Hacker News Reader

Comment by jajko | Hacker News Reader

Nope, that's just rather bland justification of cheating. Not sure how US corporations work, but in Europe any big company would flag you internally so you won't be able to work there for a decade, and the mark still remains in their hiring system afterwards. Just a stupid thing to do, as lying always is.

This are not school exams, company wants to hire the best candidate. If all fail then best failing is still the best candidate, and this can be measured and/or perceived by skilled interviewers.

View on HN

> would flag you internally

And how would they figure that out if you lie by exaggerating your experience and skills and not outright making up entirely false stuff?

Its up to interviewers but discussed matters can be checked quickly (ah you claim 10 years java backend integration experience? Ok lets dig deep. If reality is (almost) 0 thats lying in plain view).

Also not sure you understand english language, greatly exaggerating or making up stuff is still same lying, details are irrelevant.

> is still same

No it’s not the same. But at this point I’m pretty sure you don’t understand the concept of nuance.

Sure, 10 vs 0 years is obvious. Why even bring up such an example?

What about 7 vs 10 or 3 vs 5? Maybe it’s technically lying but who cares if it works out at the end? What do these numbers even mean? A person who has 3 years of experience in Java can be better than someone who technically has 5..

Especially when those N years requirements are not necessarily put in there by the people who you’re actually going to work in.

Even reneging on an offer in the US gets you blacklisted for like 5 years max. It's not personal, it's just business.

What do you mean by "reneging on an offer"? Do you mean simply turning down an offer? How is that a blacklistable offence?

It's seen as wasting their time.

Reneging on an offer means revoking it after it has been accepted, and that's poor form.

Turning down an offer puts you into a small category of "people we would hire if we had the chance" and the recruiters or hiring managers will follow up with you for some set period of time just in case something changes on your side. They already have decided you would be a good fit, after all.

But here's what I don't understand about this: wouldn't that be the company revoking the offer, not the employee? If the company revokes the offer or has "exploding offers" or whatever, that's a corporate thing, not an employee issue.

No, this is the following set of steps:

1. Person A interviews at company B

2. Company B says "we'd like to hire you at $X/year"

3. Person A says "that sounds good, I'll start in a month." Company B stops trying to fill the job.

4. Up to a month passes.

5. Person A tells company B "lol nevermind" and doesn't actually start work. Normally this is because company C is offering to pay $Y and $Y >> $X.

It's an employee issue because the employee is not following through on what they said they'd do. Because employment is at-will in the US they're legally in the clear, but the company that was planning on hiring them is still kind of screwed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com