3 ms·

I would suspect this is more likely than not (at least in the US) due to the problem of legal liability and shielding the company from lawsuits alleging unfair

by jhj 3y ago

I would suspect this is more likely than not (at least in the US) due to the problem of legal liability and shielding the company from lawsuits alleging unfair hiring practices if detailed feedback to the interviewee were given.

lapcat 3y ago
People always claim this with no evidence whatsoever. Please cite the relevant court cases. The irony of these claims is that the possibility of lawsuits doesn't actually stop companies from doing terrible, lawsuit-worthy things. They do such things all the time. Occam's razor suggests the explanation is simply that companies don't care about job applicants. And this is demonstrated in many ways.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  People do sue for not getting hired. https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/ruby-tuesday-pay-45000-settle-eeoc-age-discrimination-suit https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/ruby-tuesday-pay-45000-settle-...
  - lapcat 3y ago
    Yes, age discrimination is illegal. If your feedback is "You're too old", then you probably shouldn't give that feedback to the applicant. But you also shouldn't discriminate in the first place. If not giving feedback is an excuse to cover up illegal behavior, that's not a good excuse.
    - paxys 3y ago
      Legal does not have the time to screen 100% of feedback sent out to job seekers, and there’s plenty that a regular employee can say or write in casual conversation that can be used as fodder in a lawsuit. Hence the reason for these blanket policies. This isn’t some conspiracy theory but the reality of how corporations work.
      - lapcat 3y ago
        > there’s plenty that a regular employee can say or write in casual conversation that can be used as fodder in a lawsuit Again, unless you're talking about illegal discrimination, I'd like to see the relevant court cases cited for this "fodder". If companies are covering up illegal discrimination, it's not a conspiracy theory, it's simply a conspiracy. Moreover, people are claiming or speculating that there are blanket company policies against job applicant feedback. I have yet to hear anyone confirm this from the inside. Are there also blanket company policies that you must "ghost" job applicants, as many companies do? And what's the "legal" reason for that?
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        paxys 3y ago
        Not sure which part you disagree with? If it is about the existence of such policies, go talk to any engineer from Google or Microsoft or Meta or Apple or a hundred other companies down the list. There are written rules and trainings about interview conduct at every one of these companies, and they all cover feedback - what you are or aren’t allowed to say, how much you can share. And at every one of these companies the interviewer doesn’t even have direct contact with the candidate after the interview is done. The results are instead relayed by HR.
        lapcat 3y ago
        > If it is about the existence of such policies, go talk to any engineer from Google or Microsoft or Meta or Apple or a hundred other companies down the list. 1) I don't think Google/Microsoft/Meta/Apple are the ones giving take home assessments. 2) I've talked to many such engineers. > There are written rules and trainings about interview conduct at every one of these companies, and they all cover feedback - what you are or aren’t allowed to say, how much you can share. Ok, so what are the rules? You're claiming knowledge here, so please demonstrate it. > At every one of these companies the interviewer doesn’t even have direct contact with the candidate after the interview is done. This varies quite a bit. Also, many smaller companies don't even have an HR department. In any case, when you're doing a live interview, you tend to get some real-time feedback, whether explicit or implicit. It's completely untrue to suggest that interviewers get no feedback. The OP was complaining specifically about take home assessments, where you can't give live feedback.

by jhj 3y ago

lapcat 3y ago

People always claim this with no evidence whatsoever. Please cite the relevant court cases. The irony of these claims is that the possibility of lawsuits doesn't actually stop companies from doing terrible, lawsuit-worthy things. They do such things all the time. Occam's razor suggests the explanation is simply that companies don't care about job applicants. And this is demonstrated in many ways.

lesuorac 3y ago
People do sue for not getting hired. https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/ruby-tuesday-pay-45000-settle-eeoc-age-discrimination-suit https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/ruby-tuesday-pay-45000-settle-...
- lapcat 3y ago
  Yes, age discrimination is illegal. If your feedback is "You're too old", then you probably shouldn't give that feedback to the applicant. But you also shouldn't discriminate in the first place. If not giving feedback is an excuse to cover up illegal behavior, that's not a good excuse.
  - paxys 3y ago
    Legal does not have the time to screen 100% of feedback sent out to job seekers, and there’s plenty that a regular employee can say or write in casual conversation that can be used as fodder in a lawsuit. Hence the reason for these blanket policies. This isn’t some conspiracy theory but the reality of how corporations work.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > there’s plenty that a regular employee can say or write in casual conversation that can be used as fodder in a lawsuit Again, unless you're talking about illegal discrimination, I'd like to see the relevant court cases cited for this "fodder". If companies are covering up illegal discrimination, it's not a conspiracy theory, it's simply a conspiracy. Moreover, people are claiming or speculating that there are blanket company policies against job applicant feedback. I have yet to hear anyone confirm this from the inside. Are there also blanket company policies that you must "ghost" job applicants, as many companies do? And what's the "legal" reason for that?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - paxys 3y ago
        Not sure which part you disagree with? If it is about the existence of such policies, go talk to any engineer from Google or Microsoft or Meta or Apple or a hundred other companies down the list. There are written rules and trainings about interview conduct at every one of these companies, and they all cover feedback - what you are or aren’t allowed to say, how much you can share. And at every one of these companies the interviewer doesn’t even have direct contact with the candidate after the interview is done. The results are instead relayed by HR.
        lapcat 3y ago
        > If it is about the existence of such policies, go talk to any engineer from Google or Microsoft or Meta or Apple or a hundred other companies down the list. 1) I don't think Google/Microsoft/Meta/Apple are the ones giving take home assessments. 2) I've talked to many such engineers. > There are written rules and trainings about interview conduct at every one of these companies, and they all cover feedback - what you are or aren’t allowed to say, how much you can share. Ok, so what are the rules? You're claiming knowledge here, so please demonstrate it. > At every one of these companies the interviewer doesn’t even have direct contact with the candidate after the interview is done. This varies quite a bit. Also, many smaller companies don't even have an HR department. In any case, when you're doing a live interview, you tend to get some real-time feedback, whether explicit or implicit. It's completely untrue to suggest that interviewers get no feedback. The OP was complaining specifically about take home assessments, where you can't give live feedback.