iscover
Jobseekers seek payment for job interview participation for several reasons – the costs of transportation, new clothing, lost income, childcare, and professional coaching are among them, one study has said.
Indeed released a study that comprised responses from over 1,500 Australian workers and jobseekers between 28 May and 2 June 2025. It explored attitudes towards costs that jobseekers bear in job interview participation.
Financial compensation figures
Based on Indeed’s findings, nearly half (45 per cent) of employers said that interviewees should get paid. Fifty-seven per cent said that interviewees should be paid between $50 and $199, two in three (67 per cent) employers said jobseekers should be paid $100 per interview, and one in six suggested this figure be $300 or more.
Indeed revealed that 44 per cent of jobseekers and 45 per cent of employers believed that interview participants should be financially compensated for their expenses. Nearly two in three (63 per cent) of jobseekers reported spending nearly $99 per job search, and one in seven spent $200.
How are employees losing out?
The survey revealed that, to prepare for a job interview, jobseekers spent money on transportation (60 per cent), new clothing (46 per cent), professional résumé writing (21 per cent), and coaching (13 per cent). The data also revealed the indirect costs of job seeking – 19 per cent lost income as a result of unemployment during the job search, and 7 per cent continued to pay for childcare during this process.
Indeed career expert Sally McKibbin (pictured) said: “From transport costs and professional outfits to lost income and coaching services, the process of applying for work is far from free. And for many early-career or lower-income Australians, it’s a burden they may struggle to afford.”
Impacts on candidate diversity
Further, Indeed found that 47 per cent of employers said they have had candidates decline or refuse to attend in-person interviews due to the financial burden involved.
The costs that come with participating in interviews are making things harder for candidates, McKibbin said. When candidates know that their time is valued, this pushes them to engage more deeply with the process – leading to greater conversations, better candidate experience, stronger hiring outcomes, a wider and diverse talent pool, and ultimately can help to strengthen a company’s employer brand, she explained.
She said: “In an economy where every dollar counts, jobseekers are paying hundreds just for the chance to work. Making them pay to interview only makes things harder.”
She also highlighted that recruitment is a “two-way street” and that employers must recognise the financial barrier that jobseekers face when applying for roles. To acknowledge these costs incurred by jobseekers – virtual options, travel stipends, or even compensation can help “level the playing field”, she said.
Implementing adjustments for the costs borne by jobseekers can lead to a fairer and more accessible process, she said. HR practitioners play a significant role in designing policies that balance benefits for both jobseekers and employers. The implementation, however, must be context-specific to the workplace, she emphasised.
A small investment with a big return
McKibbin told HR Leader: “There’s no one-size-fits-all approach, but HR teams could start by identifying points in the recruitment journey that require significant candidate investment, such as multi-stage interviews or completing comprehensive tasks.”
“Payments could be structured on an hourly basis or a flat rate for time spent participating in tasks or interviews, and some companies may like to reimburse for reasonable expenses like transport.”
“For employers competing for skilled talent, this can be a small investment with a big return.”
RELATED TERMS
The practice of actively seeking, locating, and employing people for a certain position or career in a corporation is known as recruitment.
Carlos Tse
Carlos Tse is a graduate journalist writing for Accountants Daily, HR Leader, Lawyers Weekly.
