How fair it is that job expires without hiring and connects are consumed

[sajal36]

Hi,

  How fair is the process to freelancer if the job posted by client expires without hiring and freelancer connects are consumed. I believe this might not be a big issue for many but than this scenario does not bring happiness to freelancer. I got a chance to follow up with couple of clients for the update and client confirmed that position have been hired internally and on hold.

Actually on hold is expiring without hiring. I believe upwork must restore the process of connects refunds if client interview is scheduled / invitation received. 

Do you think it make sense to raise the issue with upwork?

[wlyonsatl]

Sure. Connects should be returned to freelancer in all cases where no freelancer is ever hired, regardless of the reason.

They should also be returned to all freelancers who apply to a new project after the client has selected the one and only freelancer they intend to hire.

[tlsanders]

Why do you feel freelancers should be rewarded for failing to sell themselves adequately to keep a client on Upwork (and profiting Upwork) versus hiring somewhere else? 

[sajal36]

I believe you need to have a look at it from broader perspective and relook the question posted again. It is more about client is uncertain about the position or preferring to go with internal resource rather hiring the freelancer. 

[tlsanders]

If the client posts a job and then prefers to go with an internal resource after seeing the options, doesn't that mean that no freelancer convinced the client they were the best option for the project? 

[sajal36]

Nope!! It seems client partner posted the requirement to hire freelancer and earning the rate differential amount between billing vs paying.  However, Client found the resource internally and did not hired from outside!! Client partner put job on hold and let it expire without hiring. 

[tlsanders]

Surely you are not suggesting that this explains every job that expires without hiring? 

If this scenario is accurate, then the client who made the mistake could easily have ensured all freelancers got their connects back by closing the job. I disagree with that policy, but it is in place for situations like the one you describe.

[sajal36]

Yes. It is only to specific scenario case in point. I believe client have the moral responsibility in such and similar cases to close the job rather let it expire.

Moreover Upwork must have some process defined to address the same. I believe if it become cumbersome for upwork than they may resume the connect refund process if proposal is accepted and next level discussion scheduled.

[feed_my_eyes]

I would suggest that you stop wasting your time and energy complaining about this. Freelancers have been posting about connects refunds for years, ever since Upwork started charging for connects. The fact is that they're making a lot of money from selling connects, and they're not going to do anything to change that. All you can do is try to spend your connects wisely. Look at the client's hiring rate and if the percentage is low, don't send a proposal.

[wlyonsatl]

Why do you think freelancers should pay for connects when the client hires no one, Tiffany?

[tlsanders]

Well, for the obvious reason that connects are the price of sending a proposal, not the price of getting hired--and every freelancer knows that when they choose to send them. Once the proposal is delivered, Upwork has completed the service you purchased from it with those connects. And, of course, they have no control over whether the client chooses to hire once they receive that proposal--something else every freelancer knows when they purchase connects. 

Your question strikes me as incredibly absurd. What other scenario can you think of where a business refunds your money after having fully performed on its obligations because of a decision a third party makes after the fact? 

[bobafett999]

Tiffany:  why do you defend the unethical conduct of Upwork so much?

[2a05aa63]

so you reward spammers who submit proposals to all jobs, because there's zero risk. And punish people who got the job?

[sajal36]

What proof you have that spammer have submitted the proposal. Can you share the source of your information.

[tlsanders]

Are you suggesting that there are no spammers on Upwork? If so, you must never have posted a job.

[sajal36]

When you post the job you will get profile meeting the criteria and not meeting the criteria. It might happen that I might get the not suitable profile for the job or may have a wrong select.

However we do not have the data to generlised our experience. There are always exception in the system and we need to remove the noice to get the right fit.

[tlsanders]

So you acknowledge that clients get spam proposals, though we don't know in what proportion?

Then surely you must also recognize that the spammers who sent those proposals would be rewarded if they got their connects back after they ruined it for everyone by driving the client away without hiring.

[wlyonsatl]

Your question makes no sense, Viacheslav K. I clearly said connects should be returned if no freelancer is chosen by the client.

[yofazza]

If Will truly meant it with that post he could simply suggest removing the connect system altogether.

Sajal, you created this thread a few times. I think you should realize by now that freelancer's well-being is not part of Upwork's interest.

[tlsanders]

Or perhaps it's merely that Upwork is more concerned with the freelancers who are earning money and paying fees than with the ones who are burning through their connects without landing jobs. Upwork gets no benefit from those freelancers at all except whatever they spend on connects. If they were able to recycle the same connects over and over without paying anything to Upwork, they would become an even greater drain on the system than they already are and Upwork would likely have to go back to banning freelancers who submitted a certain number of proposals without getting hired. 

[sajal36]

Radia - Each time experience is different. This time it was about getting through the interview but client put job on hold and then it expires.

I have observed primary reason for this situation is as these jobs are not posted directly by client rather they are consultant or companies  who post the job on their client behalf. I believe this situation makes hiring more complex as consutlant post job on anticipitation of demand and probability of same can vary - 10% to anything high numbers but not confirmed job. 

[yofazza]

But they're similar, about you wanting some of the connects to return.

Connects system is needed because millions of freelancers will overwhelm clients if there's nothing to hold them back. Some micro-adjustments are okay to find balance or fairness, as long as they don't contradict the 'other agenda'.

They don't profit for decades. They're now testing something to change that, where 'refunding connects' needs to be thinked very thoroughly. I don't believe our 'requests for fairness' counts. I currently don't see any benefits for them if they do that.

[sajal36]

It is not about benefits, it is more about principles.

[tlsanders]

How fair is it that you mail in a resume and don't get your stamps back if the effort is unsuccessful? 

How fair is it that you drive to an interview and don't get reimbursed for gas if they end up not hiring? 

Why do you think freelancers should be rewarded for failing to land a job? 

[sajal36]

I believe you are referencing to the point where job expires without hiring as this point relate to what you said.

However, I do received the invitation from the client and went through the initial screening.  I always believe in listening directly from the horse's mouth so in the message, I came to know that varied reason such as internal hire, position on hold etc. I believe this is enough investment of time and money by the freelancer for the job to come to know the least expected that job has been put on hold.

I think in such cases it will be fair enough to refund the connect as job expired without hiring.  It is not about failing to land a job rather it is job expiring without hiring as client have hired from some other avenue or just uncertain about the position so decide to let it expire rather cancelling it.

[tlsanders]

If you received an invitation you spent no connects and this makes no sense.

FWIW, I also strongly disagree with refunding connects when the client closes the job without hiring. I don't believe connects should ever be refunded unless Upwork removes the job.

[bobafett999]

Tiffany,  just curious.   Do you own Upwork stock? You seem to have vested interest in Upwork making money by whatever means to stay in business.

[tlsanders]

What a very odd conclusion.

Why do you equate understanding how business works with having a vested interest? 

I'm simply explaining the natural consequences of Upwork continuing to bleed many millions of dollars each month, as anyone of near-average intelligence who attended the 8th grade and invested 15 seconds or so in objectively considering the situation could. 

It is, of course, absurd to expect a for-profit company to take massive charitable actions that will ensure its demise. I'm dismayed by how widespread the expectation that Upwork should commit suicide to "support" brand new freelancers with few skills who in no way benefit its business is.

I would absolutely never have considered buying Upwork stock. In addition to being generally opposed to the existence of publicly traded corporations, I don't expect Upwork to succeed. 

[bobafett999]

"

What a very odd conclusion.

Why do you equate understanding how business works with having a vested interest?"

It is not odd at all.   You are always on the forefront of defending Upwork policy.

For profit business must abide by some ethics.  Here they don't bother to vet buyers or bother to see if the posted jobs are real and if they are getting filled.

They are charging money.  Which is fine, but in return they have obligation to ensure that they are giving freelancers their money's worth. 

[tlsanders]

Now I understand your confusion. 

Stating facts is simply that--not "defending." I can see why that simple fact would get lost in the bizarre emotion-driven drama fest that abounds here, but I'm an adult professional making rational assessments. 

There are many things I don't care for about the way Upwork does business. That's true of most businesses. 

The thing is, it's not up to Upwork to figure out what each of the millions of freelancers on the site will consider sufficient to feel like they're getting "their money's worth." And that will be different for everyone. For example, I would likely leave the platform if Upwork made the massive increase in pricing that would be required for them to hire an army of new staff to take vetting clients out of my hands. Others would love that. 

That should be naturally reflected in the marketplace because, of course, no rational person who feels they aren't getting their money's worth continues to pay that money. No matter what people say in forums--and no matter how many hours they devote to complaining about it--the only possible conclusion Upwork can draw is that millions of people DO feel like they're getting their money's worth, because they just keep paying it.

We're all adults here. We're all running our own businesses. Responsible business people don't spend their time ranting or crying about what someone else should be doing. They make good decisions for their business based on the things they can control.

[2779bde0]

Welcome to the land of primadonnas. Why are there so many entitled people here?

To all the naysayers:

If you eat at a restaurant and don't like the food or service, you won't go back, right?

Being a freelancer is a calculated risk. You try and try again. If you aren't happy here, great. If it isn't worth your time or your connect money to have unsatisfying results, then pack your bags and go, and save the forum space for those who are in for the long haul, and who aren't whining. Upwork does have its downsides, tis true.

If you were doing well, you would be singing their praises. You are somehow putting this on them.

[sajal36]

Please relook at the message. Once you submit the proposal and client message you for next level interaction. Here either contract is rolled out or client go on hold, so many cases job goes on hold and expires and this where connect must be refunded.

I believe point is not of agree / disagree rather it more about what will be more ethical. Hiring or not hiring is client choice and I believe client is always right in making choices. However it will be fair to freelancer to get the connect refund in case job expires without hiring. 

[rolludesig]

he is talking of connects which are being used in jobs where no freelancer is selected and job id expired after a time...he has no where mentioned that freelancers should be rewarded for failing to land a job...we are paying for connects and if job gets expired we have every right to get back the connects and FYI no one pays to appear in an interview

[tlsanders]

If I send a proposal and I don't get hired, I have failed to get that job. That seems pretty straightforward.

[bobafett999]

I get that if they hire.  If they don't hire that means that Upwork failed to ascertain that the job was real or fake.  Based on the data they have they would know the 90% of them are fake.  Still they collect money trying to hustle non-existant goods.  

Don't you think that is unethical?

[tlsanders]

No, I think your conclusion is absurd. I've spent more than half a million dollars on freelancers across my career. Never once have I relied on a single channel to find the best freelancer...and in most places where I was hiring for a company it was standard practice to post in about three different places. The fact that the client ultimately doesn't choose someone from Upwork doesn't mean the job was "fake." 

And that's just one example. It's also possible that the client intended to hire here but after looking at the first 10 garbage cut and paste proposals decided this place was a junkyard and they'd better look somewhere more credible. Or that the project got nixed from above. Or that they learned from the proposals that doing what they wanted to do would be much more expensive than they'd realized. Or any of a dozen other possibilities.

[bobafett999]

During the days when I mailed resume for an advertised jobs, they had the courtesy to waste postage and inform me about the job status.

Nowadays with electronic stuff you don't 'pay' to apply. Nothing wrong with upwork requiring to 'pay"  But an ethical conduct would be to refund the 'payment' if it was a fake job.  It does raise the possibility that Upwork itself is posting those jobs to make money

[atreglia]

---

Prashant P wrote:

During the days when I mailed resume for an advertised jobs, they had the courtesy to waste postage and inform me about the job status.

Exactly.  It’s pretty tiring reading the postage and gas analogy over and over.  Back in those days sometimes the employer responded and sometimes not.  It was not a waste because in those days the employer actually had to PAY for the advertisement. 

If you spent money on a stamp, at least you knew your resume was put in the SAME pile as everyone else’s.  Paying extra postage did not guarantee your resume was placed somewhere in the top 4.  If you wrote “Pick ME!” on the envelope it would have been trashed.

If money was spent on gas, that was a good thing because it meant you were actually SEEN by the employer.  Imagine that!

I don’t recall ever being charged a cover fee to be seen by the employer.

IMO justifications of boosting, analogies of gas and postage, etc. are the very things that perpetuates the current environment here.  By now UW has a real taste for the current trajectory – I don’t see a reason to support those efforts when they're mostly at our expense.

[tlsanders]

You've never been involved in hiring for a good-sized company, have you? 

Today, of course, most use an algorithm to screen out which resumes will reach a human (probably not unlike Upwork's sorting algorithm). Back in the day, it was sometimes a receptionist or similar sorting through and making picks as to what made it to the decision maker, or sometimes just the first X number opened and the rest left in reserve in case there weren't any good options in the batch that for whatever reason ended up opened first. 

[atreglia]

---

Tiffany S wrote:

You've never been involved in hiring for a good-sized company, have you? 

Today, of course, most use an algorithm to screen out which resumes will reach a human (probably not unlike Upwork's sorting algorithm). Back in the day, it was sometimes a receptionist or similar sorting through and making picks as to what made it to the decision maker, or sometimes just the first X number opened and the rest left in reserve in case there weren't any good options in the batch that for whatever reason ended up opened first. 

---

Now that's a pretty presumptuous statement; unless it was intended to be a rehtorical question.

Thanks for sharing your knowledge of today's, and yesterday's algorithms.   However, you analogized Upwork's algorithm with postage stamps and gas, and I just happen to disagree with you.  I don't see any comparison whatsoever.  In fact, simply put, I find it a far reaching attempt to defend the undefendable.