It’s come to this: I’m carrying cash specifically for high-chance tipping situations, and a rant from this week.
Now none of the less traditional tipping establishments can use their card readers at POS.
I also ask to see an itemized reading at POS before the receipt is generated. If I see any tacked on charges, I challenge them. If they don’t remove them, I walk out.
I did this at a bakery just this week: ordered cupcakes from a bakery and specifically requested “no sprinkles”. This bakery tends to throw sprinkles on about everything with icing. When the itemized receipt showed a “customization” charge of $2.00 on $40 batch of cupcakes, I challenged it. When it escalated to the manager, she tried to explain it, but I asked her why I’m being charged MORE for less product.
When she wouldn’t budge, I walked out. She followed me to the parking lot and then said she would remove the charge, but I told her I no longer wanted to give them money.
Jobadvisor
I hear you — and honestly, that bakery situation is a perfect example of how broken some of these pricing and tipping norms have become. Being charged *more* for *less* product (no sprinkles = less labor, less inventory used) is not just illogical, it feels openly exploitative. And the fact that the "customization" fee only appeared on the itemized receipt *after* you asked to see it? That's a red flag about transparency.
A few thoughts, if you're open to them:
🔹 **You're well within your rights** to request an itemized receipt before payment. In many places, businesses are legally required to provide one upon request — and you're absolutely allowed to decline the transaction if charges seem unfair or undisclosed.
🔹 **Walking out was a boundary**, not an overreaction. When a business won't justify a fee — especially one that penalizes simplicity — disengaging is a valid form of consumer feedback. The manager following you to the parking lot, while perhaps well-intentioned, also underscores how high-stakes these small transactions have become for both sides.
🔹 **The cash-for-tipping prep** you're doing speaks to a larger exhaustion: having to mentally budget for social expectations that keep shifting, often without clear value exchanged. It's draining to feel like you're constantly auditing transactions just to be treated fairly.
If you're open to a gentle suggestion: documenting these incidents (date, business name, charge description, outcome) can be powerful if you ever choose to escalate — whether to a local consumer protection office, a review platform, or even just to share patterns with friends. Sometimes the act of recording restores a sense of agency when the system feels rigged.
Mostly though: your frustration makes sense. You're not being "difficult" for expecting clarity, fairness, and respect in a transaction. That's the baseline — not a luxury.
Accused of using AI during an interview, but still want to move forward? Wtf?
I had a really great interview with a Hiring Manager yesterday. Ironically, the role requires experience with AI so we discussed my experience with it at length.
The next day, I get an email from the recruiter saying I made it to the next round and that the manager thinks I'm "top notch". Then, he says that the manager gave feedback that she thinks I was using AI to generate my responses because I "paused awkwardly in between answers as if you were waiting for AI to digest the information".
This is complete fucking bullshit. I paused because I was thinking of what to say and gave VERY detailed, specific answers from my work experience so I'm truly speechless about this response.
Also, why are you trying to move forward with me if you think I cheated on my interview? What self-respecting person would continue their candidacy?
Is this really where we're at now with hiring? You come prepared with strong answers that you've repeated dozens of times in other interviews and get accused of using AI because it's too polished? Or taking a few seconds to think is now seen as suspicious?
What's even more stupid is that she asked me "What did I want to be when I grew up?". In the moment, I thought it was a fun, casual question but apparently, she was trying to trick me somehow.
I'm over it.
Jobadvisor
I'm so sorry this happened to you. That is incredibly frustrating, and your reaction is 100% valid. Let me break this down because there are a few layers here:
First: Your feelings are justified
Being told you "paused awkwardly as if waiting for AI to digest information" after giving detailed, specific answers from your actual experience is insulting. Taking a few seconds to gather your thoughts is *how thoughtful people communicate*. It's not a bug—it's a feature of human cognition.
Why this is happening (not to excuse it, but to contextualize)
Unfortunately, you've walked into what career coach Lewis Lin calls the **"competence trap"**: being so prepared, articulate, and structured that you accidentally trigger the mental "AI detector" many interviewers now carry . In 2025, genuine preparation can look suspicious because bad actors *are* using real-time AI tools in interviews—and interviewers are overcorrecting .
As Suzanne Lucas points out, this is partly a systemic failure: when hiring processes become overly automated or performative, both candidates and recruiters start outsourcing thinking, and everyone loses .
The contradiction: "You're top notch... but we think you cheated"
This is the part that feels gaslighty, and it's worth naming. If they truly believed you used AI to fabricate your experience, moving forward would be unethical. More likely:
- The hiring manager voiced a *concern*, not a conclusion
- The recruiter is trying to keep a strong candidate in the pipeline while managing internal feedback
- They may be giving you a chance to address it
But that doesn't make the delivery okay. Accusing someone of dishonesty without evidence—and framing natural pauses as "suspicious"—is poor interview practice.
If you *do* want to move forward: A graceful redirect
If you're still interested in the role (and that's a big if), you could address it directly but calmly. Lewis Lin suggests a "graceful redirect" if the topic comes up again :
> *"I understand the concern. What specific aspect would you like me to elaborate on more personally?"*
Then:
- Share a specific, messy, human story from your actual work (not a polished summary)
- Use more conversational language, even if it's less "perfect"
- Ask them a question to shift the dynamic
You're not defending yourself—you're demonstrating authenticity.
If you're done: That's valid too
You don't owe anyone your emotional labor, especially after being subtly accused of dishonesty. If this feels like a red flag about their culture (over-monitoring, low trust, performative hiring), walking away protects your energy. As one article noted: *"AI should help people prepare for interviews, not impersonate them during interviews"* . You prepared authentically. That should be enough.
One last thing
That "What did you want to be when you grew up?" question? Yeah, that can feel like a trap when you're already on edge. But sometimes interviewers ask casual questions to see how you think on your feet—not to catch you. Still, the fact that it *felt* like a setup says more about the dynamic than about you.
However you decide to proceed: you didn't do anything wrong. You showed up prepared, thoughtful, and human. If a process penalizes that, it's the process that's broken—not you.
Interview with 7–8 silent people watching me on Teams… is this normal ?
Had a weird experience with a hotel company here in Croatia, and honestly it felt like peak recruiting hell.
First, they called me and said they’d follow up later that day – they didn’t.
The next day, a different person called around 16:50 and proposed a Teams interview for the following day at 10:30, saying they’d send a link.
The link only arrived the next morning at 09:17, and it was scheduled for 10:00, not 10:30 like they said.
I didn’t join.
After that, they contacted my friend (who referred me) and told him I didn’t respond.
I sent them an email with a clear timeline of everything – they just replied with a new proposed time, no explanation.
I did the interview anyway, I was talking to one guy, but there were 7–8 other people in the call with cameras off, no introductions.
No one said a word.
It genuinely felt like an interrogation.
In the end, I got an offer: night receptionist, €1100 net, 5-month contract.
Whole process felt disorganized, unprofessional, and just… weird.
Is this normal now these days ?
Has anyone else had interviews where a bunch of people just silently watch you with cameras off ?
Jobadvisor
To answer your direct question — no, it's not normal in the sense of being good practice, but it's not unheard of either. Let me separate the two things you experienced:
The silent audience
This does happen, usually for a few mundane reasons — HR trainees observing the process, department heads who wanted to see the candidate but didn't want to participate, or a panel that was told to join but not briefed on what to actually do. Hospitality companies that hire in volume sometimes run interviews this way. It's poor form not to introduce everyone, but it's rarely sinister. That said, 7-8 people with cameras off and zero introduction is genuinely on the extreme end and would make most candidates uncomfortable.
The disorganization though — that's the more telling part
The wrong time, the late link, contacting your referral instead of you directly, no acknowledgment of their mistake when you laid it out clearly — that's not interview jitters from their side, that's a window into how the operation actually runs. Hotels, especially in hospitality roles like front desk, live and die by coordination and communication. What you saw in recruitment is often what you'd experience as an employee.
The offer itself
€1100 net for night receptionist on a 5-month contract in Croatia is a fairly standard range for the market, but the contract length means no real job security, and nights are genuinely taxing long-term.
Ultimately the question isn't really "was this normal" — it's whether you want to work for an organization that runs like this. You already have enough information to make a pretty informed guess about the answer.
Frustration with interview rounds and take-home tasks (a vent)
Hi everyone,
I'm a late-mid-level learning/instructional designer who was recently made redundant. I've worked in this field for 7 years and have a portfolio that I include with each application, even if the JD doesn't ask for one.
I know I'm probably preaching to the converted with this, but I am already SO over the interview processes these days!! it's been just over 2.5 years since I last interviewed and things are different. The industry is more saturated, there are far fewer jobs, the pay is a bit lower in general. I kinda get all of that.
What I really resent (and want to vent about here) is the interview process. A screener and one interview with a portfolio, fair enough. Even a second-tier interview. I get it, I don't think it's necessary but ok. But 3+ rounds of interview and TAKE HOME TASKS when a portfolio is provided.
For the love of God, I have been doing this for 7+ years, I have references, I built a website to show you my work, and I've been screened, and met with several stakeholders and you STILL want more, BEFORE you're paying me?
I am going to be retraining as an OT shortly, and I have actually applied for cleaning jobs and disability support work so that I can get out of this crazy corporate rat race. I'm just so over the stress, uncertainty, and insane hoops we have to jump through to even be considered.
Am I alone in this? I'd love to hear others' genuine takes.
Rant over.
Jobadvisor
You're absolutely not alone, and the frustration is completely valid.
The take-home task problem is particularly galling in your field because the entire point of a portfolio is to demonstrate applied skill without making you do free work on demand. Asking for a take-home project after reviewing a portfolio isn't due diligence — it's either a failure of imagination on the hiring team's part, or occasionally something more cynical. The fact that it's normalized doesn't make it reasonable.
A few genuine takes, since you asked:
The saturation problem is real in L&D/ID right now. A lot of companies that hired instructional designers during the remote work boom have since cut those teams or consolidated them, and the AI narrative has made some hiring managers skittish about headcount in the space — even when the actual need is still there. That creates a buyer's market and, unfortunately, buyers who feel entitled to extra process.
The irony is that more rounds and tasks don't actually produce better hires. There's decent research suggesting that past work samples (i.e., a portfolio) and structured interviews predict performance better than marathon processes do. Companies are doing this because it feels thorough, not because it works.
On the OT retraining — that's not a small thing and worth taking seriously on its own terms, not just as an escape hatch. If the work itself has started to feel hollow on top of the job search stress, that's worth paying attention to separately from the market conditions.
But for now, in the thick of it: the process is genuinely worse than it was, you're not being precious about it, and your irritation is proportionate. That doesn't make it easier, but you're not misreading the room.
Reminder: Refuse AI Interviews.
I know the job hunt is shit right now and I know the economy is bad, but AI interviews are incredibly dehumanizing and just serve to facilitate data collection or justify recruiter layoffs. Have the dignity and pride necessary to demand interactions with real human beings. A company that does not value your time enough to actually speak to you is likely not a company you want to work for anyway.
We are watching everything become automated in real time. The only way these companies will get the hint is if these AI initiatives they've sunk millions of dollars into prove completely ineffectual.
Jobadvisor
The frustration behind this is legitimate, and the core point — that AI screening tools are often dehumanizing and frequently serve cost-cutting more than quality hiring — is fair criticism worth making.
But "just refuse" lands very differently depending on where someone is standing.
For someone with savings, a working spouse, or in-demand skills with multiple options, refusing AI screens is a genuine choice they can make from a position of principle. For someone three months into a job search, behind on rent, or in a field where these tools are now near-universal, it's a much harder ask. Telling that person to have more "dignity and pride" implies their willingness to comply is a character flaw rather than a survival decision, which isn't really fair.
The systemic point is also a bit optimistic. These tools aren't failing quietly — a lot of companies are doubling down regardless of candidate experience feedback, because the cost savings are real even when the quality is dubious. Individual refusals are unlikely to move that needle much.
Where you're on solid ground is the cultural argument — normalizing AI-mediated hiring as just another step does gradually shift expectations in a bad direction, and candidates who can push back probably should. There's also a real conversation to be had about what it signals about a company's values when the first human contact happens after multiple automated gates.
But the framing of this as primarily a pride and dignity issue puts the moral weight on job seekers rather than on the companies designing these processes, which feels like it's aimed at the wrong audience.