10 ms·
You definitely need to name the company that did this.
by jdhn 5y ago
You definitely need to name the company that did this.
- version_five 5y agoWhy? This isn't Twitter, piling on a company doesn't add much to the discussion, it just lets people focus their outrage better
- 015a 5y agoI'm not seeing why that would be a problem.
- hitpointdrew 5y agoIn what context is focusing ones outrage at all useful, ever? This is just reinforcing destruction, promoting group identity, enabling a mob mentality, and sometimes promotes violence. Honest critique is one thing, mob mentality outrage is not an honest critique.
- aaomidi 5y agoThe company is doing what would be illegal in most places, and definitely immoral here. They deserve the outrage and the outrage is the only thing that's gonna fix this. Also to answer your question. Literally every single positive change in this country has come out of focused outrage. Civil rights movement LGBT rights Women's rights The basic amount of worker and consumer rights.
- version_five 5y agoSo we've escalated from "top paying tech company decided I can't work remote" to the civil rights movement... this thread is an interesting study in internet discourse
- artificialLimbs 5y agoIndividuals can choose to do the actions you describe and that needs to be dealt with at an individual level. What is being discussed is responsibility for actions.
- MisterBastahrd 5y agoYou can't figure out why, in a community full of developers, that it might be useful to know which employers are lying about remote work?
- hitpointdrew 5y agoThat wasn't my point. I think that would be part of an honest critique. The other commenter basically said focusing outrage was not problematic. I don't have any issue with honesty and transparency around hiring practices. However, I do think the appropriate place to do something like that would be on a site like glassdoor, and not a platform like twitter. I think as a country we have way more than enough "outrage" at the moment, I don't see any benefit to adding fuel to fire and communicating it a way that is likely going stir up hashtag vomit.
- aerovistae 5y agoMob mentality outrage is one of the few things that produces effective change. Would you encourage the same policy of not naming the the accused parties with the #meToo movement? Because it's not productive or worthwhile to focus on a few individuals? And where would that movement have gotten if none of the parties involved had ever been named?
- nullc 5y agoBecause it helps people make better decisions about where they apply and how far they get before getting commitments like remote working in writing!
- lbriner 5y agoThe Recruiter could have left, they could have been told it was Remote and the company changed their minds later, could have been a simple mistake. Why burn a company without knowing the facts?
- nopenopenopeno 5y agoThe company and only the company could have prevented it, but they didn’t.
- cheeze 5y agoYep. I don't care what the reasoning behind the scenes is. I care that a candidate got bamboozled.
- jdhn 5y agoBecause companies going back on their word during the hiring process is a bad thing. It's a bait and switch.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ChrisMarshallNY 5y agoThis has happened to a number of folks that I have known over the years, and long predates remote work. I have known many people that have picked up and moved across the country for "the dream job," only to return, a couple of months later, tail between their legs, because the job turned out to be unsuitable in any of a dozen different ways (usually, it was because the duties did not match what they were told, but I know of at least one case, where the pay was drastically reduced, or they were hired as a contractor, even though they were told it was a salaried employee of the corporation).
- krisoft 5y agoSounds like a bunch of excellent reasons why such companies should be named. Companies are huge and they can hurt many people at scale. Individuals are small, relatively powerless and easy to manipulate. Especially if they don't organise themselves. Spreading information is the first step of getting organised.
- ChrisMarshallNY 5y agoI agree, but it's also a good way to get "blackballed" in today's tech industry. I would not encourage people early-to-mid-career, to do this.
- michaelt 5y agoI'm sceptical as to whether you can actually get blackballed, unless your misdeeds achieve a Hans Reiser level of publicity. I've had recruiters claim that if I use the offer they got me to negotiate a raise from my current employer, they'll make sure I never work in this town again - and yet recruiters keep calling.
- emteycz 5y agoIt adds the most important thing to the discussion: Which company is it, so we - the other people working in the same field, applying for the same jobs - can avoid it.
- notreallyserio 5y agoAnd without it the post is pointless. Recruiters lie. Yes. Sales people lie all the time. It's not news.
- jupp0r 5y agoIt might even be read by employees of that very company that are in a position to improve things.
- brezelgoring 5y agoIt lets you know not to trust the recruiter, at least, I know I'd like to know who did that. Credibility is paramount on these things, and a recruiter doing this is wasting people's time and money.
- kyleblarson 5y agoI would like to know if a company is willing to waste thousands of dollars (interviewers' time, hiring manager's time, hiring committee's time, not to mention the candidate's time) knowing full well that they will not commit to terms (at least verbally) agreed upon upfront. That is a clear sign of a dysfunctional organization.
- _jal 5y agoSo that other people don't waste their time on that company, of course. Why do you believe the company should be able to keep bad behavior secret?
- alawrence 5y agoIt'd be really valuable for me, personally. I suspect I know the company (Google) as I'd seen a Glassdoor review mentioning the same thing. It'd be really nice to know if the sample size is > 1 as I'm considering going through the application process myself and this would suck.
- spicybright 5y agoOP dodged a bullet frankly, but it really sucks when most big companies all shoot at you. We don't even need to promote much discussion on it TBH. If OP is to be believed, the company blatantly lied to OP and wasted a large chunk of his time. Just like in anything else in life, if someone is not held to the consequences of their actions, they'll keep doing it. It's frankly pathetic if this remains the norm for our profession. It's not like most of us applicants go in, blatantly lie, and waste the companies time. We, and every other worked applying to any job, should at least be treated the same as a bare minimum.
- salawat 5y agoSociety runs on example making, sadly. For all the good or ill that entails. Someone deserves to be named and shamed, with the caveat of, there must be an agreement to actually accept the results of further digging. If the recruiter said yes to a remote position that wasn't, the fault is rightly on the recruiter. If the recruiter was told remote was fine only for eventual reneg when ink was being put to paper... That is absolutely a reputation hit the client of said recruiter needs to take. Fixing a fault requires identification, localization & characterization, and remediation. This fault has been identified, but not localized and characterized. Ergo, if remediation is the goal, naming and shaming absolutely needs to happen. And everyone involved, up to the company execs making the decision themselves should understand the importance of this dynamic unless they've all been playing games to get to where they are, in which case, the callout is doubly needed.
- noasaservice 5y agoAs much as it pains me to say it... In my experiences if the recruiter email has an Indian name, it's going to be an uttar shitshow. They will lie to you, blatantly. They'll use non-standard English that will have tons of ambiguities and brokenness. I believe this is a benefit to them, to provide ambiguity. The remote/hybrid/in-person status is whatever you ask, and will be updated to the real answer when talking to the client. The job will flip/flop from to w2 and c2c by whatever you seem to express. Pay is whatever they think you will like. There's "benefits" until it flips to contract with no benefits. Now, that's not to say that a standard American recruiter is somehow good. They're also pretty sketch as well. But so far, in 2y of looking for a new job, 100% of the Indian recruiters have not "did the needful" for me.
- decebalus1 5y ago> it just lets people focus their outrage better Sounds like a 'win' to me.
- lappa 5y agoOr inform the company of the recruiter who is wasting their staffs time interviewing incompatible candidates. This doesn't seem to be the companies fault.
- nineplay 5y agoThe recruiter worked for the company.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ChrisMarshallNY 5y agoI'll bet I know which company (I won't name them, but I get regular automated contacts for them. They used to be onsite-only, but the contacts recently, have been stressing "remote-only." I don't believe them, at all).
- jhatemyjob 5y ago"hiring committee" = Google.
- decebalus1 5y agoHaha you'd be surprised of the amount of Google cargo-culting happening in the industry. Lots of companies have 'hiring committees' now.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]