Most interviewing are wasted time and money, on both sides of the table, that is the presumption, it's a numbers game, also on both sides. It's when a pattern of excess accumulates which builds resentment: candidates just gauging their market worth OR employers being too picky about the wrong things OR not following up to make things right.
How are accounting people supposed to know a reimbursement needs to happen if former candidates and/or hiring managers do not let them know? They're not mind readers. Hiring managers should be clear about whom pays for what and how to recoup any out of pocket, or resentment will spread. Also, it does show lack of professionalism on the company's part if they do indeed seem to screw candidates, even if it were an actual innocent oversight. It would be titanically stupid to habitually, intentionally cheat unselected candidates in the modern world, for the ensuing exposure risks deterring good candidates at least and risks lawsuits at work.
Furthermore, on the candidate side of the table, it signals wisdom on behalf of a candidate if they socially-appropriately limit themselves to risks of screwed. This is a hiring signal of value, whereas someone that hasn't a clue is usually not respected as seriously. (To be fair, many of the best employees in their fields can seem shy, humble and odd to most. This is why it's crucial for astute interviewers to be non-threatening and mutually explore 1. how good will this person be on our actual work and 2. will they not mess up the shop's mojo... Hazing doesn't overcome current business problems, it guards incumbents' sense of in-group entitlement)
PS: I've interviewed as an SRE manager at GOOG before and helped others with their projects there, but I've decided to stay "executing" (bizword bingo) independently on something else. The issue at GOOG is that their interviewing process is somewhat more pragmatic than most but still doesn't go far enough and is too ad-hoc/ineffective. Really though, I just don't respect their products enough to commit the emotional energy into someone else's ship. The advantage of small shops are like small towns: less chance of Tragedy of the Commons because there is nowhere to hide. Unlike most small towns, everyone in small shops must be able to pull their own weight.
How are accounting people supposed to know a reimbursement needs to happen if former candidates and/or hiring managers do not let them know? They're not mind readers. Hiring managers should be clear about whom pays for what and how to recoup any out of pocket, or resentment will spread. Also, it does show lack of professionalism on the company's part if they do indeed seem to screw candidates, even if it were an actual innocent oversight. It would be titanically stupid to habitually, intentionally cheat unselected candidates in the modern world, for the ensuing exposure risks deterring good candidates at least and risks lawsuits at work.
Furthermore, on the candidate side of the table, it signals wisdom on behalf of a candidate if they socially-appropriately limit themselves to risks of screwed. This is a hiring signal of value, whereas someone that hasn't a clue is usually not respected as seriously. (To be fair, many of the best employees in their fields can seem shy, humble and odd to most. This is why it's crucial for astute interviewers to be non-threatening and mutually explore 1. how good will this person be on our actual work and 2. will they not mess up the shop's mojo... Hazing doesn't overcome current business problems, it guards incumbents' sense of in-group entitlement)
PS: I've interviewed as an SRE manager at GOOG before and helped others with their projects there, but I've decided to stay "executing" (bizword bingo) independently on something else. The issue at GOOG is that their interviewing process is somewhat more pragmatic than most but still doesn't go far enough and is too ad-hoc/ineffective. Really though, I just don't respect their products enough to commit the emotional energy into someone else's ship. The advantage of small shops are like small towns: less chance of Tragedy of the Commons because there is nowhere to hide. Unlike most small towns, everyone in small shops must be able to pull their own weight.