[derelicto]

This is very anecdotal, but I have a friend that interviewed at Google for a Remote SWE position - everything indicated that it was remote: the posting, the recruiter and the hiring manager.

Now they announced RTO, his manager said: "We're excited to have you at the office" - he was really confused about this messaging, so they forced him to apply to work remotely (even if he had been hired as such) denied his application on the grounds that this SWE role that requires a lot of cross regional interaction and virtual meetings - requires "intense collaboration that you can only get in an office". Total BS.

Needless to say he's leaving. This is such a travesty, total misdirection.

[sweettea]

I too interviewed at Google for a remote position; we got through team matching, and I'd found a great new potential manager, before one of his bosses nixed the idea of me being permanently remote. My recruiter ended up finding me another team match under a different director where I could be permanently remote, but the delay and difficulty was a major factor in me going to Facebook, which has a strong commitment to remote work.

Just to be clear, I really loved my Google recruiters -- they were very forthright and open with me during the whole process, and the Facebook recruiter was honest too. Great recruiting experiences. They worked really hard to move fast, and I think I went from initial phone screen to offer at FB within two weeks, and from phone screen to team matching at Google within three.

[cvhashim]

G is losing candidates given how long the team matching process takes place.

[dymk]

I know multiple people (including myself) who have passed up opportunities at Google because of how long it takes for them to make a hiring decision. It's incredible how much value they must be leaving on the table.

At some point, Google won't be the kind of place that people wait around for. Then they're really screwed.

[blagie]

No, they're kinda screwed right now.

Google used to hire A+ players -- the cream of the cream of the crop. The workforce at early Google was spectacular. Everyone wanted to work there -- tenured faculty were leaving their jobs.

Right now, Google hires good people, but the very best people I know all work elsewhere (and many are former Googlers).

Nonsense like this won't discourage B or C players, who fight tooth-and-nail to get there, but it does discourage the people were Google is fighting for individuals with other employers.

I haven't heard any elite university faculty leave for Google in close to a decade, for example. It used to be common. Google would poach from Stanford and MIT.

I've seen companies go this way, and this kind of slide only tends to accelerate. Folks like Sebastian Thrun bring in the cream of Stanford, and the cream of Stanford brings in everyone else. Once you lose those top two tiers....

[dont__panic]

Their hiring process could use some serious streamlining. When I've applied in the past, it seems like recruiters have a good half hour to an hour of mandatory spheal about how their "unique" interview process works... and even if you try to tell them that you've done these kinds of interviews before, and even interviewed with Google successfully but turned an offer down before, they'll still helpfully offer you their "insider tips" to... read cracking the coding interview and brush up on data structures.

God forbid you have an unusual niche in industry -- last time I applied, the recruiter took at least two weeks with regular calls to update me on their attempt to get me an interview for the niche I work in. Google's software output definitely reflects just how bureaucratic and convoluted their hiring process has become.

[caffeine]

It’s worse than that: the only people who hang around are the ones they probably wouldn’t want.

Their hiring model is theoretically a bell curve but when you cut off the top percentiles it severely affects the resulting performance (ie you failed to hire the 20% of ppl who were going to do 80% of the good work)

[Salgat]

Google is one of the few companies that can get away with this due to the overwhelming backlog of talent they have lining up for jobs. I doubt they lose much from this process, but at a lesser company it would certainly have a far more damaging impact.

[roguas]

As was said prior. It used to be so. It is not anymore, Google is now cold messaging people on Linkedin, they were not doing that. I do not think you look for best of the best people this way.

[jorblumesea]

Part of it is just the incentives on Google to improve things, which is to say...very little pressure to change. Google, given its historical reputation and current great WLB is very sought after. Attrition is low (by faang standards), everyone wants to work there and will even take pay cuts to do so. Google loses candidates everywhere through the process and it doesn't seem to matter.

[brazzledazzle]

Considering how aggressively they prune candidates with their "false positives are better than hiring someone bad" policy you'd think they'd be more motivated to retain people they hire.

[sjg007]

Your friend probably has a claim against the company for breach of contract. When people leave a job to join a new one and incur expenses and then the new company lays them off or fires them for no fault then the judges usually side with the employee.

[jacquesm]

Indeed, and then he finds that not only is there breach of contract but that the company is also quite vindictive and will use any kind of claim as a reason to not even consider hiring you in the future, assuming that it stays within the one company and doesn't get passed around between recruiters.

[iooi]

Every background check that companies put you through include any history of litigation against employers, no need for recruiters to talk to each other.

[mschuster91]

I can understand at least the reasoning behind checking criminal history of potential hirings (even though as an European, I disagree with the concept on a fundamental level and it's illegal in Germany to demand a criminal record check outside of very specific industries).

But how on earth do civil lawsuit records in the US end up anywhere where the background-checking industry can get their grubby paws on them?!

[jrochkind1]

The simple answer to "how do civil lawsuit records end up where they can get their hands on them" is that civil lawsuit records are of course public, and available to anyone who wants them. Although I haven't specifically heard of this one before.

Are civil suit records not public not in Germany?

But hearing that a criminal history check is illegal in Germany outside of specific industries continues to reinforce my belief that everything just works right in Germany.

How do I get residency?

[mschuster91]

> Are civil suit records not public not in Germany?

Usually, the verdict of popular lawsuits is published but with all PII redacted to a reasonable degree, and you can request a redacted copy of a verdict if it hasn't been published [1].

Additionally, 99.9% of all court proceedings can be visited and listened to by anyone, the exception being matters involving minors, national security and especially if psychological examinations of the accused or participants or details of sexual and domestic violence are being discussed, highly private details of someone's life - that is usually done only for the relevant period of a proceeding.

To me, that's a fair balance between the interest of the general public and the rights of the people subjected to the court - especially that to the right to live a normal life once one has served their sentence.

[1] https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/bgh-hzivilgerichte-...

[sveme]

I would not know how to access such records. Doubt they are publicly available. Germany isn‘t perfect, but if you want to come, the blue card process is pretty straightforward. If you do python backend stuff, talk to me.

[sjg007]

They are not in a standard background check. They might show up in a Google search though.

[sillysaurusx]

Have you seen this happen in practice?

[RangerScience]

Signing for my current job, I learned that there's a legal concept for "quitting with reason", which is essentially the inverse of "firing for cause". Among a few other things, if it procs (which is excessively unlikely), my stock grant is accelerated.

The concept amounts to "a material change in working conditions", and covers pay, work load and type, work location, and location in the hierarchy (aka demotions, even if the company doesn't call it one).

(It's also why I made sure my paperwork specified "remote" rather than "LA")

[mason55]

"Promissory estoppel" is the term here as it's unlikely there was any actual breach of contract.

[sjg007]

Yes, this is what I was thinking of.

[throwawayboise]

If there was in fact a contract. Most employment is at-will.

[cvhashim]

Meanwhile FAANG leadership are taking meetings in their mountain homes and beach houses in the Mediterranean while we plebs are expected to commute on the daily.

[unethical_ban]

I think that WFH has major downsides for collaboration, but I agree with the sentiment on this thread: If they say it's remote, it should be remote.

The easy thing to do, I would think, would be to demand in the hiring contract specific language guaranteeing 90%+ "remote" work.