That depends on whether they're constrained by supply (couriers) or demand (customers). If they're demand-constrained, I think it makes sense to be very selective about which couriers they take on to ensure their customers have a great experience, and choosing which couriers to accept based on how early they arrive for their job interview seems like an excellent metric to use to attempt to differentiate between applicants you otherwise know very little about.
"Late arrivals will not be admitted, be sure to arrive 5-10 minutes early."
Even if that wasn't true, though, I suspect that I would not be interested in hiring the guy who didn't show up early the second time.
This isn't about the forces of the courier market (although I'm sure there's a fascinating market in NYC). This is about breeding a culture where participants in that culture have a sense of punctuality that supersedes all else. I wouldn't have been much more surprised if showing up too early would have gotten the author turned away. It's easy to show up 45 minutes early to something if you blow out everything leading up to that appointment, which you can do because you see it as a one-off. Being on time for every appointment you make takes more diligence. It takes cutting people (even yourself) off from an arguably more interesting diversion.
I wouldn't lose much sleep over this story; the author describes another courier who's been in this situation before. He clearly failed and was given a second chance. This isn't one of those "fail once and you're banished for life" kinds of things. Postmates will probably keep slamming the door in these people's faces until they show up 5-10 minutes early (ie they learn the lesson Postmates is trying to teach).
Or, you know, they find another job, where this kind of nitpicking isn't normal.
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/232420
To sum it up, Van Halen would put in their contracts that they are to be served M&M's with no brown ones present. If they found that there was indeed brown ones, they would not play because they felt the gig was not paying attention to detail.
Seems to me that if you are applying for a job that basically is all about time (delivery in 30 mins) then it is a great litmus test to not let people who are late to the orientation have a job. These people obviously did not care enough for the job interview- It stands to reason they likely wont care to be extra fast once/if hired.
I may be weird in this way, but if you want me somewhere at 6pm, tell me 6pm. If you want me there at 5:50pm, tell me 5:50pm. But if you want me there at 5:50pm, don't tell me 6pm.
Asking participants to arrive early would, at least to me, strike as a caveat to those who might otherwise arrive late -- but not at the "time in question".
On time is on time, which is AT the stated time. Not before, not after.
(If the OP arrived at 5:55, then unless he knocked on the dot, he was technically later than the "5-10 minutes early" notice. OTOH, it seems to be a common convention that when a time is set, i.e. 6:00PM, that is the actual drop-dead time)
$ extract downloads/557.png
Keywords for file downloads/557.png:
mimetype - image/png
image dimensions - 1170x869
produced by software - Adobe ImageReady
comment -
created by software - Adobe Photoshop CS6 Macintosh
mimetype - image/png
video dimensions - 1170x869
pixel aspect ratio - 1/1Treating someone decently and with respect is not a supply/demand equation. Your sentence is why everyone hates us. Are you rude to your waiter because he's on the short end of the supply/demand stick?
> "and choosing which couriers to accept based on how early they arrive for their job interview seems like an excellent metric"
No, not it doesn't. This is cargo cult hiring, no different than hiring programmers based on how well they can reason why manhole covers are round, or why one lightbulb is warmer than the next.
You can determine who is an effective courier and who isn't by having them deliver things. Just like you can determine who is an effective programmer and who isn't by having them write code.
This sort of "hiring by proxy signal even though the primary signal is perfectly testable" is endemic in our industry, and apparently isn't limited to hiring devs.
Tell people what you expect of them, and expect that of them. To do otherwise is shitty mind games no better than the classic Monty Python sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP0sqRMzkwo&feature=kp
> "an excellent metric to use to attempt to differentiate between applicants you otherwise know very little about."
... and we arrive at the core of tech industry idiocy. "We don't have enough information to make a good decision" is answered by "Let's concoct logical-sounding but completely unverified proxy signals to make the decision instead of collecting more information".
I agree with your post, but I have to point out that his first job was delivering himself to the presentation on time. Given zero other information, I'd take the guy who showed up pretty early over the guy who barely made it.
But as you said, that's not really enough information.
Yes, and he did. I'd agree also that given no other information I'd take the guy who was earlier, but that seems on the verge of "how many pieces of flair are you wearing" territory. If you expect people to be early, tell people to be early.
"The orientation begins at 6pm, late arrivals will not be accepted, but early arrivals (within reason) given additional consideration. We are after all a delivery service that aims to beat customer expectations."
How hard is that?
I'm a firm believer in communicating expectations. Not communicating your expectations and then expecting it is unreasonable, and rationalizing your own lack of communication into some twisted character-judge logic is just arrogance.
