14 ms·
Databricks counts being laid off as “red flag”
- ripper1138 4y agoAt least you got an interview
- hlieberman 4y agoFun fact: in some jurisdictions such as New York and DC, this is illegal. It's called "discrimination against the unemployed". Check the laws of your state, the state you would work in, and the state the company is headquartered in to see if this may apply to you.
- bojo 4y agoWhile it's nice to know these laws exist, what would you really do with it? The company proved it has a terrible culture. Doesn't seem worth it to fight for a job with them.
- toomuchtodo 4y agoAssuming sufficient evidence, one could have an employment attorney pursue the claim and let the attorney keep any damages awarded beyond their contingency fee. Negative stimuli may not improve the culture, but it may improve the discriminatory HR behavior. And even if the behavior isn’t improved, there is then a mostly immutable public record of said discriminatory behavior (which is arguably more valuable than whatever scuttlebutt is on Blind or similar platforms). It might even be demonstrably securities fraud. https://wp.nyu.edu/compliance_enforcement/2022/06/22/can-securities-laws-help-fight-discrimination-in-corporate-america/ https://wp.nyu.edu/compliance_enforcement/2022/06/22/can-sec...
- harry8 4y agoThis would be a deeply important change you'd provoke. Much greater incentive to absolutely silent rejection. You know nothing you can't sue.
- toomuchtodo 4y agoPossibly, in which case someone on the inside would have to be incentivized to be a whistleblower, either due to moral or financial considerations if silent rejections were covering up the illegal activity. With that said, people are lazy, they slip up or they become demoralized, disgruntled, and comfortable with spilling the beans. More so in a volatile macro with layoffs compressing more work amongst less staff. TLDR Have your paper trail in order if you suspect illegal behavior, everything else is then logistics with counsel and/or regulators. (not an attorney, not your attorney)
- krageon 4y agoWhistheblowing is a red flag, and you can be sure this is a matter of public enough record for them to know
- abigail95 4y agofor the nyc one, you can claim remedy yourself in civil court. walk them right into small claims for 25k
- hkt 4y agoNew tech job challenge: find 20 companies a year whose HR departments are populated by dirtbags, make Google money.
- dv_dt 4y agoI like to think that it’s not always a direct individual outcome that helps. With enough soft complaints the regulator might write a reminder letter to the given HR dept which could go over relevant law and warn about repercussions of breaking it. And that might be enough to straighten out some practices.
- placatedmayhem 4y agoThis feels much too light to me. I'm not sure I can think of a worse thing to do to someone while interviewing them than discriminate against them based on a protected status, outside of proper criminal things. Discrimination (including "unemployment discrimination") during interviewing should be an automatic, hefty fine, with a significant portion going to the target of the discrimination (assuming the claim is found to be valid). Just riffing, maybe set the fine to something like the equivalent of total yearly compensation package for the average employee in the position being sought. That would be penalty enough to encourage putting it right in the front of any training for anyone making offers, particularly HR.
- coldtea 4y agoIt does seem worth to sue them and get a settlement
- shanebellone 4y ago"While it's nice to know these laws exist, what would you really do with it?" This is exactly how I feel about tenant laws in the US. It's great they exist, but who's going to get a lawyer to stay somewhere they aren't wanted. All these laws that protect the vulnerable still require a lawyer to enforce them. Lawyers aren't accessible to most.
- cafard 4y agoFor what it's worth, Washington, DC, has an Office of the Tenant Advocate.
- nicolashahn 4y agoIf you have financial obligations, sometimes you have to take the job that's available.
- adrr 4y agoI just glanced at their career page and all the US based engineering and product management jobs are in the bay area. California doesn't have protected status for being unemployed.
- kergonath 4y agoIt is very weird that your precise case has to fit a couple of narrow criteria to be protected against discrimination in the US. From a moral perspective, discrimination is discrimination regardless of its grounds. The default position should be that it is illegal. This would avoid endless sterile discussion about whether this or that is a protected class.
- OJFord 4y agoSo all hiring, all decision-making about people would be presumed illegal, until proven to be based on unprotected characteristics? Sounds.. inconvenient? Not how the law generally works?
- kergonath 4y agoWell, not really, it just means that grounds for rejection come from inadequacies between the applicants and the role, not because of the recruiter’s prejudice. I know how the law works in the US, that was more or less the point. The fact that it works like that in one country or several does not mean that it is just, moral, or natural. Non-discrimination should be the default state. It’s like a legal system where you would need freedoms to be explicitly granted, which is counter to our common definition of liberty (along the lines of “rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others”). By narrowing down the definition of illegal discrimination, one gives more power to the people who are already in a position of power and so one keep pushing the status quo away from equal rights. This is the language in the universal declaration of human right: “everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”. This is not US law, but the fact that this was written and accepted by the vast majority of the countries on earth at least indicates that we (including nominally the US government) tend to hold that discrimination itself is morally wrong, regardless of whether the reason was put on a list or not. So it is not an unimaginable concept.
- SQueeeeeL 4y agoDamn, the top comment on the article is about how you need to lie in tech interviews. How far have we fallen if we don't even have enough dignity to walk away from garbage tier companies who can't even put any real effort into hiring. Lying is not a solution, letting companies like Databricks die a slow painful death because they create toxic environments and all their programmers keep quitting is the solution.
- RajT88 4y ago> Lying is not a solution Agreed. You should not lie in interviews. A common way of avoiding having to lie is registering your own consulting company after getting laid off. No resume gap! As far as if it fools recruiters, no idea. It's got to sometimes, right? I see it too often on LinkedIn for it to be useless.
- Waterluvian 4y agoI’d personally see that as lying.
- smeagull 4y agoJust actually register the company. In my country you don't even need to register, you just do business as a contractor. As long as you're under certain revenue limits, there's no registration necessary.
- atemerev 4y agoWell, you can actually, you know, consult. Or don’t, if you don’t feel like it. That’s the beauty of consulting.
- fauigerzigerk 4y agoPerhaps in a very narrow sense, but I think it's more complicated than that. Let's assume that there are facts that a person has a legitimate right to conceal in a particular context. What if the only way to conceal such a fact is to create a false impression? I would hesitate to call that lying, because the word lying ususally implies that it is not legitimate, which contradicts the assumption.
- rqtwteye 4y agoInstead of laying off maybe companies should make a press release like they do with top execs that get fired “15% of our staff has decided to spend more time with their family”.
- frellus 4y agoI'm not sure about that, but I do think that phrase is going to work its way into my resignation letter soon. "I'm very sorry (not sorry), I've decided to spend more time with my family."
- dilyevsky 4y agoLol like that time a VP at google sent a resignation letter saying that he wants to spend more time with his son who just went to college (wat) but it turned out it was sexual misconduct.
- cochne 4y agoI think their HR culture may be a little toxic. When I told them their offer was not enough, they got very irate. They said if I only care about money I’m not a good fit for their culture of builders, and that I should watch out because there are lots of lay offs happening. It all left me with a very poor impression of them.
- _t4za 4y ago> They said if I only care about money I’m not a good fit for their culture Is this meant to convince you to take the offer, or is this just to vent off some steam before closing your file?
- eddsh1994 4y agoHopefully the latter
- nix23 4y agoBecause that's "just" unprofessional or what?
- dclowd9901 4y agoIt’s funny to think either answer is a good one.
- ranting-moth 4y agoI think it's called burning bridges.
- jfrbfbreudh 4y agoAt that point, I would have taken their offer, collect my paycheck while still interviewing elsewhere, and wait to get fired.
- larsrc 4y agoWhich would then leave a genuine red flag on your CV.
- xyzelement 4y agoThere's a missing bit of context here about what "laid off" actually means in this person's case. We are assuming it means a non-performance related reduction in force, but it may be something different. If I had to guess, I'd suspect the hiring committee found reason to suspect this person was laid off for performance / behavior. For example, perhaps their company has not conducted a large layoff, or is known for laying off based on performance. We also don't know what else happened in the interview. Perhaps he talked ill of their former employer in relation to the layoff. He may have cleared the technical rounds but the interviewer noted this, and the HC weighted it negatively. All of this is conjecture - for all I know Databricks' HC is really made of idiots, but it's probably not the first assumption to make based on a Blind post that lacks context.
- jsnell 4y ago> There's a missing bit of context here about what "laid off" actually means in this person's case. We are assuming it means a non-performance related reduction in force, but it may be something different. But that's basically the definition of a layoff; the elimination of roles from a company due to reasons unrelated to the performance of the laid off people (e.g. lack of work, economic conditions). If somebody loses their job due to reasons related to their individual performance, they were not laid off. They were fired.
- xyzelement 4y agoI am aware of and agree with this definition. But... One company I worked for had two rounds of layoffs - the first round got rid of exclusively low performers (they didn't announce it that way but it was clear) while the second cut across the board. If someone had that insight, they'd be right to consider someone cut in the first wave as a red flag. But more generally, I don't think people stick to this definition, especially when talking about themselves. "I was laid off from X"... No dude, you got fired for harassment. Again, all of this is conjecture - we have no idea what the situation in question actually was nor how the person communicated with the company about it.
- 4y ago
- ezekiel68 4y agoIn a labor market where Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft haven't recently released collectively dozens of thousands of well-qualified workers into the pool, I suspect this situation might have ended differently. It's "buyer's market" out there now and employers can afford to be extra picky. This dynamic may not have applied to the poster's case since those other available resources would have been laid off as well. But the core point stands.
- streetcat1 4y agoYou do not compete with tech workers, you compete with developers. More specifically, you compete with developers at your level of exp. More specifically, you compete with developers at your level of exp and field of expertise. Those layoff are meaningless.
- vineyardmike 4y agoTo build on this with concrete numbers, warn tracker used public data to break out the number of affected employees by more specific data. You can see that from Google there are 300 entry level SWEs, 500 mid level, and 200 senior level. The whole industry had 12,000 Google employees, but you’re only competing with a few hundred SWEs of your experience level (using payroll level as a proxy for experience). You can imagine this is repeated for various companies, and could still be thousands of new job seekers, but it does limit the perception of a “flood” of engineers. https://www.warntracker.com/?tab=charts https://www.warntracker.com/?tab=charts
- garbanzo69 4y agoMy partner recently left Databricks (or "Datadicks", as we like to call it) after a year of dysfunction, unrealistic deadlines, many breakdowns, and severe burn-out. He took a few months off to recover and is now back in the game at a small consultancy with some incredible peers. Half the pay but absolutely worth it.
- pottertheotter 4y agoI'm curious to learn about the consultancy. If you're ok with it, you can email me at hnPotterTheOtter ~ gmail.
- frellus 4y agoThis is asinine, discriminatory and unfair. I'd even say it's borderline malicious. Glad they named and shamed. I would't do any business with this company, nor attempt to work for them. A RIF has nothing to do with a person's performance .. at least officially. One has to assume it was a business decision only, not performance based, although with a large reduction it seems improbable that the people left would be, now or in the past, under-performers. More than likely, the person being laid off was due to their salary being high, and their function being covered by someone else. Nothing more complicated than that.
- discordance 4y agoTotally. Getting RIF’d is indiscriminate. Their loss! On the flip side, we too can ‘red flag’ Databricks and other companies that operate that way and not work there or buy their products.
- stbtrax 4y agoI agree with you in that you can’t infer whether it was random or performance related but RIFs first start with underperformers from the last review cycle at a lot of companies.
- quelltext 4y agoFor anyone like you (and me) who says being laid off doesn't mean bad performance you have someone else saying it's good that Meta, Twitter, etc. are cleaning house, getting rid of all the slackers. Those are the folks calling it a red flag later. The thing, is we want to believe that a company makes careful decisions about whom to lay off. We know it doesn't quite work like that but as you said yourself there can be a bunch of reasons. And with that context you're still looking at the reality that the company didn't deem the laid off workers important enough to keep. I don't agree with what happened to the candidate here and we are all at risk of being laid off after all, but at the same time we cannot just assume the companies didn't have reasons to select one person over the other. And being overpaid itself might be a red flag for some hiring managers. What I mean is, we cannot have it both ways, saying RIFed doesn't mean anything while at the same time assuming that companies follow a rational decision process and don't just play roulette.
- onphonenow 4y agoIn my area it’s still a sellers market, we struggle to get folks. Yes, industry articles talking about the continued shortage in area X. So we have hired folks who have had shorter tenures / been laid off etc. I think sometimes folks can be a bit blind to why they’ve ended up getting laid off especially if it’s been repeatedly because it can become obvious.
- femto113 4y agoThis may actually be illegal[1], particularly if it disproportionally aligns with any other sort of protected factor (like age, sex, or national origin). [1] https://www.eeoc.gov/pre-employment-inquiries-and-unemployed-status https://www.eeoc.gov/pre-employment-inquiries-and-unemployed...
- mjfl 4y agoDon't say you were laid off, say you left the job to start a new web site, but it's not working out financially. And obviously have a small website ready with a reasonable sounding business idea. It is totally reasonable for counting being laid off as a red flag, it puts a ceiling on your performance - if you were really that productive, they would have kept you.
- larsrc 4y agohttps://nypost.com/2023/01/23/google-workers-feel-100-disposable-as-layoffs-hit-top-performers/ https://nypost.com/2023/01/23/google-workers-feel-100-dispos...
- vidarh 4y agoThe problem with the last part here is that even if it signifies a performance issue at the person's last employer, unless you have exactly the same company culture and exactly the same type of projects it tells you very little. But there are also many other reasons why otherwise productive team members will be made redundant. E.g. sales are flagging and the company needs to cut cost, and are cutting whole teams because they've already cut the low performers. It is worth probing a bit of someone has been laid off, but I've personally had to make people redundant who I'd have rehired again in a second while keeping lower performers because they were essential in some way or other, and we couldn't justify making them redundant only to move someone else into their position (even with the ridiculously weak employee protections in the UK that'd suggest it wasn't actually a genuine redundancy; but even places where it's legal, it doesn't mean everyone will do it). Your suggestion about a project to fill the gap might be worthwhile if the gap is long enough. Otherwise it'll just add new questions about why you're giving up so soon.
- aflag 4y agoSo lie to get a job?
- mjfl 4y agoit doesn't have to be a lie if you make it real.
- daniel-cussen 4y ago[dead]
- cgb223 4y agoConsidering hundreds of thousands of tech workers have been laid off, do they just have a hundred thousand red flags in their system? Seems like a poor heuristic that results in them losing out on talent
- singron 4y agoIt seems so strange they would openly give this feedback to a candidate. Even if it weren't illegal, the only action available to the candidate is to lie about the nature of their termination in the future. It also doesn't seem like a good idea to avoid hiring laid off people. Hiring is a lemon market regardless of layoffs, and plenty of great people get laid off. It just doesn't make sense to reject a great candidate at the very end of the process because you realize they had been laid off. Either they weren't a great candidate for other reasons, the Blind post is an unreliable report of events, or the hiring committee really is stupid.
- ageek123 4y agoThis seems like a lot of discussion for a single report from a possibly-disgruntled (but definitely rejected) candidate, about a policy that was denied by multiple Databricks employees in the thread, who clearly said that Databricks has hired a number of people who were laid off recently.
- password11 4y agoWhat I find strange in OP's story is that HC and recruiter actually gave a reason for the rejection. Most companies after they reject you are tight-lipped. > denied by multiple Databricks employees in the [Blind] thread, who clearly said... That proves nothing. HR departments shill on Blind.
- dclowd9901 4y agoYes, same here. The banality of job rejection is quite far from many of the anecdotes I read about it.
- ageek123 4y agoI agree “HR departments shill on Blind” but the claim made by several people in that thread (at least one who said they are a hiring manager) that Databricks has recently hired multiple people who were laid off is verifiable as true or false. It’s not just a generic weasel statement like “it’s not our policy to…” or “we treat all applicants fairly” or something like that.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- password11 4y ago> but the claim made by several people in that thread (at least one who said they are a hiring manager) that Databricks has recently hired multiple people who were laid off is verifiable as true or false How exactly, again, did you verify their identity as a hiring manager?
- tunesmith 4y agoIt's so funny... I've had a list of potential new employers ever since I re-opened my linkedin profile to "semi-open for opportunities" a year ago or so, and over time, every single one of them has basically disqualified itself with horror stories. I'm probably not looking hard enough, as I guess I'm only hearing about the opportunities that are needing to advertise heavily due to being lousy places to work.
- maximilianroos 4y agoThe _average_ quality of those who where laid off is indeed probably a bit lower than the average quality of those who weren't. But there's so much variance within those groups! The very _worst_ way of using that information that is: - Interview everyone; run them through the full assessment process - Once you have a successful group through the process, nix anyone with this trait Instead, you arguably want to more thoroughly reference check folks who were laid off, in the same way you want to more thoroughly assess someone's technical ability who doesn't have a technical background. That lets you incorporate _more_ information, rather than acting on the very low-information signal of them being laid off.
- imperfect_light 4y agoSo they are actively trying to filter out people that have worked for startups? Because if you work for start-ups you will eventually get laid-off, if not multiple times.
- polynox 4y agoWhat a disgusting but revealing story. By saying "being laid off is a red flag" they are loudly signaling that actually they have no way of measuring interview performance and are just trusting the former employer's judgement? So why even bother with the interview then? It would be like if someone is selling me their car and I run the car history report and see it was in a minor collision but was repaired. I look over the car and see the repairs were done fine. In fact I bring out a mechanic I trust and they tell me that yes the repairs were completed with high quality and everything is great with the car, am I really justified in calling myself rational if I reject the car anyway because of some metaphysical spookiness I think inhabits cars that were in collisions before?
- olivermuty 4y agoNot sure if this is the best analogy because if I had a choice of cars I would almost always pick the one that has not been in a collision :p
- polynox 4y agoThat's fair. A car that is in a collision is always at best as good as a car that has not been in a collision, whereas that's not the case with an employee who was terminated. I was trying to get at where you don't need to trust someone else's judgement of something, you can just ... go look yourself. Or hire your own expert. Because why do those other things if they don't actually change the outcome?
- 4y ago
- dilyevsky 4y agoI gave a ref check for someone trying to join databricks and honestly their level of probing gave me the creeps. Like they were trying to find some dirt. Never seen anything like it. It seems like they’re either not confident in their interview process or trying to lowball people, either way wouldn’t recommend interviewing there
- baron816 4y agoI had a pretty bad experience with them when I interviewed about a year and a half ago. I don't remember all the details, but I recall them giving me (a frontend SWE) a phone screen problem that was all about micro-optimization. I think they wanted me to implement a trie within the last five minutes of the interview or something. After the interview, I emailed the recruiter and said I didn't want to go forward with them. I'm sure some people here will say DS and Algorithm questions like that are perfectly reasonable to show off CS skills, but the question was just so far removed from anything a frontend engineer could expect to do that it showed that they just had no respect for the specialty and were hiring for the wrong thing.
- mac56 4y agoNot only is Databricks a deplorable company when it comes to HR, but their product is terrible. I really don't get what it's all about. Much rather spin up my choice of a python notebook, have my own underlying data storage, etc. I really don't understand how they got so big so quickly? Was it all hype? VCs helping close deals?
- dachryn 4y agoit's simple: Many companies are on Azure for some reason. (mainly because of preexisting microsoft contracts, and because its so tightly coupled with office that if you want office at the enterprise level, you always need a little of Azure) Now, those companies need data infrastructure. Azure ML studio is horrible. Azure data factory is somewhat okay'ish, but far from ideal. Azure Synapse is a steaming pile of junk that doesn't seem to improve. Azure data lake is kinda functional as a data lake, but lacks any decent ways to analyze that data. Spinning up jupyter notebooks is not something most IT teams understand, they want a managed service. As far as I know, Databricks is then the only solution offered by Microsoft. That's why they get such a high adoption rate. Not because of merit, but because they are the only somewhat acceptable solution on Azure. Good enough to just work. Not good enough to gain a competitive data advantage. I hate what the world has come to, but sadly IT procurement has too much influence and CTO's dont understand the modern world enough. They just care about the big Microsoft contract, because it makes them look good (look at all these savings!) If Microsoft would showcase Teradata or Dataiku or a bit of Snowflake, all of those run through the azure marketplace anyway,... we would be better off. But consultants and premium partners naturally only care about Databricks
- mac56 4y agoWell said. It is a sad state of affairs. For those of us who can, push back against IT procurement and show leadership the value (and likely cost reduction) when using tools outside the norm. And yes, the Azure Marketplace has several great solutions for data processing.
- bradhe 4y agoShocking difference in quality of conversation between here and on Blind.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- millenseed 4y agoIt's funny how people blindly trust some anonymous person's post on none other than blind.
- iLoveOncall 4y agoRight? I'm going to make a post saying Google rejected me because they saw I posted on HN and post that here. Apparently if it's on Blind it's the truth...
- mcv 4y agoI think general experience with toxic hiring processes may also be a contributing factor for people believing this story. I don't know if it's true, but it definitely sounds like something that could easily have happened.
- yibg 4y agoSounds a little suspicious to me. Maybe the candidate is missing some information (references didn't go well for example). Why would a company spend all the time to interview someone they weren't going to hire? Even if Databricks found out later after the interview loop, they gain nothing by telling the candidate that specific reason for the rejection.
- surfingdino 4y agoWelcome to the world of HR, where they make the laws and there is no recourse.
- maze-le 4y agoBut there is something like reputation. Once you have a reputation for being a place with a toxic HR/hiring culture its hard to get rid of that. Finding good people is hard in our profession, and most people have plenty of other options. This is not the first time I've heard something shady about the hiring practices of this particular company.
- nibbleshifter 4y agoThere's a Databricks "hiring manager" in the comments/replies on that posting posting denials and making thinly veiled accusations.
- tanepiper 4y agoCrap product is from crap company, not entirely unexpected.
- glintik 4y agoHa-ha. Never say “I was layoff”. Say “I left the company due to lack of new challenges”. There are many “red flags” actually.
- t344344 4y agoI always take first layoff offer I get. Free salary for couple of months. I have no trouble to find new gig... And old job will only go downhill with more workload, paycuts and less generous layoff offers.
- bartread 4y agoThis is, no question, absolutely terrible but the comments section on the post is a little wild: "Asking for references after clearing interview was also Dik move tbh" (sic) Is this a straight troll? Because if it's not, stop and think that through, will you? I have no idea how many people have listed me as a referee over the years - quite a few (and enough that I know plenty of companies don't check references) - but if every referee is asked to provide a reference for everyone who has listed them for every job for which they pass CV/resume sift (or even some stage part was through the selection process), well, that's a lot of references. Now, of course, you could write one reference for each individual and send that out to everyone who asks, but lots of companies have forms you have to fill out and they're not all the same. And you'd be doing this for a lot of jobs your applicant either wouldn't get or wouldn't take because they have competing offers on the table or are going through a process with multiple organisations. So you know what the result would be? Referees won't give references. This isn't a "dick move" (ah, sorry, I mean a "Dik move") by the hiring company but a sensible strategy to avoid wasting referees' time.
- MagicMoonlight 4y agoI mean if you’ve been laid off it literally means you’re the person they like the least from the company. Otherwise steve would have been laid off instead. So it makes sense to not want someone who is the worst in a company.
- encody 4y agoThat can be true, but it depends on the company. For example, sometimes layoffs are in order of seniority, so if you had the poor fortune of being the most recently hired, you are also first on the chopping block. I think it is probably not quite as black and white as you described.
- haasted 4y agoThis is way too simplified. May as well be shutdown of a department or project, where everyone gets off-boarded. Believe a lot of the recent GOOG reductions included very senior people who just happened to be on low-priority projects.
- jackcviers3 4y agoA possible counterassumption: You are on low-priority projects because you aren't trusted on high-priority projects or have been out-maneuvered for them by other senior team members, or don't have enough political capital to convince others of the importance of your project to make it high-priority.
- dgacmu 4y agoNah. Goog just laid off some really spectacular people (in both talent and personality). Examples: Chris diBona and cat Allman. (I don't know cat personally but I do know Chris and he's an incredibly likeable person.) Both involved in activities that generated Google a boatload of community goodwill but likely not a lot of direct revenue.
- willcipriano 4y agoThis is why I leave as soon as a company signals layoffs, find a new job before times get too tight and you have to explain why you got laid off.
- xmlblog 4y agoA company that wastes its own money and its candidates' time by failing to screen out any of its red flags as soon as they are known is a red flag.
- not_me_ever 4y agoFunny, because we count having Databricks on your CV as a red flag.
- red-iron-pine 4y ago"we don't hire the unlucky"
- Gravityloss 4y agoWhat a weird process. What other weird processes might they have? This is potentially a big reputation hit.
- SergeAx 4y ago> I did very well This is the author's perspective and it's not necessary true. There's a tricky part in hiring process on the employer side, and it is enormously high cost of false positive. If I hire a wrong person, company should spend a tremendous trove of resources before the mistake could be corrected. Thus it is intuitive to just put a "no hire" resolution in case of any doubt.
- anuraaga 4y agoAFAIK it's rare for a company to actually share reasons for rejecting a candidate. The main reason for this is probably compliance issues. Is there any reason to believe this post is actually true? Startups tend to be more forthcoming in rejection reasons but I would be surprised if Databricks is still in such a laid back mode.
- tas2642 4y agoIn my opinion, Databricks' layoffs are not necessarily a "red flag." Changes in a company's structure are common in the technology industry and can be a strategic move to improve efficiency and performance. It's important to carefully evaluate the reasons behind the layoffs before jumping to conclusions about the company's health and direction.