161–170 of 201 posts
I mean if you’ve been laid off it literally means you’re the person they like the least from the company. Otherwise steve would have been laid off instead. So it makes sense to not want someone who is the worst in a company.
May as well be shutdown of a department or project, where everyone gets off-boarded. Believe a lot of the recent GOOG reductions included very senior people who just happened to be on low-priority projects.
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.
This is exactly how I feel about tenant laws in the US. It's great they exist, but who's going to get a lawyer to stay somewhere they aren't wanted. All these laws that protect the vulnerable still require a lawyer to enforce them. Lawyers aren't accessible to most.
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.
My favorite piece of advice from interview.io's interview coaching was an emphatic "There is no place for honesty in a behavioral interview."
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…
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?
I mean if you’ve been laid off it literally means you’re the person they like the least from the company. Otherwise steve would have been laid off instead. So it makes sense to not want someone who is the worst in a company.
Both involved in activities that generated Google a boatload of community goodwill but likely not a lot of direct revenue.
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.
I’d personally see that as lying.
When pressed it can be as simple as "maintaining a corporation for any work I do (when not working as a FTE/salaried employee) is preferable for accounting purposes". Of course if they press further you should probably have your accounting in order/understand the topic so you can explain this without looking like an idiot but it's unlikely they'd press you much further than that.
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…
Everyone wants to believe that the people and organizations holding their careers in their hands are competent, rational, and trustworthy. Unfortunately that is often not the case.
I mean if you’ve been laid off it literally means you’re the person they like the least from the company. Otherwise steve would have been laid off instead. So it makes sense to not want someone who is the worst in a company.
This is way too simplified. May as well be shutdown of a department or project, where everyone gets off-boarded. Believe a lot of the recent GOOG reductions included very senior people who just happened to be on low-priority projects.
You are on low-priority projects because you aren't trusted on high-priority projects or have been out-maneuvered for them by other senior team members, or don't have enough political capital to convince others of the importance of your project to make it high-priority.