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

61–70 of 132 posts

Re: Non-hiring Practices

#61

Post by patrickg »

rhizome wrote: post #25
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...

Sounds like legal affairs might not know exactly what they're talking about and playing it safe. Kind of like the consultant that says a 40 person company needs three Exchange servers or a mechanic who prescribes a new Johnson rod.

Depending on the legislation, of course, but I have seen many, many strange court rulings in Germany when it comes to employee rights (or wannabe employees). So I doubt its because of not known things.

Re: Non-hiring Practices

#62

Post by snitko »

gfody wrote: post #33
linuxhansl wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. This makes me sad. Sounds like unreasonable fear of a lawsuit stands in the way of common courtesy and decency here.

The fear is not unreasonable, the lawsuits are. USA is lawyers gone wild.

Don't blame lawyers. This is a perfect example of the stupidity of the idea of anti-discrimination laws. The intentions may be noble, but the reality bites you in the ass.

Re: Non-hiring Practices

#63

Post by hso9791 »

suresk wrote: post #14
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...

I wonder why this is seen as being an effective way of mitigating the risk of discrimination lawsuits? At some point, whether you explicitly tell them or not, the candidate knows they didn't get the job. I can see where it might be problematic to go into reasons why they didn't get the job, but I'm having a hard time seeing what risks a simple notice informing them they didn't get it causes?

It's quite simple: Wording. Somebody might have gotten sloppy writing requirements for the new position, or HR may have misunderstood the requirements.

This may be enough to give the rejected applicant ammunition for a law suit. I've been to several interviews where I've had to dig out that what they say they're looking for doesn't match the position they actually want to fill.

I'm a straight, white male in my thirties, so discrimination is far from my mind. Other people may form different ideas, though..

Re: Non-hiring Practices

#64

Post by troels »

itsadok wrote: post #43
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...

Back when we were looking for developers, I did my best to contact everyone we decided not to hire. There was one guy that simply would not accept my rejection and demanded that I explain why we felt he wasn't a good match. I got rid of him eventually, but I can easily see such a conversation ending in lawsuit-enabling remarks by me. Hiring, especially non-hiring, is a lot about gut feelings, and those might be trick…

When I have been hiring, I make sure to inform candidates that aren't hired. If I have been far enough with them that we actually met, I have so far always offered to explain why they weren't picked, over the phone. Not only do I think it's a decent thing to do, but it also forces me to be very conscious about what I'm selecting for, since I know I may have to explain it later.

I've had some awkward conversations as a result of this, but nothing I regret.

I'm fully aware that this doesn't scale well, but it works fine for me.

Re: Non-hiring Practices

#65

Post by hso9791 »

throwy2 wrote: post #46

EDIT: The below is correct and I stand by it. Please read the argument carefully. Let me ask you, as you have opened six tabs and are applying one by one to them, would you like to have your inbox interrupt you with a message you have to spend time on, but which actually has the same effect (after the 2 minute interruption) as if you didn't get it? Because if you get 10 such emails, that's 20 minutes that could have…

Maybe it would be better to spend some time on: -certifications -further education -market/company research -polishing applications -part time job at neighborhood kiosk

Instead of just going automatic shotgun all over every position you see?

Re: Non-hiring Practices

#66

Post by ch0wn »

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?

There's the AGG (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz) in Germany. It's enough to not include the feminine form of a job title or feminine pronouns in a job advertisement to sue the company after a rejection because of discrimination if you happen to be a woman. Instead of the gender, you can of course also assert the rejection was because of race, age, sexual orientation and so on.

Re: Non-hiring Practices

#67

Post by rajivm »

donretag wrote: post #51

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 inter…

Applying for a job doesn't necessarily guarantee a response in many cases. This is mostly a case of companies getting way more applications and resumes than they can handle. Many companies handle this by storing the incoming resumes in a database and searching for potential hires when they have an open position. It of course would be nice if these companies at least sent an automatic reply indicating that they would contact you if they were interested sometime in the future, but an automatic contact doesn't mean much either and sets the expectation that if you reply enthusiastically, you'll get a reply (which is unlikely given the volume for some companies).

Re: Non-hiring Practices

#68

Post by buro9 »

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...

I have also been told this in the UK.

However I see nothing wrong with a "You have not been selected on this occasion", though I make a point of not entering into a conversation about why because of the risks outlined.

Re: Non-hiring Practices

#69

Post by corwinstephen »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #32
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,…

Universities wreck Google's response. Tens of thousands of applications, and every one is read—by machine or computer—and a response practically guaranteed. Why are American university admissions so much more organized than American business admissions? Easy answer: Application fees. And those who apply for free or for scholarships are essentially subsidized by someone else. Hard answer: Universities weren't always o…

I don't think fairness was ever the subject at hand. Rather, it's the quality of the process that's up for debate. If you've been rejected for a job, regardless of whether or not your rejection was fair, the point is that you'd probably like to receive some sort of notification as such. Otherwise, how long do you sit around waiting to hear back before you give up and move on?

Honestly, the process isn't just cumbersome for the applier, it also causes trouble for other employers, because if you never receive a rejection letter from your first choice company, you're likely to move on to others, and if your first choice happens to get back to you with an offer after you've already contacted others, then you're wasting all the OTHER companies' time.

Re: Non-hiring Practices

#70

Post by deviloflaplace »

I interviewed with both Google and Microsoft when I first graduated. MS one was way more smooth but it was largely because they've sent a team out and we did face-to-face interviews. At the end of the day I was told that I was not a good fit. The only thing I was pissed about is that they haven't told me they wanted a Software Tester right away. Since I wasn't interested in such a position, it'd save both parties a huge time.

Google one was quite a story. First of all, they reached out to me. Then it took them 3 weeks to schedule an over the phone interview. I've changed like 4 recruiters along the way, and no one told me way. This is a bad practice since for international hires, recruiters are way more important.

This is where it gets interesting. My interviewer failed to call me at appointed time, I mailed my recruiters, got a big lie, they scheduled for a week after. It was ok since accidents can happen. Over next to weeks I did two interviews (why on earth can't they schedule them one a day?) and I was told to wait for a committee. Ok, no problem. After 10 days, and a pissed off email, they told me that I had to get a 3rd one. Another week of waiting, and interviewer failed to call again! I was raging by that time. Another week. The interviewer failed to call again. I wrote an email telling them to not to bother with excuses. Right before I hit send, interviewer calls. I was raging so the interview was a bust. They waited 2 weeks to give me a response.

Moral of the story: If you need to have 3 or more interviews do them in a short time. In that 2.5 months time I've did so many things, Google became irrelevant, a joke for me. I do get that hiring is hard, as I'm doing it myself; but I always try to return to an applicant in a weeks time. Still now and then Google recruiters ping me over Linkedin. I've told every single one to send an offer right away and skip the interview process. I get the silent treatment =)

Post reply on HN