Latest news with #Greenhouse
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Greenhouse Real Talent™ Launches to Fix Overwhelming Candidate Pipelines while Combatting Fraud and Spam in Hiring
New AI-driven Solution Helps Recruiters Navigate the Chaos of Candidate Pipelines, Identify the Best Candidates, While Securing Organizations Against Fraud and Spam NEW YORK, June 3, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Greenhouse, trusted HR tech leader and hiring platform, today announced the launch of Real Talent, a groundbreaking solution designed to address the high costs and growing risks of spam, fraud and cheating in hiring. This solution provides recruiting teams with tools to quickly sort and filter job candidates into a tiered inbox based on their application quality and the likelihood of fraudulent or spam activities. Today's recruiting teams are drowning in applications. Economic uncertainty, AI-powered mass applications, and remote work have led to flooded hiring pipelines with sometimes thousands of candidates per role. The use of AI has also increased levels of spam and fraud. These problems also hurt qualified candidates, who get lost in the noise, leading to slower response rates to their applications and even ghosting by overwhelmed recruiters. Spam is caused by individuals applying for roles in bulk using automated tools, often without high interest or affinity to any specific role. Applicants are also showing up to job interviews with AI co-pilot tools to help them pass interviews, giving them an unfair advantage. Sophisticated fraud schemes have become more common with the rise of AI. According to Gartner, by 2028, 25% of job applicants will be fake, with the rise of AI-generated deepfakes and voice clones. The U.S. Justice Department reported that over 300 U.S. firms, including Fortune 500 companies, have already fallen victim to scams perpetrated by foreign operatives. These trends raise risks for companies and slow recruiters down by forcing them to identify spam and fraudulent applications manually. The Greenhouse Real Talent solution provides essential tools to tackle these challenges, allowing recruiting teams to filter spam and fraud while prioritizing applicants with skills that align with job descriptions. "Greenhouse is committed to addressing the world's most important hiring problems, so being the first in our industry to tackle spam, fraud and cheating in hiring is a priority," said Daniel Chait, CEO of Greenhouse. "With Real Talent, we are moving fast to give recruiters a competitive edge in identifying best-fit candidates, while enhancing security against new and growing threats. This innovative solution will enable our customers to deal with the deluge in their pipeline and trust they can efficiently focus on the right candidates, directly in Greenhouse." Real Talent features: AI-Driven talent filtering: Real Talent analyzes applicant data against job requirements, evaluating skills, experience, and other key indicators to enable recruiting teams to quickly filter for candidates best suited for the role based on their application. Spam & Fraud Detection: Sophisticated algorithms proactively identify and flag spam, bot submissions, and applications with patterns indicative of fraud, keeping cyber attackers out of organizations, and ensuring a higher quality, more reliable applicant pool. Cheating & Misrepresentation Detection: Ensure that candidates are who they claim to be at key points throughout the interview process, while also reducing the likelihood of cheating. Key benefits: Easy to manage candidate pipelines: By filtering applicants that do not meet the basic requirements of the role, Real Talent frees up recruiter time to focus on engaging only with eligible candidates, and filling roles quickly. Reduced risk: Mitigate the opportunity for bad actors to steal confidential or sensitive data. Improved quality of hire: Focusing on qualified and relevant candidates enables companies to make more confident and successful hiring decisions. While the responsibility for reviewing and selecting applicants will always rest in the hands of the hiring team, with Greenhouse Real Talent, they'll be able to sort their talent pool, saving time and helping to putting the right hire in the right role. How Real Talent works: Real Talent integrates directly into the existing Greenhouse application workflow. As applications are received, the AI engine assesses application fit against the specific job criteria, categorizes the applicant pool and enables recruiters to filter their review more efficiently. Simultaneously, it analyzes applications for spam and fraud indicators, leaving customers with a tiered applicant inbox in accordance with their customized preferences. Availability: Greenhouse Real Talent features will phase in availability for Greenhouse customers starting in Q3 2025. Further details on package availability and early access programs will be announced in the coming weeks. Stay updated on the latest Greenhouse product news here. About Greenhouse Greenhouse is the leading hiring platform to help companies get measurably better at hiring. With Greenhouse, organizations can ensure every hire is the right hire, taking candidates from talented prospects to top performers. Our industry-leading software brings a structured hiring approach to any company's process, helping to define the role, requirements and attributes a successful candidate should have before a job is posted, enabling internal alignment and confident decision-making. The result is more fair and equitable hiring practices combined with data-driven decisions. We've helped over 7,500 companies across diverse industry verticals and scaling goals turn talent into a strategic advantage, so they can be ready to hire for what's next. Some of the smartest and most successful companies like HubSpot, Duolingo, Gong, J.D. Power and Scout24 use Greenhouse for data and guidance on the behaviors and capabilities they need to improve their overall hiring performance as they move up the Hiring Maturity curve. Greenhouse has won numerous awards including Fortune Best Workplaces, Inc. Magazine Best Workplace, Glassdoor #1 Best Place to Work, Forbes Cloud 100, Deloitte Technology Fast 500, Inc. 5000, Crain's Best Places to Work NYC and Mogul's Top 100 Workplaces for Diverse Representation. © 2025, Greenhouse Software, Inc. All rights reserved. "Hire for what's next," "The/Your all-together hiring platform," "Talent Makers," "Real Talent" and the G Logo are trademarks of Greenhouse Software, Inc. View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Greenhouse Software, Inc. Sign in to access your portfolio
Forbes
4 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
To Humanize The Hiring Process, Start With These 3 Elements
Sherry Martin is a holistic human resources leader with expertise in delivering strategic solutions that solve organizational challenges. The job market has dramatically shifted in the digital age, especially since Covid-19. Online applications, automated screening tools and virtual interviews have, without question, brought efficiency to the hiring process. In this drive for optimization, have we inadvertently lost something crucial: the human element? How often do talented individuals feel their carefully crafted résumés vanish into a digital void, their aspirations reduced to keywords, ultimately eroding their dignity and respect? The feeling of being a cog in the machine is widespread, especially when being ghosted after an interview is becoming a common experience. While navigating my own career transition, I saw just how impersonal the process can be and attended job seeker workshops where others expressed similar frustrations. When people invest substantial time and emotional energy into job applications, the absence of personalized feedback or even simple acknowledgment can be deeply disheartening. According to Greenhouse's 2024 State of Job Hunting report, 79% of U.S. job seekers, particularly Gen-Z, feel anxious about the market. This harms both the candidate's experience and employers' reputations. It's time for organizations to consciously bring back humanity into the hiring process and recognize the unique person and story behind every application. By making this shift, you can showcase your company culture from the beginning and shape how your brand is remembered by all candidates. Recruitment shouldn't feel transactional. To establish a human-centered approach, build your hiring practices around three key pillars: transparency, respect and genuine engagement. Transparency should be foundational to the entire hiring process. It shows respect for candidates' time and empowers them to make informed decisions. Being clear and open also builds trust, promotes fairness, reduces anxiety and ensures expectations are aligned from the start. Job descriptions are the initial—and crucial—point of contact and information for prospective candidates. So, they must be upfront. For example, instead of vague terms like "competitive salary" or overly broad salary ranges (e.g., $50,000 to $200,000), providing more-specific compensation figures (e.g., $70,000 to $85,000 annually) avoids disappointment and wasted effort on both sides. You should also highlight specific offerings in your benefits package because that's essential information for candidates' ability to make informed decisions. Transparency also means sharing the details of the hiring process, such as how you conduct screenings, who will be involved in each interview and the expected timeline for each stage. Setting these expectations significantly reduces candidate uncertainty. So, during initial contact, briefly review these hiring steps. You can also reiterate the salary range and offer to discuss benefits, which reinforces your company's commitment to open communication and respect. The interview process is a crucial touchpoint, so create an experience that's both informative for the hiring team and worthwhile for the candidate. For example, providing a few key interview questions in advance allows them to prepare thoughtfully and showcase their abilities effectively. This demonstrates respect for their time and sets up the chance for a more meaningful conversation. Humanizing the hiring process also means looking beyond traditional career trajectories and recognizing the value of diverse experiences and transferable skills. Thoughtful in-the-moment questions can help gauge adaptability, problem-solving skills and cultural add. For example, I was recently asked in an interview, "If hired, what would you need from your manager to be successful?" This question moved the conversation beyond past accomplishments, focusing instead on future success, support requirements and the potential for a collaborative working relationship. Post-interview communication is as crucial as the interview itself for showing respect and care. Impersonal automated rejection emails can dehumanize candidates, particularly because they often provide no explanation. Consider offering the option for a brief, follow-up phone call. This empowers candidates by giving them the choice to receive feedback and continue engaging with you. It also reinforces that you prioritize a respectful candidate experience that acknowledges their effort, communication preferences and desire for closure. Constructive post-interview feedback, even if it's concise, can be invaluable for a candidate's professional growth, and it demonstrates that you took time to understand their candidate profile. To put this into practice, focus on one or two job-related points that can aid the candidate's future development. Beyond feedback, a personalized thank-you note reiterating your interest or respectfully closing the loop leaves a positive final impression. This way, you create a positive candidate experience that can turn even those not selected into future customers, advocates or even future employees. The impact of a human-centered hiring approach extends far beyond filling open positions. It shapes perceptions, influences talent pools and contributes to a more positive, equitable professional landscape. By treating candidates with respect, embracing transparency and developing genuine communication, we can move beyond a purely transactional model and build meaningful connections. Ultimately, reclaiming the human element in the job market is an investment in a more ethical, effective and sustainable future for all. Forbes Human Resources Council is an invitation-only organization for HR executives across all industries. Do I qualify?
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Indiana Republicans promise utility bill relief, but fail to deliver
Hoosiers deserve a legislature that works for them, not against them. In an economy riddled with day-to-day uncertainty, utility prices in our state soar at rates that outpace both wages and inflation, burdening families with a weight that is often too much to bear. The devastating reality of more than 174,000 of Indiana's underserved households losing access to power — sometimes during the most dangerously hot days of the year — forced Statehouse Republicans to enter the last session pledging that relief is on the way. Words are one thing, action is another. The utility legislation prioritized this session doesn't just continue the supermajority's pattern of promising financial relief and failing to deliver — it also unravels years of progress toward reducing coal dependence, forces ratepayers to fund projects that may never materialize and locks Indiana's natural environment even deeper into a dead-last national ranking. Furthermore, my efforts to assist Hoosiers by creating an option to expand the income-driven utility assistance program were shot down. It is a moral failure that we ask Hoosiers to fund nuclear research for large corporations. This failure is only amplified when we refuse to support families facing shutoff in a world where the summer's hottest days only get hotter every year. Briggs: Fishers, Carmel don't think renters deserve single-family homes With the threat of bill increases from Senate Bill 424, we are doing a disservice to every ratepayer in our state. Whether it is the family struggling to keep the lights on, our hospitals, the schools that are already facing budget cuts from legislative fallout or the municipalities weighing reduction in service or higher taxes, we can, and must, better serve them. This means our leaders have to commit to putting working Hoosiers first: not state sanctioned monopolies, not major corporations and not allegiances to Washington, D.C. And when our state's executive has shown that he is willing to be lockstep in the national endeavor to gut the mechanisms that protect lives from the fossil fuel industry, that cannot be ignored. Just weeks after the Trump administration vowed to drive 'a dagger through the heart of climate-change religion,' in response to overhauling the social cost of carbon, Gov. Mike Braun signed Executive Order 25-49, 'rejecting social cost of Greenhouse gases and climate action plans.' And just three days after the White House issued executive orders under the umbrella of the 'beautiful, clean coal' misnomer, Indiana followed suit with Executive Order 25-50, which potentially stalls the retirement plans of coal plants throughout Indiana. By disregarding the social cost of carbon while doubling down on coal to appease national political interests, Braun is not only defying decades of science — he is knowingly putting Hoosier families in harm's way and pretending not to see the damage. The social cost of carbon is more than just a number: It is the children growing up in already impoverished areas destined for worse health outcomes because of fossil fuel combustion, the increased risk of cancer from Indiana having more coal ash dumpsites than anywhere in the country, the 460,000 premature deaths caused by coal in the U.S. between 1999 and 2020 and all of the Hoosiers who will face that same outcome on our current path. We are vested with the responsibility to be the stewards of this land, to truly represent those we have been elected to serve and to deliver a future that is better than our present. It is past time that more leaders of our state live up to that obligation. Hoosiers do not have the time to wait. State Sen. Andrea Hunley, D-Indianapolis, is the ranking minority member of the Senate Committee on Utilities. This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Indiana utility bills keep going up despite GOP's promises | Opinion
Indianapolis Star
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana Republicans promise utility bill relief, but fail to deliver
Hoosiers deserve a legislature that works for them, not against them. In an economy riddled with day-to-day uncertainty, utility prices in our state soar at rates that outpace both wages and inflation, burdening families with a weight that is often too much to bear. The devastating reality of more than 174,000 of Indiana's underserved households losing access to power — sometimes during the most dangerously hot days of the year — forced Statehouse Republicans to enter the last session pledging that relief is on the way. Words are one thing, action is another. The utility legislation prioritized this session doesn't just continue the supermajority's pattern of promising financial relief and failing to deliver — it also unravels years of progress toward reducing coal dependence, forces ratepayers to fund projects that may never materialize and locks Indiana's natural environment even deeper into a dead-last national ranking. Furthermore, my efforts to assist Hoosiers by creating an option to expand the income-driven utility assistance program were shot down. It is a moral failure that we ask Hoosiers to fund nuclear research for large corporations. This failure is only amplified when we refuse to support families facing shutoff in a world where the summer's hottest days only get hotter every year. Briggs: Fishers, Carmel don't think renters deserve single-family homes With the threat of bill increases from Senate Bill 424, we are doing a disservice to every ratepayer in our state. Whether it is the family struggling to keep the lights on, our hospitals, the schools that are already facing budget cuts from legislative fallout or the municipalities weighing reduction in service or higher taxes, we can, and must, better serve them. This means our leaders have to commit to putting working Hoosiers first: not state sanctioned monopolies, not major corporations and not allegiances to Washington, D.C. And when our state's executive has shown that he is willing to be lockstep in the national endeavor to gut the mechanisms that protect lives from the fossil fuel industry, that cannot be ignored. Just weeks after the Trump administration vowed to drive 'a dagger through the heart of climate-change religion,' in response to overhauling the social cost of carbon, Gov. Mike Braun signed Executive Order 25-49, 'rejecting social cost of Greenhouse gases and climate action plans.' And just three days after the White House issued executive orders under the umbrella of the 'beautiful, clean coal' misnomer, Indiana followed suit with Executive Order 25-50, which potentially stalls the retirement plans of coal plants throughout Indiana. By disregarding the social cost of carbon while doubling down on coal to appease national political interests, Braun is not only defying decades of science — he is knowingly putting Hoosier families in harm's way and pretending not to see the damage. The social cost of carbon is more than just a number: It is the children growing up in already impoverished areas destined for worse health outcomes because of fossil fuel combustion, the increased risk of cancer from Indiana having more coal ash dumpsites than anywhere in the country, the 460,000 premature deaths caused by coal in the U.S. between 1999 and 2020 and all of the Hoosiers who will face that same outcome on our current path. We are vested with the responsibility to be the stewards of this land, to truly represent those we have been elected to serve and to deliver a future that is better than our present. It is past time that more leaders of our state live up to that obligation. Hoosiers do not have the time to wait.
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Appeals court questions EPA's termination of $20B climate grants
A panel of appellate judges on Monday appeared skeptical of EPA's reasons for terminating $20 billion in Biden-era climate grants, but it indicated the dispute could end up in a different court. During over two hours of oral arguments, the three judges questioned the timing and authority of EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin's termination of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grants, which were intended to support climate and affordable housing projects using funds from Democrats' climate law. 'The facts here are not great for the government,' said Judge Nina Pillard, an Obama appointee, pointing to EPA's abrupt termination of the grants in March, on the eve of an initial hearing in a recipient's lawsuit and while the agency was still in the midst of its own fact-finding probe. The panel's other two members, Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, both of whom were named to the bench by President Donald Trump in his first term, expressed more skepticism about allowing recipients to spend money while litigation plays out. 'If the money were to go out, and then the government were to ultimately prevail, the government would be out of these billions of dollars,' Rao said while trying to determine what is in the public interest. But Katsas and Rao also had hard questions for EPA, including over its concession that it has made no specific allegations of wrongdoing by the recipients themselves. 'What is your claimed basis for termination on the theory that there's no breach, there's no waste, fraud or abuse — but there's a contract structure that might facilitate that?' asked Katsas. 'I'm not sure I see that in the grant agreement.' Yaakov Roth, acting assistant attorney general for EPA's civil division, replied that EPA can cite "structural risk of waste and abuse" rather than specific instances. EPA and the grant recipients have been fighting over the funds for over two months. Things came to a head in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia last month, when Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee, ruled that EPA had terminated the grants unlawfully and that the recipients should be able to access their funds. The groups have at least $625 million in transfer requests pending, though that number has likely risen since it was disclosed in mid-April. The legal fight will decide the future of one of the Biden administration's signature climate achievements, and one that Democrats in the Inflation Reduction Act structured to be obligated before Trump could return to power. The Trump administration has plowed ahead with canceling these and around 800 other smaller grants nonetheless. House Republicans included a repeal of the GGRF authority in their reconciliation bill that passed out of committee last week, but it has not yet cleared the House or gone before the Senate. Although EPA argues its terminations were lawful, its primary legal argument is that the terminations can only be challenged as a breach of contract, which under a federal law called the Tucker Act would have to be heard by a specialized tribunal, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. 'We have a dispute over whether the contract has been terminated consistent with the terms,' said Roth. 'If we're right about that, they get nothing. If they're right about that, they get damages. And we're not disputing that. But that has to be a different court.' Chutkan disagreed and held she had jurisdiction, and EPA immediately appealed to the D.C. Circuit. Earlier this month, Katsas and Rao ruled that terminated grants from the U.S. Agency for Global Media to several radio outlets were contract claims that must go before the Court of Federal Claims. Pillard dissented in those cases, and the full D.C. Circuit subsequently stayed their ruling. The two judges made similar statements during Monday's arguments over EPA's actions. Rao argued the case was "a dispute about who has title" to the money — the recipients or EPA. "Why isn't that a contract question that should go to the Court of Federal Claims?" she asked. Adam Unikowsky, an attorney at Jenner & Block representing the grant recipients, replied that the groups believe EPA has a "security interest" but that otherwise "it's our money, and we're seeking to vindicate our property interest in that money." But Katsas also indicated he was struggling to see the difference. "I'm not sure the line between contract and property matters," he said. 'We're talking about the Tucker Act and contract claims, and it doesn't really matter whether the government's obligation is to pay money out of the treasury, which triggers all sorts of other issues, or whether it's just any old contract obligation. If it's a contract claim, it's a contract claim.' Pillard offered the hardest questions for EPA, noting the Trump administration asked for a one-day extension of the initial hearing in the case, during which time Zeldin terminated the grants "with zero substantiation that any fraudulent activity is occurring." She also noted EPA did not wait until the deadline for the grant recipients to respond to questionnaires the agency sent about their activities. Roth said the litigation over the freeze and EPA's decision to terminate the grants quickly "were two completely separate processes that were playing out at the same time." In fact, he added, the very need for EPA to send a questionnaire to the recipients "really confirms the problem with the way these grants are structured, because they should not need to do that. They should have that information available to them." But Pillard appeared unconvinced, later telling the grant recipients she felt they were on 'fairly solid ground' in their theory that EPA really terminated the grants as a 'pretextual' reason to shutter a program the Trump administration simply didn't like. She also pushed back on EPA's assertions that the structure of the GGRF program was suspect. The Biden administration set up the grant programs in this way so that the recipient groups could leverage private funds and expand the impact of the spending, Pillard argued. "I mean, if there's something illegal about that model, we should know. But I don't see anything to that effect, and I don't see after how many months actually any evidence of the structural problems that the government purported to rely on here." Roth responded that it could be set up so that the money could be used that way, but EPA would have "additional rights in terms of being able to approve the expenditures to sub-grantees and sub-sub-grantees." Criminal investigations into Biden officials' actions in setting up the program and distributing the funds has not found any "meaningful evidence" of wrongdoing, The New York Times reported Friday. The launching of that probe back in February prompted the resignation of a senior prosecutor who disagreed there was sufficient basis. Zeldin has long argued that Biden officials had guided the funds to former employers or groups connected to powerful Democrats. But the officials and recipients say appropriate ethical safeguards were in place to prevent self-dealing. The Times' report was not raised at Monday's argument. If EPA should lose before the D.C. Circuit, Zeldin made it clear last week that he will appeal. 'The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, so if a district court judge makes a decision, we are not going to assume that the United States Supreme Court is going to agree with that district court,' he said at a Senate appropriations hearing.
