261–270 of 662 posts
Getting ref's takes time, it is silly to think it doesn't. You need to contact the people and ask them first, and lots of people are very busy with work. You are not there priority.
The author is missing the most obvious rule that they should have taken away from their experience: don't use the number and email provided by the candidate. Jim's email or number is probably readily available on the company website or by calling up the front desk at the company.
Yup, if the company is big, call or email the "front desk" or 411 number of whatever and ask to talk to that specific person. There are about a zillion ways to do this properly and the poster did none of them, sheer amateur hour.
> Rule #2: Take a long hard look at a candidate’s social profiles. > Rule #4: Google is your friend. That are one of the main reasons I don't post with my real name on the Internet, and I don't have an LinkedIn account. I don't want people to interpret what I put on the Internet in their own way when it comes to the decision if they should hire me or not.
I take the opposite approach. I accept that everything I post online is public, and a chance to control my own narrative. I would much rather fill the Internet with my own content about myself, than leave it empty for someone else to impersonate or disparage me. Additionally, I am proud of what I post publicly — otherwise I wouldn’t post it. Public personas are a professional necessity, especially in our industry. Fo…
The problem with you view is that there are times when your message gets caught up with your identity. Especially, when your message may be against the consensus flow and stills needs to be made, without affecting you in any material way.
Too often today, the messenger is "killed" because of the unpleasantness of the message being delivered.
[Edit: to to too]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most companies like that seem like they are just there to provide a plausible cover for legal liability. I've had multiple jobs that had background checks where I gave them my [1...n] addresses over the past 5-10 years and the background check comes back with me only have lived at [n-1] address with no indication that the data I supplied didn't match up with what they verified. If those companies we're doing their jo…
"Doing their job" - they are data aggregators and brokers, if the data doesn't exist because it was never reported to a third party, there's nothing they can do.
The real reason most background checks happen are so that companies have someone to point the finger at when one of their employees breaks the law. If that wasn't the case then you wouldn't get into situations like background check companies reporting completely clear records when the government has a simple process to show you every sentence given to someone. They stick to third party companies because they are cheaper and don't trigger compliance regulations required by law.
They would go for the better, if slightly more expensive, data source in a heart beat if finding about criminal history was the actual goal
Maybe the author should evaluate _why_ they got catfished. Recruiting processes are so convoluted and hard to break through, that someone who apparently otherwise would have been a great candidate, had to lie to get an interview. Was a good candidate really only one that had worked at the managers previous employer? How many great candidates are companies missing out on because of arbitrary filters?
>someone who apparently otherwise would have been a great candidate Dishonesty is an intolerable trait. This person clearly wasn't a great candidate. Lying at work is just about the only thing I'll always fire somebody for.
Dishonesty which you can detect is apparently intolerable. But dishonesty which you never catch may not be.
That's one of the points of the article, the other being that the candidate apparently showed a solid set of skills in the interviews. Dishonest people are dishonest, but they also might be lazy and thus willing to apply a skillset rather than deal with the complexity of additional, ongoing layers deceit.
Company X offers me a role where I have responsibilities Y and benefits Z. Promotions after a set number of time.
Times go by, still not doing Y, but intern level work. Benefits Z never appear. And that promotion? Sorry, someone needs to die or leave first, and then maybe we will hire a direct replacement.
Companies lie all the time in order to get a candidate to join.
> The next day I received two references from the recruiter—but neither was a manager and neither was from Acme Corp. Apparently she was still waiting for that particular reference. Odd…but OK. Why wouldn’t he have that info readily available? Getting ref's takes time, it is silly to think it doesn't. You need to contact the people and ask them first, and lots of people are very busy with work. You are not there prio…
> However, I am glad that I caught it early before we hired him. If we had hired him, tough to say what could have happened. Maybe he would have been great and our best performing AE. Maybe he wouldn’t have even known how to log into Salesforce. When you make it to the top by lying, you're considered a winner: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-goldman-gary-cohn-got-to-... > "I lied to him all the way to the airport,…
Everyone lies, because the interviewing process itself is a fucking joke, ESPECIALLY in the Bay Area. If the person can answer all my questions and they have a good attitude, I honestly don't give a shit what got them to that point. If someone doesn't work out, you can fire them. Yes it's "exhausting", maybe if it's so difficult to manage or run a business you should find a different role for yourself. I really enjoy…
sigh > Rule #2: Take a long hard look at a candidate’s social profiles. Is not having a LinkedIn account going to come back to bite me, even when applying for dev roles? I've had even senior devs at popular local dev shops say LinkedIn is a "necessary evil" because it: 1. is easy to grep 2. you can find whether a candidate has similar connections to you 3. recommendations I get New Zealand is small and the social gra…
If I hire you, what other commonly used tools are you going to refuse to use?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are controlling how work is done then you have an employee. If subcontracting is unacceptable and you are still hiring contractors then you are just trying to run around employment law, at least in the US
Just my $0.02... I have worked some jobs as an employee, some as a contractor, and in my experience there is really no difference between the two, other than how taxes (and social security, etc) are handled. My contracting jobs did not give me any more flexibility (and probably all had this "don't use a subcontractor" clause). How much leeway I had in choosing "the time, place, and manner of my work" depended entirel…
All of that is solely to get around to requirements with hiring employees like providing benefits, or needing to pay for increased payroll taxes when the company decides to lay a bunch of people off.
It's not right just because the rule of law has degraded so much that the government no longer enforces their own rules