3 ms·

May be the problem with hiring from wider geography is that evaluation of a candidate performance is a difficult and largely unsolved problem. Hiring from a sma

May be the problem with hiring from wider geography is that evaluation of a candidate performance is a difficult and largely unsolved problem. Hiring from a small area (like SV) an employer can rely on offline social networks (friend of my friend knows a candidate). Though I don’t understand why US companies so afraid to make a bad hire given that it is easy to fire someone who doesn’t perform well in the US.

FirmwareBurner 1y ago
>Though I don’t understand why US companies so afraid to make a bad hire given that it is easy to fire someone who doesn’t perform well in the US. I assume because in the US employees can still sue for what they would consider wrongful termination, especially if the worker is part of a protected group, making firing a very expensive endeavor in the end.
- const_cast 1y ago
  In practice this almost never happens. Even people who are actually discriminated against, which is very common, don't typically sue. It's a lot of work to sue, and while you're at it, you don't have a job or health insurance. Most workers are just focused on getting another job so they're not on the street or bankrupted by an unexpected surgery. I've seen now multiple cases of very obvious discrimination. Nothing actually comes of it. If the brass wants you gone, you're gone. You have no recourse, laws are basically just suggestions when it comes to corporations.
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    If it's so easy to fire people with no consequences, how do you explain the reticence of companies to take some risks in hiring.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      Companies are risk-averse to a detriment. If you look at huge companies who have failed over time you'll notice something: they have the tools, but they don't have the balls. Companies are pretty much always going to prioritize the lowest-risk highest-value option right now, over and over and over, until they eventually fail. This doesn't just pertain to hiring, but all business decisions. RCA, GE, GM, you name it, this is how it's done. It's the American school of business.

FirmwareBurner 1y ago

>Though I don’t understand why US companies so afraid to make a bad hire given that it is easy to fire someone who doesn’t perform well in the US. I assume because in the US employees can still sue for what they would consider wrongful termination, especially if the worker is part of a protected group, making firing a very expensive endeavor in the end.

const_cast 1y ago
In practice this almost never happens. Even people who are actually discriminated against, which is very common, don't typically sue. It's a lot of work to sue, and while you're at it, you don't have a job or health insurance. Most workers are just focused on getting another job so they're not on the street or bankrupted by an unexpected surgery. I've seen now multiple cases of very obvious discrimination. Nothing actually comes of it. If the brass wants you gone, you're gone. You have no recourse, laws are basically just suggestions when it comes to corporations.
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  If it's so easy to fire people with no consequences, how do you explain the reticence of companies to take some risks in hiring.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    Companies are risk-averse to a detriment. If you look at huge companies who have failed over time you'll notice something: they have the tools, but they don't have the balls. Companies are pretty much always going to prioritize the lowest-risk highest-value option right now, over and over and over, until they eventually fail. This doesn't just pertain to hiring, but all business decisions. RCA, GE, GM, you name it, this is how it's done. It's the American school of business.