10 ms·

Not really the company's fault here. Policies like this exist because candidates have and will sue the shit out of you for any flimsy accusation of discriminati

Not really the company's fault here. Policies like this exist because candidates have and will sue the shit out of you for any flimsy accusation of discrimination they can cobble together. Companies didn't create these policies arbitrarily and unprovoked. They became necessary because of some people who took advantage of the legal system to get settlements. It's in the company's best interest to protect itself from frivolous lawsuits, so it's better to be safe than sorry. Which isn't to say that there aren't people who actually are discriminated against, but in this example it's not a company "discarding" someone as much as it is covering its bases.

Thriptic 8y ago
This goes for firing too. I've seen people who were categorically under performing try to bring lawsuits claiming discrimination upon firing many times.
- sjg007 8y ago
  This is why they just have layoffs.
  - AFNobody 8y ago
    Correct in most cases but if they put an identical job title out at an identical location, they are still vulnerable so you have to pick someone a grade more junior or a grade more senior to replace them.
    - sjg007 8y ago
      Or they work with recruiters.
      - AFNobody 8y ago
        Working with recruiters to hire the same position that was part of a layoff in the same calendar year is problematic for obvious reasons.
pcarolan 8y ago
It would be valuable if a 3rd party solved the problem of feedback minus the liability. Could be a business there. No idea what that would look like though.
- Benjammer 8y ago
  It's called "Consulting"
  - pcarolan 8y ago
    Job seekers hire consultants? News to me. Good on them.
kartan 8y ago
>> I am not even allowed to tell a candidate (another human being that probably NEEDS a paycheck) why I didn't hire them and what they can do to improve their viability. > Policies like this exist because candidates have and will sue the shit out of you for any flimsy accusation of discrimination they can cobble together. I thought that it was the other way around. You need to have always ready the reasons why a candidate has been rejected and give them on request. Otherwise, they can sue you as your reasons are not clean and transparent. But, I guess that this depends on the country's laws.
- tomrod 8y ago
  > I thought that it was the other way around. You need to have always ready the reasons why a candidate has been rejected and give them on request. Otherwise, they can sue you as your reasons are not clean and transparent. "We found someone more qualified. Thank you for your interest."
  - sjg007 8y ago
    I don't think that would pass muster if challenged.
    - tomrod 8y ago
      I admit I am not very well informed in this area. Why would this not pass muster if challenged?
- zdragnar 8y ago
  The reason is simple: "We've found a candidate who is a better fit" although that is, in my experience, due in no small part to the fact that we've never not been able to fill a position. Conversely, one company I worked for did have us provide candidates thorough feedback, though that was only for those who didn't pass from a code challenge to an interview. Perhaps the hiring managers have them feedback, I'm not sure. PS: the code challenge we gave was carefully put together so as to both be reasonably quick to complete for a skilled developer, but be vague enough in requirements to not have a single answer that could be copy-pasted from a Google search. For anyone who didn't pass, I'd typically write two to three pages, focused entirely on objective metrics, and online resources for further learning should the candidate choose to apply again in the future. We didn't use it as a binary yes / no test, but to inform the discussion we would have in the in-person interview assuming the candidate had a sufficient level of skill.
ljw1001 8y ago
True, but.... A company can (does) decide how much time, energy and money to put into protecting its executives. There is a strong trend that all business decisions are made because execs desire for self preservation makes them prioritize legal safety over every other consideration, including productivity and innovation, not just over being humane.
sjg007 8y ago
This fear is overblown in my opinion. If people really want to sue then they will sue based on the fact that companies hire H1Bs into the position that they applied for. Then the company would have to prove not that the H1B was the better candidate but that the American was not qualified. Who decides on that qualification? Well a judge/jury based on the job description. If your resume matches those qualifications and it's truthful then you may have a case. I think that is a bigger risk than giving feedback. Giving objective feedback may actually help you since you communicated the specific lack of qualifications. However, I do think that you can implicitly derive the feedback based on the interview questions anyway.
- zdragnar 8y ago
  I worked for a company who was sued because a candidate told us he was the second coming of Christ. We didn't really address it, and ended up not hiring him. He used The fact that he mentioned it as grounds for religious discrimination. He didn't win, but we still had lawyer costs and what not. It is not an overblown fear at all.
  - phkahler 8y ago
    If he sued with representation this illustrates another point. His lawyer took on a stupid frivolous case, probably because he also needed the money. I think the real problem is that people today are on an economic treadmill. That need to survive economically is what make people willing to put up with all the other things.
    - vageli 8y ago
      This is exactly it. The thirst for the dollar makes us more willing to swallow bullshit with a (feigned) smile. But what can we do about it? That's the worst part. To dismantle the machine requires the coordination of a significant number of cogs.
      - mathgladiator 8y ago
throwaway84742 8y ago
I can name at least two established companies (FB and SpaceX) that will tell you why you were rejected. I 100% respect when companies are willing to do difficult, potentially perilous stuff like this.
- throwaway1673 8y ago
  FB policy may have changed? I was rejected last week and they said they couldn't tell me why for legal reasons.
  - throwaway84742 8y ago
    Maybe. I did get feedback from them, but that was a few years ago.

Thriptic 8y ago

This goes for firing too. I've seen people who were categorically under performing try to bring lawsuits claiming discrimination upon firing many times.

sjg007 8y ago
This is why they just have layoffs.
- AFNobody 8y ago
  Correct in most cases but if they put an identical job title out at an identical location, they are still vulnerable so you have to pick someone a grade more junior or a grade more senior to replace them.
  - sjg007 8y ago
    Or they work with recruiters.
    - AFNobody 8y ago
      Working with recruiters to hire the same position that was part of a layoff in the same calendar year is problematic for obvious reasons.

pcarolan 8y ago

It would be valuable if a 3rd party solved the problem of feedback minus the liability. Could be a business there. No idea what that would look like though.

Benjammer 8y ago
It's called "Consulting"
- pcarolan 8y ago
  Job seekers hire consultants? News to me. Good on them.

kartan 8y ago

>> I am not even allowed to tell a candidate (another human being that probably NEEDS a paycheck) why I didn't hire them and what they can do to improve their viability. > Policies like this exist because candidates have and will sue the shit out of you for any flimsy accusation of discrimination they can cobble together. I thought that it was the other way around. You need to have always ready the reasons why a candidate has been rejected and give them on request. Otherwise, they can sue you as your reasons are not clean and transparent. But, I guess that this depends on the country's laws.

tomrod 8y ago
> I thought that it was the other way around. You need to have always ready the reasons why a candidate has been rejected and give them on request. Otherwise, they can sue you as your reasons are not clean and transparent. "We found someone more qualified. Thank you for your interest."
- sjg007 8y ago
  I don't think that would pass muster if challenged.
  - tomrod 8y ago
    I admit I am not very well informed in this area. Why would this not pass muster if challenged?
zdragnar 8y ago
The reason is simple: "We've found a candidate who is a better fit" although that is, in my experience, due in no small part to the fact that we've never not been able to fill a position. Conversely, one company I worked for did have us provide candidates thorough feedback, though that was only for those who didn't pass from a code challenge to an interview. Perhaps the hiring managers have them feedback, I'm not sure. PS: the code challenge we gave was carefully put together so as to both be reasonably quick to complete for a skilled developer, but be vague enough in requirements to not have a single answer that could be copy-pasted from a Google search. For anyone who didn't pass, I'd typically write two to three pages, focused entirely on objective metrics, and online resources for further learning should the candidate choose to apply again in the future. We didn't use it as a binary yes / no test, but to inform the discussion we would have in the in-person interview assuming the candidate had a sufficient level of skill.

ljw1001 8y ago

True, but.... A company can (does) decide how much time, energy and money to put into protecting its executives. There is a strong trend that all business decisions are made because execs desire for self preservation makes them prioritize legal safety over every other consideration, including productivity and innovation, not just over being humane.

sjg007 8y ago

This fear is overblown in my opinion. If people really want to sue then they will sue based on the fact that companies hire H1Bs into the position that they applied for. Then the company would have to prove not that the H1B was the better candidate but that the American was not qualified. Who decides on that qualification? Well a judge/jury based on the job description. If your resume matches those qualifications and it's truthful then you may have a case. I think that is a bigger risk than giving feedback. Giving objective feedback may actually help you since you communicated the specific lack of qualifications. However, I do think that you can implicitly derive the feedback based on the interview questions anyway.

zdragnar 8y ago
I worked for a company who was sued because a candidate told us he was the second coming of Christ. We didn't really address it, and ended up not hiring him. He used The fact that he mentioned it as grounds for religious discrimination. He didn't win, but we still had lawyer costs and what not. It is not an overblown fear at all.
- phkahler 8y ago
  If he sued with representation this illustrates another point. His lawyer took on a stupid frivolous case, probably because he also needed the money. I think the real problem is that people today are on an economic treadmill. That need to survive economically is what make people willing to put up with all the other things.
  - vageli 8y ago
    This is exactly it. The thirst for the dollar makes us more willing to swallow bullshit with a (feigned) smile. But what can we do about it? That's the worst part. To dismantle the machine requires the coordination of a significant number of cogs.
    - mathgladiator 8y ago

throwaway84742 8y ago

I can name at least two established companies (FB and SpaceX) that will tell you why you were rejected. I 100% respect when companies are willing to do difficult, potentially perilous stuff like this.

throwaway1673 8y ago
FB policy may have changed? I was rejected last week and they said they couldn't tell me why for legal reasons.
- throwaway84742 8y ago
  Maybe. I did get feedback from them, but that was a few years ago.