Things are both simpler and more complicated in the UK.
Simpler because the rules are quite clear (and very fair) and more complex because company managers tend to make up extreme rules that are way beyond what is necessary.
Job application disputes are not settled in a standard court, they go to an employment tribunal instead and are decided by one judge and two independent lay-member volunteers (often councillors, trade-unionists, clergy, business leaders etc).
For a case to be heard there would almost certainly have had to be discrimination on the grounds of disability, race, sex, age, sexual orientation, religion or belief. While some serious degree of "bad-process" might make it it would be unlikely to be successful.
Apart from blatant discrimination, tribunals mostly look for consistency in how workers are treated. So if you tell one candidate why they weren't successful there is an argument that all must be told. A simple way round this is to wait to be asked and only reply to those candidates that ask.
Sadly, UK companies seem to be un-necessarily paranoid about this and I have heard management claim all sorts of reasons why reasonable openness cannot be practiced during the job-interview process.
Generally, though, UK tribunals tend towards doing the right thing from my experience. In the 2 tribunals I have been present at, both sided with the company (as they should have). Both had a trade unionist on the tribunal.
I do think that companies have a moral duty to tell applicants why they were unsuccessful if they got as far as an interview, even if it is just to say "there was a better candidate on the day". They have made a commitment to the candidate and the candidate has reciprocated by turning up to be interviewed.
Companies should do the right thing rather than fear litigation.
I've had plenty of feedback from interviews from UK companies without receiving one piece of actionable advice.
To be fair, it was quite clear that I didn't want to work at some of those companies and if I'd have been asked to give them feedback I'd have phrased my disinterest in similarly brief and diplomatic terms which wouldn't have told them much they didn't already know or weren't inclined to disagree strongly with.
Even if the tribunals are inclined to side with the companies, companies' fears are still well placed. A perfectly reasonable "unfortunately we didn't think you had the appropriate experience for the job" can become possible evidence that they were concealing discrimination should the company subesquently hire someone similarly lacking in experience but in every other way perfectly suited to the role. Companies seldom announce their decisions to reject a candidate are based on racism, sexism, homophobia etc even when they are.
I think it could benefit companies to ask for feedback from interviewees.
My top interview tip is to always interview the company back. You may end up spending the next 3 or more years there - you have to be sure its a good fit, too.
Comments
Things are both simpler and more complicated in the UK.
Simpler because the rules are quite clear (and very fair) and more complex because company managers tend to make up extreme rules that are way beyond what is necessary.
Job application disputes are not settled in a standard court, they go to an employment tribunal instead and are decided by one judge and two independent lay-member volunteers (often councillors, trade-unionists, clergy, business leaders etc).
For a case to be heard there would almost certainly have had to be discrimination on the grounds of disability, race, sex, age, sexual orientation, religion or belief. While some serious degree of "bad-process" might make it it would be unlikely to be successful.
Apart from blatant discrimination, tribunals mostly look for consistency in how workers are treated. So if you tell one candidate why they weren't successful there is an argument that all must be told. A simple way round this is to wait to be asked and only reply to those candidates that ask.
Sadly, UK companies seem to be un-necessarily paranoid about this and I have heard management claim all sorts of reasons why reasonable openness cannot be practiced during the job-interview process.
Generally, though, UK tribunals tend towards doing the right thing from my experience. In the 2 tribunals I have been present at, both sided with the company (as they should have). Both had a trade unionist on the tribunal.
I do think that companies have a moral duty to tell applicants why they were unsuccessful if they got as far as an interview, even if it is just to say "there was a better candidate on the day". They have made a commitment to the candidate and the candidate has reciprocated by turning up to be interviewed.
Companies should do the right thing rather than fear litigation.
I've had plenty of feedback from interviews from UK companies without receiving one piece of actionable advice.
To be fair, it was quite clear that I didn't want to work at some of those companies and if I'd have been asked to give them feedback I'd have phrased my disinterest in similarly brief and diplomatic terms which wouldn't have told them much they didn't already know or weren't inclined to disagree strongly with.
Even if the tribunals are inclined to side with the companies, companies' fears are still well placed. A perfectly reasonable "unfortunately we didn't think you had the appropriate experience for the job" can become possible evidence that they were concealing discrimination should the company subesquently hire someone similarly lacking in experience but in every other way perfectly suited to the role. Companies seldom announce their decisions to reject a candidate are based on racism, sexism, homophobia etc even when they are.
I think it could benefit companies to ask for feedback from interviewees.
My top interview tip is to always interview the company back. You may end up spending the next 3 or more years there - you have to be sure its a good fit, too.