4 ms·

In my case, HR tells me that I'm not allowed to tell applicants why they were rejected. Nothing personal, but my job is more important to me that someone's feel

In my case, HR tells me that I'm not allowed to tell applicants why they were rejected. Nothing personal, but my job is more important to me that someone's feelings.

lfowles 3y ago
It's not feelings, it's the lack of feedback loop.
tayo42 3y ago
I'm starting to think hr is just filled with the dumbest people with no ability to think overall. Fwiw, Microsoft rejected me, annoying..., but, the recruiter actually spent like an entire 30 min call going over the feed back they gave. Somehow they can do it, but other companies can't?
- bombcar 3y ago
  A recruiter is a third party and has a monetary reason to work with you to get you placed elsewhere. Microsoft HR has no reason to expose themselves to anything that could possibly maybe someday involve a discrimination lawsuit. So why would they allow it?
  - tayo42 3y ago
    What? Companies like Microsoft have their own recruiters.
    - Eumenes 3y ago
      Microsoft uses 100s of third party recruiters/agencies.
  - Roark66 3y ago
    The parent likely meant an internal recruiter, a role distinct from HR (probably much better paid too). It is the job of such people to make you feel OK in hope you apply again for another position with the same company. I worked for few companies that had internal recruiters.
- richiebful1 3y ago
  Microsoft is so big, they might have an opening somewhere else you can fill. By providing feedback, they're building goodwill
  - tayo42 3y ago
    Yeah that's how it went, you would think most companies want people to view them positively. Except laziness and lack of critical thinking skills leads to useless policies. Here I am on, on a public forum, giving a shout out to MS. How many companies am I shit talking with my friends during their work search too? Like datadog giving me three! leetcode screen questions, then rejecting me without useful feedback. Or the various companies giving multihour take home assignments then giving generic rejections. When the market turns around (or if? it'll turn around right guys?), all those companies that just left a bad impression need workers, which ones will get considered?
    - rglullis 3y ago
      Would you like to take a look at http://cupid.careers http://cupid.careers and go through the quiz? I'd like to know if people in your situation could benefit from the matching score.
      - tayo42 3y ago
        Sure just promise to not doxx me when you get my real name. Hah
highwaylights 3y ago
Sadly this is interviews now. Someone realised that if they just don't give feedback for interviews then they can't say something incriminating that could prove they violated labor laws, then everyone started doing it and now it's just the thing that's done. Same for references. The best you can realistically hope for now is written confirmation of dates you worked somewhere, your job title, and at a push (maybe) your salary, although I've never once found it's in the prospective employee's best interest to disclose previous salaries. (Depending on where you are in the world your new employer may just be able to get this info from the government anyway or ask for your last payslip).
- conjectures 3y ago
  Yeah the previous salary thing is a tough one. It's also tough when it's reframed in terms of 'what are your expectations'. I was wondering what the best way to field those questions is.
- rilindo 3y ago
  > Someone realised that if they just don't give feedback for interviews then they can't say something incriminating that could prove they violated labor laws, then everyone started doing it and now it's just the thing that's done. (Note: I am assuming this is true in the US. This is may not be true in other countries) Job seeking is inherently a confidential activity for many people, as the interviewee want to make sure that their current job is safe before leaving for a new role. To sue a company because they didn't get the role is to put their current role at risk. In addition, the company has a lot more power and resources than the interviewee. They can drag the process out to the point where the interviewee withdraws, runs out of money or settle. Given that, the interviewee has to have significant proof as well as resources and privilege to able to successfully sue the company. All things considering, I don't think the idea of not providing feedback because of legal liabilities is sound.
  - _jal 3y ago
    > All things considering, I don't think the idea of not providing feedback because of legal liabilities is sound. Imagine you are GC and think about it from a risk/reward standpoint. If you let people give feedback, given enough hires, some hiring manager will likely say something that draws a lawsuit. Doesn't matter if it is a reasonable case, that's still time, money and distraction. And what does the company get in return? People who they didn't hire might think slightly better of it. When you model it in terms of corporate incentives, the decision almost makes itself.
SanjayMehta 3y ago
I remember when there were no HR departments. They used to be called Personnel and their job was to pay salaries, keep track of vacation time, medical reimbursements and the like. Actual work. Good times.
- hirundo 3y ago
  Want to travel back in time? Go work for a small company. Our two dozen souls are human resourced by the COO, who hires and fires, and a manager of the basic paperwork. There are no layers to fight through, you just call the boss, and he's refreshingly blunt. But warning, there are fewer places to hide at SmallCo.
- KineticLensman 3y ago
  > They used to be called Personnel Although back in the day I remember them also being referred to as the Anti-Personnel department.
iteria 3y ago
HR has a reason for that. Yes, possibly lawsuits, but also there is a small minority of absolutely crazy people. It's a very small amount of people, but high enough that if you do a decent amount interviews, you will run into these people. When you give these people a reason why you rejected them, they will hound and harass the company in order to "prove" the company is incorrect in their assessment. They're why we can't have nice things.

In my case, HR tells me that I'm not allowed to tell applicants why they were rejected. Nothing personal, but my job is more important to me that someone's feelings.

lfowles 3y ago

It's not feelings, it's the lack of feedback loop.

tayo42 3y ago

I'm starting to think hr is just filled with the dumbest people with no ability to think overall. Fwiw, Microsoft rejected me, annoying..., but, the recruiter actually spent like an entire 30 min call going over the feed back they gave. Somehow they can do it, but other companies can't?

bombcar 3y ago
A recruiter is a third party and has a monetary reason to work with you to get you placed elsewhere. Microsoft HR has no reason to expose themselves to anything that could possibly maybe someday involve a discrimination lawsuit. So why would they allow it?
- tayo42 3y ago
  What? Companies like Microsoft have their own recruiters.
  - Eumenes 3y ago
    Microsoft uses 100s of third party recruiters/agencies.
- Roark66 3y ago
  The parent likely meant an internal recruiter, a role distinct from HR (probably much better paid too). It is the job of such people to make you feel OK in hope you apply again for another position with the same company. I worked for few companies that had internal recruiters.
richiebful1 3y ago
Microsoft is so big, they might have an opening somewhere else you can fill. By providing feedback, they're building goodwill
- tayo42 3y ago
  Yeah that's how it went, you would think most companies want people to view them positively. Except laziness and lack of critical thinking skills leads to useless policies. Here I am on, on a public forum, giving a shout out to MS. How many companies am I shit talking with my friends during their work search too? Like datadog giving me three! leetcode screen questions, then rejecting me without useful feedback. Or the various companies giving multihour take home assignments then giving generic rejections. When the market turns around (or if? it'll turn around right guys?), all those companies that just left a bad impression need workers, which ones will get considered?
  - rglullis 3y ago
    Would you like to take a look at http://cupid.careers http://cupid.careers and go through the quiz? I'd like to know if people in your situation could benefit from the matching score.
    - tayo42 3y ago
      Sure just promise to not doxx me when you get my real name. Hah

highwaylights 3y ago

Sadly this is interviews now. Someone realised that if they just don't give feedback for interviews then they can't say something incriminating that could prove they violated labor laws, then everyone started doing it and now it's just the thing that's done. Same for references. The best you can realistically hope for now is written confirmation of dates you worked somewhere, your job title, and at a push (maybe) your salary, although I've never once found it's in the prospective employee's best interest to disclose previous salaries. (Depending on where you are in the world your new employer may just be able to get this info from the government anyway or ask for your last payslip).

conjectures 3y ago
Yeah the previous salary thing is a tough one. It's also tough when it's reframed in terms of 'what are your expectations'. I was wondering what the best way to field those questions is.
rilindo 3y ago
> Someone realised that if they just don't give feedback for interviews then they can't say something incriminating that could prove they violated labor laws, then everyone started doing it and now it's just the thing that's done. (Note: I am assuming this is true in the US. This is may not be true in other countries) Job seeking is inherently a confidential activity for many people, as the interviewee want to make sure that their current job is safe before leaving for a new role. To sue a company because they didn't get the role is to put their current role at risk. In addition, the company has a lot more power and resources than the interviewee. They can drag the process out to the point where the interviewee withdraws, runs out of money or settle. Given that, the interviewee has to have significant proof as well as resources and privilege to able to successfully sue the company. All things considering, I don't think the idea of not providing feedback because of legal liabilities is sound.
- _jal 3y ago
  > All things considering, I don't think the idea of not providing feedback because of legal liabilities is sound. Imagine you are GC and think about it from a risk/reward standpoint. If you let people give feedback, given enough hires, some hiring manager will likely say something that draws a lawsuit. Doesn't matter if it is a reasonable case, that's still time, money and distraction. And what does the company get in return? People who they didn't hire might think slightly better of it. When you model it in terms of corporate incentives, the decision almost makes itself.

SanjayMehta 3y ago

I remember when there were no HR departments. They used to be called Personnel and their job was to pay salaries, keep track of vacation time, medical reimbursements and the like. Actual work. Good times.

hirundo 3y ago
Want to travel back in time? Go work for a small company. Our two dozen souls are human resourced by the COO, who hires and fires, and a manager of the basic paperwork. There are no layers to fight through, you just call the boss, and he's refreshingly blunt. But warning, there are fewer places to hide at SmallCo.
KineticLensman 3y ago
> They used to be called Personnel Although back in the day I remember them also being referred to as the Anti-Personnel department.

iteria 3y ago

HR has a reason for that. Yes, possibly lawsuits, but also there is a small minority of absolutely crazy people. It's a very small amount of people, but high enough that if you do a decent amount interviews, you will run into these people. When you give these people a reason why you rejected them, they will hound and harass the company in order to "prove" the company is incorrect in their assessment. They're why we can't have nice things.