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

Tell HN: Recruiters are lying about remote positions

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 455 posts

Re: Tell HN: Recruiters are lying about remote positions

#431

Post by ruh-roh »

In a weird way - this kind of thing has pushed me towards companies that aren't anywhere near my current location, even/especially international. It makes the conversation super clear, recruiters & hiring managers can't dance around it. International brings in the prospects of visas and such.

I am in the Midwest and just joined a company headquartered in SV in a remote role. If they had tried to pull some remote bait-and-switch I would have just chuckled and asked for first class tickets in/out one day a week, or asked for the moon in relocation fees.

Re: Tell HN: Recruiters are lying about remote positions

#432

Post by damethos »

jrootabega wrote: post #171

Recruiting is like fishing. They're not lies, they're lures. I doubt that will ever change. The lesson is don't be a fish. Hell, I had a recruiter steal contacts from the company we were both working for, and try to recruit me when she had left for another company.

Well, in my book, if someone promises X and does Y and pretend that X was never mentioned, then it's a lie, not a lure. Besides, isn't "lure" a "lie" that we are trying to cover as a "lure" in order to feel better with ourselves?

Re: Tell HN: Recruiters are lying about remote positions

#433

Post by jrootabega »

damethos wrote: post #432
jrootabega wrote: post #171

Recruiting is like fishing. They're not lies, they're lures. I doubt that will ever change. The lesson is don't be a fish. Hell, I had a recruiter steal contacts from the company we were both working for, and try to recruit me when she had left for another company.

Well, in my book, if someone promises X and does Y and pretend that X was never mentioned, then it's a lie, not a lure. Besides, isn't "lure" a "lie" that we are trying to cover as a "lure" in order to feel better with ourselves?

I was trying to paint the picture that recruiters are held to the same moral standards towards their candidates that fishermen are to fish. No one criticizes fishermen for using lures that look good but are not food.

Re: Tell HN: Recruiters are lying about remote positions

#434

Post by pc86 »

damethos wrote: post #430
pc86 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This works if they try to get you to come in right away, but things change and the company is allowed to change a remote position to an in-office position. It can even happen soon after hiring (but is obviously much more suspect). The company changing its mind !== wrongful termination.

That's not how contracts work. It does not matter if the company changes its mind. If it's in writing then it has to be honored or else contracts would be pointless if anyone can just change its mind without consequences.

There are no employment contracts in the US. Or rather, they are so incredibly rare (mostly executives, and even rare among them) it's not worth discussing in the context of employment.

Re: Tell HN: Recruiters are lying about remote positions

#435

Post by tdfx »

civilized wrote: post #398
tdfx wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really wish people would read their sources, and specifically with the CDC, read the sources the CDC is using. The CDC page you referenced uses https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm as its only source for this recommendation. The study monitors outcomes for a group that were all infected at some point in 2020. The vaccine was released at the end of 2020. The study monitors the infection status of thes…

I don't understand your point. People who say "I don't need the vaccine because I already had COVID" never qualify that with how recent their natural infection was. Many of them assume that having it once is forever enough, like with chickenpox. The study shows that this common belief is wrong.

Neither the vaccine or infection will protect against reinfection indefinitely. That much I believe everyone is in agreement with. If you had natural infection or the vaccine a year ago or more, you will likely be reinfected with the most recent strain, typically with mild or no symptoms. My point about the study was that it specifically selecting people who were recently vaccinated vs. people whose natural exposure was the prior year. Of course the vaccinated people whose immune systems were recently exposed to the spike protein had lower reinfection rates.

Re: Tell HN: Recruiters are lying about remote positions

#436

Post by civilized »

tdfx wrote: post #435
civilized wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your point. People who say "I don't need the vaccine because I already had COVID" never qualify that with how recent their natural infection was. Many of them assume that having it once is forever enough, like with chickenpox. The study shows that this common belief is wrong.

Neither the vaccine or infection will protect against reinfection indefinitely. That much I believe everyone is in agreement with. If you had natural infection or the vaccine a year ago or more, you will likely be reinfected with the most recent strain, typically with mild or no symptoms. My point about the study was that it specifically selecting people who were recently vaccinated vs. people whose natural exposure…

That's why taking the vaccine is valuable! It provides protection, even to those who have had COVID before! Even if you had it last year, you can protect yourself by taking the vaccine! That's what the study shows! Just because you think it's obvious doesn't mean the study isn't valuable!

Re: Tell HN: Recruiters are lying about remote positions

#437

Post by xenonite »

civilized wrote: post #436
tdfx wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither the vaccine or infection will protect against reinfection indefinitely. That much I believe everyone is in agreement with. If you had natural infection or the vaccine a year ago or more, you will likely be reinfected with the most recent strain, typically with mild or no symptoms. My point about the study was that it specifically selecting people who were recently vaccinated vs. people whose natural exposure…

That's why taking the vaccine is valuable! It provides protection, even to those who have had COVID before! Even if you had it last year, you can protect yourself by taking the vaccine! That's what the study shows! Just because you think it's obvious doesn't mean the study isn't valuable!

On the other hand, the job did not require that a recent vaccination is required, just some. So it’s still comparing apples to oranges.

On top of that: A recently recovered infection provides probably even more protection than a recent vaccination.

It’s difficult to reason about all cases, in my opinion.

Post reply on HN