>> Same back at ya. I want to know everything about my employer since so many are freaks and crooks. So, turn over your computer Internet logs so I can see what kind of pervet you are.
Ha ha! Good one! FAIR ENOUGH of you to ask!
Today my reply is “No Thank You.”
Next Coad Toad in line, please? :-)
(because code toads are a dime a dozen these days, and I don’t need one who comes off as a PITA from the get-go.)
The lesson here is hiring is market driven. I have hired back in code toad boom times too, when employers had to grit their teeth and put up with a certain amount of this crap from potential hirees.
I prefer it this way, of course. And no offense to you — I get your point.
You make it sound as if a business has all the power. The fact is no business survives when they act badly. They need employees. I’ve seen countless companies fold because they were idiots that had bad attitudes and treated people badly. I’ve seen others that got sued out of business. Yours would be one of them. Demanding for such information is a violation of all kinds of laws and would subject yourself and the company to lawsuits that would put you under.
Well, where I come from your word and your reputation are important. If you like to push your employees around like a bully then word will get out, news will spread (I am sure it already has) that you are an authoritarian type and like to squash the bugs. Great thing is, the better people will not come to work for you, won’t interview with you, and you will see less and less quality in your perspective employees. Eventually the market will shift again, and you will go begging, and your reputation, your honor, your past treatment of employees will come back to haunt you.
You are correct, it is Market Driven. What kind of market are you building?
As an employee or employer, you have to consider factors which are relevant to your career or your business. Following the market makes you a follower, not a leader. I try to be discriminating, because taking the wrong job or hiring the wrong person can be very expensive. From the employers' perspective, wasting time on applicants is a real issue. But if you are willing to bring a person in for an interview, then you should be willing to entertain questions which may be uncomfortable but relevant. for example if a non-disclosure agreement is part of an interview I usually ask to know what I shouldn't disclose. If the employer touts financial success then asking for a glimpse of audited financials is relevant. If an applicant claims experience in a particular area asking detailed questions about it is relevant.
I make a point of not letting my employer constrain my skills so that I do not remain employable or marketable. I make a point of maintaining and acquiring skills which keep me in the upper quartile of desirable applicants.
Employers who want to be market leaders should not hire workers as fungible resources. This creates an intrinsic bias against synergy. The value created by people working together enthusiastically and cooperating is many times greater than what each may accomplish as a replaceable part. Similarly the damage caused by disgruntled workers working at odds with other may be many times greater than a what a single unhappy worker may cause, and it's even worse when the disgruntled people team up against the employer (see unions, heheh).
It is a fallacy to think this does not apply to your special case. History is littered with such failures, they just don't get as much press.