4 ms·

I'm sorry, but that's really embarrassing on your behalf. This is a lowly tech recruiter that has absolutely nothing to do with the warehouse and retail staff,

by dangwu 7y ago

I'm sorry, but that's really embarrassing on your behalf. This is a lowly tech recruiter that has absolutely nothing to do with the warehouse and retail staff, and you're asking them questions that are suited for Amazon executives. Do you ask McDonald's cashiers what they're doing about humane slaughter and plant-based alternatives before buying a McFlurry?

toomuchtodo 7y ago
How else would like expect potential candidate feedback to make it to execs if not by way of their front line recruiters? If candidate feedback isn't making it's way to execs, that's a serious problem in Amazon's hiring processes. If you're expecting less dialog between candidate and recruiter, just pipe LeetCode participants right into an automated onboarding process, no recruiter required. This would be a very Amazon thing to do!
rootlocus 7y ago
Amazon executives will eventually get the message if enough people follow through.
karatestomp 7y ago
They should be able to answer reasonable questions about how the company operates, surely? That one doesn't seem out of line, under the circumstances.
- yftsui 7y ago
  Corporations doesn't allow you to comment on those by yourself publicly, unless a given statement is already given to them. The recruiter is doing the right thing protecting his/her own job.
  - karatestomp 7y ago
    They... can't tell you about how the company treats employees? How are you supposed to figure out whether it's worth interviewing?
    - kenjackson 7y ago
      A recruiter supporting one group probably won’t know a whole lot about other groups. I’m sure they can recite how all customers are supposed to be treated from the employee handbook, but I think you’re looking for something juicer.
pmiller2 7y ago
You don’t think a recruiter should have an answer to a question a lot of people are asking about the company these days? I would 100% expect something from an in house recruiter, or one of the better third party recruiters.
- kenjackson 7y ago
  So you’re testing the recruiter? The recruiter would have an answer probably no more insightful than the NYTimes. Do you ask Google recruiters about their ethics and AI? Or Apple recruiters about factories in China? Or Tesla recruiters the long term impacts of batteries on the environment? In theory all potentially fair game, but a better question might be “I’m interested in this. Can you set up a call with someone who could address my questions on it.” And once the recruiter gave an answer are you then done and ready to talk about the role? This seems like a setup more than a sincere question.
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    It's not testing the recruiter. It's trying to get information about how the company works. That's exactly the sort of question I'd expect a recruiter to be able to answer, at some level. I would gladly accept "I don't have a really good answer for you, but I can set you up to talk to someone who does." If they don't have an answer better than the NYT, and they're willing to do that, I'd be satisfied with the recruiter on that point. As far as being ready to talk about the role, asking these questions is talking about the role, so I don't understand what you're getting at here.
    - dangwu 7y ago
      The thing is, they don't have any information that you don't have access to, and they're not going to be able to set you up with anybody who does (e.g. a director, VP, or CEO). Any information they do have is already publicly available. The company has 800K+ employees and any non-executive emails leak as soon as they're sent, if not simply made public immediately. Essentially, you're testing their ability to regurgitate corporate policies, which is completely pointless.
choward 7y ago
Recruiters are trying to convince you to work for the company therefore they should know a lot about the company since they need to be able to sell it to you. When you go to McDonanld's to buy some food you have already been convinced to go there through some other means. The cashier only needs to know how to take your order. There's no selling that needs to be done besides maybe asking you if you want to supersize it. And calling someone's comment embarrassing is embarrassing. See, I just did it and now I'm embarrassed.
- nkozyra 7y ago
  > should know a lot about the company OK, that's fair. But every aspect of the company or the part of the company they want you to work for? This is the introduction phase. After this you talk to someone who can get you more information and more information.
  - ntsplnkv2 7y ago
    Recruiters expect applicants to know about their company even if it's unrelated to the job, why should the reverse not be true, ESPECIALLY if it's topical, which the response to COVID is.
    - nkozyra 7y ago
      If that were true, most recruiter emails wouldn't start with "hi, I'm [name] from [company] and your profile looks like a great fit. [Company] is a company that [description of company]." Sure, you're aware of FAANG companies, but you're not aware of their HR practices, their healthcare, etc. In other words your knowledge is likely shallow, and that's what first line contacts expect.
      - ntsplnkv2 7y ago
        I think you're misunderstanding (or I am), the context. I'm assuming we are talking about an interview scenario, as you are asking questions about possible employment - not receiving a "cold call" email from a recruiter. In an interview, you are expected to know what the company is about.
KaoruAoiShiho 7y ago
It's about sending a message dude. If enough people do this the recruiters will take it back upstream. I applaud the parent, and seriously you gotta stop thinking so much about potential embarrassment. Fear of embarrassment is one of the most effective ways to keep people disempowered.
- kenjackson 7y ago
  Unless this happened to a high percentage of perceived strong candidates, the likely internal note from Amazon would probably be, "we dodged a bullet on this one".
bcrosby95 7y ago
Yeah, maybe they should save their concerns for when it's time for Jeff to interview them.

by dangwu 7y ago

toomuchtodo 7y ago

How else would like expect potential candidate feedback to make it to execs if not by way of their front line recruiters? If candidate feedback isn't making it's way to execs, that's a serious problem in Amazon's hiring processes. If you're expecting less dialog between candidate and recruiter, just pipe LeetCode participants right into an automated onboarding process, no recruiter required. This would be a very Amazon thing to do!

rootlocus 7y ago

Amazon executives will eventually get the message if enough people follow through.

karatestomp 7y ago

They should be able to answer reasonable questions about how the company operates, surely? That one doesn't seem out of line, under the circumstances.

yftsui 7y ago
Corporations doesn't allow you to comment on those by yourself publicly, unless a given statement is already given to them. The recruiter is doing the right thing protecting his/her own job.
- karatestomp 7y ago
  They... can't tell you about how the company treats employees? How are you supposed to figure out whether it's worth interviewing?
  - kenjackson 7y ago
    A recruiter supporting one group probably won’t know a whole lot about other groups. I’m sure they can recite how all customers are supposed to be treated from the employee handbook, but I think you’re looking for something juicer.

pmiller2 7y ago

You don’t think a recruiter should have an answer to a question a lot of people are asking about the company these days? I would 100% expect something from an in house recruiter, or one of the better third party recruiters.

kenjackson 7y ago
So you’re testing the recruiter? The recruiter would have an answer probably no more insightful than the NYTimes. Do you ask Google recruiters about their ethics and AI? Or Apple recruiters about factories in China? Or Tesla recruiters the long term impacts of batteries on the environment? In theory all potentially fair game, but a better question might be “I’m interested in this. Can you set up a call with someone who could address my questions on it.” And once the recruiter gave an answer are you then done and ready to talk about the role? This seems like a setup more than a sincere question.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  It's not testing the recruiter. It's trying to get information about how the company works. That's exactly the sort of question I'd expect a recruiter to be able to answer, at some level. I would gladly accept "I don't have a really good answer for you, but I can set you up to talk to someone who does." If they don't have an answer better than the NYT, and they're willing to do that, I'd be satisfied with the recruiter on that point. As far as being ready to talk about the role, asking these questions is talking about the role, so I don't understand what you're getting at here.
  - dangwu 7y ago
    The thing is, they don't have any information that you don't have access to, and they're not going to be able to set you up with anybody who does (e.g. a director, VP, or CEO). Any information they do have is already publicly available. The company has 800K+ employees and any non-executive emails leak as soon as they're sent, if not simply made public immediately. Essentially, you're testing their ability to regurgitate corporate policies, which is completely pointless.

choward 7y ago

Recruiters are trying to convince you to work for the company therefore they should know a lot about the company since they need to be able to sell it to you. When you go to McDonanld's to buy some food you have already been convinced to go there through some other means. The cashier only needs to know how to take your order. There's no selling that needs to be done besides maybe asking you if you want to supersize it. And calling someone's comment embarrassing is embarrassing. See, I just did it and now I'm embarrassed.

nkozyra 7y ago
> should know a lot about the company OK, that's fair. But every aspect of the company or the part of the company they want you to work for? This is the introduction phase. After this you talk to someone who can get you more information and more information.
- ntsplnkv2 7y ago
  Recruiters expect applicants to know about their company even if it's unrelated to the job, why should the reverse not be true, ESPECIALLY if it's topical, which the response to COVID is.
  - nkozyra 7y ago
    If that were true, most recruiter emails wouldn't start with "hi, I'm [name] from [company] and your profile looks like a great fit. [Company] is a company that [description of company]." Sure, you're aware of FAANG companies, but you're not aware of their HR practices, their healthcare, etc. In other words your knowledge is likely shallow, and that's what first line contacts expect.
    - ntsplnkv2 7y ago
      I think you're misunderstanding (or I am), the context. I'm assuming we are talking about an interview scenario, as you are asking questions about possible employment - not receiving a "cold call" email from a recruiter. In an interview, you are expected to know what the company is about.

KaoruAoiShiho 7y ago

It's about sending a message dude. If enough people do this the recruiters will take it back upstream. I applaud the parent, and seriously you gotta stop thinking so much about potential embarrassment. Fear of embarrassment is one of the most effective ways to keep people disempowered.

kenjackson 7y ago
Unless this happened to a high percentage of perceived strong candidates, the likely internal note from Amazon would probably be, "we dodged a bullet on this one".

bcrosby95 7y ago

Yeah, maybe they should save their concerns for when it's time for Jeff to interview them.