Hacker News Reader

Comment by woof | Hacker News Reader

I don't see the drama, but then again I'm a guy (40+). If he just waited a few weeks with that second mail, we could hardly fault him for being unprofessional could we?

I don't believe she would have gotten then job with another interviewer (the "more experience" part sounds plausible).

And if she was a really interesting candidate, another tech screen or phone interview would be natural.

I'd tell any friend to say "thanks, but no thanks" and move on.

(If he's that creepy, he'd get her the job and hit on her then)

View on HN

>I don't believe she would have gotten then job with another interviewer (the "more experience" part sounds plausible).

please don't speculate, as she said if they were looking for "more experience" why would he interviewed her in the first place? He also admitted that her cv was interesting

>(If he's that creepy, he'd get her the job and hit on her then) hitting on a co-worker is much more complicated than hitting on someone outside the company. that's the point.

He is clearly abusing his position of power, it's not ethical and probably also against the company's policy.

You're speculating in the same breath with which you say not to speculate. We don't know why they interviewed her, and frankly we interview people fairly often that don't have the requisite experience on paper because we know it often has little to do with what's on the paper, a lesson HN readers are VERY familiar with (the whole "meritocracy" thing).

based on the information we have he didn't do anything to test her experience.

> He is clearly abusing his position of power

He holds no position of power over her after the interview is over.

Obviously, he would if he had asked her out in the middle of the interview (now that would be way worse).

>please don't speculate

Come on...

>He is clearly abusing his position of power

What power? He's both unprofessional and socially inept, but he holds no power over her at that stage.

> What power? He's both unprofessional and socially inept, but he holds no power over her at that stage.

he can still hire her

EDIT: changed citation

That is some serious speculation! There is no way you could possibly know if he has that power just from what she wrote.

if he could hire her before the email, he can hire her after.

Did you read the post?

> A few minutes later he sent me an email saying he'd spoken to his team and they were looking for someone with a lot more experience

It was a team decision, and while the quote is not final, points more to the fact that he _isn't_ able to just unanimously reverse the decision. At that point, the entire team would have to be colluding.

I've read the post, except the screening interview (that went well, otherwise she wouldn't be there) the only direct interaction she had was with this (creepy) guy so they rely on him for the final decision.

>If he just waited a few weeks with that second mail, we could hardly fault him for being unprofessional could we?

We could fault him for being sexist - she'd have to wonder if she didn't get the job because he wanted to date her.

That's sort of the Catch-22. A guy simply can't ask a girl he likes out. A girl who's unqualified feels slighted because a guy is interested in her. What has this world come to?

It's come to a place where you don't date at work. You know, the place it's been.

> (If he's that creepy, he'd get her the job and hit on her then)

This may not be creepy so much as the optimal strategy for avoiding internet outrage if she rejects your advances... Does everyone here seriously have no idea how much office hooking up goes on in the world, or is it only okay if the date is asked for after work hours on the elevator?

Here's a scenario: you and your coworker end up at a bar together, maybe for a team event or something. There's alcohol involved. Nobody got coerced into being there. You're not her superior. Can one of the two people hit on the other in that context?

Sure.

What's wrong is, after it's clear the advances are unwanted (a single but firm "no" is sufficient), continuing to make them. What's also wrong, though a lesser wrong since the signal can be missed, is the initial hitting on someone who has already signaled they don't want to be hit on. Wedding bands once served as a great social signal for this, "Don't hit on someone with a wedding band" is a simple rule to observe and follow, but marriage is dead, so it's not as useful. "Don't hit on co-workers" is also a simple rule to observe and follow, but come on. Enforcing that would eliminate a lot of happiness couples derive from such relationships, whereas enforcing the wedding band rule when marriage meant something wouldn't.

Boy, you're really going out of your way to defend some guy you don't know who already admitted that what he did was wrong.

Because there's more at stake here than just "some guy who admitted he was wrong." People are jumping on this as yet another example of how horribly "male" the entire industry, how hostile it is to females, etc.

yet another example of how horribly "male" the entire industry, how hostile it is to females, etc.

Yes it is, exactly. And the grandparent comment is yet another example how people will contort any way they can to give men behaving in unacceptable ways towards women the most charitable possible interpretation.

Hey, I'm a male chauvinist pig. What can I do?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_NtJuMVAAAt7PP.jpg

Exactly.

If this was my daughter I'd tell her that he's an socially inept idiot she should avoid. He is not the "industry" and probably not even representative of his company.

If he pulled a stunt like this at a later stage (ie. under negotiations) I'd tell her to call a lawyer!

You don't agree with me, so you question my motives?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com