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.
Databricks counts being laid off as “red flag”
91–100 of 201 posts
Re: Databricks counts being laid off as “red flag”
#92Earlier 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".
Well, my “unemployed” compensation was much higher in some years, compared to when I was employed. Consulting is great, if you can tolerate uncertainty (which is kind of your profession now).
Re: Databricks counts being laid off as “red flag”
#93It's funny how people blindly trust some anonymous person's post on none other than blind.
Re: Databricks counts being laid off as “red flag”
#94This 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.
I agree “HR departments shill on Blind” but the claim made by several people in that thread (at least one who said they are a hiring manager) that Databricks has recently hired multiple people who were laid off is verifiable as true or false. It’s not just a generic weasel statement like “it’s not our policy to…” or “we treat all applicants fairly” or something like that.
Re: Databricks counts being laid off as “red flag”
#95Earlier 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.
I’d personally see that as lying.
Perhaps in a very narrow sense, but I think it's more complicated than that.
Let's assume that there are facts that a person has a legitimate right to conceal in a particular context. What if the only way to conceal such a fact is to create a false impression?
I would hesitate to call that lying, because the word lying ususally implies that it is not legitimate, which contradicts the assumption.
Re: Databricks counts being laid off as “red flag”
#96Damn, 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.
The Blind format rewards edgy comments. I don't think anyone would really advocate for lying during the recruiting process.
Re: Databricks counts being laid off as “red flag”
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
At that point, I would have taken their offer, collect my paycheck while still interviewing elsewhere, and wait to get fired.
Which would then leave a genuine red flag on your CV.
If you dont stick to a bad job and leave within a few months… just don’t put that short term job on your CV. The CV doesn’t need to include anything that’d make you look bad.
Re: Databricks counts being laid off as “red flag”
#98Sounds a little suspicious to me.
Maybe the candidate is missing some information (references didn't go well for example). Why would a company spend all the time to interview someone they weren't going to hire? Even if Databricks found out later after the interview loop, they gain nothing by telling the candidate that specific reason for the rejection.
Re: Databricks counts being laid off as “red flag”
#99I 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.
This is the attitude of a lot of the large corporation HR teams I've spoken to.
Re: Databricks counts being laid off as “red flag”
#100Don'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.
The problem with the last part here is that even if it signifies a performance issue at the person's last employer, unless you have exactly the same company culture and exactly the same type of projects it tells you very little.
But there are also many other reasons why otherwise productive team members will be made redundant. E.g. sales are flagging and the company needs to cut cost, and are cutting whole teams because they've already cut the low performers.
It is worth probing a bit of someone has been laid off, but I've personally had to make people redundant who I'd have rehired again in a second while keeping lower performers because they were essential in some way or other, and we couldn't justify making them redundant only to move someone else into their position (even with the ridiculously weak employee protections in the UK that'd suggest it wasn't actually a genuine redundancy; but even places where it's legal, it doesn't mean everyone will do it).
Your suggestion about a project to fill the gap might be worthwhile if the gap is long enough. Otherwise it'll just add new questions about why you're giving up so soon.