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

Non-hiring Practices

blog.diiq.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 132 posts

Re: Non-hiring Practices

#51

Post by donretag »

Over a year ago, I applied to a job that I considered a great match with my experience and interests. Never heard from the company after applying. I had a couple of offers from other companies and I choose one.

Many many months later (7-8?) the company contacted me that they thought my resume was great and if I was interested in an interview. Even if I did not have a job, I still would not have gone through the interview due to the company's previous behavior.

What were they thinking? Either they are incompetent or they stockpile resumes for when they actually need to hire. There is nothing wrong with saying that you are not a good fit right now, but they will keep your resume on file. It really does happen. My wife was hired at a company a few months after she was rejected for a different job. They hired someone else, but came back to her when something else opened up.

Re: Non-hiring Practices

#52

Post by Lukeas14 »

luu wrote: post #2

Many years ago, I applied for a Google job that I was totally unqualified for. I didn't even get an interview, but they sent me a nice snail mail paper rejection letter anyway. I've heard mixed things about their interview process, but I still get a have a nebulous warm fuzzy feeling when I think about possibly sending a resume in again one day, because of one simple, probably automated, $.29[1] response. Conversely,…

The problem right now is that not sending a rejection email is the status quo. So you have decent people and non-decent people both not getting back to rejected candidates. If sending rejection emails became the norm, we could assume that not getting one would be due to the hiring manager's personality as opposed to a company policy or industry best practice.

Re: Non-hiring Practices

#53

Post by thisone »

eldavido wrote: post #44

As someone in a position to hire, I make a point of telling people no -- but only if I've taken the time to interview them. No way I'm taking the time to write back to every candidate that applies over the transom. Important people have enough crap to deal with every day, and it's just not reasonable to expect a response to every piece of communication they receive.

"Important people" also have assistants who are tasked with sending out these letters.

Takes about 20 seconds to say, "hey, we're hiring Jane Smith, send out the 'sorry' letter to the other interviewees, and the 'thanks, it's on file' letter to all the other applicants"

Re: Non-hiring Practices

#55

Post by [deleted] »

munin wrote: post #10

I have been instructed by legal affairs that non-contact after rejection is the safest choice for avoiding discrimination lawsuits. whether or not this is true, too much direct disobedience of management and legal usually results in starting ones own job search...

[deleted]

Re: Non-hiring Practices

#56

Post by ch0wn »

munin wrote: post #10

I have been instructed by legal affairs that non-contact after rejection is the safest choice for avoiding discrimination lawsuits. whether or not this is true, too much direct disobedience of management and legal usually results in starting ones own job search...

Definitely true for the legal situation in Germany. An early rejection can be enough for a compensation payment of three gross salaries.

It's actually a common practice for some to apply on jobs with completely under-qualified resumes and sue the companies after getting an early rejection for discrimination.

Re: Non-hiring Practices

#57

Post by objclxt »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #40

There are many examples here, both positive and negative, but I keep wondering, why people anonymize the unfavourable ones? I'd really love to know which company was that "company X", "company [HNer] won't publicly name", or "well known company in these circles". Those are important data points in order to know whether or not one should get involved with a particular company.

Because often they're very anecdotal. Companies like Google employ hundreds of recruiters. It stands to reason that out of those hundreds there are a few who are not particularly great (downright bad, even). I also hear that big names make people sign NDA's when interviewing, although this has never happened to me.

Additionally, naming and shaming often isn't very beneficial for your career! People move around a lot, especially in recruitment.

Re: Non-hiring Practices

#58

Post by Genmutant »

ch0wn wrote: post #56
munin wrote: post #10

I have been instructed by legal affairs that non-contact after rejection is the safest choice for avoiding discrimination lawsuits. whether or not this is true, too much direct disobedience of management and legal usually results in starting ones own job search...

Definitely true for the legal situation in Germany. An early rejection can be enough for a compensation payment of three gross salaries. It's actually a common practice for some to apply on jobs with completely under-qualified resumes and sue the companies after getting an early rejection for discrimination.

Really? I never heard of that! On what basis are they suing?

Re: Non-hiring Practices

#60

Post by patrickg »

Genmutant wrote: post #58
ch0wn wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely true for the legal situation in Germany. An early rejection can be enough for a compensation payment of three gross salaries. It's actually a common practice for some to apply on jobs with completely under-qualified resumes and sue the companies after getting an early rejection for discrimination.

Really? I never heard of that! On what basis are they suing?

(German legislation) I don't know the sources (probably many court rulings, not a law by itself), but I have heard that quite often: don't explain why a person was rejected, just say that you're sorry.
Post reply on HN