undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgnicholas7y ago0 comments

Interestingly, if they give concrete technical reasons why people weren't hired in most cases, then telling some people that they were "not a fit" could actually raise a red flag.

Basically, it tells them that there was no technical reason not to hire them, which raises the question of whether it was something illegitimate.

0 comments

presscast7y ago

This gets right to the heart of the issue, IMHO. Hiring has become such a litigation-prone process that companies are now incentivized to leak as little information as possible.

It's sad because nobody wins -- companies get sued for petty nothings, candidates who have been wronged have no recourse, and candidates aren't given the feedback they need to improve themselves.

Our startup isn't hiring yet, but I must confess this kind of thing has me worried...

EliRivers7y ago

Hiring has become such a litigation-prone

Where? I've never seen anyone sue a company for not hiring them, and no company I've ever worked at has been sued for not hiring someone. If it was litigation-prone, I'd expect to see some litigation. I don't work in the US; maybe this is a weird US thing? Maybe people who do work in the US can give us some numbers? What proportion of companies one has worked for have been sued for not hiring someone? Or in a given year, what proportion of rejected interview candidates come back to sue the company?

pvaldes7y ago

> I've never seen anyone sue a company for not hiring them

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6067331/Swedish-Musl...

1 more reply

btilly7y ago

It is a weird US thing, and nobody can give you numbers because the existence and outcome of these lawsuits is never talked about (most are settled out of court).

But talk to anyone in HR and you'll hear, "The stories that I've seen, if only I could tell you!"

1 more reply

pmiller27y ago

It may raise the question, but it’s not evidence, and it’s not actionable. No lawyer would ever take a case based on a lack of interview feedback, or “not a fit.”

presscast7y ago

No, but it might prompt someone to dig deeper. I think companies are starting to treat the hiring process as a security risk and are trying to minimize the attack-surface.

pmiller27y ago

To anyone who’s try “digging deeper” in a situation like this, I say good luck.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

presscast7y ago

This gets right to the heart of the issue, IMHO. Hiring has become such a litigation-prone process that companies are now incentivized to leak as little information as possible.

It's sad because nobody wins -- companies get sued for petty nothings, candidates who have been wronged have no recourse, and candidates aren't given the feedback they need to improve themselves.

Our startup isn't hiring yet, but I must confess this kind of thing has me worried...

EliRivers7y ago

Hiring has become such a litigation-prone

pvaldes7y ago

> I've never seen anyone sue a company for not hiring them

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6067331/Swedish-Musl...

1 more reply

btilly7y ago

It is a weird US thing, and nobody can give you numbers because the existence and outcome of these lawsuits is never talked about (most are settled out of court).

But talk to anyone in HR and you'll hear, "The stories that I've seen, if only I could tell you!"

1 more reply

pmiller27y ago

It may raise the question, but it’s not evidence, and it’s not actionable. No lawyer would ever take a case based on a lack of interview feedback, or “not a fit.”

presscast7y ago

No, but it might prompt someone to dig deeper. I think companies are starting to treat the hiring process as a security risk and are trying to minimize the attack-surface.

pmiller27y ago

To anyone who’s try “digging deeper” in a situation like this, I say good luck.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse