Good way to perma yourself from the reputable hiring marketplace.

Better than Deloitte or PwC from a culture perspective. But they've been pushing so much offshore in recent years that their reputation is taking a hit (granted, the candidate in this scenario IS that overseas resource). At least it wasn't KPMG

I'm not justifying the tantrum, but Indian law is a bit different in this regard. Usually there is a one or three month notice period. If the worker / company wants to terminate the job, they are expected to inform the other party as many months in advance so they can plan accordingly.

We received information suggesting he may be handling multiple offers simultaneously

Yes that's what can happen when you're looking for a job. Get over yourself.

alright yeah, it's very unhinged.

Illegal in based land

If by which you mean "almost everyone except America and Canada", yes

In the US, this isn't illegal, but it is something you can sue an employer over. At-will employment does not apply here.

It's a claim of promissory estopel.

Bruh probation period cuts both ways. Employer was being measured against alternatives and came up short 🤷🏻‍♂️

Surely they have a probation period though?

Omfg they even @ him at his alt profile! Chuds!

Well, that's a lawsuit.

Like every single other company out there, I'm sure they also handled multiple applicants.

I accepted an offer, went through a day of training and a half day of work, then left at lunch. Had to use the office phone because this was before I had a cell phone. Turns out I couldn't physically handle working in a tire factory. I was itchy and sweaty and miserable.

Figured out years later I was allergic to latex.

What I'm saying is, maybe the company wasn't a good fit and the candidate didn't figure it out until after onboarding.

According to another comment and the article they cite, it might actually be grounds for a suit in the US too, if the would-be-employee incurs damage for actions taken in reasonable reliance on getting that promised job. I imagine if they quit their old job or rejected other offers because they expected the would-be-employer to honour its promise, that might count as damages.

Whether it's worth suing is a different question, of course.

That company's website is awe inspiringly bad. A static page does not need a loading bar and the cookie consent banner shouldn't break the whole page on mobile.

It also happens very often, but in reverse. Company promising things and suddenly just not even calling back/msg back.

I bet those bastards also have several people lining up for their jobs !! /s lmao

That's how it works in France, both ways. Bosses don't like to hear that lol.

Does it work both ways? If the applicant says they accept the job and then later says they went with a different company, like the applicant in OP's post?

Would you be mad at a company that gave you an offer and then after you accepted it (and rejected other offers), they rescinded the offer? If so, then it's clearly not "just business".

My guess is that what people here are really trying to say, is that applicants are allowed to rescind their promises, but companies are not.

Plenty of employees also quit without giving more than a day notice. In at-will employment, it goes both ways

Yeah, what's your point? Workers are the ones creating value for the company. When you don't hold any cards, and get paid minimum wage, giving 2 weeks notice is a dangerous game.

Last time I didn't give notice was a job that I was pretty sure would try to not pay me, or ask me to leave before the two weeks are up. I have no sympathy for employers.

I mean not exactly that but close has happened. It's annoying but these things happen and one moves on.

You can only make a claim like that if you can prove real damages. The idea is that someone made you a promise, and based on that promise you took steps that cost you real money. Maybe you quit your job. Or you paid to move cities and all the related costs.

So the employer would have to prove they suffered real damages as a direct results of the employee backing out. And that would be difficult in most cases. After all, in most cases the result of an employee backing out will just be the status quo the company was already operating under. And they would have to show why they couldn't just go with another candidate.

It would be a lot harder for an employer to make this kind of claim than an employee. Sure you can imagine some edge cases where a company spent a lot of money in expectation of a new employee. But usually a new employee backing out just means the company keeps operating in the exact same state it was previously.

you were describing a at-will employment, right to work is very different.

thats ghosting.

I had the official offer letter once. I asked for more money, which is something you should always do, and they rescinded the offer.

A year later I had another offer letter from a different group in the same company. I asked for more money. They stood firm and kept the offer on the table, and I took a different, slightly better offer from a different company.

I'm assuming if you are an applicant and you took one offer and rejected another, and then the company you accepted then rescinded their offer, and it's too late to accept the other offer, that alone wouldn't be enough in damages to sue right?

Likewise if a company gave an offer to an applicant, the applicant accepted so the company rejected all other applicants, and then the applicant who accepted rescinded their acceptance, company doesn't get to claim damages?

This post sounds like the applicant was an IT or consultant. They definitely "hold cards" and are not paid minimum wage, and are often treated quite well. Usually the company wants these workers just as much as the worker wants the company. It's a two way street and should be treated as such.

Wild that it's from the pocket of the employee though, here it is usually a government department that handle most legal cases Vs corporate, with that private individuals only have to do it themselves in exceptional cases.

Wild that it's from the pocket of the employee though

It's a repeating pattern, really, like the legal equivalent to The Sam Vimes theory of socioeconomic unfairness: If you can't front the price of asserting your rights, you'll get neither your rights not the money to assert them in the future.

My bad, wrong term

I'm not an attorney. I don't know the specifics of it. I'm not sure what the exact bounds of provable damages are.

A demigod complex, perhaps?

Depends on the job. It also depends on whether they actually signed the contract, or just agreed to do so verbally.