[ironmagma]

Glassdoor itself encourages users not to post anything factual, only opinion-based, because of the legal consequences [1]. Glassdoor is more like a Google business review than a background check anyway.

Also your estimation of HN users is probably out of date with the current state of the employment market.

[1] https://help.glassdoor.com/s/article/Tips-on-writing-a-revie...

[JumpCrisscross]

WARN notices are public.

> your estimation of HN users is probably out of date with the current state of the employment market

You're probably not around start-ups if layoffs are a top concern.

[ironmagma]

I worked at startups for 7 years. Interestingly, WARN acts are mostly irrelevant for startups because they are only triggered when a certain number of people are about to be laid off (100 or more, I believe). When an employer accesses your employment record, they can see very detailed information. A WARN act filing is neither comprehensive nor detailed.

[JumpCrisscross]

> WARN acts are mostly irrelevant for startup

Well yes. If you're at a startup you should assume you're always a few months from being laid off. Everyone should assume that. You're fighing to survive; the default is dead.

Dropbox, on the other hand, is not a start-up. It's had to file WARN notices [1]. "Nobody can do a background check on a company to see who they laid off or fired before they work there" is false.

[1] https://www.warntracker.com/company/dropbox

[ironmagma]

Once again, an employment check is not like a WARN act filing. I want to know for a given startup exactly who was fired and why, when, etc.

It’s one thing to be laid off from a startup in general. Another entirely to be laid off right now.

The number of recent layoffs is everyone’s concern right now because of how hard it will be for you to find a job afterward. Layoffs always were going on, and always will for startups, but the days of turning down job offers due to small uncertainties are mostly paused or gone at this point. The demand crunch is very real.

[JumpCrisscross]

> I want to know for a given startup exactly who was fired and why, when, etc.

What? I don't want you to know when I was fired and why. Employment reports typically don't contain the why either because that's litigation bait.

[ironmagma]

They at least contain exactly who you worked for and the time period as well as possibly your title. None of that is provided in the WARN act.

[johnnyanmac]

I thought the one and only thing HR would confirm when background check is employment dates. it's shakey on if they will delineate between termination, layoffs/RiF, or simply leaving, though.

>Why does knowing the titles and time periods of those laid off in the past help you estimate your lay-off odds in the future?

I don't know. Why does knowing my titles and time period help businesses judge how useful I'll be for this new position? It's the same issue but that's where the asymmetry is. People seem fine with big business being able to do that but not prospective employees who may care about retention rates.

But to answer your question: retentions rates let me know how hard the company will try to keep me during bad/down times. Someone who can't even retain for 2 years probably has smoke.