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

71–80 of 201 posts

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

#71

Post by dclowd9901 »

_t4za wrote: post #10
cochne wrote: post #6

I think their HR culture may be a little toxic. When I told them their offer was not enough, they got very irate. They said if I only care about money I’m not a good fit for their culture of builders, and that I should watch out because there are lots of lay offs happening. It all left me with a very poor impression of them.

> They said if I only care about money I’m not a good fit for their culture Is this meant to convince you to take the offer, or is this just to vent off some steam before closing your file?

It’s funny to think either answer is a good one.

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

#72

Post by baron816 »

I had a pretty bad experience with them when I interviewed about a year and a half ago. I don't remember all the details, but I recall them giving me (a frontend SWE) a phone screen problem that was all about micro-optimization. I think they wanted me to implement a trie within the last five minutes of the interview or something. After the interview, I emailed the recruiter and said I didn't want to go forward with them.

I'm sure some people here will say DS and Algorithm questions like that are perfectly reasonable to show off CS skills, but the question was just so far removed from anything a frontend engineer could expect to do that it showed that they just had no respect for the specialty and were hiring for the wrong thing.

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

#73

Post by dclowd9901 »

password11 wrote: post #62
ageek123 wrote: post #50

This seems like a lot of discussion for a single report from a possibly-disgruntled (but definitely rejected) candidate, about a policy that was denied by multiple Databricks employees in the thread, who clearly said that Databricks has hired a number of people who were laid off recently.

What I find strange in OP's story is that HC and recruiter actually gave a reason for the rejection. Most companies after they reject you are tight-lipped. > denied by multiple Databricks employees in the [Blind] thread, who clearly said... That proves nothing. HR departments shill on Blind.

Yes, same here. The banality of job rejection is quite far from many of the anecdotes I read about it.

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

#74

Post by polynox »

quelltext wrote: post #52
frellus wrote: post #15

This is asinine, discriminatory and unfair. I'd even say it's borderline malicious. Glad they named and shamed. I would't do any business with this company, nor attempt to work for them. A RIF has nothing to do with a person's performance .. at least officially. One has to assume it was a business decision only, not performance based, although with a large reduction it seems improbable that the people left would be,…

For anyone like you (and me) who says being laid off doesn't mean bad performance you have someone else saying it's good that Meta, Twitter, etc. are cleaning house, getting rid of all the slackers. Those are the folks calling it a red flag later. The thing, is we want to believe that a company makes careful decisions about whom to lay off. We know it doesn't quite work like that but as you said yourself there can be…

It can both be true that most of the people who were laid off were done for "performance reasons" and also that it's not rational to reject a candidate because of a "red flag" like being laid off, at least if you are doing any evaluation of candidates yourself. After all, the prior company could have been wrong? Or they value different things?

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

#75

Post by olivermuty »

polynox wrote: post #69

What a disgusting but revealing story. By saying "being laid off is a red flag" they are loudly signaling that actually they have no way of measuring interview performance and are just trusting the former employer's judgement? So why even bother with the interview then? It would be like if someone is selling me their car and I run the car history report and see it was in a minor collision but was repaired. I look ove…

Not sure if this is the best analogy because if I had a choice of cars I would almost always pick the one that has not been in a collision :p

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

#76

Post by polynox »

olivermuty wrote: post #75
polynox wrote: post #69

What a disgusting but revealing story. By saying "being laid off is a red flag" they are loudly signaling that actually they have no way of measuring interview performance and are just trusting the former employer's judgement? So why even bother with the interview then? It would be like if someone is selling me their car and I run the car history report and see it was in a minor collision but was repaired. I look ove…

Not sure if this is the best analogy because if I had a choice of cars I would almost always pick the one that has not been in a collision :p

That's fair. A car that is in a collision is always at best as good as a car that has not been in a collision, whereas that's not the case with an employee who was terminated.

I was trying to get at where you don't need to trust someone else's judgement of something, you can just ... go look yourself. Or hire your own expert. Because why do those other things if they don't actually change the outcome?

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

#77

Post by jacquesm »

frugalmail wrote: post #68
cochne wrote: post #6

I think their HR culture may be a little toxic. When I told them their offer was not enough, they got very irate. They said if I only care about money I’m not a good fit for their culture of builders, and that I should watch out because there are lots of lay offs happening. It all left me with a very poor impression of them.

With all the money they raised, they're treating people like a sinking startup playing these games? Definitely a warning sign.

Money raised is only fractionally spent on tech, predominantly it will go to sales, marketing and international expansion.

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

#78

Post by kergonath »

adrr wrote: post #41
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.

I just glanced at their career page and all the US based engineering and product management jobs are in the bay area. California doesn't have protected status for being unemployed.

It is very weird that your precise case has to fit a couple of narrow criteria to be protected against discrimination in the US. From a moral perspective, discrimination is discrimination regardless of its grounds. The default position should be that it is illegal. This would avoid endless sterile discussion about whether this or that is a protected class.

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

#79

Post by mac56 »

Not only is Databricks a deplorable company when it comes to HR, but their product is terrible. I really don't get what it's all about. Much rather spin up my choice of a python notebook, have my own underlying data storage, etc. I really don't understand how they got so big so quickly? Was it all hype? VCs helping close deals?

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

#80

Post by kergonath »

lmm wrote: post #61
smeagull wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just another way of lying. If it makes you feel better about it, then fine I guess.

I've had plenty of employers tell me something in the interview that was technically true but very misleading. They seem to think that's quite different from lying.

It’s a lie if you get caught and are in a position to be punished. You cannot do anything against a recruiter, ergo they cannot lie. Or rather, even if they lie they can give as many bad faith explanations or further lies as necessary and there is nothing you can do about it. Unless it is so egregious that you can sue them, in which case you have either a fat settlement or a court that demonstrates that they did in fact lie.
Post reply on HN