Is 'career catfishing' going on in your workplace?
In 2022, the 2 Johnnies released a two-part episode in their podcast series warning about the risks and perils of catfishing. When the series exploded in popularity, they returned with episode three, which unpacked fresh twists and listeners' experiences. Before long, the topic went viral, sparking a nationwide hunt to unmask the mysterious person behind the screen.
But what is catfishing? The term was popularised by MTV's Catfish: The TV Show and refers to the act of deceiving someone into a relationship with a fabricated online identity. Basically, a person takes information and images from others and uses them to craft a new identity for themselves.
From RTÉ Radio 1's Morning Ireland, jobs for engineers are amongst the hardest roles to fill in Ireland
Now, the same concept has quietly slipped into the professional world. Indeed, 2025 has brought a surge of new work terms and buzzwords that are hard to keep track of. Terms like micro-retirement, revenge quitting, coffee-badging, task-masking and hush holidays have already emerged. Career catfishing is straightforward: you apply for a job, you land a job, accept the offer and then ghost your new employer before your first morning coffee.
This is the most obvious and widely recognised example, but career catfishing can be much more complex. Others may hijack credentials and exaggerate endorsements to secure roles far beyond their abilities. Whether you disappear before your first day or bluff your way through an entire interview process, the result is the same: it erodes trust, harms professional reputation and could have legal consequences. Career catfishing is indeed a professional trapdoor.
The 2025 Future of Work Survey in the UK found that Generation Z is the most likely to engage in this bold behaviour, with 34% (or one in three) accepting a job offer but not attending their first day without informing new employer, not even by email. Although more common among younger people, older job seekers are also exhibiting this trend, with 24% (or one in four ) of millennials admitting they skipped work after accepting a job offer. In comparison, 11% of Gen X and 7% of boomers have done the same.
From RTÉ Radio 1's This Week, large increase in the number of people using AI for job hunting tasks
The statistics portray a negative view of Gen Z job seekers, leading to the assumption that younger workers lack professionalism and dismiss conventional employment norms and practices. However, it offers us a snapshot of their reality and the frustration they face in finding jobs and during the job application process.
A 2024 survey of Gen Z job seekers showed that 71.6% cited a lack of feedback after applications as their main frustration. Additionally, 65.7% found the application process too lengthy, possibly due to preparing resumes, cover letters, and attending multiple interview stages. Meanwhile, 40.2% felt there was too much emphasis on experience and education. Some might say that these frustrations not only push people to overstate their credentials to catch employers' attention but also diminish candidate interest, causing some to disengage entirely.
Graduates from the survey shared their thoughts on the challenges of finding a new job. "A lot of lengthy application processes even when I've gotten through to the last stage, there has not been much feedback given even when asked".
From RTÉ Radio 1's The Business, Siofra Mulqueen finds out how people working in tense, detail oriented, stressful jobs cope under pressure
The quote highlights the real-world impact of prolonged hiring processes. In today's unpredictable job market, Gen Z candidates quickly scan entry-level positions. When recruitment involves several rounds and feedback is delayed for weeks, candidates tend to lose interest. As a consequence, they might accept an offer from another job, become discouraged and give up or even embellish their credentials to stand out from other candidates. What starts as a quest for the perfect fit can soon become a frantic search for any opportunity, thereby leaving employers empty-handed or, through the very definition of career catfishing, stuck with hires who never truly intended to stay.
The impact extends beyond frustrated job seekers. Career catfishing is also significantly affecting employers and businesses. Each new hire involves a major investment of time and money. The recruitment process is lengthy and demanding, encompassing everything from advertising the position and screening candidates to conducting interviews, background checks and onboarding. Essentially, organisations allocate resources to find and prepare new employees. As a result, ghosting on the first day or overstating key skills wastes these investments and the energy that went into them.
From RTÉ Brainstorm, is it really bonkers to use an algorithm to hire a person?
It's a trend which is of huge concern for external recruiters and staffing agencies. Last-minute cancellations and résumé misrepresentations may strain their professional relationships and undermine trust, as employers depend on these agencies to identify suitable candidates for their vacancies. Incidents of career catfishing compel employers to reevaluate the competence of these agencies in providing appropriate talent. From a financial perspective, these external recruiters and staffing agencies impose fees for successful placements. Therefore, non-appearance without notice not only depletes the employers' budgets but may also prompt disputes over fees.
Career catfishing may indicate that our hiring systems and processes are not aligned with the fast-paced, high-stakes job market today. Not showing up for work on the first day without notice and résumé padding can be attributed to factors such as delayed feedback, competition and high expectations. The solution entails transparent and sincere two-way communication. On one hand, employers should honour the time of job seekers, particularly amidst the prevailing uncertainty. But job seekers must also recognise that identifying the appropriate candidate for the position is a challenging and time-consuming process.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
5 days ago
- RTÉ News
Too big to fine? Why banks don't pay the price when they break the rules
Analysis: New research finds the impact of misconduct, criminal activities and serious infractions on large banks is far milder than on other firms By Catarina Marvão, UCD In May 2025, Credit Suisse Services AG admitted that it helped wealthy US clients hide more than $4 billion from the US tax authorities (IRS), by using at least 475 offshore accounts. This follows many other infractions involving Credit Suisse in the last few years (e.g. the spying scandal in 2020, the Greensill, Archegos and Mozambique scandals in 2021, the Suisse Secrets case and money laundering in 2023), leading to it being acquired by UBS in 2023. Credit Suisse agreed to pay a fine of $510 million, including $372 million for filling false tax returns and $139 million related to accounts based in Singapore. In addition to the gravity of this crime, it also violates the 2014 plea agreement under which Credit Suisse had to pay $2.6 billion for the same tax crimes. This was clearly insufficient if the bank continued the same crime. From RTÉ Radio 1's Morning Ireland in 2023, how did financial markets react to the fallout of the Credit Suisse rescue deal? But despite having the authority to disqualify banks involved in criminal activities from providing certain financial services, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) granted Credit Suisse an exemption. Even after a long history of misconduct, this meant specific UBS-affiliated entities were still allowed to continue their investment advisory and underwriting operations. Over the last decade, many large banks have been convicted for money laundering (e.g. HSBC, Danske Bank, UBS, Deustsche Bank), collusion (e.g. Barclays, Citigroup, RBS, HSBC), ponzi schemes (e.g. JPMorgan Chase), but faced minor legal consequences relative to the seriousness of the charges. The question practically begs itself: are some banks too big to fine? A new study suggests the answer may well be yes. This research examines publicly listed companies, including 25 banks, fined by the European Commission for cartel participation. Using stock market data, the study shows how the share prices of these firms reacted to two key events: the start of an investigation and the announcement of a fine. From RTÉ Radio 1's Morning Ireland in 2023, Sam Jones from the Financial Times on the world's largest banks coming together to stop possible banking crisis in the wake of Credit Suisse problems The results are striking. When non-banks were raided, their share prices dropped significantly. That's what you'd expect—bad news leads investors to worry about future losses. But banks? Their share prices hardly moved, and in some cases appear to actually have gone up. And it gets worse. While both banks and non-banks saw their share prices fall when fines were finally announced, the study finds that the overall impact on banks was far milder. Why do markets react so calmly when banks are caught? One hypothesis is that investors correctly assume that banks—especially large, systemically important ones—will be let off more lightly than other firms. And they're not wrong. Even after adjusting for how much harm was caused by the cartel activity, the above study finds that fines imposed on banks were substantially lower than those handed out to non-banks. What does this tell us about the financial system? This reflects a deeper issue at the heart of financial regulation: the fear of destabilising the banking system. Regulators may worry that they could weaken its balance sheet if they hit a major bank with a large fine. This would undermine public confidence and risk broader financial instability. That fear becomes especially acute when a bank is already on shaky ground, as many were during and after the global financial crisis. From RTÉ Radio 1's Morning Ireland, strong criticism of Irish banks for failing to pass on interest rate increases to savers It means regulators face a dilemma: punish bad behaviour properly and risk a crisis or go easy and preserve financial stability, at least in the short term. This dilemma isn't just theoretical. We've seen it play out repeatedly. From the LIBOR-rigging scandal involving major global banks to the FOREX cartel and the Credit Suisse case this year, there's a clear pattern: financial institutions often walk away from major breaches with relatively small penalties and few long-term consequences. Too big to fail or too big to fine? Maintaining financial stability is a good thing, so why is this worrying? Firstly, it creates a perverse incentive. If being " too big to fail" also means being " too big to fine," then banks may actually have a reason to grow larger, take on more risk and misbehave —knowing they'll be shielded from the full consequences. When rules only apply to some, trust breaks down for everyone. It also undermines the idea that no one is above the law. If banks are effectively protected from full accountability, what incentive do they have to play fair? It also damages public trust in both the financial system and the regulators who are supposed to keep it in check. So, what can be done? One solution is to simply increase fines, relative to the actual harm caused. This is feasible as many fines are set far below the legal maximum, but it may undermine financial stability. Another option is to impose personal penalties on executives. If banks as institutions are too sensitive to fine heavily, then perhaps the individuals responsible for misconduct should face consequences—through disqualification, bans, clawbacks, or even jail sentences. However, it appears that the system is going in the opposite direction ('too big to jail'). Finally, regulators may want to communicate why certain decisions are made. If the public understands the risks behind a lighter penalty, they may be more willing to accept it—provided there is a plan to prevent repeat offences. The Credit Suisse case may be just the latest example of banks avoiding serious punishment, but it shouldn't be treated as business as usual. Because when rules only apply to some, trust breaks down for everyone.
RTÉ News
14-07-2025
- RTÉ News
Irish missionary recalls effort to close naval base in Philippines over abuse
One of the last remaining Irish missionaries has spoken of his work in the Philippines where he has been since the 1960s. Fr Shay Cullen set up the Preda Foundation to rescue children from exploitation in the Philippines 50 years ago. The four-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee features in the RTÉ documentary 'The Last Irish Missionaries', which charts the history of the Irish missionary movement. At the peak of the Irish missionary movement, in the 1960s, over 6,000 Irish Catholic missionaries were dispersed to over 80 countries. Now, with vocations evaporating and the last Irish missionaries ageing and dying, the movement is coming to a close. Ahead of the broadcast of the documentary's first episode, Fr Cullen said his organisation in the Philippines is still working to help the victims of sexual exploitation, some as young as six years old. He said they bring court cases against abusers, many of whom are relatives of the children. "We were quite successful in healing the kids through our emotional release therapy, which is a very healing process," he said, adding "the kids become very self-confident, very outspoken". The children, he said, "want to get justice". "So they testify in the court and we win," he said. Speaking on RTÉ's Morning Ireland, Fr Cullen said that the organisation secured 27 convictions last year, adding that up to July, the foundation reached "another 112 already". He said there is another programme for boys, who are rescued from prison. The missionary said the Juvenile Justice Welfare Act was passed after a ten-year campaign. Fr Cullen explained that he also campaigned for a US naval base in the Philippines to be closed after he discovered a child sex syndicate linked to its Navy personnel. "I exposed this in a newspaper at that time because we didn't have facilities and the city covered it all up," he said. "So, I broke the news. It became an international story and that began an awareness," he added. Fr Cullen said he was going to be deported and was threatened that the children's homes would be closed. He said in the aftermath, he was threatened with deportation and the closure of his children's home. The missionary said he subsequently suggested he military base be converted to an economic zone. This started a campaign and eight years later the Philippine Senate closed the base, he said, calling it a "big success". He said "all those women, 1,000 women in the sex industry" were all freed. He added that such women "were in debt bondage" and "could never leave" until the campaign. Broadcaster Bryan Dobson, who so-presents the documentary, said he was drawn to the project because like everybody in Ireland he grew up being aware of the Irish missionary story. Speaking on the same programme, he said the missionaries are described as "the best of us". He said Fr Cullen "really exemplifies part of this extraordinary Irish missionary story". Mr Dobson said at its height, the missionary movement's "numbers were enormous", adding that "something like 6,000 or 7,000" people were involved. He said "hundreds of young men and women every year" through the 1950s and the 1960s went into missionary orders. Such people, he said, were then "dispatched to the Philippines or east Africa or wherever it might be, South America". "So, I was fascinated to find out what motivated them, what drove them," he said. "The sense of vocation they had, that's clearly the case," he added.
Irish Examiner
09-07-2025
- Irish Examiner
Investigation into sexual abuse in schools should include probe into State's responsibility, survivor says
A survivor has called on the State to investigate its own responsibility for sexual abuse in schools as part of a newly established commission of investigation. Louise O'Keeffe called on the State to release all files it holds that may be relevant to the commission examining the handling of allegations of sexual abuse in all schools. Ms O'Keeffe took Ireland to the European Court of Human Rights claiming inhuman and degrading treatment while aged nine at Dunderrow National School in Co Cork in 1973. Her former principal Leo Hickey was prosecuted in the 1990s for historic abuse against pupils. In 2014, the European court found that Ireland's system of detection and reporting of abuse was ineffective in the 1970s as it allowed more than 400 incidents of abuse over such a long period. It said if adequate action had been taken in 1971 when the first complaint against Hickey was made, Ms O'Keeffe might have not been abused by him. Speaking after education minister Helen McEntee announced the establishment of the commission, Ms O'Keefe said it was 'past time' that the investigation had been set up. Speaking on RTÉ radio's Morning Ireland Ms O'Keefe said she was anxious that State bodies be investigated into how 'they did and did not handle claims.' It was essential that files within the Department of Education be released as many of the older schools would have closed and the abusers would have died and many cases had not been handled correctly, she added. Announcing the commission, Ms McEntee said more work is needed to decide how a redress scheme for victims of sexual abuse in schools is to progress. Ms O'Keefe pointed out that a redress scheme for survivors was already in place. 'The European Court found that the State had a responsibility for the sexual abuse of the children in the schools.' The religious orders must also be held accountable to the schools that the religious order ran, she said. But the State cannot delay the redress to all pupils waiting for the religious orders to be sorted because of the fact that not all of the schools were run by religious orders. It's important that they do not sideline some schools while they're waiting for other schools. Meanwhile, the special rapporteur on child protection, human rights lawyer Caoilfhionn Gallagher, welcomed the terms of reference of the Commission of Investigation. "I hope some lessons are being learned from the horrendous experience that many survivors went through in other recent investigations, including of course in relation to the Grace report where they described the process itself being re-traumatising and the process itself being adversarial and not being trauma-informed.' Ms Gallagher also welcomed the 'sampling' approach of the commission. This was more realistic, she said.
