Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ghosting: Job candidates turn tables on employers

asktheheadhunter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 63 posts

Re: Ghosting: Job candidates turn tables on employers

#51

Post by sokoloff »

caboteria wrote: post #11

I think that this is people finally getting fed up with corporate hypocrisy. When you quit, for example, it's expected that you give at least two week's notice, and anything less would be "unprofessional". When there's a layoff, though, people are shown the door immediately (or sometimes even fired over the phone). Why should I be held to rules that don't apply to the company that I'm working for?

What's the primary thing the employee gives the employer? Work.

What's the primary thing the employer gives the employee? Money.

I think it's reasonable when one party decides to end the relationship, that they keep providing that primary thing for a period of time to make the transition more orderly.

That makes notice periods and severance periods logically equivalent in my book. The company can show you the door immediately (if they want), but as long as they pay you severance for a period of time, they've held up their end. (I've never seen zero severance in the tech industry unless a company is literally out of money or in the case the employee is being fired "for cause" (typically meaning sexual harassment, or theft/embezzlement, etc, not mere incompetence or laziness.)

Re: Ghosting: Job candidates turn tables on employers

#52

Post by mxuribe »

gerbilly wrote: post #30

What a stupid neologism. I know language doesn't have to make sense, but to me 'ghosting' seems to mean the exact opposite of what it's supposed to mean. Think of it, a ghost is a dead person that hangs around and bothers you in this world when it should have gone to some other realm, presumably. Aren't there enough existing words and expressions that mean the same thing: ignoring, stonewalling, etc...?

THIS! I was similarly confounded when i first heard the term ghosting recently. To me ghosting should mean that someone that is constantly lingering about - and not disappearing. I would have used the term blanking out, or maybe fading out, or even better something like bamfing [see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamf].

Re: Ghosting: Job candidates turn tables on employers

#53

Post by johnminter »

ianai wrote: post #13
bradleyjg wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are companies not paying severance to laid off employees? The old norm, which seemed pretty reasonable to me, was that employees gave notice and companies paid severance. The walking out the door part is unpleasant, but it's the pay that's more important IMO.

Severance is a rarity. It’s also probably not enough. I’ve seen people get 1 or 2 weeks pay as severance.

In many US companies, severance increases with years of service. In the case of my former employer, as the company's balance sheet got worse, successive downsizings provided fewer benefits. There were legal protections that slowed the rate of those decreases.

Re: Ghosting: Job candidates turn tables on employers

#54

Post by vorpalhex »

reasonablemann wrote: post #25

It's extremely important that you learn as early as possible in your career that your employer is not your friend. You are only a cog in the wheel to them. All the way up to the top you are replaceable. Once you make this shift in thinking, it opens the doors to you increasing your status in the company, doing more interesting work and making way more money. Stop doing any favours to your employer and start putting y…

Another way I've heard this phrased is that office politics and such are like a game: You will get screwed over by your "friends", it's not personal, and your job is to optimize for your desired outcome.

Re: Ghosting: Job candidates turn tables on employers

#55

Post by martin_bech »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #44
martin_bech wrote: post #24

I've seen both things happen. A well respected co-worker, just stopped coming in after a vacation, and played World of Warcraft instead. He had savings, so he just played. (He did it for years) Another co-worker, got a great offer at an exciting new place, semi-large startup. Quit his job, trained a replacement, first day at the new job "Sorry.. it seems like we cant afford you, as our strategy has changed."

> Another co-worker, got a great offer at an exciting new place, semi-large startup. Quit his job, trained a replacement, first day at the new job "Sorry.. it seems like we cant afford you, as our strategy has changed." That's just cold. You don't do that to people. I would sue. I would sue for the money I spent to move as well as the loss of income until I found another job.

That very cold, but thats the law here in Denmark. The first 3 months, you can fire new hires with 1 days notice, for no reason what so ever.

After the first 3 months, you have to show some kind of cause, have issued warnings of performance, be downsizing or similar.

p.s he didnt move, the job was in the same city. But he took the oppurtunity and started for himself, and is very succesfull today doing something completely different (he makes beautifull cookbooks now).

Re: Ghosting: Job candidates turn tables on employers

#56

Post by brandmeyer »

deepGem wrote: post #20
bradleyjg wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are companies not paying severance to laid off employees? The old norm, which seemed pretty reasonable to me, was that employees gave notice and companies paid severance. The walking out the door part is unpleasant, but it's the pay that's more important IMO.

Severance always depends on the length of your stay at that company. Typically it's 1 week for a year of service. So yeah, good luck with that if you are anything less than 5 years into the job.

I'm not sure that there is a 'typical' for severance. I've seen people get everything from a flat 1 month, to 2 months + 2 weeks/year.

Re: Ghosting: Job candidates turn tables on employers

#57

Post by DaiHafVaho »

gerbilly wrote: post #30

What a stupid neologism. I know language doesn't have to make sense, but to me 'ghosting' seems to mean the exact opposite of what it's supposed to mean. Think of it, a ghost is a dead person that hangs around and bothers you in this world when it should have gone to some other realm, presumably. Aren't there enough existing words and expressions that mean the same thing: ignoring, stonewalling, etc...?

To ghost somebody is to make them like a ghost to you.

Re: Ghosting: Job candidates turn tables on employers

#58

Post by mnm1 »

sokoloff wrote: post #51
caboteria wrote: post #11

I think that this is people finally getting fed up with corporate hypocrisy. When you quit, for example, it's expected that you give at least two week's notice, and anything less would be "unprofessional". When there's a layoff, though, people are shown the door immediately (or sometimes even fired over the phone). Why should I be held to rules that don't apply to the company that I'm working for?

What's the primary thing the employee gives the employer? Work. What's the primary thing the employer gives the employee? Money. I think it's reasonable when one party decides to end the relationship, that they keep providing that primary thing for a period of time to make the transition more orderly. That makes notice periods and severance periods logically equivalent in my book. The company can show you the door im…

My company pays zero severance. It's clearly stated in the handbook. I've worked at over a dozen places in the bay area and only two provided actual severance and in both of those cases, they were trying to avoid lawsuits / publicity over not having promised health insurance / other workers getting drunk and assaulting their coworkers. So those two places were highly motivated to shut me up or else I'm certain there would have been no severance.

So yeah, I'll give my employers the same consideration they give me: NONE.

Re: Ghosting: Job candidates turn tables on employers

#59

Post by [deleted] »

sigfubar wrote: post #29
neltnerb wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you happen to have a large amount of savings to pay the retainer (in case you lose), or hit the jackpot with a lawyer that will work on contingency for a case worth probably $10-20k if you win. Maybe small claims court, but that still takes your time away from other things, takes energy, and causes stress. The legal system is not easily accessible for the average person and companies know that perfectly well. Even…

Your cynical view of the legal system is based in urban legend more than fact. Attorneys are businesses: yes, they'll gladly take a client's money in order to prosecute a losing case, but a good lawyer will show extreme skepticism towards someone who doesn't have a case or the money to pay for it. It's never a bad idea to consult with 2-3 attorneys with significant practice in the relevant area. When a case has merit…

[deleted]

Re: Ghosting: Job candidates turn tables on employers

#60

Post by prepend »

tokai wrote: post #10
prepend wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I meant “resigninging with no two weeks notice.” I think of “giving notice” as the professional practice of giving a time period between resigning and ceasing work. They still resigned. I would consider ghosting if they just left and never said anything.

>I would consider ghosting if they just left and never said anything. But that is what the article is describing. The initial question goes "It just happened at work. Someone “ghosted” their job! A man in his 20s just disappeared without saying goodbye or I quit."

But the employer examples all involve some contact (rescinding the offer, etc).

It seems odd to compare an employee walking off the job with no notice vs a recruiter never getting back. I think the equivalent is having the doors locked with no notice. Happens in the restaurant business, but pretty rare in white collar.

Post reply on HN