No post body was provided.
Tell HN: Recruiters are lying about remote positions
301–310 of 455 posts
Re: Tell HN: Recruiters are lying about remote positions
#302They're not lying, there are just significant internal miscommunications. A lot of the big companies right now have a lot of internal disagreements on the policies that pop up at various stage of the process.
I find it interesting how people define a lie. It's the responsibilities of these people to be on the same page and so if they are not lying they are rife with poor internal practices which gives me about the same impression of them as if they had been lying.
Re: Tell HN: Recruiters are lying about remote positions
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
G is losing candidates given how long the team matching process takes place.
I know multiple people (including myself) who have passed up opportunities at Google because of how long it takes for them to make a hiring decision. It's incredible how much value they must be leaving on the table. At some point, Google won't be the kind of place that people wait around for. Then they're really screwed.
Their hiring process could use some serious streamlining. When I've applied in the past, it seems like recruiters have a good half hour to an hour of mandatory spheal about how their "unique" interview process works... and even if you try to tell them that you've done these kinds of interviews before, and even interviewed with Google successfully but turned an offer down before, they'll still helpfully offer you their "insider tips" to... read cracking the coding interview and brush up on data structures.
God forbid you have an unusual niche in industry -- last time I applied, the recruiter took at least two weeks with regular calls to update me on their attempt to get me an interview for the niche I work in. Google's software output definitely reflects just how bureaucratic and convoluted their hiring process has become.
Re: Tell HN: Recruiters are lying about remote positions
#304This is very anecdotal, but I have a friend that interviewed at Google for a Remote SWE position - everything indicated that it was remote: the posting, the recruiter and the hiring manager. Now they announced RTO, his manager said: "We're excited to have you at the office" - he was really confused about this messaging, so they forced him to apply to work remotely (even if he had been hired as such) denied his applic…
I too interviewed at Google for a remote position; we got through team matching, and I'd found a great new potential manager, before one of his bosses nixed the idea of me being permanently remote. My recruiter ended up finding me another team match under a different director where I could be permanently remote, but the delay and difficulty was a major factor in me going to Facebook, which has a strong commitment to…
Part of it is just the incentives on Google to improve things, which is to say...very little pressure to change. Google, given its historical reputation and current great WLB is very sought after. Attrition is low (by faang standards), everyone wants to work there and will even take pay cuts to do so. Google loses candidates everywhere through the process and it doesn't seem to matter.
Re: Tell HN: Recruiters are lying about remote positions
#305Several months going through an interview is too much. No company is worth that much time unless you have an attorney drawing up contracts along the way, so that is the first red flag.
Now, the hiring manager convinced you to spend evenings/weekends prepping for coding and design interviews. This sounds training, and by law they may have been required to pay for that. In the future, you shouldn't spend more than an hour or two prepping for an interview unless they offer to pay. If you don't have the skills needed, then I'd recommend just telling them that. Companies that try to get you do make a big initial unpaid investment in time will also be the kind that will expect you to work a ton of overtime unpaid.
In regards to the remote work, get it in writing upfront. Recruiters are dirty, so maybe this is a valuable lesson to understand that from now on.
Re: Tell HN: Recruiters are lying about remote positions
#306[deleted]
Re: Tell HN: Recruiters are lying about remote positions
#307If it's something important, and it's not in writing – it's best to assume that it won't happen.
Recruiters will tell you anything to close the deal: fake valuations & equity info, incorrect work responsibilities, made up descriptions of work culture.
Recruiters are a sales position. They are selling you the company. Their job is to close you. And there is little if any recourse to them lying unless it's documented and protected by employment law.
Re: Tell HN: Recruiters are lying about remote positions
#308> I'm not sure what the compensation model for recruiters is, but it seems to encourage bringing in as many candidates as possible over treating them with honesty and respect. From experience dealing with recruiters for the last 25 years they universally lie to both sides to pocket the commission at all costs. I drove 400 miles once to do an interview for a solution architect position. Got there and the company were…
The only good experience I have had with a 3rd party recruiter was when they put the name of the company in the email and I contacted that company directly.
It just doesn't work well to have a non technical person be the middle man between two technical people
Re: Tell HN: Recruiters are lying about remote positions
#309While I feel for the people being fooled by recruiters I can not comprehend how come they did not make sure in their first interview that they're indeed hired for remote and it will be stated in their contract. I would never trust recruiter as they're responsible for nothing.
Not everyone is as expert at job hunting as you are.
True, but these aren't entry level jobs either.
Re: Tell HN: Recruiters are lying about remote positions
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am still flabbergasted that more companies have not gotten it through their skulls yet. Even if you keep an office, all-remote is simply a better model. Not only do you have access to a global labor pool (including the best candidates), the communication is better and work is more flexible (which literally everyone appreciates), you can lower overhead or even hire people for less based on location. The only major d…
Here is why: extraverts who need constant hyperactive human interaction are the only people psychopathic enough to ascend into the leadership tiers that make decisions about remote vs. in-person. So they just can't, and I mean CAN'T, handle the idea of all-remote. At all.
I'd think introversion correlates more with psychopathy than extroversion