Depending on where you are, it already has been. I recruited a friend recently who worked for Uber two jobs ago, and got objections at multiple levels (pulled them through because I knew they left Uber originally due to ethical objections and could speak to that directly). At this point having it in your job history needs to be addressed in your e-mail/cover letter.
Having a problem and addressing it is different than having a problem and not addressing it for years (and yeah, I might ask an ex-Zenefits prospect how they felt about that). Is that unclear or difficult to understand?
I think you read tone into my comment where there was none. Mine was a valid question; "in your opinion, iss Zenifits also seen poorly on a resume, given the fact that it is known that the CEO had to step down and they had to take measures to ban sex and drinking in the office, and this is amplified by the fact that they are a freaking HR company" -
- I would think that if anyone is familiar with the Valley, that they would certainly know the Zenifits story and should rightfully-aise eyebrows if they see the positions on a resume...
I wasnt challenging your comment, I wa agreeing with it and adding zenefits to the naughty list.
Nah. I like working somewhere where ethics are taken seriously.
If you've been working for Uber for the last couple years (in an engineering role, and not visa-restricted), you need to have an answer for why you've remained someplace with so many serious ethical issues. And to be clear, "I needed to pay bills" is a real answer. But you need to have it and be willing to say it and defend it.
I don't see how it's productive to put a scarlet letter on someone simply based on where he or she used to work as "third engineer from the left." Maybe one day the place where you currently happen to work will earn some kind of tarnished reputation--should your career suffer because of it? Should you have to quit out of fear of being put on a blacklist, putting your livelihood at risk?
The crucial part here is the nature of the reputation. We're not talking about some shady dealings of the upper management, that individual employees may or may not have been aware of. We're talking about employee culture inside the company - something that is, by definition, exposed to and shaped by employees. Given the magnitude of the problem in Uber, on the basis of reports we've seen so far, on the balance of probabilities, it would be more surprising than not for an engineer who works there to be unaware that such things are going on around them.
And if they were aware, but didn't blow the whistle (after going through the usual HR complaint process and running into blocks there, as others have reported), that is definitely a very questionable ethical choice that deserves future scrutiny, including for anyone hiring that person.
"I like working somewhere where ethics are taken seriously."
Objecting people just because they've worked for a company-turned-toxic without getting into details seems damn unethical to me. That's no better than racial or other profiling ("they all are like this" mentality) imho.
> I like working somewhere where ethics are taken seriously.
Right on. A person's ethics will be impacted by the culture they willingly chose to remain in. If that culture is thoroughly toxic, i.e. not just confined to different spaces, then it's is necessary to probe deeper into the reasons why they remained.
In my experience, the people who object most strongly to the consideration of complicity, are also the same people, who at one point or another, went quietly or happily along with wrongdoing.
Their indignation can be distilled to: "Why should I, or anyone, be shamed for turning a blind eye to the suffering of fellow human beings?"
