Reddit user slams Bengaluru hiring manager for ghosting twice
A Reddit user's account of being ghosted twice and mistreated by a hiring manager in Bengaluru has reignited long-standing concerns about workplace toxicity and the unchecked arrogance of recruiters.In a post that struck a nerve with thousands, the Reddit user bluntly questioned the attitude of hiring managers in India. 'Why do Indian hiring managers think they are GOD?' the post began, setting the tone for what many saw as a painfully relatable story.advertisementThe candidate detailed their frustrating experience: after applying for a role in Bengaluru, the recruiter scheduled an interview, but the hiring manager never showed up. No heads-up, no explanation. The meeting was rescheduled, and when it finally took place, things didn't get any better.
'Applied for a role based in Bengaluru. The recruiter scheduled an interview with the hiring manager- he didn't show up. No intimation, no explanation. I followed up with recruiter and it got rescheduled,' the user said. According to the user, the manager showed up 15 minutes late, didn't bother to acknowledge it, and then launched into a monologue about how he 'basically runs the show.' 'Second time: same story. This time he shows up 15 minutes late, no apology, no acknowledgment of being late, just walks in with an air of arrogance like it's normal,' the user said. advertisementThey added, 'Then he goes on a monologue about how he basically runs the show. The role reports into engineering, and he's already talking about wanting someone in-office 5–6 days a week (for a PO role, mind you).'The role in question was reported to the engineering department, but the manager had already laid down rigid expectations, including wanting the candidate in the office five to six days a week for a Product Owner role.'Zero courtesy, rigid mindset, and weird power-tripping vibes,' the post concluded.Take a look at the post here: The post opened the floodgates in the comments section, with several users sharing their own grim experiences or venting about the state of hiring in India.'It feels like modern-day slavery. Where do they even get the idea that this behaviour is okay?' a user asked. Another user pointed to structural issues: 'Indian managers excel at exploitation through expendability. People put up with it because they have EMIs, responsibilities. Life has no value here, why would job quality?'One of the user's comment summed up the vicious cycle: 'Toxic managers breed toxic juniors who eventually grow up to become toxic managers. It's so normalised that people think this is what leadership looks like. How do you even begin to break this chain?'advertisementWhile many laughed off the absurdity, others called for serious introspection within corporate India. Toxicity in hiring isn't new, but stories like this serve as a harsh reminder that just because it's common doesn't mean it's acceptable.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
14 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Samsung R&D Institute, IIT Madras sign MoU to drive research on AI for Indian Languages, HealthTech & more
Samsung R&D Institute, Noida (SRI-N) has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras with a focus on pioneering advancements in AI for Indian languages, HealthTech and emerging areas such as Generative AI. The partnership is aimed at driving collaborative research, accelerate technology development, and nurture future-ready talent. The five-year MoU was signed by Kyungyun Roo, Managing Director, SRI-N and Prof. V. Kamakoti, Director of IIT Madras, a press statement informed. Also read: IIT Delhi accepting applications for 'Certificate Programme in Data Science & Machine Learning', check course details As part of this MoU, a wide range of collaborative activities, including sponsored research projects, consultancy projects, technology licensing, trainings, facility development and sponsorship of student fellowships in future will be offered. Highlighting about this partnership, SRI-N Managing Director Kyungyun Roo said that the collaboration with IIT Madras marks an important step towards co-creating solutions that are meaningful, inclusive, and future-ready. 'Together, we aim to enhance the Galaxy AI ecosystem with deeper integration of Indian regional languages and contribute to breaking language barriers across the country. In addition, we are engaging in co-development of emerging technology and enhancement of skill sets,' Roo added. Also read: IIT Delhi to offer 'B. Tech. in Design' for JEE Advanced 2025 qualifiers, know about the four-year UG programme IIT Madras Director Prof. V. Kamakoti, expressed delight and said that the institute was proud to partner with SRI-N, adding that the partnership will sponsor 'revolutionary research and technological development through effective utilization of AI technology.' 'In the fast-changing tech landscape, the MoU will upskill beneficiaries to develop strong connection between theoretical knowledge and practical industry solutions required to mitigate risks and address uncertainty,' Prof. Kamakoti stated. Also read: From AI to Health Tech: IIT Madras introduces two new Programs for 2025 admissions, check details, career options Worth mentioning here, SRI-Noida already has a growing network of academic collaborations with long-term strategic MoUs with institutes like IIT Delhi, IIT Kanpur, IIT Bombay and IIT Ropar. SRI-Noida will sponsor research and development (R&D) projects, which may be conducted at IIT Madras, the company's premises or through a collaborative arrangement at both locations.
India Today
15 minutes ago
- India Today
Deal or No Deal? Inside India's high-stakes trade gamble with the US
When Indian and American negotiators sat across the table in New Delhi from June 5 to 7, the atmosphere was businesslike but charged. The stakes were higher than ever. On one side stood President Donald Trump, newly re-elected, charging into his second term with economic nationalism as his war cry. On the other, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, having just secured a third term, was recalibrating India's global economic engagement with a sharpened sense of sovereignty. The long-pending limited trade deal between India and the United States—which had simmered unresolved since Trump's first tenure—was back on the table, but under new political compulsions and strategic calculations. India and the US aim to double bilateral trade to $500 billion by Washington, this deal is no longer about symbolism or goodwill. The Trump administration, determined to rewrite global trade on its own terms, sees the Indian market as both an untapped export opportunity and a strategic wedge against Chinese dominance. But unlike in earlier phases, there is little appetite for compromise in Trump's America. Every trade pact must now deliver visible benefits for American jobs and exporters. Anything less risks being branded a loss—especially in the high-decibel domestic climate leading into the 2026 US midterms. The President has repeatedly signalled that past arrangements were too generous to countries like India, which he claims have long taken advantage of American openness. With this in mind, US trade officials arrived in Delhi with a short but pointed agenda—remove tariff barriers, open up sensitive sectors, and secure digital and regulatory commitments that align with corporate America's however, is not the same player it was during earlier trade rounds. Over the past few years, New Delhi has rebuilt its strategic and economic confidence. Its global standing has improved, its exports diversified, and its domestic market deepened. But more importantly, there has been a clear shift in how trade is approached in policy circles—moving from passive liberalisation to active negotiation. India is no longer eager to sign deals merely for optics or as diplomatic sweeteners. The experience of asymmetric free trade agreements in the past, and the lessons from rejecting the Regional Comprehensive Economic Cooperation (RCEP), have deeply informed the present of 2025, India is in talks with major partners, including the EU and ASEAN, while also exploring new agreements with Africa, Latin America and the Arab Gulf. The emphasis now is on aligning trade with national development goals, safeguarding regulatory space, and building domestic capabilities in key sectors such as digital infrastructure, clean energy and What makes this negotiation different is not just the hardened positions on both sides but the strong presence of ideological and institutional voices in India pushing back against what they perceive as a lopsided deal. Over the past months, affiliates of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, including the Swadeshi Jagran Manch, have flagged several red lines for Indian negotiators. These are not merely academic critiques but deeply rooted ideological objections that enjoy resonance in key segments of the ruling political ecosystem. Encouragingly for them, India's official position appears to be largely aligned with many of their another letter from 20 former officials—including former cabinet secretary K.M. Chandrasekhar, G.K. Pillai, Ujal Singh Bhatia, Amarendra Khatua and Sanjaya Baru—along with some economists, cautioned New Delhi to 'walk away' from a lopsided deal. They note that without a trade promotion authority in the US, any concessions would be limited to Trump-era executive tariffs—not durable legal changes—and that compromising India's core interests today could result in long-term sovereignty loss. In short, they argue that temporarily closed doors on US markets may be better than structurally weakened regulatory Sangh affiliates have their own set of red flags, but at the top of the list is digital sovereignty. The US wants binding commitments on cross-border data flows, curbs on data localisation and relaxed regulation for American digital firms operating in India. Indian negotiators have reportedly resisted these asks. There is a growing recognition in New Delhi that accepting such provisions would jeopardise the integrity of India's digital public infrastructure—UPI, Aadhaar, DigiLocker, ONDC—all of which are premised on public control over data and technology ecosystems. The fear is that Big Tech companies could use trade deals as Trojan horses to dismantle domestic regulatory autonomy, reduce accountability and monopolise critical sectors. For the Swadeshi camp, this is not just a technical debate—it is about ensuring that India's digital future is not outsourced to Silicon Valley giants under the garb of free major point of friction lies in the area of intellectual property rights, especially in pharmaceuticals. The US pharma lobby has long pressured India to adopt TRIPS-plus provisions—ranging from extended patent terms and patent linkage to the dilution of compulsory licensing. But for India, these are red lines. The country's success as the world's leading supplier of affordable generics, including vaccines, depends on a flexible intellectual property regime that prioritises public health over monopolies. The battle over Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act—designed to prevent evergreening of patents—is emblematic of the larger ideological divide. Domestic lobbies and health policy experts have argued that compromising on this front would not only increase the cost of medicines for Indian citizens but also damage India's global standing as the pharmacy of the Global agriculture front has also emerged as a flashpoint. The US has pushed for greater market access for genetically modified crops, chlorine-washed poultry and hormone-treated dairy products. For Indian negotiators, this is politically and economically sensitive territory. Indian farmers operate in vastly different conditions—small holdings, traditional practices and a deep reliance on biodiversity. Introducing GMOs or industrial food products without adequate safeguards could destabilise local supply chains, damage soil health and displace small farmers. The RSS and its affiliates have repeatedly warned against diluting the precautionary principle in food safety, pointing out that long-term food sovereignty cannot be compromised for short-term tariff Trump administration's insistence on restoring tariff benefits under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) only if India allows market access for such products has complicated the talks further. Indian negotiators have remained firm, citing consumer safety, regulatory autonomy and domestic sensitivities. With Washington pushing hard for its agro-export lobbies, especially on GM corn, soy and dairy, Indian officials worry such concessions could open the floodgates for unsustainable imports and threaten food security. This deadlock underscores the deeper tensions between trade liberalisation and India's developmental and agricultural contentious American demand is the inclusion of an Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism, which would allow US firms to sue the Indian government in international arbitration forums if they believe domestic laws have hurt their profits. The Indian side has reportedly flatly rejected this, consistent with its stance in other FTAs over the past decade. ISDS provisions are viewed as a serious threat to India's sovereign policy space and judicial process. Past experiences with multinational disputes have made it clear that such mechanisms often bypass domestic courts and leave the country exposed to disproportionate liabilities. The Swadeshi camp argues that any dispute resolution framework must be reciprocal, limited in scope and rooted in Indian legal the big-ticket issues, there are more subtle but equally significant concerns. American negotiators have insisted on liberalisation in strategic sectors such as e-commerce, defence production, clean energy and agri-logistics. While India has opened selectively in these areas, full-scale liberalisation without safeguards could be disastrous for local firms, cooperatives and startups. The domestic lobby advocates a calibrated approach—one that combines FDI caps, localisation mandates and domestic value-addition norms to protect India's long-term industrial is also unease about the growing trend of inserting side chapters in trade agreements—covering labour standards, gender rights, environmental norms and civil society engagement. While these may appear progressive, Swadeshi voices caution that they often serve as pressure points for future litigation or reputational coercion. The preference is for India to evolve its own ESG standards, rooted in its civilisational values, livelihood priorities and federal structure—not adopt imported frameworks that may not suit Indian there is growing awareness that trade liberalisation often overlooks cultural and traditional knowledge systems—Ayurveda, handicrafts, tribal knowledge and local foods—that don't fit into Western IPR definitions. These represent real economic capital for India, particularly for rural and indigenous communities. RSS affiliates have pushed for stronger protection of geographical indications, cultural commons and rural creative industries within trade rising chorus of Swadeshi caution has not gone unnoticed. Many of India's recent trade decisions—including the cautious pace of the FTA with the UK and the shelving of RCEP—reflect a deeper institutional consensus that unbalanced deals are no longer acceptable. Recent warnings by retired trade negotiators and policy veterans have only added weight to this stance. They argue that New Delhi must be ready to walk away if the deal appears skewed, urging the government not to trade long-term autonomy for short-term optics. The sentiment is increasingly shared by officials across ministries: India can afford patience, but not policy the American side is feeling the pressure to deliver. Trump's trade doctrine, powered by his electoral calculus, leaves little room for nuanced diplomacy. Deals must be announced with a bang. Benefits must be quantifiable. And foreign governments must be shown to have conceded. In such an environment, India's insistence on a balanced, development-friendly deal risks being read in Washington as resistance. Yet New Delhi appears ready to absorb that cost, preferring friction over latest round in New Delhi ended without a final breakthrough, but with enough movement to suggest the door remains open. Both sides are expected to hold another round later this summer. But the message from India is increasingly clear: the era of trade policy as a diplomatic concession is over. What replaces it is a new framework—pragmatic, sovereign and deeply aware of the ideological choices embedded in every clause. For a country aspiring to be Vishwaguru, mastering the art of tradecraft is no longer optional. It is a strategic to India Today Magazine
India Today
15 minutes ago
- India Today
China's rare-earth curbs hit Indian auto industry
(NOTE: This article was originally published in the India Today issue dated June 16, 2025)The US-China tariff war may have ostensibly eased into a softer phase of negotiations, but one stealth missile fired by China in its early days has only hit home now. The potential fallout is global, and India is very much within range. On April 4, two days after President Donald Trump's tariff blitz, Beijing had hit back by calling halt to its export of rare earth magnets. China controls over 90 per cent of the global processing capacity for this key component, used in everything from automobiles and fighter jets to robotics and home appliances. As it leverages this monopoly by slow-rolling licences, stockpiles everywhere are falling as rapidly as alarm is imported 870 tonnes of these magnets worth over Rs 300 crore in FY25, mostly from China, as domestic production capacity remains negligible. Now, though, Chinese exporters must themselves obtain government licences, furnishing detailed end-use certificates from Indian buyers, before shipping. The certificates need to be signed by India's foreign ministry and the Chinese embassy, apparently to ensure the end-use is not military. This knot has held up clearances and shipments. Industry sources say over 30 applications approved in India are already pending final clearance in China. AUTO SECTOR IN A BIND It has been a month since China put this squeeze on exports, and whatever inventory Indian auto companies had as a buffer is fast getting depleted and may dry up by June-end. Rare earth magnets, particularly neodymium-iron-boron ones, are essential in electric as well as conventional vehicles—they go into motors, steering, brakes, wipers and audio equipment. With no clarity on normalisation of imports, manufacturers are staring at a significant cut in groups are in some panic. A joint delegation comprising representatives from the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers and the Automotive Component Manufacturers Association is set to meet senior Chinese government officials to accelerate approvals and restore supply.'For some of these EV components, the whole supply chain resides in this doesn't change, the entire Indian EV industry will grind to a halt,' Rajiv Bajaj, chairman, Bajaj Auto, had warned in late April. On June 4, Rajan Wadhera, former president of Mahindra & Mahindra Auto and of industry body SIAM, wrote to Union heavy industries minister H.D. Kumaraswamy about the need to '...adopt a diversified, multi-pathway approach' since these magnets are 'indispensable to EVs', nearly 3 kg being needed per vehicle, against 100 grams in a conventional vehicle. 'The ban will begin to impact production by June-July,' says Sudarshan Venu, MD, TVS Motor. 'We're actively exploring ways to de-risk the situation, but there could be cost increases down the line.'A rare earth magnet, made from one of the 17 rare earth elements (lanthanide series, scandium, yttrium), is far superior to other industrial magnets. Rare earth metals aren't 'rare' as such, and are relatively abundant in the Earth's crust. However, they aren't found in pure concentrations, making it economically challenging to mine DOMINANCEChina produces 140,000 tonnes of rare earth metals annually, with the US a distant second, at 38,000 tonnes. In comparison, India's rare earths production capacity, mostly through state-owned IREL (formerly Indian Rare Earths Ltd), is just over 5,000 the new restrictions, several consignments are reportedly stranded at Chinese ports. Gaurav Vaangal, principal analyst with S&P Global in India, says the impact of China's clampdown can be mitigated by 'optimising the product mix to ensure production lines remain operational'. That said, continuous monitoring is essential, as the production line could experience significant disruptions—initially affecting EV components and later extending to ICE (internal combustion engine) parts, potentially leading to serious production challenges, he concedes. That challenge may hit the accelerator before solutions catch to India Today MagazineMust Watch
