UBER ATC is disguising research as fake job interviews? | Hacker News Reader

UBER ATC is disguising research as fake job interviews?

imgur.com

133 pointsrl331 comments

I'm pretty sure they did the same thing for their marketing manager position. You are expected to come up with 2-3 marketing campaigns, and make a deck for them. Then they use the ideas regardless if you're hired.

They did do this for a marketing manager position that a coworker ended up taking. I can confirm, because she had me proofread everything.

Unfortunately it's hard to separate this from legitimate requests for work sample based interviewing tasks.

If you send them something of economic value, there is no way to prove that it was thrown away. There is also no reason to throw it away - they should just pay you.

If you work for free, you are... working for free.

Sure there is. If they ask you to do something that they would legitimately ask an employee to do, there's a good chance they're looking to get some free work (or maybe the interview is genuine but they want to get free work out of the people they decline). As an employer, if you're trying to come up with a good work sample to request, you need to request something that's obviously not "real" work. In the case of the marketing manager, you could ask for 2-3 ad campaigns, but have them be campaigns for an obviously fake brand (ideally one in a different line of work entirely).

I request work samples from applicants with the same brief that would be given to a task currently facing our internal team. It makes it easy to compare candidates not only to each other but to our internal team. As our internal team has the project fresh in their mind they're aware of the requirements, scope, and limitations of the project. It makes them better able to judge the candidate's work.

Of course we pay them for this work at a predefined rate.

If you pay your candidates, then by all means ask whatever real question you want.

Yea, this is what I recommended to my coworker who ended up taking the marketing manager job. Ask to be paid for the work in exchange for Uber receiving exclusive use of it. Not sure if she ended up asking for it though. They still save money on this, and they should be well aware of the benefits of non-employees performing work.

Record your interviews and rain down a shitstorm on anyone who tries to pull this.

Anyone who has been on both sides of the hiring table would find this account of things implausible.

First of all, running someone through a full interview cycle is hideously expensive. Just by his own account, it seems like some 10 man hours of Uber's time was spent solely to usher just one person through this cycle.

Secondly, the results of work samples are rarely of much value. Outsiders are missing key information and perspectives that affect the viability of their work samples. Even if genuinely good work did come out of one of these samples, the initial conception of the idea is only a starting point and the least valuable component. How the idea is executed and refined is far more important and it's usually far more prudent to hire the person interviewing to work on it than to save the money of going through with the charade.

What's a far more likely explanation is that Uber learned over the course of the interviewing process that their requirements had changed and retooled towards a new approach. This happens all the time and isn't especially nefarious. Yes, Uber should have been more proactive in notifying prospective candidates about this but companies seem almost universally bad at communicating effectively through the hiring loop.

When I see stories like this trending on Reddit, Twitter, or Hacker news, am I too paranoid in thinking that just maybe some of them are marketing plays meant to manipulate the reader into siding with one company or the other? It would be so easy for them to do this.

Definitely paranoid - the number of stories about bad things Uber does is a lot higher than any other company around! To believe this is competitors trying to throw dirt on Uber, why don't we see more negative press about other companies?

You'd have to believe that a significant number of parties are out to get Uber (and not others), which doesn't seem right to me?

Stories like this appear all the time. Uber is certainly not the first company to issue homework, not respond, or spam out interviews.

Sounds about right. This is the norm based from my experience interviewing with startups as an engineer. It shouldn't be acceptable to waste candidates time like this. Yet there is every motivation to since it's basically IP for free.

Bring an NDA for your interviewers to sign.

What IP are you referring to? How to deal with a 4-way stop sign? There's no IP produced in this guy's story.

https://www.uber.com/careers/list/20169/ here's a link to the career post for the alleged job title

This could be part of a negative campaign, anybody else have any real knowledge/experience of this happening?

Never trust anything without 3rd party confirmation, especially in this era of "viral" marketing

Uber has a long track record of shitty practices and lawbreaking?

Agreed. Imgur is notorious for less than truthful posts, and it's an especially curious medium for an allegation of this nature.

That said, this was the only source (not to mention the original source), so I posted it. If it turns out to be bullshit, please flag it into oblivion.

a little bit of internet sleuthing on the username didn't turn up much, but it has been around for at least 5 months

I can confirm they do ask homework questions that they could potentially steal work from. I interviewed for an ML position and was also given a fairly specific homework problem, and was not followed up on nor given information on how I failed when I asked. Of course I have no idea if they used my work or not, nor could I know.

What? You think it's fake? That'd be like making a fake negative claim against Trump.

Something shady and unethical from Uber? That doesn't sound like the Uber I know.

I've been on both sides of job interviews; never confuse malice with incompetence. I once worked with a manager who screwed up the interview process so much that he was walked out.

> She then tells me that Uber had changed the job from direct hire to Temp to Hire and that they now want 500 people. She said she did not know how this was even possible and it doesn't seem like they want to hire anyone.

This is not incompetence.

I had this happen to me and some of my friends a long time (10y) ago while interviewing for different positions and Cisco.

It's why I always offer to present this kind of output only in person now. If they're scamming at least I don't throw away hours of work or ideas without first getting an opportunity to interview the hiring manager as well.

This seems to align quite well with their number 1 value - 'hustle'. With all the cost-cutting going on in their US offices this seems like a good way for them to save some cash, and hustle their way to free research. I admire their guile, but hate the way they treat people.

Happens all the time to me. I have an interview and they probe for details on how to solve a problem. It is what it is. Two of the three companies I liked hired me the second time I interviewed for them. I'm a freelancer, so I move around a lot.

And what is the significance of this? Seriously, is there going to be some consequence to Uber by doing this? Is this practice illegal? Or it is just morally condemnable?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com