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

Databricks counts being laid off as “red flag”

teamblind.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 201 posts

Re: Databricks counts being laid off as “red flag”

#21

Post by gedy »

SQueeeeeL wrote: post #4

Damn, the top comment on the article is about how you need to lie in tech interviews. How far have we fallen if we don't even have enough dignity to walk away from garbage tier companies who can't even put any real effort into hiring. Lying is not a solution, letting companies like Databricks die a slow painful death because they create toxic environments and all their programmers keep quitting is the solution.

Is there any drawback to just leaving your last company active on LinkedIn, etc?

I did that one time when I quit for a 4 month break, no one seemed to ask if I had quit yet and interviews went fine?

Re: Databricks counts being laid off as “red flag”

#22

Post by toomuchtodo »

bojo wrote: post #16
hlieberman wrote: post #3

Fun fact: in some jurisdictions such as New York and DC, this is illegal. It's called "discrimination against the unemployed". Check the laws of your state, the state you would work in, and the state the company is headquartered in to see if this may apply to you.

While it's nice to know these laws exist, what would you really do with it? The company proved it has a terrible culture. Doesn't seem worth it to fight for a job with them.

Assuming sufficient evidence, one could have an employment attorney pursue the claim and let the attorney keep any damages awarded beyond their contingency fee. Negative stimuli may not improve the culture, but it may improve the discriminatory HR behavior. And even if the behavior isn’t improved, there is then a mostly immutable public record of said discriminatory behavior (which is arguably more valuable than whatever scuttlebutt is on Blind or similar platforms).

It might even be demonstrably securities fraud.

https://wp.nyu.edu/compliance_enforcement/2022/06/22/can-sec...

Re: Databricks counts being laid off as “red flag”

#23

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

ramesh31 wrote: post #11
RajT88 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lying is not a solution Agreed. You should not lie in interviews. A common way of avoiding having to lie is registering your own consulting company after getting laid off. No resume gap! As far as if it fools recruiters, no idea. It's got to sometimes, right? I see it too often on LinkedIn for it to be useless.

>A common way of avoiding having to lie is registering your own consulting company after getting laid off. No resume gap! As far as if it fools recruiters, no idea. It's got to sometimes, right? I see it too often on LinkedIn for it to be useless. "Consulting" is the programmer equivalent of claiming "Entrepreneur" as a job title. Sure it exists, but it generally translates to "Unemployed".

This is false. Consultant is interchangeable with contractor for many people. Consultants and contractors are numerous in this industry.

Re: Databricks counts being laid off as “red flag”

#24

Post by mjfl »

Don't say you were laid off, say you left the job to start a new web site, but it's not working out financially. And obviously have a small website ready with a reasonable sounding business idea.

It is totally reasonable for counting being laid off as a red flag, it puts a ceiling on your performance - if you were really that productive, they would have kept you.

Re: Databricks counts being laid off as “red flag”

#25

Post by xyzelement »

jsnell wrote: post #13
xyzelement wrote: post #7

There's a missing bit of context here about what "laid off" actually means in this person's case. We are assuming it means a non-performance related reduction in force, but it may be something different. If I had to guess, I'd suspect the hiring committee found reason to suspect this person was laid off for performance / behavior. For example, perhaps their company has not conducted a large layoff, or is known for la…

> There's a missing bit of context here about what "laid off" actually means in this person's case. We are assuming it means a non-performance related reduction in force, but it may be something different. But that's basically the definition of a layoff; the elimination of roles from a company due to reasons unrelated to the performance of the laid off people (e.g. lack of work, economic conditions). If somebody lose…

I am aware of and agree with this definition. But...

One company I worked for had two rounds of layoffs - the first round got rid of exclusively low performers (they didn't announce it that way but it was clear) while the second cut across the board. If someone had that insight, they'd be right to consider someone cut in the first wave as a red flag.

But more generally, I don't think people stick to this definition, especially when talking about themselves. "I was laid off from X"... No dude, you got fired for harassment.

Again, all of this is conjecture - we have no idea what the situation in question actually was nor how the person communicated with the company about it.

Re: Databricks counts being laid off as “red flag”

#26

Post by harry8 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #22
bojo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it's nice to know these laws exist, what would you really do with it? The company proved it has a terrible culture. Doesn't seem worth it to fight for a job with them.

Assuming sufficient evidence, one could have an employment attorney pursue the claim and let the attorney keep any damages awarded beyond their contingency fee. Negative stimuli may not improve the culture, but it may improve the discriminatory HR behavior. And even if the behavior isn’t improved, there is then a mostly immutable public record of said discriminatory behavior (which is arguably more valuable than what…

This would be a deeply important change you'd provoke.

Much greater incentive to absolutely silent rejection. You know nothing you can't sue.

Re: Databricks counts being laid off as “red flag”

#27

Post by toomuchtodo »

harry8 wrote: post #26
toomuchtodo wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming sufficient evidence, one could have an employment attorney pursue the claim and let the attorney keep any damages awarded beyond their contingency fee. Negative stimuli may not improve the culture, but it may improve the discriminatory HR behavior. And even if the behavior isn’t improved, there is then a mostly immutable public record of said discriminatory behavior (which is arguably more valuable than what…

This would be a deeply important change you'd provoke. Much greater incentive to absolutely silent rejection. You know nothing you can't sue.

Possibly, in which case someone on the inside would have to be incentivized to be a whistleblower, either due to moral or financial considerations if silent rejections were covering up the illegal activity. With that said, people are lazy, they slip up or they become demoralized, disgruntled, and comfortable with spilling the beans. More so in a volatile macro with layoffs compressing more work amongst less staff.

TLDR Have your paper trail in order if you suspect illegal behavior, everything else is then logistics with counsel and/or regulators.

(not an attorney, not your attorney)

Re: Databricks counts being laid off as “red flag”

#30

Post by pottertheotter »

garbanzo69 wrote: post #14

My partner recently left Databricks (or "Datadicks", as we like to call it) after a year of dysfunction, unrealistic deadlines, many breakdowns, and severe burn-out. He took a few months off to recover and is now back in the game at a small consultancy with some incredible peers. Half the pay but absolutely worth it.

I'm curious to learn about the consultancy. If you're ok with it, you can email me at hnPotterTheOtter ~ gmail.
Post reply on HN