5 ms·

1-2 years ago, before all the public coverage, I was interviewing one person from amazon. He was not happy with his former work situation (pager duty pushed on

by bluelu 10y ago

1-2 years ago, before all the public coverage, I was interviewing one person from amazon. He was not happy with his former work situation (pager duty pushed on him, requests in the evening, ...) and he was terminated in the trial period because he brought it up to HR. I didn't believe him at that time.

Noseshine 10y ago
On the other hand I question the "wisdom" of saying anything negative about a past employer, no matter how deserved it may be. It's just a big "never do it!".
- hutzlibu 10y ago
  I mean where would we get to, if people actually would start telling the truth!
  - dpark 10y ago
    It's one thing to openly express discontent with a prior employer. It's another thing to do it in an interview.
    - hutzlibu 10y ago
      I know that this is considered "bad style". But I still disagree. I don't own a company (yet), but I would like to have employees, who are strong enough, to tell the truth, even though it might hurt some feelings. And if they honestly can tell me, what they like or did not at their former place, it would be much easier for me and also for them, to decide, if they would fit in this (imaginary) company. And if, later, my company would be bad in their perception, they may say so, in the next interview. I just like solid facts, even though they are sometimes not nice.
      - dpark 10y ago
        It's not necessarily about "bad style". It's possible to share legitimate reasons for leaving a company if asked in an interview, but you have to be careful. It's really bad to turn it into a time to badmouth another company. It is frankly risky to say anything bad about a previous company, because even something minor like, "management micromanaged too much" could be interpreted by a cynical interviewer as "this person doesn't get anything done and whines when someone asks him what he's doing with his time." But even a good interviewer will take it as a bad sign if you spend five minutes enumerating everything you hate about your previous/current employer.
        hutzlibu 10y ago
        > It's possible to share legitimate reasons for leaving a company if asked in an interview If the legitimate reason would be, that they micromanaged everything, because of lack of trust, even though I delivered results and that the general atmosphere were a mixture of hate and distrust, then I would very much say so in the next interview, if asked. And if they then won't take me, I would assume it is because the new place is similar and they just don't like people talk about it. So no place where I want to be anyway ...
        dpark 10y ago
        If you start talking about an atmosphere of "hate and distrust", you're getting into territory where it sounds like either 1) you are hyper negative and make exaggerated complaints, or 2) you lack the social skills to recognize that an interview is not the place to vent, even if your complaints are legitimate. An interviewer can't see anything about your history except what you tell them, and any decent interviewer will know not to take your word as gospel. So you need to look at anything you say through the eyes of a person who knows is making a guess at the accuracy of everything you say. It's totally possible that if you say your old employer has a culture of distrust and hate, you're telling the absolute truth. It's also possible though that you are a problematic employee and you're bitter because you were fired/pushed out for being unpleasant and incompetent. So you need to be careful how you present your story so that it's hard to interpret negatively. I've seen employees who really didn't do anything useful. I've seen managers work with them for months trying to resolve issues. I've seen those same managers resort to micromanaging because at some point that's all you can do. And I've seen those problematic employees finally get pushed out and then rant on Facebook and in person about how terrible their manager and/or the company were, when I know for a fact that they were the bulk of the problem. Imagine if you asked the interviewer how they felt about their current employer and they told you it's pretty good except that the guy you're replacing was terrible, that he was incompetent and constantly angry and despite constant oversight he never delivered anything of value. This should be a point of concern for you. Was the previous employee the entire problem? Is the position overworked? Did manager deal with it but berating the employee to just do more rather than working with the employee to fix the problems? And will the company badmouth you to others if/when you leave?
  - Practicality 10y ago
    I worked for a smaller company that did not have an HR department. You actually could tell the truth. That was pretty awesome. I wish more places were like that.
  - Noseshine 10y ago
    Don't be silly. "Truth" has context. This is like saying you should tell everybody about the trouble you have in your marriage - because "truth". The new employer has no business knowing what trouble you had internally - and worse, new employers don't like it because they will assume what you do in this interview you will do in the next one - when you leave that new job and now talk about the new company's internals.
    - hutzlibu 10y ago
      > when you leave that new job and now talk about the new company's internals See also the other reply, but I seriously don't see why that would be bad for my (imaginary) company, unless I want to hide, that my company is indeed "bad" > This is like saying you should tell everybody about the trouble you have in your marriage - because "truth" And no it is not. You don't tell everybody, but your close friends - because they are interested and might be able to help And having a potential employee telling honestly you, what he did not like at his former place, is a very good context for useful information, to find out, if he fits. Because if he didn't liked it for example, that in the last company they expected results ... than you know, that he probably won't fit in your place as well. But if he tells you, that they focused much more on formalities, than on results, then you maybe say "welcome home", we also like more the latter ...
      - Noseshine 10y ago
        See the other comment I wrote below in response to @20yrs_no_equity http://work.chron.com/should-say-asked-previous-employers-3293.html http://work.chron.com/should-say-asked-previous-employers-32... > A prospective new employer may ask you why you left your previous job and what you liked and didn’t like about your employer. This line of questioning is designed not only to learn more about you and your professional history but also to find out about how you’re likely to characterize your new job in the future. If you talk poorly or complain, it sends a red flag that you are unprofessional and lack company loyalty.
        hutzlibu 10y ago
- 20yrs_no_equity 10y ago
  How then can others be warned about abusive - and in the case of amazon they were abusive[1]- past employers? [1] FWIW, I've had some bad jobs, usually because they were startups where people didn't know what they were doing. Well meaning people in over their heads can be tough but fun and the furthest things from abusive. Amazon was organized to abuse employees as a consequence of protecting management egos.
  - Noseshine 10y ago
    > How then can others be warned about abusive Did you already forget that bluelu - the parent commenter - talked about a job interview here? You feel you need to warn your new employer to not apply for a job at your previous one? Nobody prevents you from doing everything else. But this is a job interview, and how you behave here shows how you will behave in the future. You think it's a good idea to show your new employer that you will shit-talk them next time?
    - 20yrs_no_equity 10y ago
      There's a big difference between "shit-talk" and honesty.
      - Noseshine 10y ago
        Please read what I wrote above about "truth". You don't tell people your marriage problems because "truth". You just don't go around telling people about your private problems under the banner of "truth". This sounds like yellow page journalism - "We must drag this into the public because 'truth'!". No. It's telling you choose to ignore 90% of what I said in the comment you replied to. You just like to argue and "to be right". I don't think you are actually interested in truth, but it's a nice narrative tat you carry in front of you like a holy banner. This topic has been discussed here on HN repeatedly, what I said initially has always been the recommendation. http://idealistcareers.org/you-left-a-job-on-bad-terms-now-what-what-to-say-to-a-potential-employer/ http://idealistcareers.org/you-left-a-job-on-bad-terms-now-w... http://work.chron.com/should-say-asked-previous-employers-3293.html http://work.chron.com/should-say-asked-previous-employers-32... > A prospective new employer may ask you why you left your previous job and what you liked and didn’t like about your employer. This line of questioning is designed not only to learn more about you and your professional history but also to find out about how you’re likely to characterize your new job in the future. If you talk poorly or complain, it sends a red flag that you are unprofessional and lack company loyalty. Over and out, it's getting ridiculous.
the-dude 10y ago
What is a trial period in US terms? Isn't employment 'at will' ?
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  The main thing about trial periods in the US is that benefits and perks generally don't kick in until after. For instance, at my old job, people didn't start accumulating vacation days until they were 90 days in. It's another one of those inventions that heavily favor the employer at the expense of the employee.
  - 2almalki 10y ago
    we call it "probation" in Canada. Its usually 3-6 months
    - stormbrew 10y ago
      The maximum length of this kind of probation is, afaik, set by provincial labour law and is 3 months in all but three provinces (nb, pei, and the Yukon). Employers can go lower, but not higher. Though I think they can withhold benefits for longer than that separately from the probation period, but that's kind of rare I think. Really withholding benefits in Canada is pretty different than in the us, though, since here it means you don't buy glasses for three months and there it means you'd better not break your legs. (IANAL)
    - dcd0101 10y ago
      That's interesting. With the exception of retirememt contributions, I've never worked at a place that withheld any benefits. I have had trial periods where I got a raise after proving suitability for the role.
      - masklinn 10y ago
        I don't think (most) benefits are withheld in canada (or in europe). The point of probation there is to provide an initially relaxed (labor protections wise) 3~6 months "at will" to check for actual suitability since you don't really know whether things work out until work's actually been done. Breaking the relationship later is a more involved and expensive process and the thinking is that within the early 3~6 months the employee would know whether they want to stay, and the company whether they want to keep.
update 10y ago
> I didn't believe him at that time. why not?
- bluelu 10y ago
  Lack of experience on my side? What he told me sounded unbelievable and I thought he made it up.

by bluelu 10y ago

Noseshine 10y ago

On the other hand I question the "wisdom" of saying anything negative about a past employer, no matter how deserved it may be. It's just a big "never do it!".

hutzlibu 10y ago
I mean where would we get to, if people actually would start telling the truth!
- dpark 10y ago
  It's one thing to openly express discontent with a prior employer. It's another thing to do it in an interview.
  - hutzlibu 10y ago
    I know that this is considered "bad style". But I still disagree. I don't own a company (yet), but I would like to have employees, who are strong enough, to tell the truth, even though it might hurt some feelings. And if they honestly can tell me, what they like or did not at their former place, it would be much easier for me and also for them, to decide, if they would fit in this (imaginary) company. And if, later, my company would be bad in their perception, they may say so, in the next interview. I just like solid facts, even though they are sometimes not nice.
    - dpark 10y ago
      It's not necessarily about "bad style". It's possible to share legitimate reasons for leaving a company if asked in an interview, but you have to be careful. It's really bad to turn it into a time to badmouth another company. It is frankly risky to say anything bad about a previous company, because even something minor like, "management micromanaged too much" could be interpreted by a cynical interviewer as "this person doesn't get anything done and whines when someone asks him what he's doing with his time." But even a good interviewer will take it as a bad sign if you spend five minutes enumerating everything you hate about your previous/current employer.
      - hutzlibu 10y ago
        > It's possible to share legitimate reasons for leaving a company if asked in an interview If the legitimate reason would be, that they micromanaged everything, because of lack of trust, even though I delivered results and that the general atmosphere were a mixture of hate and distrust, then I would very much say so in the next interview, if asked. And if they then won't take me, I would assume it is because the new place is similar and they just don't like people talk about it. So no place where I want to be anyway ...
        dpark 10y ago
        If you start talking about an atmosphere of "hate and distrust", you're getting into territory where it sounds like either 1) you are hyper negative and make exaggerated complaints, or 2) you lack the social skills to recognize that an interview is not the place to vent, even if your complaints are legitimate. An interviewer can't see anything about your history except what you tell them, and any decent interviewer will know not to take your word as gospel. So you need to look at anything you say through the eyes of a person who knows is making a guess at the accuracy of everything you say. It's totally possible that if you say your old employer has a culture of distrust and hate, you're telling the absolute truth. It's also possible though that you are a problematic employee and you're bitter because you were fired/pushed out for being unpleasant and incompetent. So you need to be careful how you present your story so that it's hard to interpret negatively. I've seen employees who really didn't do anything useful. I've seen managers work with them for months trying to resolve issues. I've seen those same managers resort to micromanaging because at some point that's all you can do. And I've seen those problematic employees finally get pushed out and then rant on Facebook and in person about how terrible their manager and/or the company were, when I know for a fact that they were the bulk of the problem. Imagine if you asked the interviewer how they felt about their current employer and they told you it's pretty good except that the guy you're replacing was terrible, that he was incompetent and constantly angry and despite constant oversight he never delivered anything of value. This should be a point of concern for you. Was the previous employee the entire problem? Is the position overworked? Did manager deal with it but berating the employee to just do more rather than working with the employee to fix the problems? And will the company badmouth you to others if/when you leave?
- Practicality 10y ago
  I worked for a smaller company that did not have an HR department. You actually could tell the truth. That was pretty awesome. I wish more places were like that.
- Noseshine 10y ago
  Don't be silly. "Truth" has context. This is like saying you should tell everybody about the trouble you have in your marriage - because "truth". The new employer has no business knowing what trouble you had internally - and worse, new employers don't like it because they will assume what you do in this interview you will do in the next one - when you leave that new job and now talk about the new company's internals.
  - hutzlibu 10y ago
    > when you leave that new job and now talk about the new company's internals See also the other reply, but I seriously don't see why that would be bad for my (imaginary) company, unless I want to hide, that my company is indeed "bad" > This is like saying you should tell everybody about the trouble you have in your marriage - because "truth" And no it is not. You don't tell everybody, but your close friends - because they are interested and might be able to help And having a potential employee telling honestly you, what he did not like at his former place, is a very good context for useful information, to find out, if he fits. Because if he didn't liked it for example, that in the last company they expected results ... than you know, that he probably won't fit in your place as well. But if he tells you, that they focused much more on formalities, than on results, then you maybe say "welcome home", we also like more the latter ...
    - Noseshine 10y ago
      See the other comment I wrote below in response to @20yrs_no_equity http://work.chron.com/should-say-asked-previous-employers-3293.html http://work.chron.com/should-say-asked-previous-employers-32... > A prospective new employer may ask you why you left your previous job and what you liked and didn’t like about your employer. This line of questioning is designed not only to learn more about you and your professional history but also to find out about how you’re likely to characterize your new job in the future. If you talk poorly or complain, it sends a red flag that you are unprofessional and lack company loyalty.
      - hutzlibu 10y ago
20yrs_no_equity 10y ago
How then can others be warned about abusive - and in the case of amazon they were abusive[1]- past employers? [1] FWIW, I've had some bad jobs, usually because they were startups where people didn't know what they were doing. Well meaning people in over their heads can be tough but fun and the furthest things from abusive. Amazon was organized to abuse employees as a consequence of protecting management egos.
- Noseshine 10y ago
  > How then can others be warned about abusive Did you already forget that bluelu - the parent commenter - talked about a job interview here? You feel you need to warn your new employer to not apply for a job at your previous one? Nobody prevents you from doing everything else. But this is a job interview, and how you behave here shows how you will behave in the future. You think it's a good idea to show your new employer that you will shit-talk them next time?
  - 20yrs_no_equity 10y ago
    There's a big difference between "shit-talk" and honesty.
    - Noseshine 10y ago
      Please read what I wrote above about "truth". You don't tell people your marriage problems because "truth". You just don't go around telling people about your private problems under the banner of "truth". This sounds like yellow page journalism - "We must drag this into the public because 'truth'!". No. It's telling you choose to ignore 90% of what I said in the comment you replied to. You just like to argue and "to be right". I don't think you are actually interested in truth, but it's a nice narrative tat you carry in front of you like a holy banner. This topic has been discussed here on HN repeatedly, what I said initially has always been the recommendation. http://idealistcareers.org/you-left-a-job-on-bad-terms-now-what-what-to-say-to-a-potential-employer/ http://idealistcareers.org/you-left-a-job-on-bad-terms-now-w... http://work.chron.com/should-say-asked-previous-employers-3293.html http://work.chron.com/should-say-asked-previous-employers-32... > A prospective new employer may ask you why you left your previous job and what you liked and didn’t like about your employer. This line of questioning is designed not only to learn more about you and your professional history but also to find out about how you’re likely to characterize your new job in the future. If you talk poorly or complain, it sends a red flag that you are unprofessional and lack company loyalty. Over and out, it's getting ridiculous.

the-dude 10y ago

What is a trial period in US terms? Isn't employment 'at will' ?

enraged_camel 10y ago
The main thing about trial periods in the US is that benefits and perks generally don't kick in until after. For instance, at my old job, people didn't start accumulating vacation days until they were 90 days in. It's another one of those inventions that heavily favor the employer at the expense of the employee.
- 2almalki 10y ago
  we call it "probation" in Canada. Its usually 3-6 months
  - stormbrew 10y ago
    The maximum length of this kind of probation is, afaik, set by provincial labour law and is 3 months in all but three provinces (nb, pei, and the Yukon). Employers can go lower, but not higher. Though I think they can withhold benefits for longer than that separately from the probation period, but that's kind of rare I think. Really withholding benefits in Canada is pretty different than in the us, though, since here it means you don't buy glasses for three months and there it means you'd better not break your legs. (IANAL)
  - dcd0101 10y ago
    That's interesting. With the exception of retirememt contributions, I've never worked at a place that withheld any benefits. I have had trial periods where I got a raise after proving suitability for the role.
    - masklinn 10y ago
      I don't think (most) benefits are withheld in canada (or in europe). The point of probation there is to provide an initially relaxed (labor protections wise) 3~6 months "at will" to check for actual suitability since you don't really know whether things work out until work's actually been done. Breaking the relationship later is a more involved and expensive process and the thinking is that within the early 3~6 months the employee would know whether they want to stay, and the company whether they want to keep.

update 10y ago

> I didn't believe him at that time. why not?

bluelu 10y ago
Lack of experience on my side? What he told me sounded unbelievable and I thought he made it up.