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

Tell HN: Recruiters are lying about remote positions

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 455 posts

Re: Tell HN: Recruiters are lying about remote positions

#231

Post by cvhashim »

sweettea wrote: post #201
derelicto wrote: post #114

This is very anecdotal, but I have a friend that interviewed at Google for a Remote SWE position - everything indicated that it was remote: the posting, the recruiter and the hiring manager. Now they announced RTO, his manager said: "We're excited to have you at the office" - he was really confused about this messaging, so they forced him to apply to work remotely (even if he had been hired as such) denied his applic…

I too interviewed at Google for a remote position; we got through team matching, and I'd found a great new potential manager, before one of his bosses nixed the idea of me being permanently remote. My recruiter ended up finding me another team match under a different director where I could be permanently remote, but the delay and difficulty was a major factor in me going to Facebook, which has a strong commitment to…

G is losing candidates given how long the team matching process takes place.

Re: Tell HN: Recruiters are lying about remote positions

#232

Post by dragonwriter »

riotnrrd wrote: post #123
diehunde wrote: post #89

If you get to the point you get an offer, always make sure to get that in the contract. I was working remotely for a company that went through some re-org and ended up with a different manager who wasn't very excited about having remote team members. Unfortunately for him it was part of my contract so he couldn't force me to relocate.

Very few workers in the U.S. have actual employment contracts. If you work in the tech sector in the U.S. you almost certainly don't. Instead, your employment is "at-will"; i.e. terminable by either party, with or without cause or notice (unless you live and work in Montana). You may have received a written offer of employment when you were hired (outlining your title, salary, hiring bonuses, etc.), but that is not a…

If you have an agreed rate of pay you have an employment contract.

That that contract does not contain terms modifying the default at-will status of employment does not mean it is not a contract. (A terminable at will contract is still a contract.)

Re: Tell HN: Recruiters are lying about remote positions

#233

Post by donretag »

Judging by the recruiting emails I receive, FAANG companies are definitely not interested in remote employees. I get 2-3 emails a week from Amazon, and they always list an office, but hint at remote possibilities. I suspect it is Amazon that is doing the bait-n-switch.

I am having somewhat of an opposite problem. I actually want a hybrid position, but LinkedIn, which is sadly the best place to do an active job search, will advertise a position as local, but it is actually remote. Roles will appear when filtering on-site, but the job description will definitely specify remote. The companies are not even local. LinkedIn will add these positions in local searches.

Re: Tell HN: Recruiters are lying about remote positions

#234

Post by spike021 »

Was it Amazon?

When I interviewed just before COVID, I was fed hook, line, and sinker that the position was for a headcount in San Francisco on a new team. Recruiter "confirmed" multiple times for me that it was an SFO location team/org.

Then I was invited to do the on-site interview in Seattle (later found out typically they only fly you there if the role is in Seattle). So I flew there, did the on-site, etc.

I receive news I passed the bar raiser or whatever, will be getting an offer. But wait, it's Seattle only with no plans to open headcount in SF.

Had to spend a few months being traded between different org's recruiters to find a new open role in the SFBA.

Re: Tell HN: Recruiters are lying about remote positions

#235

Post by thenerdhead »

AyyWS wrote: post #200
thenerdhead wrote: post #151

Recruiters and hiring teams are hardly ever on the same page. Always get your information straight from the company, not a third party that is enticed to land interviews for higher chance of converting to landing a candidate. I do think the bait and switch of offering employees who entered the workforce full time employment and then asking them to come into the office two years later is disgusting. There's something…

"Always get your information straight from the company" I remember the hiring manager walking me out of a prospective employer's high security area after a really successful interview, and I asked him in the hallway about the full employee conversion process. He said the entire team is interviewing to keep their current jobs and they'd be shutting down their office to consolidate on the east coast. No way I'd accept…

Those people are rare breeds to tell you the truth. I've had similar in my career and also do the same for those who are entering a minefield.

Re: Tell HN: Recruiters are lying about remote positions

#236

Post by [deleted] »

mschuster91 wrote: post #207
iooi wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every background check that companies put you through include any history of litigation against employers, no need for recruiters to talk to each other.

I can understand at least the reasoning behind checking criminal history of potential hirings (even though as an European, I disagree with the concept on a fundamental level and it's illegal in Germany to demand a criminal record check outside of very specific industries). But how on earth do civil lawsuit records in the US end up anywhere where the background-checking industry can get their grubby paws on them?!

[deleted]

Re: Tell HN: Recruiters are lying about remote positions

#237

Post by PragmaticPulp »

irvingprime wrote: post #183
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #22

I see a few possibilities: 1) Recruiter was misinformed and/or policies changed while you were interviewing. A lot of companies, including some of the big names, have been changing their remote policies in 2022. They're also playing off each other and the hiring market, so the situation is evolving quickly. Given what I've seen lately, it's possible that they were hiring remotely when your process started but they en…

Number 4 is an interesting point. Personally, as a hiring manager who works exclusively remote (though my company does have offices) if I thought someone was borderline or even under the line at handling remote work, I would not make them an offer at all. Well, I might if we were talking about an internship and there was someone on site I trusted to keep an eye on them. Otherwise, one of the most important things I l…

> IOW, if I don't trust them to work remote, then I just don't trust them.

It really depends. There are a lot of good people out there who don't do well with remote work. A lot.

If your company is mostly remote, it makes sense to pass on people who aren't great at remote work. But if you have in-office teams where they'd be a good fit, it can still be worth bringing them in if (and only if) they're interested in an in-office position.

It's really hard to tell if someone can handle remote work during an interview, though. People who have successfully worked remote and have good references are easy. People who have only worked in offices and want to go remote are much harder to evaluate in an interview context.

Re: Tell HN: Recruiters are lying about remote positions

#238

Post by goodpoint »

nineplay wrote: post #14
bitxbitxbitcoin wrote: post #2

This is just another thing in a long line of scrupulous things that recruiters do. If bad actors will edit your resume before sending it in then lying about the remote nature of a job is just another part of that. Which FAANG? Name and shame.

I'm still holding on to a slight hope that the recruiter will find a hiring manager willing to override the committee and all of my time and effort will not have been wasted. They said they'd keep looking but they were probably just trying to get me off the phone. I'll put it this way. One FAANG I wouldn't work at under any circumstances. One FAANG has been very clear that they want employees on site. One FAANG has a…

> One FAANG I wouldn't work at under any circumstances. One FAANG has been very clear that they want employees on site.

...One FAANG to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

Re: Tell HN: Recruiters are lying about remote positions

#239

Post by sillysaurusx »

jacquesm wrote: post #160
sjg007 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your friend probably has a claim against the company for breach of contract. When people leave a job to join a new one and incur expenses and then the new company lays them off or fires them for no fault then the judges usually side with the employee.

Indeed, and then he finds that not only is there breach of contract but that the company is also quite vindictive and will use any kind of claim as a reason to not even consider hiring you in the future, assuming that it stays within the one company and doesn't get passed around between recruiters.

Have you seen this happen in practice?
Post reply on HN