Pune man attends walk-in interview, HR's first question sounds too bizarre to be true
A Pune jobseeker said he was asked in a walk-in interview to work unpaid for six to eight months. His account triggered an online debate over transparency, fairness and unpaid work in hiring.
A man from Pune claimed he was left stunned after attending a walk-in interview where he was allegedly asked if he would be willing to work without pay for up to eight months, with only the possibility of receiving a salary later.
X user Pranav shared his experience in a now-viral post, recounting how he attended the interview hoping to improve his prospects in what he described as an already difficult job market.
According to him, the first round was conducted by the HR department and did not involve any discussion about his technical skills, projects or prior experience. Instead, he claimed the first major question posed to him was whether he would be willing to work unpaid for the next six to eight months, after which the company would consider offering him a salary if things went well.
Pranav said he initially thought the proposal was a joke. He argued that after spending years studying, building projects, learning new technologies and preparing for interviews, being asked to work full-time without pay while only being promised the possibility of future compensation felt unreasonable.
He further claimed that the arrangement was not presented as a structured internship or training programme with a stipend, but rather as an opportunity where candidates would shoulder all the risk while the company assumed none.
What surprised him even more, he wrote, was that from what he observed during his visit, the organisation appeared to be run by only two people, the CEO and an HR representative, despite hosting a large walk-in recruitment drive.
Clarifying that he was not criticising the size of the company, Pranav noted that every successful business starts somewhere. However, he argued that inviting large numbers of candidates while allegedly expecting them to work for free for several months showed a lack of respect for jobseekers' time and efforts.
In his post, he pointed out that candidates are already struggling with repeated rejections, ghosting and lengthy interview processes, and said companies should at least be transparent and fair during hiring.
He also urged fellow jobseekers to value their time and skills, saying that while learning and gaining experience are important, desperation should not normalise unpaid full-time work disguised as an opportunity.
Take a look at the post here:
Reacting to the incident, several social media users argued that many companies today waste candidates' time through endless interview rounds, walk-in drives, ghosting and unpaid offers, adding that greater transparency was needed so that both employers and jobseekers could avoid unnecessary frustration.
Another user recalled facing a similar situation nearly two decades ago while interviewing for a senior position. The commenter said they confronted the company's CEO directly over the proposal and later received an apology from the HR department.
Meanwhile, another person remarked that equity and salaries serve different purposes, arguing that one should not be used as a substitute for the other.
A man from Pune claimed he was left stunned after attending a walk-in interview where he was allegedly asked if he would be willing to work without pay for up to eight months, with only the possibility of receiving a salary later.
X user Pranav shared his experience in a now-viral post, recounting how he attended the interview hoping to improve his prospects in what he described as an already difficult job market.
According to him, the first round was conducted by the HR department and did not involve any discussion about his technical skills, projects or prior experience. Instead, he claimed the first major question posed to him was whether he would be willing to work unpaid for the next six to eight months, after which the company would consider offering him a salary if things went well.
Pranav said he initially thought the proposal was a joke. He argued that after spending years studying, building projects, learning new technologies and preparing for interviews, being asked to work full-time without pay while only being promised the possibility of future compensation felt unreasonable.
He further claimed that the arrangement was not presented as a structured internship or training programme with a stipend, but rather as an opportunity where candidates would shoulder all the risk while the company assumed none.
What surprised him even more, he wrote, was that from what he observed during his visit, the organisation appeared to be run by only two people, the CEO and an HR representative, despite hosting a large walk-in recruitment drive.
Clarifying that he was not criticising the size of the company, Pranav noted that every successful business starts somewhere. However, he argued that inviting large numbers of candidates while allegedly expecting them to work for free for several months showed a lack of respect for jobseekers' time and efforts.
In his post, he pointed out that candidates are already struggling with repeated rejections, ghosting and lengthy interview processes, and said companies should at least be transparent and fair during hiring.
He also urged fellow jobseekers to value their time and skills, saying that while learning and gaining experience are important, desperation should not normalise unpaid full-time work disguised as an opportunity.
Take a look at the post here:
Reacting to the incident, several social media users argued that many companies today waste candidates' time through endless interview rounds, walk-in drives, ghosting and unpaid offers, adding that greater transparency was needed so that both employers and jobseekers could avoid unnecessary frustration.
Another user recalled facing a similar situation nearly two decades ago while interviewing for a senior position. The commenter said they confronted the company's CEO directly over the proposal and later received an apology from the HR department.
Meanwhile, another person remarked that equity and salaries serve different purposes, arguing that one should not be used as a substitute for the other.
