A job seeker’s decision to walk away from an interview process has sparked a big online debate about what employers can and cannot ask of applicants. The exchange spread quickly after a screenshot of the candidate’s email response appeared on Reddit, where many people praised the direct tone and the refusal to play along. At the center of the story is a request the candidate saw as completely unreasonable, a full week of office work with no pay. What began as a private message to a company soon turned into a public conversation about boundaries, legality, and basic respect in hiring.
According to the Reddit post, the candidate had interviewed for an office role at an unnamed company and was told a “trial week” was required before any formal offer. The catch was that the week would be unpaid, even though it involved showing up to the office and working like a regular employee. The candidate said that condition was a dealbreaker and chose to withdraw immediately rather than negotiate. That decision is what many commenters later celebrated as the right move at the right moment.
In the email screenshot shared online, the candidate made the withdrawal clear and explained exactly why. “I’m letting you know that I’m no longer interested in the position we discussed earlier,” the message began. The candidate then drew a sharp line between a legitimate evaluation step and free labor, writing, “A week of ‘trial’ that includes coming into the office and working as a full employee isn’t a trial, it’s unpaid work.” The message ended with a firm conclusion, “Under those conditions, I don’t want to continue.”
The post appeared in the Reddit community ‘30daysnewjob’, a space where members encourage each other to land a new role within a set timeframe. The person who shared the screenshot later added that they left a public review about the company to warn other applicants. They also said the situation did not derail their search, noting that they were invited to interview elsewhere and described the new opportunity as a “much better” company. That update helped shift the story from frustration to a sense of momentum and vindication.
I was offered an unpaid one week trial. Rejected it.
byu/IndividualDoughnut96 inrecruitinghell
Reactions in the comments were intense, with many people calling the company’s request an obvious warning sign. One commenter summed it up bluntly with “This is insane,” while another said the demand was “so insulting.” Others piled on with variations of the same point, that if someone is producing real work, they should be paid for it. A widely liked joke offered a sarcastic counterproposal, “You should respond to a week of work without pay with a week of pay without showing up.”
The thread also opened the floodgates for similar experiences, suggesting this is not a one off problem. One person claimed an owner in the medical industry asked them for two weeks of trial work before deciding on an offer. That commenter pushed back with a question that resonated with many readers, “So you want me to use my vacation to come work for you, just to hope I get the job?” Another person said they were told their first two weeks of training would not be paid, which triggered the same concerns about exploitation wrapped in polite language.
The story then jumped platforms when it was shared on LinkedIn by Timothy M, described as a senior sales director at the software company ServiceNow. He posted the screenshot and admitted he was unsure how to feel, writing that he “doesn’t know what to think,” and asked followers for their opinions. That framing did not land well with everyone, and the post reportedly gathered more than 600 comments. One response challenged his hesitation directly, “How can you not know what to think about this?”
As the discussion grew, some commenters argued that the right reaction is obvious if the unpaid week is framed as what it is, labor. Another remark highlighted that the answer might change if the situation affected the decision maker personally, saying, “You’d definitely know what to think if they asked you to work for free.” Others backed the candidate’s choice in plain terms, “This is an obvious red flag. The candidate made a smart decision.” The thread became less about one company and more about the norms employers try to set when applicants feel pressured to comply.
Timothy M later clarified in the comments that he did have a strong view and would never accept an unpaid trial week himself. He also pointed out that many people have faced similar situations and that in many places such arrangements are illegal, writing, “In many countries this is simply illegal.” He suggested it happens more often in smaller companies and shared an extreme example from the wider conversation, noting that some applicants were even asked to do “penetration testing on a production system” as a so called test. That detail underlined how far some hiring processes can drift from reasonable skills assessment into risky, unpaid work.
In general terms, a probationary period is usually a formal stage after someone is hired, meaning the person is employed, paid, and evaluated under a contract. A skills test during recruitment can be normal too, but it is typically limited in scope, time, and impact, such as a short task that demonstrates competence without replacing real staff work. Many labor systems distinguish between genuine assessment and productive labor, especially when the work is done on site, follows a schedule, and benefits the company. That is why these viral stories tend to hit a nerve, because they spotlight how blurry the line can become when employers push the burden onto candidates.
What do you think should be considered a fair hiring test, and where should candidates draw the line when an employer asks for unpaid work, share your thoughts in the comments.
