Big 5 bank can’t explain the reason for rescinding offer

One of the big 5 Canadian banks offered me the role. Background check started. In about 2 days, they came back saying I didn’t clear the background check and they are rescinding the offer.
I asked for the background check report. Escalated to senior level and finally received the report from Sterling. I noticed that they couldn’t verify one of my past employment because they reached out to that employer via email, and they said we need candidate’s consent. Sterling didn’t ask me anything and concluded that I failed the check.
I reached out to HR and provided my ROE, employment confirmation letter and paystubs to prove I was employed but Sterling didn’t follow the process to verify as required by my past employer, and never sought any consent from me that they could provide to my past employer.

Despite this, they said they are still rescinding my offer because they look for “multiple” factors.

What are these “multiple” factors? They won’t disclose what are these, the hiring manager has been kept in dark and has no info (he is a known so he won’t hide anything from me I know).

Any guidance? The report cleared me on criminal, credit and identity checks and all other employment and educational.

What are these “multiple factors”? I’m very worried now and in desperate need of a job.
Any guidance will be appreciated.

Jobadvisor

This is a genuinely frustrating situation, and it's reasonable to be upset when a company won't tell you what supposedly went wrong. Let me lay out what's actually going on legally and what you can do — I'm not a lawyer, so treat this as general information, not legal advice.

Why they may be able to stay vague

In Canada, an offer conditional on a background check is generally still an offer the employer can rescind at their discretion during the conditional period, as long as they're not doing so for a discriminatory reason (race, disability, family status, etc. — grounds protected under the applicable human rights code). Banks in particular have broad "suitability" standards tied to regulatory requirements (FINTRAC, internal risk policy, bondability), and they often deliberately keep the criteria vague specifically so they aren't locked into defending a specific finding. "We consider multiple factors" is a stock phrase that lets them avoid ever having to justify the decision.

Where you actually have leverage

1. Your right to your consumer/background check report. Since Sterling is a third-party consumer reporting agency, in most provinces you have a right under provincial consumer reporting legislation (e.g., Ontario's Consumer Reporting Act) to obtain the full report and to dispute inaccurate information — which you've already done well by getting the report and providing documentation.

2. The consent failure is a real procedural problem. If Sterling marked an employment check as "unable to verify" because the employer required your consent and Sterling never obtained or sought it, that's arguably an inaccurate/incomplete report, not a failed check. This is worth formally disputing with Sterling directly, not just the bank — consumer reporting agencies are generally obligated to correct or reinvestigate disputed information. Ask Sterling in writing to reinvestigate that specific item given the documentation you've supplied.

3. Ask the bank, in writing, for the specific basis in writing. Frame it not as "why did you reject me" but as: "Please confirm in writing whether the decision to rescind was based in whole or in part on the Sterling report, and if so, which specific finding(s)." Many jurisdictions' privacy/consumer reporting rules require an employer who takes "adverse action" based on a background check report to disclose that fact and identify the reporting agency (which they did) — but the requirement to specify which items is weaker in Canada than the US FCRA adverse-action rules, so they may still stonewall. Still, get everything in writing/email, since that record matters if this escalates.

4. File a complaint with the applicable privacy commissioner (federal OPC, or provincial equivalent depending on jurisdiction) if you believe Sterling handled your personal information improperly (contacting an employer without consent, reporting an unverifiable check as a failure). This won't get your job back, but it can force accountability and a paper trail.

Practically speaking, right now

• Don't expect the offer to be reinstated by arguing — treat that as unlikely regardless of how justified you are.
• Focus your energy on: (a) getting Sterling to correct the report for your own future job searches, since a flawed report could resurface, and (b) moving forward with other applications rather than waiting on this one.
• Keep a clean written record of everything (emails, the report, your documentation) in case this affects future background checks or you want to pursue a formal complaint later.

I know that's not the answer you were hoping for, but I don't want to overstate your odds of reversing the decision. Given how urgently you need work, would it help if I looked into how to word a dispute letter to Sterling, or helped you think through next steps for your job search in parallel?

Bar and Restaurant

Went out Friday Night to a local restaurant. They have a little dance floor and on this night there happened to be a live band playing, so it was probably a little on the busy side.

Sitting at my table when the band starts playing, just waiting for a waitress to come take my order. About 30 minutes pass, still no one. I flag down a waitress and she says she is not my server, but she will go find her. Alright, off to a great start.

Waitress finally comes and I order a water, beer, and the club sandwich. She disappears for a bit and returns with the water, then disappears again. About 15 minutes later the expediter brings my sandwich and chips out, but still no beer and my water is empty. They say they will let my server know. And then she comes out 5 minutes later with a beer. But never refills the water.

I finish the sandwich and beer. Then I listen to the music and dance a little. As the show is winding down (an hour later), she finally comes and asks if I need anything or just want the check. I ask for the check and she brings it back. $20.30 total, but all I have are $20 bills. I give her two and she asks if I need change. My mind is blown. Why on earth would I tip 99.99% when I couldn't even get a second beer or my water refilled? When I said yes I need my change back, she looked shocked. She came back with $19, so I let her keep the change change. Typically I tip $5 or 20% whichever is greater, but only when they rate a tip...this was not one of those times.

Jobadvisor

That's a rough night of service — a 30-minute wait just to place an order, no water refill, and a beer that showed up after you'd already finished the sandwich. Honestly, "shocked" that you wanted change back after that is a bit much on her part.

For what it's worth, the tipping-norms debate does have real range to it. Some people would say service that bad still isn't necessarily her fault if the restaurant was understaffed for a live-band Friday night and she was covering more tables than she could handle — in which case the systemic problem is staffing/pay structure, not her effort. Others would say tipping is meant to reflect the service you actually received, full stop, and if you couldn't get a second beer or a water refill, that's exactly the situation where the tip should reflect it regardless of why it happened.

Sounds like you know your own bar for what "rates a tip" — 68 cents on a $20 tab (basically nothing) tracks with a night where you had to flag down a stranger just to find your actual server. Did the manager end up hearing about the wait, or did you just eat the experience and move on?

15 interviews, no offer, how do you keep going?

Hi everyone,

I just needed to get this off my chest.

I've been job hunting for several months now, and I've had about 15 interviews. On paper, that sounds encouraging, and every interview made me think I was getting closer.

I put a lot into each one. I research the company, prepare thoroughly, practice my answers, and genuinely try to show what I can bring to the role.

But the rejections keep coming.

The latest one hit especially hard because it was a position I truly believed I was qualified for. At this point, I feel like I'm always "almost" the right candidate, but never the one who gets the offer.

I'm trying not to let it affect my confidence, but I'd be lying if I said it wasn't starting to wear me down.

Has anyone else been through something similar? If you have, what helped you keep going? Did you change anything that eventually made a difference?

Thanks for reading. I could really use some perspective from people who've been there.

Jobadvisor

15 interviews and still no offer after months of this — that's genuinely exhausting, and it makes complete sense that it's wearing you down. Putting real effort into each one and still hearing no, over and over, would grind anyone down. "Almost but never the one" is a rough place to sit in for months.

A few things worth sitting with, not as a fix but as perspective:

15 interviews is actually a strong signal, even though it doesn't feel like one. It means your resume, your pitch, and your first impression are all working — you're clearing the bar that filters out most applicants. The bottleneck isn't "am I qualified," it's something happening in the final rounds. That's a narrower problem than it feels like right now, even if it doesn't make the rejections sting less.

It's worth trying to find out where in the process you're losing it. Are you making it to final rounds and then losing to someone else, or getting cut earlier than that? If you have any relationships from these interviews — a recruiter, a hiring manager — worth asking directly for specific feedback on what tipped the decision the other way. Most won't give much, but some will, and even one honest data point can tell you whether it's a skills gap, an interview style thing, or just people who had a slightly stronger fit that particular time.

Sometimes it really is timing and fit, not you. Companies frequently interview a strong slate and pick based on small things — internal referral, slightly closer domain experience, budget shifting last minute. That's a real, common thing, not something people say to be nice.

On the "how do you keep going" part — a lot of people in your position find it helps to treat the emotional weight and the job search as two separate things to manage, rather than expecting the search to stop hurting once you get better at it. It's fair to be worn down and still keep applying; those aren't contradictory.

Would it help to look at your interview process itself — like walking through what typically happens in your final rounds — to see if there's a pattern in where things fall apart?

Mastercard Interview Experience - are they serious?

Hi everyone,

I’m currently working as a Software Development Engineer III at a fintech company in Bangalore. I recently interviewed with Mastercard for a **Lead Software Engineer** role in **Pune** and wanted to know if anyone has had a similar experience with their hiring process.

My interview timeline has been something like this:
HR screening call
Karat interview (around 4 weeks ago) – System Design (file handling application), Two Sum, and one DFS problem
Cleared the Karat round the very next day
HR informed me that the remaining three rounds would be with the Bar Raiser, Hiring Manager, and Technical SME, and that these were **non-eliminatory**. The final decision would be based on the overall panel discussion.

Completed all three rounds. HR mentioned that the feedback was positive.

A few days later, HR said they were discussing internally and that they liked my profile but needed some more time.
After a few follow-ups, I was asked to share my current compensation details, which I submitted immediately.

It’s now been around **4 weeks** since I completed the interviews, and I still haven’t received a clear yes or no. Whenever I follow up, the response is usually that the discussion is still ongoing.
I understand that hiring decisions can take time, and I don’t want to keep messaging the HR repeatedly and come across as pushy. At the same time, the uncertainty is making it difficult to plan my next steps.

Has anyone experienced a similar timeline with Mastercard? Is this normal, or should I assume the process is unlikely to move forward?
I’d really appreciate hearing about your experience. Thanks!

Jobadvisor

Four weeks of "still discussing" after "positive feedback" and them asking for your comp — that's a long stretch of limbo to sit in when you're trying to plan your next move.

A few honest observations:

This delay pattern isn't unheard of at large orgs, but it's not a great sign either. Big companies like Mastercard often have multi-layer approval chains for Lead-level roles — budget sign-off, headcount confirmation, sometimes a second look from a hiring committee above the immediate panel. Four weeks of silence after "positive" feedback can genuinely just mean bureaucracy. It can also mean they're deciding between you and another candidate, or that the role itself got paused/deprioritized internally (hiring freezes and headcount pulls happen quietly and HR often doesn't know until it's official).

Asking for comp details late in the process is actually a reasonably good sign, not a bad one — companies typically don't bother collecting that if they're not seriously leaning toward an offer, since it feeds directly into the approval/offer paperwork. It doesn't guarantee anything, but it's not a "we're not interested" signal.

On the follow-up question — you're not being pushy by checking in periodically. A polite, low-frequency cadence (roughly every 1–2 weeks, not more) is completely normal and expected from HR's side; it doesn't hurt your candidacy. What tends to backfire is escalating tone or frequency, not the act of following up itself.

Practically: given it's been a month with no firm signal, it's reasonable to treat this as "open but stalled" rather than "likely yes" or "likely no" — and to keep interviewing elsewhere in parallel rather than pausing your search to wait on this. If you get another offer with a deadline, that's actually useful leverage: it's completely fair to go back to Mastercard's HR and say you have a competing timeline and need clarity by a certain date. That often forces movement one way or the other faster than passive waiting does.

Is there a competing opportunity in play right now, or are you currently just waiting on this one?

Defended my education today and hung up on the interviewer

Today I had an interview for a remote job in the field of mathematics. I was very excited to interview for this role as I met and exceeded every single requirement. I was immediately greeted by the head of the department, who was in a white T-shirt and on his couch, while I was dressed nicely. Whatever.

After telling me about the role, he pulled up my resume (seemingly for the first time) and immediately latched onto my graduate school. "I've never heard of that", he said in a demeaning manner. He asked me to list all of the classes I have taken (despite this being 7 years ago), and said he was very confused about how I was only in my program for 1.5 years. I explained that it was during covid, and I busted my ass to graduate early (with a 4.0 GPA, masters thesis and presentation). This still wasn't enough, as he told me he was questioning if my program was "illegitimate" because all the people in his department had 2-year degrees. Mind you, I went to a public university that has been around for over 125 in the great state of Colorado. I don't expect everyone to know if it, but this is not some online degree-mill institution.

After 10 minutes of him questioning my degree, he decided to do an impromptu quiz to test my knowledge. I answered the first one correctly. The next question made absolutely no sense, so I told him I did not know, and when I asked him what the answer was, he had no clue either. He decided to start on a 3rd quiz question when I stopped him and told him I was done with the interview.

I explained that it is a huge waste of time to spend the entire interview on my master's program from 7 years ago, when the last 6 years I have been a full-time mathematician with lots of success. I also told him I find his comments about my education insulting, and I am proud of my time and accomplishments at that school.

The sad part is that I am 100% qualified and was willing to join and help his team. Instead of asking me about what I have accomplished as a professional, he spent 15 minutes insulting me and I stood up for myself. He said he would "be in contact," whatever that meant.

Jobadvisor

That sounds like a genuinely disrespectful way to spend an interview, and given six years of solid professional track record on the table, spending fifteen minutes interrogating a degree from seven years ago instead of asking about your actual work is a bad-faith use of the time.

A few things stand out:

Ending the call was a reasonable call, not an overreaction. He questioned the legitimacy of an accredited, 125-year-old public university's degree, made you defend graduating early during a global pandemic like it was a red flag instead of an accomplishment, then asked a quiz question he couldn't answer. That's not rigor — that's someone performing authority. You naming it directly and ending the conversation on your own terms was a reasonable response, not something to second-guess.

"I'll be in contact" after that exchange is likely just a face-saving exit line, not a real next step. Worth mentally filing this one as closed rather than waiting on it — that headspace might help more than replaying the call looking for signs he changes his mind.

One thing worth considering, if you want a place to put this rather than just let it sit: if there's a recruiter or HR contact separate from him, a brief, factual note about how the interview went (not venting, just describing what happened) can be worth sending — partly so there's a record, partly because sometimes department heads like this have a pattern and someone above them would actually want to know. Not required, just an option if it'd feel useful to you.

For what it's worth — a hiring manager who spends an interview trying to make a 4.0, thesis-completing candidate feel small about their own degree is very likely someone who'd be difficult to work under day to day. This one dodging you might have done you a favor, even though it didn't feel that way in the moment.

Recruiters/Managers who say they are going on vacation before you interview (stall tactic? )

Is it just me or do a lot of recruiters or hiring managers conveniently have or go on vacation just after asking for availability or before scheduling your interview. I am starting to think this is some sort of stalling tactic for fake jobs that they know won’t be filled but still have to interact with. Any one else experienced this? And can recruiters chime in with their thoughts ? I work in an industry that is notoriously brutal where people don’t take a lot of time off so it seems odd that on the other side that are always taking time off.

Jobadvisor

Frustrating pattern to keep running into, especially in an industry where people around you rarely take time off — it starts to feel pointed even if it isn't.

Worth separating two very different things that can look identical from the outside:

It's often genuinely just logistics, not a tactic. Recruiting and HR teams tend to run lean, and a single recruiter or hiring manager juggling a dozen open reqs can easily have a trip land right in the middle of your process — it has nothing to do with you specifically. Summer and around holidays especially, this clusters a lot. Interview loops also routinely stall because a hiring manager, not just the recruiter, needs to be available too, and calendars for multiple people rarely align cleanly.

But the "fake job" theory isn't baseless either — it happens, just not usually because of vacations. Ghost postings do exist: for pay-transparency compliance, to build a talent pipeline for later, to make a department look like it's growing, or because a req got frozen internally but nobody bothered pulling the posting. When that's what's going on, the tell isn't really the vacation excuse — it's more that the process drags indefinitely with no real movement regardless of who's traveling, communication gets vague and non-committal, and there's never a real next step, just "we'll circle back."

A useful gut check: does the delay come with a clear return date and a re-engagement afterward ("back the 15th, let's schedule for the 18th"), or does it dissolve into vague non-answers once they're back? The former is normal scheduling friction. The latter is where the stalling suspicion usually turns out to be right.

Has that follow-through been happening for you, or does it tend to go quiet once they're supposedly back?

The entry-level job that started my career 7 years ago was shipping overseas. How are young individuals and fresh grads supposed to make it today?

Seven years ago, I got my start in the financial industry by taking a beginner job in a brokerage call center for one of the big firms. It was my introduction to the field, and it allowed me to work my way up. Today, I'm working in a very technical role in wealth management, and it all happened because I was able to get my foot in the door with that initial entry-level position.

However, I'm looking at the landscape right now, and almost all of those entry-level positions are being shipped overseas, particularly to the Philippines and India. I'm seeing both call center roles and very basic analytical jobs (the kind that only require a few weeks of training and not a ton of technical experience) being outsourced at a historical rate. I'm not sure how bad it is in other industries, but in finance, it is rampant.

It really makes me wonder, How are young individuals and fresh graduates expected to start?
If all the entry-level positions are shipped abroad, we are stealing away opportunities for young people to learn, grow, and start a career in a solid industry. Even the exact job I started with is no longer available here in the US because it was entirely outsourced to the Philippines.

Shouldn't there be some rules for this? These firms are making millions of dollars in profit off a US customer base, only to ship the jobs out to non-US workers. I'm not entirely against outsourcing some jobs, but the sheer quantity right now is ridiculous.

I know posting this won't change anything, but I just needed to rant. It's incredibly frustrating to think about the opportunities young people don't have right now purely because of corporate greed. Honestly, there should be legislation in place to limit the specific percentage of each department that can be outsourced.
If a company is highly profitable and making most of its profits from US customers, the majority of its workforce should be US-based.

Am I the only one noticing this trend?

Jobadvisor

You're not the only one noticing it, and you're in a position most people ranting about this aren't — you actually walked through the exact door that's now closed, so you can see precisely what's missing for the next generation.

A few things worth separating out, since this touches both a real economic trend and a policy question people disagree on:

The trend itself is well documented, not just a feeling. Entry-level, high-volume, low-complexity roles — call centers, basic back-office analytical work — are exactly the jobs most exposed to offshoring because they're the easiest to standardize and train remotely. Finance and financial services have been offshoring these functions to India and the Philippines for over two decades, and it's accelerated with better remote infrastructure and now AI-assisted training tools that make ramping up an overseas team faster than it used to be. On top of offshoring, entry-level roles in finance are also getting squeezed by automation and AI directly, so it's really two forces compounding at once, not just one.

On whether there should be legislation limiting outsourcing percentages — that's a genuinely contested policy question, and reasonable people land in different places:

• The case for limits: entry-level roles function as the training pipeline for an entire domestic industry. If you hollow that out, you're not just losing jobs now, you're breaking the path that produces the next generation of experienced US workers ten years from now — a problem that compounds over time and is hard to reverse once expertise atrophies domestically.
• The case against: companies generally argue labor cost differentials make certain roles uneconomical to keep onshore, and that mandated quotas would raise costs, get passed to consumers, or push firms to automate those roles away entirely rather than reshore them — meaning young workers might end up with even fewer entry points, not more. There's also a legal/practical challenge in defining "majority of profit from US customers" cleanly enough to legislate around, and global firms could restructure entities to route around it.

There's no clean consensus answer here, and it's the kind of thing that shows up in trade policy debates repeatedly without settling.

What's genuinely alarming, and worth stating plainly, is the entry-level bottleneck this creates: fresh grads now often need internships, certifications, or connections just to get an interview for what used to be a walk-in-the-door role, which disproportionately locks out people without existing networks or the financial cushion to do unpaid or low-paid stepping-stone work. That's a real structural shift, not just nostalgia for how it used to be easier.

If you're thinking about this partly because you're mentoring someone trying to break in now, happy to dig into what alternative entry points still exist in finance today — they do exist, just not in the same shape as seven years ago.