I have known many people that have picked up and moved across the country for "the dream job," only to return, a couple of months later, tail between their legs, because the job turned out to be unsuitable in any of a dozen different ways (usually, it was because the duties did not match what they were told, but I know of at least one case, where the pay was drastically reduced, or they were hired as a contractor, even though they were told it was a salaried employee of the corporation).
Companies are huge and they can hurt many people at scale. Individuals are small, relatively powerless and easy to manipulate. Especially if they don't organise themselves. Spreading information is the first step of getting organised.
I would not encourage people early-to-mid-career, to do this.
I've had recruiters claim that if I use the offer they got me to negotiate a raise from my current employer, they'll make sure I never work in this town again - and yet recruiters keep calling.
Maybe it's less prevalent than it has been in the past, but managers hate "troublemakers," even if the "troublemakers" are 100% correct.
Also, this is a FAANG company. Get problems there, it's likely to metastasize. It would be another thing, if it were BillyBob's WebApp Emporium.
Really. I know people with felony convictions for serious crimes who got back into the industry they offended against. It turns out that background check firms are only reliable when the applicant has no criminal background, heheh.
Honest critique is one thing, mob mentality outrage is not an honest critique.
Would you encourage the same policy of not naming the the accused parties with the #meToo movement? Because it's not productive or worthwhile to focus on a few individuals? And where would that movement have gotten if none of the parties involved had ever been named?
The other commenter basically said focusing outrage was not problematic. I don't have any issue with honesty and transparency around hiring practices. However, I do think the appropriate place to do something like that would be on a site like glassdoor, and not a platform like twitter. I think as a country we have way more than enough "outrage" at the moment, I don't see any benefit to adding fuel to fire and communicating it a way that is likely going stir up hashtag vomit.
They deserve the outrage and the outrage is the only thing that's gonna fix this.
Also to answer your question. Literally every single positive change in this country has come out of focused outrage.
Civil rights movement LGBT rights Women's rights The basic amount of worker and consumer rights.
What is being discussed is responsibility for actions.
Someone deserves to be named and shamed, with the caveat of, there must be an agreement to actually accept the results of further digging.
If the recruiter said yes to a remote position that wasn't, the fault is rightly on the recruiter. If the recruiter was told remote was fine only for eventual reneg when ink was being put to paper... That is absolutely a reputation hit the client of said recruiter needs to take.
Fixing a fault requires identification, localization & characterization, and remediation.
This fault has been identified, but not localized and characterized.
Ergo, if remediation is the goal, naming and shaming absolutely needs to happen.
And everyone involved, up to the company execs making the decision themselves should understand the importance of this dynamic unless they've all been playing games to get to where they are, in which case, the callout is doubly needed.
They will lie to you, blatantly.
They'll use non-standard English that will have tons of ambiguities and brokenness. I believe this is a benefit to them, to provide ambiguity.
The remote/hybrid/in-person status is whatever you ask, and will be updated to the real answer when talking to the client.
The job will flip/flop from to w2 and c2c by whatever you seem to express.
Pay is whatever they think you will like.
There's "benefits" until it flips to contract with no benefits.
Now, that's not to say that a standard American recruiter is somehow good. They're also pretty sketch as well. But so far, in 2y of looking for a new job, 100% of the Indian recruiters have not "did the needful" for me.
Why do you believe the company should be able to keep bad behavior secret?
Credibility is paramount on these things, and a recruiter doing this is wasting people's time and money.
We don't even need to promote much discussion on it TBH. If OP is to be believed, the company blatantly lied to OP and wasted a large chunk of his time.
Just like in anything else in life, if someone is not held to the consequences of their actions, they'll keep doing it.
It's frankly pathetic if this remains the norm for our profession.
It's not like most of us applicants go in, blatantly lie, and waste the companies time. We, and every other worked applying to any job, should at least be treated the same as a bare minimum.
Sounds like a 'win' to me.