Comment on đŁđŁđŁ
TheGiantKorean@lemmy.world â¨19⊠â¨hours⊠ago
Itâs a real bummer interviewing these external applicants that you know wonât get the job. Like I wish I could just let them know, but weâre required to go through the entire interview process.
TheTetrapod@lemmy.world â¨17⊠â¨hours⊠ago
As someone in the inside, whatâs the rationale behind having to publicly post jobs like this? Why canât you just offer the job to the person you want to give it to?
AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world â¨15⊠â¨hours⊠ago
Itâs because of anti-discrimination laws. In some US states it can be illegal to hire someone for a position without posting it publicly. The concern is that if youâre not posting the job publicly, it can be because you want to prevent certain people from applying.
When you do post it publicly, the company can demonstrate that they allowed anyone to apply, show records that they considered multiple people for the job, and then decided on the internal candidate the best fit. No room for a discrimination lawsuit.
Source: Iâm a hiring manager at a multi-billion dollar company and have actually learned a thing or two from annual compliance training over the years.
AeonFelis@lemmy.world â¨14⊠â¨minutes⊠ago
In other words - like 99% of the laws: good
publicityintentions meets reality.Norin@lemmy.world â¨16⊠â¨hours⊠ago
In academia (my line of work) theyâre required to have positions posted and open for a certain amount of time, interview a certain number of applicants, etc.
In theory, itâs for equal opportunity and finding the best person for the job.
In practice, itâs a waste of time, money, and hope.
EtherWhack@lemmy.world â¨16⊠â¨hours⊠ago
Likely corporate and/or legal politics. I would imagine things not unlike EEOP loopholing would play a big role in it. (Yes, govâment we are offering this opening to âanyoneâ. So, send that funding check right over)