Re: [tlug] Ghosted?

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <steve@example.com>]

Josh Glover writes:

 > This doesn't help anyone in Japan, but in Sweden, employers are
 > required to provide a candidate with a reason for rejection *and*
 > detailed feedback.

Interesting.  I really don't see how that works with an employer (or
individual manager, as seems to be Jim's case) operating in bad faith.
Even if you don't eventually make a hire, the reason can always be "we
found multiple better candidates" and it wasn't worth pursuing this
one further.  The detailed feedback can't be cookie-cutter, I suppose,
but it's probably easy to come up with patterns such that variations
on the theme will satisfy regulators/courts, and at least one will
apply to almost all rejected candidates.

It does establish a useful norm.

 > The burden of proof is on the employer to demonstrate that they did
 > not discriminate against a candidate in any legally protected
 > group.

That's useful, and I'd like to see it become a global norm (again,
incel you very much MAGA).  It's a completely different thing from
providing feedback useful to the recruiter or the candidate, though.

 > Candidates can go further and exercise their rights under the GDPR
 > to *all* documentation related to their application process,
 > including not only feedback entered into any HR system used for
 > recruiting, but also raw notes written by interviewers. This
 > actually applies to anyone applying to a European company.

"Is you taking notes on a criminal f---ing conspiracy?"  No, of course
not! :-)

I'm really a nice guy, I just think it's useful to be able to think
like a devil. O:-)

-- 
GNU Mailman consultant (installation, migration, customization)
Sirius Open Source    https://www.siriusopensource.com/
Software systems consulting in Europe, North America, and Japan