4 ms·

> HR is going to send up a quick red flag and John is likely to resign claiming a poor fit rather than get caught committing or admitting fraud. Though at this

> HR is going to send up a quick red flag and John is likely to resign claiming a poor fit rather than get caught committing or admitting fraud. Though at this point they all know John is committing fraud, they still decided only to approach this guy claiming a poor fit for his resignation. I don't know why they do that. They have discussed a lot and considered many things. I am sure there are many reasons to do so. but do they just want John to go away and then try that same thing with another company? It might be too strong to say this, but a failure to confront evil is a evil.

throwawayboise 5y ago
If they terminate for fraud, they might be asked to prove it in some kind of wrongful termination claim, or risk being charged with libel or slander. Though the possibility might be remote, and the employer likely would prevail, the legal team and HR will not want to take any chance of having to spend time on that. They will want to take the lowest risk approach.
- ilamont 5y ago
  Do wrongful termination cases like this ever come up when obvious fraud is involved from the get-go for a remote position? Resume fraud happens all the time with fudged degrees and job titles and positions. Usually when corporate HR finds out termination is immediate.
  - flybrand 5y ago
    Crazy people who commit fraud are the same people who continue the fraud and make things weird. Get away from the crazy.
    - throwawayboise 5y ago
      And don't overlook the possiblity of some kind of scam being attempted. Get a foot in the door, get fired, sue. Happens all the time with injury claims. Probably less likely since "at will" is the employment law in most places, but it's still safer to terminate without alleging any wrongdoing. Same reason most former employers will only confirm dates of employment on a reference check. They typically won't comment on performance or reasons for termination, just to avoid any potential backwash.
- smadge 5y ago
  It’s true, but if the incentive for the employer is just to terminate, and there is no other consequence, then there is no dis-incentive for the fraudulent employee to keep trying until they find someplace their deception is unnoticed.
  - BeFlatXIII 5y ago
    If you give your incompetent and fraudulent former employees soft landings, it means that your company can saddle its competitors with deadweight.
eh9 5y ago
Legal knows what they’re doing. Their entire purpose is ensuring the business is free from undue risk. Confronting this man as a liar could unravel a nice little bag of legal hurdles that end up with the company paying this person to settle X or Y claim. Also, they confronted the evil, but the company had no reason to show their hand and they way they did it keeps them a bit safer from litigation.
icedchai 5y ago
Large organizations are generally risk adverse, and extremely process oriented. If they approach "John" wrong, there might create additional problems for the company.
horsawlarway 5y ago
The legal system is a bad fix for this, though. The most they could reasonably do here is attempt to sue for fraud for lost time and salary paid. It's unlikely that they can bring a criminal fraud case, so they have to prove damages. Damages in this case are probably - Lost time interviewing - Any salary paid If they caught this on day 1, they just don't have enough damages to make this worth pursuing (aka - they lose far more money trying to actually bring a case than they would be just firing him immediately and eating the lost time). Basically - why waste time on a small claims verdict against this guy for trivial amounts of money? The courts aren't going to lock him up for this, and even if they win, he can still go right to the next company and try again. This is the kind of thing that other professions attempt to solve with extra-legal associations and certifications (ex: a lawyer might be disbarred for this - an action taken by the bar association that revokes his attorney's license, making it impossible for him to practice in areas that require such a license). But software really has no such guardrails in current society (both a blessing and a curse). I don't really know what it is you'd prefer this company have done in this case.
- jcranberry 5y ago
  Seems like they were worried about IP and equipment theft.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
boznz 5y ago
"failure to confront evil is a evil." - A motto all people should live by.
- namelessoracle 5y ago
  This is actually pretty horrific statement. You either believe there is objectively defined evil (good luck with getting everyone to agree to that) or you are effectively saying "failure to do what i want makes you evil" if you hold that evil is subjective. Evil is a very strong term and implies you view at minimum the person as lesser than you and also infers you think they should be punished in some way.
wccrawford 5y ago
The phrase "walk softly and carry a big stick" comes to mind. There's no need to go into that interview guns-blazing. Soft-balling the questions at first is likely to do the job. If it doesn't, they can still bring in the heavy artillery later. This approach has worked very well for me in all kinds of adverse situations. Being nice and asking politely has resolved a lot of situations, and I can still fall back to being nasty if I have to. (And I might even find I was wrong before that point, and I can back off without losing face.) For instance, returning a defective product at a store. I can simply tell them it doesn't seem to work. They can attempt to show me it does, they could take it back, or they could refuse. If they try it and it doesn't work, and still refuse (or just refuse), I can start demanding my money back. If they refuse that, I can call corporate or my credit card company. If I start with corporate or my CC, I might still get what I want, but it's a lot more stressful and IMO less likely to work, even if only slightly. And there's no chance to fix the situation with another resolution than the one I chose. Sometimes there's a better way, and you just don't know.
- toyg 5y ago
  > walk softly and carry a big stick s/walk/talk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stick_ideology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stick_ideology
  - wccrawford 5y ago
    Interesting. I now wonder if I heard it wrong my whole life, or if I'm just misremembering. Probably the latter. Thanks!
scotty79 5y ago
I don't know... Do you sign any agreement saying that you personally will attend the recruitment process? If not why would you be obliged to?
AlexCoventry 5y ago
They're running a business, not a police department/department of justice. How much do you think it would cost to ensure that John faced real consequences?

throwawayboise 5y ago

If they terminate for fraud, they might be asked to prove it in some kind of wrongful termination claim, or risk being charged with libel or slander. Though the possibility might be remote, and the employer likely would prevail, the legal team and HR will not want to take any chance of having to spend time on that. They will want to take the lowest risk approach.

ilamont 5y ago
Do wrongful termination cases like this ever come up when obvious fraud is involved from the get-go for a remote position? Resume fraud happens all the time with fudged degrees and job titles and positions. Usually when corporate HR finds out termination is immediate.
- flybrand 5y ago
  Crazy people who commit fraud are the same people who continue the fraud and make things weird. Get away from the crazy.
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    And don't overlook the possiblity of some kind of scam being attempted. Get a foot in the door, get fired, sue. Happens all the time with injury claims. Probably less likely since "at will" is the employment law in most places, but it's still safer to terminate without alleging any wrongdoing. Same reason most former employers will only confirm dates of employment on a reference check. They typically won't comment on performance or reasons for termination, just to avoid any potential backwash.
smadge 5y ago
It’s true, but if the incentive for the employer is just to terminate, and there is no other consequence, then there is no dis-incentive for the fraudulent employee to keep trying until they find someplace their deception is unnoticed.
- BeFlatXIII 5y ago
  If you give your incompetent and fraudulent former employees soft landings, it means that your company can saddle its competitors with deadweight.

eh9 5y ago

Legal knows what they’re doing. Their entire purpose is ensuring the business is free from undue risk. Confronting this man as a liar could unravel a nice little bag of legal hurdles that end up with the company paying this person to settle X or Y claim. Also, they confronted the evil, but the company had no reason to show their hand and they way they did it keeps them a bit safer from litigation.

icedchai 5y ago

Large organizations are generally risk adverse, and extremely process oriented. If they approach "John" wrong, there might create additional problems for the company.

horsawlarway 5y ago

The legal system is a bad fix for this, though. The most they could reasonably do here is attempt to sue for fraud for lost time and salary paid. It's unlikely that they can bring a criminal fraud case, so they have to prove damages. Damages in this case are probably - Lost time interviewing - Any salary paid If they caught this on day 1, they just don't have enough damages to make this worth pursuing (aka - they lose far more money trying to actually bring a case than they would be just firing him immediately and eating the lost time). Basically - why waste time on a small claims verdict against this guy for trivial amounts of money? The courts aren't going to lock him up for this, and even if they win, he can still go right to the next company and try again. This is the kind of thing that other professions attempt to solve with extra-legal associations and certifications (ex: a lawyer might be disbarred for this - an action taken by the bar association that revokes his attorney's license, making it impossible for him to practice in areas that require such a license). But software really has no such guardrails in current society (both a blessing and a curse). I don't really know what it is you'd prefer this company have done in this case.

jcranberry 5y ago
Seems like they were worried about IP and equipment theft.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

boznz 5y ago

"failure to confront evil is a evil." - A motto all people should live by.

namelessoracle 5y ago
This is actually pretty horrific statement. You either believe there is objectively defined evil (good luck with getting everyone to agree to that) or you are effectively saying "failure to do what i want makes you evil" if you hold that evil is subjective. Evil is a very strong term and implies you view at minimum the person as lesser than you and also infers you think they should be punished in some way.

wccrawford 5y ago

The phrase "walk softly and carry a big stick" comes to mind. There's no need to go into that interview guns-blazing. Soft-balling the questions at first is likely to do the job. If it doesn't, they can still bring in the heavy artillery later. This approach has worked very well for me in all kinds of adverse situations. Being nice and asking politely has resolved a lot of situations, and I can still fall back to being nasty if I have to. (And I might even find I was wrong before that point, and I can back off without losing face.) For instance, returning a defective product at a store. I can simply tell them it doesn't seem to work. They can attempt to show me it does, they could take it back, or they could refuse. If they try it and it doesn't work, and still refuse (or just refuse), I can start demanding my money back. If they refuse that, I can call corporate or my credit card company. If I start with corporate or my CC, I might still get what I want, but it's a lot more stressful and IMO less likely to work, even if only slightly. And there's no chance to fix the situation with another resolution than the one I chose. Sometimes there's a better way, and you just don't know.

toyg 5y ago
> walk softly and carry a big stick s/walk/talk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stick_ideology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stick_ideology
- wccrawford 5y ago
  Interesting. I now wonder if I heard it wrong my whole life, or if I'm just misremembering. Probably the latter. Thanks!

scotty79 5y ago

I don't know... Do you sign any agreement saying that you personally will attend the recruitment process? If not why would you be obliged to?

AlexCoventry 5y ago

They're running a business, not a police department/department of justice. How much do you think it would cost to ensure that John faced real consequences?