Re:Google pays $11M to job-seekers who alleged age discrimin...
by itp on Monday July 22, 2019 @03:42PM
(#20501571)
That's true at a lot of organizations. The cost of a false positive hire typically vastly outweighs the cost of a false negative, particularly when you have the luxury of being perceived as a premiere employer in the space (from which follows a steady stream of qualified applicants).
Re:Google pays $11M to job-seekers who alleged age discrimin...
by sandino on Monday July 22, 2019 @04:16PM
(#20501907)
I know the rationale. Then again if it's just one 1 person out of 6 (including 3 other persons who gave "very positive" reviews) then maybe that one person is just being ... negative. As the modern interviewing culture (not so subtly) incentivizes them to be.
Re:Google pays $11M to job-seekers who alleged age discrimin...
by lonelappde on Tuesday July 23, 2019 @01:32AM
(#20504640)
"Somewhat Positive" means No Hire, so it was 3/6.
Re:Google pays $11M to job-seekers who alleged age discrimin...
by sandino on Tuesday July 23, 2019 @03:35PM
(#20509557)
So "somewhat positive" = "negative" actually"?
That's what I was getting at - apparently it's negativity-driven, all the way down.
Re:Google pays $11M to job-seekers who alleged age discrimin...
by cortesoft on Monday July 22, 2019 @05:06PM
(#20502329)
Well, if the other candidates had 6 positive reviews, it makes sense.
Re:Google pays $11M to job-seekers who alleged age discrimin...
by lonelappde on Tuesday July 23, 2019 @01:32AM
(#20504643)
Why? How many openings were there, and how many other applicants?
And apparently at Google - the negatives carry the day.