Layoffs push down scores on Glassdoor – how companies respond

2. Ask "What do you like about working here?". If there's pushback or defensiveness, red flag.

3. Ask "If you were in my position, would you take this job?". Would they gladly take this job, or is there hesitation/defiance/pushback?

4. Ask "What does your organization know and believe about psychological safety?" - This is an institutional question about https://hbr.org/2023/02/what-is-psychological-safety

5. Ask "What are your values and how do you hold people accountable to live them?" (Does the org follow their own guidance, or is it just for show?)

6. Ask "What happens to employees who make mistakes?" - is this a 1 and done? This also pairs with psychological safety.

7. Ask "What happens to employees when they challenge the status quo?" (As an engineer or similar lead technological role, you will be continually pushing tech. How does the company respond to that?)

8. And for you to ask yourself: "Is the interview conversational or scripted?"

9. Was the interview genuine happiness, or faked? Would the people you would work with actually happy what they're doing?

10. How do you feel after the interview? Is there something that felt off? Can you identify it?

I don’t see how Glassdoor would have any liability unless they were somehow presenting it as their own opinion.

They might want to take it down as part of overall community moderation if it violates their TOS of course, say if it includes cursing, or has racist remarks or whatever.

I’m pointing out libel has a definition, and posting what is clearly an opinion isn’t it. It has to be making statements which are presenting false facts as true.

That they’ll almost certainly find ways to take down ‘undesired’ messages that paying customers don’t like seems like something they do, which is shitty and undermines their nominal reason for existing, is… sad but seems to be what is going on. Nothing to do with libel.

Stating ‘x killed y’, even if I wholeheartedly believe it is libel if it turns out someone else killed y, and x had reputational damage due to my statement. I’m asserting something is true, full stop.

Stating ‘in my opinion, x killed y’, if I wholeheartedly believe it, is not libel, even in the same situation, because even if x did not kill y, it is still true it was my opinion that it was true, and I was being clear about that. I wasn’t asserting facts, I was asserting my opinion. Opinions are protected, as long as they can’t be confused with false assertions of facts.

Now, if it turns out there is evidence that I didn’t actually have that opinion and it was all a game to destroy x’s reputation, I might still get hit.

It’s the same reason ‘allegedly’ gets used by the press so much when someone gets arrested.

Regardless of what the courts find later, it was indeed alleged. And that matters if someone tries to come after them later. Which happens.

The news sells itself as making factual reports (except for ‘entertainment’ or ‘editorial’ sections), and can’t get away with saying it’s all just an opinion.

If you have pointers to case law that disagrees, I’d much appreciate it!

Ah, well, it's all water under the bridge. After a few of these hazin- er, interviews, I got the message, and accepted that I'm in early retirement, and I work for free, these days.

I know quite a few, and none of them make a fraction of what they could, outside academia. Some, are, quite literally, on public assistance, with Ph.Ds.

The healthcare industry is rife with bad behavior. Their practice is restricted, but their behavior ... not so much.

Same with lawyers. They have very intense ethics laws, but they are about the practice, not the personal behavior.

But you are correct. It is a "broad brush," and not really a worthy argument.

I think the number one issue, that people keep forgetting, is that younger folks are fearfully insecure. I certainly was.

Even when we project great confidence, we still know, in our hearts, that we're whistling past the graveyard. It's really bravado, meant to help us feel better about ourselves.

As we get older, that particular insecurity starts to dissipate. It might get replaced by cynicism and fatalism, or fear about personal security, but the idea that we aren't "good enough," tends to lose steam. We become fairly aware of what we can (and, even more importantly -can't) do, and can often see the mistakes before they have a chance to metastasize.

Insecure folks don't want to be around people that remind them of their frailty; even if it costs them. That insecurity is painful. We may be very intelligent, well-educated, and creative, but we haven't had the forge of experience, and the infused carbon, to create the steel. We're still running on raw pig iron.

The other issue, is the "cargo cult" belief that younger folks can do the impossible, because they haven't had bitter, cynical "olds" tell them that it's impossible. That sounds silly, but I've actually heard exactly that, from a number of intelligent, well-educated people. It's a compelling myth, and many folks buy into it; hook, line, and sinker.

Basically, Wile. E. Coyote doesn't fall, until he looks down. If you don't have people around, that yell "Look down!", then you can fly.

And, finally, we all remember when we were "free," and didn't have things "weighing us down," like families and other obligations. We assume that we will always be able to remain completely self-absorbed, mobile, and somewhat hedonistic. "Digital Nomads" don't deal so well with families. I was raised by a pair of high-functioning Peter Pans, and can report that it's hard on the kids.

As long as the older folks had the power and the money, the younger folks were forced to work with them (and grow through their insecurities). However, if younger folks have the power and the money, they can prevent older folks from participating.

The number of folks who can meet that bar are very, very low.

One I did get to stick was the car dealership that tried to scam me into ~$1k in unneeded fluid changes, where I posted the exact times, amounts, and a photo of the written quote (with quote #) they gave me after I demanded it in writing - in the middle of their public showroom where they couldn’t try to avoid it.

It’s a jungle out there, and yes the review sites are a problem too.

the police are also not very helpful either in many cases. I had someone at Bestbuy steal a VERY expensive TV from me (I ordered it for pickup, but when I got there a few hours later it had ‘already been picked up’ - and definitely not by me), and got clear self serving bullshit from the store manager, including ‘we’ll call the police, you don’t need to do it’ - which they didn’t - and went home.

When I called the police later, they required me to drive there (the store was an hour away), and wait for awhile before they’d even dispatch anyone to even take a report, let alone do anything. So figure several hours, just to get a report in.

This was solid felony territory too.

Like the Amazon reviews talking about a bicycle when the produce someone is looking at is a random usb stick.

And if a competitor targeted someone, the Glassdoor reviews should be subpeonable, and there is a legal framework for extracting compensation in that case. Takes a lot of time and effort though.

Besides, Uber’s attack on Lyft there was direct. The idea that someone would poison Glassdoor reviews if a competitor in the hopes of making it harder to hire good people who looked at Glassdoor, in the hopes that not having those particular people would weaken the competitor in the long run… it’s risible.

where I am not only are salary ranges mandatory on job ads but company also have to publicly disclose a lot of stats wages/salaries. Median, average, quartiles etc. for all full time and part time employees.

Blind also targets having communities for people inside companies to talk, and facilitating discussion. Glassdoor is mainly about reviewing companies.