5 ms·

In my experience attempting to get an entry-level programming job at Microsoft (while I lived in the area), they get a lot of hires through hiring agencies, all

In my experience attempting to get an entry-level programming job at Microsoft (while I lived in the area), they get a lot of hires through hiring agencies, all of whom ask you what your legal residence status is as their first question (which I have to say is highly discouraging when being unable to score an entry-level CS job in one's own country).

s2g 9y ago
Well, not much point in continuing if they find out you aren't going to be able to work for them.
mancerayder 9y ago
I've never not been asked my residence status, ever, in direct or agency hires, in my entire career. It's most likely (almost certainly) a legal obligation. Each time I had to furnish a SS card as well. A non-citizen SS card has a disclaimer on it saying it's not valid for work authorization alone.
- HarryHirsch 9y ago
  I've never not been asked my residence status, ever, in direct or agency hires, in my entire career You probably have been asked for documentation that gives you permission to work. The Department of Labor has a list somewhere (can't find it right now) of what constitutes a work permit, and the employer has to accept anything that conforms. My wife ran into a particularly obstinate HR drone once who wouldn't accept what she had. She asked company counsel if her documentation was in order and received a phonecall from HR to please come in and sign paperwork before the day was over. Yes, federal law has teeth.
  - theandrewbailey 9y ago
    It's not the Department of Labor, it's the Department of Homeland Security. https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/acceptable-documents/list-documents/form-i-9-acceptable-documents https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/acceptable-documents/list-...
- sudouser 9y ago
  lucky you
  - dang 9y ago
    Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
walshemj 9y ago
That's pretty much standard for all recruitment agencies in the USA and EU as they want to avoid being fined heavily. I am not sure but in the UK employing some one without the legal right to work has no defence even if they had perfectly forged passports/documents. I had to (as some one with all 4 grandparents being natural born uk citizens) have had to take my birth certificate to register at a local high street agency.
plorkyeran 9y ago
I'm not sure what's supposed to be notable about that? The only company I've ever interviewed with that didn't ask what my legal residence status was very early on in the process was a startup with a poor understanding of employment law. You can't assume that people who can't actually legally work for you won't apply for jobs anyway and asking it later would just waste your time.
jameshart 9y ago
The question employers are supposed to ask is whether you are legally authorized to work; 'residence status' is not relevant (and indeed you could get into trouble for refusing to hire someone who is authorized to work on the basis of their visa/residence status).
- nocman 9y ago
  Well, I guess it depends on the actual wording that was used, and I'm by no expert on the subject (by any stretch of the imagination). However, some visa's require sponsorship, and as far as I know it is perfectly legal to not hire someone if they are in the process of getting (or are planning to get) a visa that requires a sponsor -- in other words, they are expecting your company to sponsor them. There are financial and legal reasons why a company might not hire you if you were in this situation. There is more hassle for the company, and additional expense. They may or may not think any particular candidate is worth the additional hassle and expense. So it is a perfectly legitimate question to ask ( again, assuming it is asked in an appropritate manner ).
  - jameshart 9y ago
    Right - if you need a sponsored visa to work then, until you have that sponsorship, you are not authorized to work in the US. So if you ask someone this question, and they answer ‘no’, then if you really want to hire them anyway you can look into sponsoring them for a visa. But if they answer ‘yes’ (and provide the necessary documentation to prove it), you aren’t then supposed to care how they acquired that authorization. This is complicated a little for transferable sponsored visas like the H1B. Someone already on an H1B might reply ‘yes’ to the work authorization question, but with the caveat that you would need to take on their sponsorship. Technically, their answer should be ‘no’. They aren’t authorized to work for anyone other than their sponsoring employer, in a specific location, with a specific job title. As I say, the point is that if the answer is ‘yes’, not ‘yes but’, or ‘no’, then you’re not permitted to discriminate. Asking someone with work authorization questions about their visa type should be as much of an interview no-no as asking a candidate if she’s pregnant. Only exception is certain jobs can place citizenship requirements because of security clearance requirements.

s2g 9y ago

Well, not much point in continuing if they find out you aren't going to be able to work for them.

mancerayder 9y ago

I've never not been asked my residence status, ever, in direct or agency hires, in my entire career. It's most likely (almost certainly) a legal obligation. Each time I had to furnish a SS card as well. A non-citizen SS card has a disclaimer on it saying it's not valid for work authorization alone.

HarryHirsch 9y ago
I've never not been asked my residence status, ever, in direct or agency hires, in my entire career You probably have been asked for documentation that gives you permission to work. The Department of Labor has a list somewhere (can't find it right now) of what constitutes a work permit, and the employer has to accept anything that conforms. My wife ran into a particularly obstinate HR drone once who wouldn't accept what she had. She asked company counsel if her documentation was in order and received a phonecall from HR to please come in and sign paperwork before the day was over. Yes, federal law has teeth.
- theandrewbailey 9y ago
  It's not the Department of Labor, it's the Department of Homeland Security. https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/acceptable-documents/list-documents/form-i-9-acceptable-documents https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/acceptable-documents/list-...
sudouser 9y ago
lucky you
- dang 9y ago
  Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

walshemj 9y ago

That's pretty much standard for all recruitment agencies in the USA and EU as they want to avoid being fined heavily. I am not sure but in the UK employing some one without the legal right to work has no defence even if they had perfectly forged passports/documents. I had to (as some one with all 4 grandparents being natural born uk citizens) have had to take my birth certificate to register at a local high street agency.

plorkyeran 9y ago

I'm not sure what's supposed to be notable about that? The only company I've ever interviewed with that didn't ask what my legal residence status was very early on in the process was a startup with a poor understanding of employment law. You can't assume that people who can't actually legally work for you won't apply for jobs anyway and asking it later would just waste your time.

jameshart 9y ago

The question employers are supposed to ask is whether you are legally authorized to work; 'residence status' is not relevant (and indeed you could get into trouble for refusing to hire someone who is authorized to work on the basis of their visa/residence status).

nocman 9y ago
Well, I guess it depends on the actual wording that was used, and I'm by no expert on the subject (by any stretch of the imagination). However, some visa's require sponsorship, and as far as I know it is perfectly legal to not hire someone if they are in the process of getting (or are planning to get) a visa that requires a sponsor -- in other words, they are expecting your company to sponsor them. There are financial and legal reasons why a company might not hire you if you were in this situation. There is more hassle for the company, and additional expense. They may or may not think any particular candidate is worth the additional hassle and expense. So it is a perfectly legitimate question to ask ( again, assuming it is asked in an appropritate manner ).
- jameshart 9y ago
  Right - if you need a sponsored visa to work then, until you have that sponsorship, you are not authorized to work in the US. So if you ask someone this question, and they answer ‘no’, then if you really want to hire them anyway you can look into sponsoring them for a visa. But if they answer ‘yes’ (and provide the necessary documentation to prove it), you aren’t then supposed to care how they acquired that authorization. This is complicated a little for transferable sponsored visas like the H1B. Someone already on an H1B might reply ‘yes’ to the work authorization question, but with the caveat that you would need to take on their sponsorship. Technically, their answer should be ‘no’. They aren’t authorized to work for anyone other than their sponsoring employer, in a specific location, with a specific job title. As I say, the point is that if the answer is ‘yes’, not ‘yes but’, or ‘no’, then you’re not permitted to discriminate. Asking someone with work authorization questions about their visa type should be as much of an interview no-no as asking a candidate if she’s pregnant. Only exception is certain jobs can place citizenship requirements because of security clearance requirements.