In the thread yesterday, having a named journalist serve as an intermediary for fact checking between complainants and the people/companies they are complaining

In the thread yesterday, having a named journalist serve as an intermediary for fact checking between complainants and the people/companies they are complaining about was suggested [1]. This seems to be one implementation of that, which seems to have worked out a little better than anonymous comments? It also does a better job of distilling the major issues at play here, in my opinion: > The technical manager who signed the offer before it was rescinded feels more frustrated about the lack of recourse than the actual loss of the job. This is the crux of the issue. It's not about whether it's legal or moral to rescind offers or how the job market looks, but the emotional distress caused by having quit your job, or having informed family and friends of a new job, and then having to tell them that it's actually not happening. As humans we should always strive to minimize this kind of terrible experience, or at least make amends in spades if we subject someone else to it. A company that goes above and beyond would give a candidate, say, six months of standard severance pay for this situation if it was absolutely unavoidable that they had to rescind someone's offer. Of course, the best course of action would be to give them an immediate appointment to a similar job in another division, or at least a fast-track interview for the same. ---------------------------------------- [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29388832 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29388832