Same for references. The best you can realistically hope for now is written confirmation of dates you worked somewhere, your job title, and at a push (maybe) your salary, although I've never once found it's in the prospective employee's best interest to disclose previous salaries.
(Depending on where you are in the world your new employer may just be able to get this info from the government anyway or ask for your last payslip).
(Note: I am assuming this is true in the US. This is may not be true in other countries)
Job seeking is inherently a confidential activity for many people, as the interviewee want to make sure that their current job is safe before leaving for a new role. To sue a company because they didn't get the role is to put their current role at risk.
In addition, the company has a lot more power and resources than the interviewee. They can drag the process out to the point where the interviewee withdraws, runs out of money or settle. Given that, the interviewee has to have significant proof as well as resources and privilege to able to successfully sue the company.
All things considering, I don't think the idea of not providing feedback because of legal liabilities is sound.
Imagine you are GC and think about it from a risk/reward standpoint.
If you let people give feedback, given enough hires, some hiring manager will likely say something that draws a lawsuit. Doesn't matter if it is a reasonable case, that's still time, money and distraction.
And what does the company get in return? People who they didn't hire might think slightly better of it.
When you model it in terms of corporate incentives, the decision almost makes itself.
The math is pretty simple, Company has to pay its attorneys no matter what. Lawyer is working on spec, the client pays nothing out of pocket. Why would Company spend $400k on a trial that they might lose (and then pay out a 6-figure award on top of that) if they can just pay Lawyer $25k with an NDA and be done? Lawyer gets $7500 for a few days work spread over a couple months, interviewee gets almost $20k for a couple depositions, Company just "saved" $375k or potentially a lot more.
That's a hell of a lot of risk to take on just to send people an email saying "we thought it was bad that you bit the hiring manager." Just saying "we decided not to move forward with your application at this time" eliminates that risk entirely, including the $25k.
It's also tough when it's reframed in terms of 'what are your expectations'.
I was wondering what the best way to field those questions is.
Labor laws get violated all the time in interviews because most companies don't provide pre-interview warnings and most interviewers aren't familiar with the law. Outside of a few big companies that actually have been sued over this, I think most companies just don't care.
With feedback, liability just sounds like a WAY more prudent reason than "we're lazy" and "we're actually just afraid of our own employees humiliating us".
Nobody has once ever said to me "we're not hiring you because of [ethnicity]" and I'm certain they never would, but several times I have received feedback which proved incompetence.
In general I think being unwilling to give feedback is a sign that the company is not confident in the abilities of its employees and vice versa.
- pregnant women
- parents with care responsibilities
- disabled people who would need the company to make accommodations they currently don't have in place
There's a lot of scenarios that aren't immediately obvious unless they apply directly to you which is why many of those regulations exist in the first place.
In many cases, as long as your company's representatives don't explicitly say why the applicant didn't get the job, then the company is not on the hook.
It literally happened to my wife the other day - she was asked if she wanted kids. HR could have warned them not to say that. Apparently they did not.
The same companies that don't give a shit about this don't suddenly become more legally risk averse when it comes to feedback. They aren't genuinely worried that your programming test feedback might say your algorithm was too jewy or your knowledge of data structures made you look pregnant. Theyre just afraid that your feedback will make them look stupid and don't want to admit it.
Sounds like a delightful place full of delightful hiring managers.
They used to be called Personnel and their job was to keep pay salaries, keep track of vacation time, medical reimbursements and the like. Actual work. Good times.
But warning, there are fewer places to hide at SmallCo.
Although back in the day I remember them also being referred to as the Anti-Personnel department.
When the market turns around (or if? it'll turn around right guys?), all those companies that just left a bad impression need workers, which ones will get considered?
Microsoft HR has no reason to expose themselves to anything that could possibly maybe someday involve a discrimination lawsuit. So why would they allow it?
It is the job of such people to make you feel OK in hope you apply again for another position with the same company. I worked for few companies that had internal recruiters.