4 ms·

> If people just knew that a company rejected them for reason X, that would make a huge difference. Give a thanks to the discrimination laws. Companies don't

> If people just knew that a company rejected them for reason X, that would make a huge difference. Give a thanks to the discrimination laws. Companies don't want to give any leads for getting sued.

freddie_mercury 9y ago
The practice is exactly the same in countries that aren't the U.S. And countries that don't even have discrimination laws. The fact that companies behave the same in the presence of dramatically varying legal norms suggests that your belief that discrimination laws are the problem is baseless.
- wolfgke 9y ago
  At least I know that in Germany before the "Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (AGG)" (general equality law) was passed, companies were more open about reasons. Since this law was passed, any openness can easily lead to a lawsuite against the company where the company has to prove that they did not discriminate against the candidate. Indeed when the law was passed there were lots of lawsuits of really untuitable candidates, where the company could nevertheless not prove up to "valid in court" that it did not discriminate against the candidate for reasons specified in this law and thus had to pay the unsuitable candidate some months of salary as compensation.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    US discrimination laws are not that strong. Unless you're doing something idiotic like telling people "sorry, we didn't hire you because of your religion" it's hard to win. Of course anybody can sue for any reason of they want, though.
jstewartmobile 9y ago
Discrimination laws are probably just a drop in the bucket. Once you start getting into drug tests, references, background checks, credit reports, reservists, social media, etc., it's suicidal to share any more than the bare minimum. In the US, we have a so-called right to privacy, but that's not really true with employers today. The information asymmetry is both astounding and obscene.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > reservists Meaning discrimination against reservists in the armed forces because of their service requirements? Or discrimination because the employer doesn't like the armed forces?
  - jstewartmobile 9y ago
    Service requirements. Even employers who are vets are terrified of this one. Hire a guy, he gets deployed just a week after he starts, you have to keep his seat warm, then when he's back several months later he's taken a job somewhere else...
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      Is there insurance for this sort of thing? Seems like an external risk that needs to be mitigated somehow.
      - jstewartmobile 9y ago
        There are alternative risk markets where you can get insured for just about anything, but it's still a cost that gets disproportionately shouldered by employers of young men.
        wolfgke 9y ago
        Just reduce the salary for reservists by the amount that "his/her" insurance costs.
        humanrebar 9y ago
        I am not a lawyer, but that doesn't sound legal: "Additionally, discrimination against employees on the basis of past, current, or intended military service is prohibited. As with other types of discrimination, this applies to hiring and firing decisions; compensation and benefits; and other employment decisions." http://military.findlaw.com/family-employment-housing/what-is-military-employment-discrimination.html http://military.findlaw.com/family-employment-housing/what-i... ...so the best solution from an employer perspective is to enter a risk pool that distributes the risk. Being a big enough employer solves that problem, but there should theoretically be pools for smaller employers to join as well. I wasn't aware if that was the case, which is why I was asking.
emodendroket 9y ago
It has little to do with that. There's really very little risk in giving feedback like "we didn't like your code" or "you had the wrong kind of experience for us." The bigger problem is that a lot of candidates take this as an opportunity to dispute the reasons, which is not generally desired.
- GVIrish 9y ago
  I don't think it's even that. It's just that companies don't feel like they have much to gain from taking the time to explain rejections to candidates. Same reason that often times you don't even hear back that a company is not interested. It saves them time.

> If people just knew that a company rejected them for reason X, that would make a huge difference. Give a thanks to the discrimination laws. Companies don't want to give any leads for getting sued.

freddie_mercury 9y ago

The practice is exactly the same in countries that aren't the U.S. And countries that don't even have discrimination laws. The fact that companies behave the same in the presence of dramatically varying legal norms suggests that your belief that discrimination laws are the problem is baseless.

wolfgke 9y ago
At least I know that in Germany before the "Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (AGG)" (general equality law) was passed, companies were more open about reasons. Since this law was passed, any openness can easily lead to a lawsuite against the company where the company has to prove that they did not discriminate against the candidate. Indeed when the law was passed there were lots of lawsuits of really untuitable candidates, where the company could nevertheless not prove up to "valid in court" that it did not discriminate against the candidate for reasons specified in this law and thus had to pay the unsuitable candidate some months of salary as compensation.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  US discrimination laws are not that strong. Unless you're doing something idiotic like telling people "sorry, we didn't hire you because of your religion" it's hard to win. Of course anybody can sue for any reason of they want, though.

jstewartmobile 9y ago

Discrimination laws are probably just a drop in the bucket. Once you start getting into drug tests, references, background checks, credit reports, reservists, social media, etc., it's suicidal to share any more than the bare minimum. In the US, we have a so-called right to privacy, but that's not really true with employers today. The information asymmetry is both astounding and obscene.

humanrebar 9y ago
> reservists Meaning discrimination against reservists in the armed forces because of their service requirements? Or discrimination because the employer doesn't like the armed forces?
- jstewartmobile 9y ago
  Service requirements. Even employers who are vets are terrified of this one. Hire a guy, he gets deployed just a week after he starts, you have to keep his seat warm, then when he's back several months later he's taken a job somewhere else...
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    Is there insurance for this sort of thing? Seems like an external risk that needs to be mitigated somehow.
    - jstewartmobile 9y ago
      There are alternative risk markets where you can get insured for just about anything, but it's still a cost that gets disproportionately shouldered by employers of young men.
      - wolfgke 9y ago
        Just reduce the salary for reservists by the amount that "his/her" insurance costs.
        humanrebar 9y ago
        I am not a lawyer, but that doesn't sound legal: "Additionally, discrimination against employees on the basis of past, current, or intended military service is prohibited. As with other types of discrimination, this applies to hiring and firing decisions; compensation and benefits; and other employment decisions." http://military.findlaw.com/family-employment-housing/what-is-military-employment-discrimination.html http://military.findlaw.com/family-employment-housing/what-i... ...so the best solution from an employer perspective is to enter a risk pool that distributes the risk. Being a big enough employer solves that problem, but there should theoretically be pools for smaller employers to join as well. I wasn't aware if that was the case, which is why I was asking.

emodendroket 9y ago

It has little to do with that. There's really very little risk in giving feedback like "we didn't like your code" or "you had the wrong kind of experience for us." The bigger problem is that a lot of candidates take this as an opportunity to dispute the reasons, which is not generally desired.

GVIrish 9y ago
I don't think it's even that. It's just that companies don't feel like they have much to gain from taking the time to explain rejections to candidates. Same reason that often times you don't even hear back that a company is not interested. It saves them time.