!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
Isn't there some document they don't have that you need? In Canada you would be asking for their SIN number so payroll can complete the hiring process. No SIN? Oops sorry we can't hire you because the paperwork is incompletable.
If you guys have no equivalent over there then I don't see how it's your problem.
Bro this is simple. Just say we can't hire u as u have not proven your right to work in this country. U don't need to pussyfoot around the issue or let them down slowly. Just drop the truth and move on. Ur over-thinking a simple thing.
I've always been asked to show I'm authorized to work whenever I work. Isn't this true for all jobs?
This post (op) seems likes bait imo.
Unless your boss is hiring under the table, I can't see see how the normal HR hiring process wouldn't weed out someone not authorized to work.
Maybe do your job and let HR do theirs?
My post isn't bait. We've gone through the process with HR and then found that the applicant may not have work authorization.
Sponsor them, if possible.
You talk to your legal and hr team not internet randoms.
You have 2 options.
Large companies have an international team within HR that will sponsor the prospective employee for a work visa.
For smaller companies, the answer is always the same, get a lawyer
Not hire them if they're actually unable to prove their right to work. Lol.
Yeah, but I'm trying to keep this interaction from being a red flag.
"We are unable to employ you because you failed to prove your right to work in the United States of America". Could be a trump goon as well. Wouldn't put it past him.
Your first instinct is that an assumed illegal immigrant is a trump goon?
I wouldn't put it past the trump administration to employ people to refuse to show right documentation to see if a business is hiring illegal immigrants or not
"May not"?? What is that even supposed to mean? Were they Applying While Brown or something? Talking with an accent?
It sounds an awful lot like this isn't something to stick your nose in and you should do your job, to me.
Edit: wait, are you the interviewer in this situation?
We were going to hire them, but they can't show proof of working in the country.
And since I recommended that they get hired and they can't show the right paperwork, it is becoming my job on how I should proceed.
Edit: Yeah, I was the one interviewing.
Ok, sorry, I read it differently when I first commented. Asking for proof of eligibility to work in the US with a reasonable timeline to furnish documents definitely seems like it makes sense like others said, but I'll admit this isn't my area of expertise by a long shot in terms of hiring protocols and my initial comment was from entirely the wrong perspective to address your dilemma.
Well, they have to show proof of ability to work in the country. If they can't, they don't get the job.
Consult your HR department. Likely they will give a reasonable timeline for the appropriate documents to be provided and if they can't furnish proof of work eligibility, they don't get the job.
I've been consulting with HR. They've come to the conclusion that the applicant probably isn't able to work. I'm just trying to wind this down.
I understand that your concerned for the person, but simply telling them that they need to produce proof before you can go any further seems fine.
This is all HR's problem, not anyone else's. It's what HR is for.
Not sure why they're punting it back to you.
What country are you in? If USA, you must be able to fill out an I-9. It’s pretty cut and dry. If there is a recruiter involved, they are required to have the potential employee complete one before they refer them.
US. We've tried to get the applicant to fill out an I-9, which failed.
"we would love to hire you, but can't until you fill out this document, I can wait until X date, but after that we will have to hire another applicant. Please get back with us as soon as possible, we would hate to miss out on the opportunity to work with such a highly qualified candidate"
Well then give the candidate a deadline and move on when/if they can't.
If you are in the US and they aren't able to work in the US legally, I'm sure they are worried that admitting they are not legal would possibly mean getting deported that much faster, so they are looking for a way to sneak out without admitting their status.
I'm looking to try to unwind this with as little blowback to the applicant as possible.
They have to file paperwork with the necessary supporting documents. If they can't, you have no idea why. Maybe it's because they're ineligible and in violation of immigration and visa restrictions. Maybe it's because the documents were lost in a move. Maybe they had their identity stolen and are awaiting new documents. Maybe they just don't actually give a shit about the job and aren't bothering to do the paperwork to start working.
All you can say is that you've asked them to fill out the paperwork and they haven't done so.
Then don't report them to ICE? Repost the want ad and move on. Treat it like they stopped responding, because they did.
I'm not going to report them to ICE, but I'm trying to address all the issues of going non-responsive.
How would you normally handle someone going dark at this point in the hiring process?
I really hope you mean to say "hiring" instead of "hitting"
The simple answer is just don't hire them, and don't give any reason.
Yeah, I am hiring. I edited this.
My issue is trying to unwind this as humanely as possible for the applicant.
Unless there's some method for you to help them become eligible to work in your country, you legally need to put the company's safety first. If you give different reason to hide things you could be exposing your company to liability, so the safest option for both the company and for the applicant is for you to straight up ghost them.
The problem is that there is a recruiter as a middleman. This would be a lot easier if there wasn't a third party fiscally interested in this.
the recruiter should have vetted them better. Part of the reason to go through a recruiter is to avoid these things.
It's pretty simple, the candidate didn't meet the requirements.
Not sure why you're involved, this is an HR and legal issue. If HR said they don't have docs showing eligibility, then that needs to be reported to the recruiter, otherwise they're going to recommend this person to somewhere else, and run into the same issue. How would you feel if you were in their shoes?
Whether someone can legally work somewhere is not your problem to solve, unless you can actually do something, like help them submit appropriate paperwork (I've done this for employees who were temps, to help them get more permanent status).
The recruiter sent you an inelligible candidate. That's just as much their problem as it is yours.
What if it's also a trap set by trump goons. Wouldn't put it past them.
Yehn just tell the recruiter that they were impressive in interview but seemed not suitable in the role.
We already expressed going forward with the candidate.
If you are in the HR department call your legal department. If you are not in the HR department, call HR.
You could tell the candidate your concern and they could say that negotiations have failed to the recruiter, as could you and then you both are pulling out.