4 ms·

Nope not even flat-out fraud could justify stranding someone in another city. Some folks are desperate to work and may resort to deception to get their foot in

Nope not even flat-out fraud could justify stranding someone in another city. Some folks are desperate to work and may resort to deception to get their foot in the door for an interview. On the scale of nefarious activity, I put that pretty far down on the list-- slightly worse than jay-walking. I have my doubts about the veracity of the story, but if it is true then that company needs to be shamed.

taormina 8y ago
A plane ticket does need a name on it.
- CarriersSuck 8y ago
  Then contact the TSA, but don't cancel the ticket.
Johnny555 8y ago
I disagree -- fraud absolutely justifies this -- if an overweight dark haired guy did the initial video screen and the company flew him out for an interview, but then a skinny blonde guy shows up and can't answer any of their interview questions, I don't see why the company has any obligation to fly him back home -- they agreed to fly out the guy from the video call, not the guy that showed up.
- Verdex 8y ago
  Maybe, but it does open up the door to a lawsuit. What if the overweight guy was actually working for a recruiter who had a scam going on to get unqualified people hired. The skinny guy might not know that someone else took an interview for him because it was all a plan by the recruiter. In this instance you're punishing someone who was acting in good faith, but had the misfortune to find a corrupt recruiter. Better would be to use the legal system to recoup your costs. This way you don't accidentally recoup your costs from an innocent individual with zero oversight.
  - ryanmercer 8y ago
    >Better would be to use the legal system to recoup your costs. This way you don't accidentally recoup your costs from an innocent individual with zero oversight. Or strand someone that fibbed about their experience, that then writes a suicide note (after throwing screenshots of the emails and cancellation up on their social media) claiming you stranding them in a city far from home with no money and no way home was the last straw and then commits suicide in front of your building Or someone that comes back and sets the building on fire "with nothing left to lose". Or waits for the person that interviewed them to walk out of the building and assaults them. Or follows them down the sidewalk and shoves them in front of a bus/trolley/train. There's a bazillion reasons why this was a horrible idea for the company to do, if it is a true story.
    - Johnny555 8y ago
      Those also sound like reasons to hire everyone you interview regardless of how badly they performed, just in case they are mentally unstable enough to act out inappropriately after rejection.
  - Johnny555 8y ago
    I'd think that this scam would be uncovered pretty quickly: "Why are you asking me about X? I don't know anything about it" "You sure seemed to understand it on the phone screen" "Phone screen? What phone screen? My recruiter gave me this plane ticket and told me to come interview on-site"

taormina 8y ago

A plane ticket does need a name on it.

CarriersSuck 8y ago
Then contact the TSA, but don't cancel the ticket.

Johnny555 8y ago

I disagree -- fraud absolutely justifies this -- if an overweight dark haired guy did the initial video screen and the company flew him out for an interview, but then a skinny blonde guy shows up and can't answer any of their interview questions, I don't see why the company has any obligation to fly him back home -- they agreed to fly out the guy from the video call, not the guy that showed up.

Verdex 8y ago
Maybe, but it does open up the door to a lawsuit. What if the overweight guy was actually working for a recruiter who had a scam going on to get unqualified people hired. The skinny guy might not know that someone else took an interview for him because it was all a plan by the recruiter. In this instance you're punishing someone who was acting in good faith, but had the misfortune to find a corrupt recruiter. Better would be to use the legal system to recoup your costs. This way you don't accidentally recoup your costs from an innocent individual with zero oversight.
- ryanmercer 8y ago
  >Better would be to use the legal system to recoup your costs. This way you don't accidentally recoup your costs from an innocent individual with zero oversight. Or strand someone that fibbed about their experience, that then writes a suicide note (after throwing screenshots of the emails and cancellation up on their social media) claiming you stranding them in a city far from home with no money and no way home was the last straw and then commits suicide in front of your building Or someone that comes back and sets the building on fire "with nothing left to lose". Or waits for the person that interviewed them to walk out of the building and assaults them. Or follows them down the sidewalk and shoves them in front of a bus/trolley/train. There's a bazillion reasons why this was a horrible idea for the company to do, if it is a true story.
  - Johnny555 8y ago
    Those also sound like reasons to hire everyone you interview regardless of how badly they performed, just in case they are mentally unstable enough to act out inappropriately after rejection.
- Johnny555 8y ago
  I'd think that this scam would be uncovered pretty quickly: "Why are you asking me about X? I don't know anything about it" "You sure seemed to understand it on the phone screen" "Phone screen? What phone screen? My recruiter gave me this plane ticket and told me to come interview on-site"