Recruiter divides the internet after slamming Gen Z candidate who flatly REFUSED to complete 90-minute task as part of interview process - sparking FURIOUS debate about 'free work'

A recruiter sparked furious controversy after revealing that he had rejected a Gen Z applicant who refused to spend 90 minutes on a hiring test because it ' looked like a lot of work'. 

The employer, who goes by @M.Stanfield on X, formerly known as Twitter, took to the social media platform to share his frustrations about an applicant he had interviewed for an investment analyst position. 

In the tweet, he explained that he had emailed the unnamed Gen Z applicant and asked them to do a 'financial modeling test,' which would took around an hour and a half. 

But when the job seeker declined to do the task, the recruiter was immediately turned off, and took to the website to voice his annoyance at the applicant's attitude, sparking a furious debate among other users - some of whom insisted that he should never have required a candidate to perform any kind of 'free work'.

A recruiter sparked controversy after revealing that he rejected a Gen Z applicant for refusing to complete a 90-minute post-interview task 

A Twitter user took to the social media platform to share his frustrations about an applicant he had interviewed for an investment analyst position, who he was no longer considering

The tweet read: 'Me: really enjoyed the call. Please see attached financial modeling test. 

'Gen Z applicant: this looks like a lot of work. Without knowing where I stand in the process, I’m not comfortable spending 90 minutes in Excel.

'Me:…well…I can tell you where you stand now.' 

The call out from the recruiter sparked a fiery debate - with many people supporting the applicant. 

One person said: 'I stand in solidarity with the applicant.' 

Someone else wrote: 'Then pay them for the 90 minutes of their time.' 

'Better yet give them a real problem. And yes, pay them,' added another user. 

One comment read: 'You see he had all the answers in the world but can’t pay for 90 minutes of peoples time, hmm seems the company is a red flag. Don’t value their staff.' 

The call out from the recruiter sparked a fiery debate - with many people supporting the applicant

'You want the labor of the employee, hire him first,' one user added. 

Someone else wrote: 'But you don’t think it important to pay people for their work, even if the work is a test, if takes hours with no guarantee of hire, pay or ability to even know the odds doesn’t seem like a smart investment of time & shows early on how little the company will value their time.' 

Another user added: 'It blows your mind that people don't want to do work for free without knowing they're getting a job or not?'

'Boomer mindset - you aren’t the only employer and good candidates have options,' added someone else. 

One user added: 'Applicant is right. Unless you offered to compensate for that 90 minutes. He has no idea how many applicants remain in the process. He probably has interviews with other businesses. Effort vs reward definitely not there for this. Good for him.' 

Another social media user wrote: 'He brings up a good point. You are selecting for the most desperate applicants.' 

'To be fair, a lot of places are just using applicants for free labor. The job doesn't exist. The "test" is the only work they need done,' added another person.

However, other people on the web were in agreement with the recruiter

However, other people on the web were in agreement with the recruiter. 

One person said: 'You don’t seem to understand that this person was just an applicant. You want the rewards of the company, get in the door first.' 

Someone else wrote: 'Because I currently teach Gen Z, this unfortunately doesn’t surprise me.' 

'How can you prove that you can do the job well? It’s chicken or the egg situation. And there’s a saying, no pain no gain. If you don’t want to put in work, expect no returns. Stay happy staying with parents,' added another person. 

Another user added: 'What free labor? You honestly think a TEST of your skills is going to be used in a deal? You think anyone would provide confidential information to a candidate to get a valuation you'd use in a deal?'