4 ms·

In the same way that credit card companies are required to tell you the exact reasons your score has changed, companies should be required to give at least any

by wps 4mo ago

In the same way that credit card companies are required to tell you the exact reasons your score has changed, companies should be required to give at least any sort of notice of rejection. Something as simple as: we have proceeded with another candidate (if and only if the role was actually filled). I know this opens up a lot of questions about enforcement and employer discrimination, but something has to be done.

chaosharmonic 4mo ago
This does apply to third party background checks, and backdoor references in particular are just one giant loophole in the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Eightfold AI is getting sued right now for acting as a credit reporting agency -- not just by scoring people, but by gathering data on them in the first place for the sake of reporting to employers. If you ask a third party business to do run a background check, there are a bunch of responsibilities that triggers -- a right to view what's in the report, a right to know if it's being used against you, a right to dispute what's in it, and even to consent to it being pulled in the first place. But if some recruiter or hiring manager goes directly to your former or current boss, behind your back, this is somehow not even taken seriously as a problem.
- toomuchtodo 4mo ago
  https://www.hrdive.com/news/eightfold-ai-lawsuit-job-candidate-consumer-reports/810332/ https://www.hrdive.com/news/eightfold-ai-lawsuit-job-candida... https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/ai-company-eightfold-sued-helping-companies-secretly-score-job-seekers-2026-01-21/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat... https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/21/business/ai-hiring-tools-lawsuit-eightfold-fcra.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/21/business/ai-hiring-tools-...
- woah 4mo ago
  Wait... are you saying that talking about an ex-colleague with anyone (without filing a bunch of paperwork or something) is a "giant loophole in the Fair Credit Reporting Act"?
  - chaosharmonic 4mo ago
    Yes. But to be clear, since "anyone" is vague: I specifically mean talking to hiring teams, about ex-colleagues who haven't given them permission to ask around in the first place. Because the Fair Credit Reporting Act governs background checks. It isn't limited to money, or to scoring -- it covers any third party that reports data about you, for the sake of determining if you're eligible for anything from a loan to an apartment to a job. The language of it is broad enough that it doesn't just cover your spending and payment habits, but extends to your general habits, criminal history, personal character, and "mode of living." I'm saying the behavior normalized by recruiters is a giant loophole in the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Because when they proactively reach out to random individuals you worked with, to ask you for your views on them as a reference, without your consent, that is an exploit. It is a workaround. It is skirting the actual intentions of the thing, because its scope is limited to "agencies" -- which, no matter how broad that term might be, still ultimately means third party data collectors. If something your boss said about you came up on a background check, you would have a right to know about it. But if someone on a hiring team goes behind your back to that same boss, for those same comments, that is widely accepted as fine and normal. That's the part that's a real problem.
    - pseudalopex 4mo ago
      Part of the law was broad. Part of the law was narrow. How did you establish the broad part was intended broad and the narrow part was not intended narrow?
      - chaosharmonic 4mo ago
        I mean, I'm more than willing to take the reductive approach and just say that the purpose of a system is what it does. But if we assume that it wasn't designed maliciously, we can look at this through another lens: FICO already existed at the time, so banks in particular would simply have no reason to bother calling around to all of your former creditors in the first place. They would also probably need a third party agency just to find your former creditors.
  - 4mo ago
- autoexec 4mo ago
  Companies have been using data brokers to get info on potential employees for ages in violation of the law. The law has almost zero enforcement and when something is done nobody does to prison. It's almost always just the government wanting a cut of the action. For example: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2012/06/spokeo-pay-800000-settle-ftc-charges-company-allegedly-marketed-information-employers-recruiters https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2012/06/... https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2014/04/two-data-brokers-settle-ftc-charges-they-sold-consumer-data-without-complying-protections-required https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2014/04/...
  - _DeadFred_ 4mo ago
    Prison is a limitation of freedom of movement. The equivalent for a company should be the limiting of movement of shares (no shares bought/sold/traded) for the duration of an imposed sentence. Since corporations are people and all, there needs to be an equivalent punishment.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4mo ago
      Frankly, I'd just prefer really huge fines, preferably scaled as a percentage of either gross or net revenue or profit.
      - autoexec 4mo ago
        Unless that percentage was over 100% of the profit they'd still be making money from doing illegal things and the fines just become a cost of doing business.
        PaulDavisThe1st 4mo ago
        Who said the fines had to be under 100% ?
      - _DeadFred_ 4mo ago
        Going that route instead of fines it should be a percentage of ownership made public. That: 1. Dilutes that shares, punishing the people who can effect the most change (shareholders) 2. Puts the government on the inside. With ownership, the government can then demand access/knowledge that they can't from a purely private company. And no company is going to want to deal with that headache if they don't have to.
Aurornis 4mo ago
Every employer would send "We have decided not to continue with your application" once your entry in the database reaches the legally-mandated timeout period. The part you wouldn't like is the unintended consequences: Every company would be forced to use an ATS to manage applicants, and all hiring would have to be pushed through the ATS. The ATS would have some default timeout where candidates who aren't hired get the e-mail to comply with the law. Nothing is gained because you're not getting real information, but now every company must force you to apply through an ATS portal to make sure every e-mail receives that alert. I know it's frustrating, but stacking laws like this doesn't get useful information out of companies but it does force the application process to revolve around demonstrating compliance with the regulations.
- optionalsquid 4mo ago
  > Every employer would send "We have decided not to continue with your application". That would still be a big improvement over just getting ghosted
  - godwinson__4-8 4mo ago
    Doubtful you would still feel that way if it became the legally mandated norm. The reason ghosting is offensive is it feels so disrespectful and impersonal. How is some bland automated message triggered by a cron job any better? The automated message doesn't respect or care about you, no person would have put any thought into it. It would be entirely automated. If that makes you feel better it is suggestive of a deeper problem. Getting ghosted is part of life. At least its an authentic representation that you aren't worth someone's time. It seems more spontaneous, less premeditated. That's life. You just have to learn to get over it.
    - mullingitover 4mo ago
      > The reason ghosting is offensive is it feels so disrespectful and impersonal. That part is annoying, but the open-ended nature of it is a true problem. Having a deadline on a thumbs up/down decision at least lets you move on with your life.
mxkopy 4mo ago
You’re conflating being ghosted with ghost jobs, which are positions that are posted but are never intended to be filled (usually cited as for data collection purposes). These waste people’s precious time while they apply for jobs.

by wps 4mo ago

chaosharmonic 4mo ago

This does apply to third party background checks, and backdoor references in particular are just one giant loophole in the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Eightfold AI is getting sued right now for acting as a credit reporting agency -- not just by scoring people, but by gathering data on them in the first place for the sake of reporting to employers. If you ask a third party business to do run a background check, there are a bunch of responsibilities that triggers -- a right to view what's in the report, a right to know if it's being used against you, a right to dispute what's in it, and even to consent to it being pulled in the first place. But if some recruiter or hiring manager goes directly to your former or current boss, behind your back, this is somehow not even taken seriously as a problem.

toomuchtodo 4mo ago
https://www.hrdive.com/news/eightfold-ai-lawsuit-job-candidate-consumer-reports/810332/ https://www.hrdive.com/news/eightfold-ai-lawsuit-job-candida... https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/ai-company-eightfold-sued-helping-companies-secretly-score-job-seekers-2026-01-21/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat... https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/21/business/ai-hiring-tools-lawsuit-eightfold-fcra.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/21/business/ai-hiring-tools-...
woah 4mo ago
Wait... are you saying that talking about an ex-colleague with anyone (without filing a bunch of paperwork or something) is a "giant loophole in the Fair Credit Reporting Act"?
- chaosharmonic 4mo ago
  Yes. But to be clear, since "anyone" is vague: I specifically mean talking to hiring teams, about ex-colleagues who haven't given them permission to ask around in the first place. Because the Fair Credit Reporting Act governs background checks. It isn't limited to money, or to scoring -- it covers any third party that reports data about you, for the sake of determining if you're eligible for anything from a loan to an apartment to a job. The language of it is broad enough that it doesn't just cover your spending and payment habits, but extends to your general habits, criminal history, personal character, and "mode of living." I'm saying the behavior normalized by recruiters is a giant loophole in the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Because when they proactively reach out to random individuals you worked with, to ask you for your views on them as a reference, without your consent, that is an exploit. It is a workaround. It is skirting the actual intentions of the thing, because its scope is limited to "agencies" -- which, no matter how broad that term might be, still ultimately means third party data collectors. If something your boss said about you came up on a background check, you would have a right to know about it. But if someone on a hiring team goes behind your back to that same boss, for those same comments, that is widely accepted as fine and normal. That's the part that's a real problem.
  - pseudalopex 4mo ago
    Part of the law was broad. Part of the law was narrow. How did you establish the broad part was intended broad and the narrow part was not intended narrow?
    - chaosharmonic 4mo ago
      I mean, I'm more than willing to take the reductive approach and just say that the purpose of a system is what it does. But if we assume that it wasn't designed maliciously, we can look at this through another lens: FICO already existed at the time, so banks in particular would simply have no reason to bother calling around to all of your former creditors in the first place. They would also probably need a third party agency just to find your former creditors.
- 4mo ago
autoexec 4mo ago
Companies have been using data brokers to get info on potential employees for ages in violation of the law. The law has almost zero enforcement and when something is done nobody does to prison. It's almost always just the government wanting a cut of the action. For example: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2012/06/spokeo-pay-800000-settle-ftc-charges-company-allegedly-marketed-information-employers-recruiters https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2012/06/... https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2014/04/two-data-brokers-settle-ftc-charges-they-sold-consumer-data-without-complying-protections-required https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2014/04/...
- _DeadFred_ 4mo ago
  Prison is a limitation of freedom of movement. The equivalent for a company should be the limiting of movement of shares (no shares bought/sold/traded) for the duration of an imposed sentence. Since corporations are people and all, there needs to be an equivalent punishment.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4mo ago
    Frankly, I'd just prefer really huge fines, preferably scaled as a percentage of either gross or net revenue or profit.
    - autoexec 4mo ago
      Unless that percentage was over 100% of the profit they'd still be making money from doing illegal things and the fines just become a cost of doing business.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 4mo ago
        Who said the fines had to be under 100% ?
    - _DeadFred_ 4mo ago
      Going that route instead of fines it should be a percentage of ownership made public. That: 1. Dilutes that shares, punishing the people who can effect the most change (shareholders) 2. Puts the government on the inside. With ownership, the government can then demand access/knowledge that they can't from a purely private company. And no company is going to want to deal with that headache if they don't have to.

Aurornis 4mo ago

Every employer would send "We have decided not to continue with your application" once your entry in the database reaches the legally-mandated timeout period. The part you wouldn't like is the unintended consequences: Every company would be forced to use an ATS to manage applicants, and all hiring would have to be pushed through the ATS. The ATS would have some default timeout where candidates who aren't hired get the e-mail to comply with the law. Nothing is gained because you're not getting real information, but now every company must force you to apply through an ATS portal to make sure every e-mail receives that alert. I know it's frustrating, but stacking laws like this doesn't get useful information out of companies but it does force the application process to revolve around demonstrating compliance with the regulations.

optionalsquid 4mo ago
> Every employer would send "We have decided not to continue with your application". That would still be a big improvement over just getting ghosted
- godwinson__4-8 4mo ago
  Doubtful you would still feel that way if it became the legally mandated norm. The reason ghosting is offensive is it feels so disrespectful and impersonal. How is some bland automated message triggered by a cron job any better? The automated message doesn't respect or care about you, no person would have put any thought into it. It would be entirely automated. If that makes you feel better it is suggestive of a deeper problem. Getting ghosted is part of life. At least its an authentic representation that you aren't worth someone's time. It seems more spontaneous, less premeditated. That's life. You just have to learn to get over it.
  - mullingitover 4mo ago
    > The reason ghosting is offensive is it feels so disrespectful and impersonal. That part is annoying, but the open-ended nature of it is a true problem. Having a deadline on a thumbs up/down decision at least lets you move on with your life.

mxkopy 4mo ago

You’re conflating being ghosted with ghost jobs, which are positions that are posted but are never intended to be filled (usually cited as for data collection purposes). These waste people’s precious time while they apply for jobs.