

In short, Google RCS runs through Google’s servers, not the carriers like it was designed for. As far as I see it, it’s just the Google version of iMessage.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/06/google-enables-end-to-end-encryption-for-androids-default-sms-rcs-app/

If you want to download the actual RCS universal profile spec as defined by GSMA you can find it here, missing quite a few things from the Google version you see in Messages:

https://www.gsma.com/futurenetworks/rcs/universal-profile/

I’d love to see an open, secure, universal rich messaging standard adopted by everyone but we know that’s not gonna happen.

Carriers have literally no incentive to improve on SMS, I doubt they’ll lose any customers because of a lack of RCS adoption.

Do I like the locked in nature of iMessage? Not really, but it’s honestly not that big of a deal here (UK).

I just don’t like how Google talks about their proprietary messaging service as though it’s an industry standard. It’s not. Google RCS is not RCS.

Djeef like chief

After being a lifelong Windows user, I switched to Pop!_OS for around a year before going back to Windows 10 a few months ago.

I went back to Windows, just because a few things weren’t as plug and play as I’d hoped but started to get really annoyed with how intrusive Windows was.

After using Mint for about a month now, I don’t think I’ll go back to Windows. It just does what I want.