As I am not able to either add a comment or propose changes (which apparently would be required to re-open the question) to the question “Requiring salary information and medical history before first job interview [on hold]” below, I will post my comments here.

The actual question, “Is it common – or legal – in Japan to require itemized salary information from your current or previous position and medical history as a precondition for continuing the selection process?” is both answerable and clearly not ”seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies”. The question is “seeking advice” on what is common or legal in Japan, not Rakuten. Without the specific example of Rakuten it would be significantly more difficult for users and guests to assess some of the potentially relevant points in respect of which the question is “seeking advice” on what is common or legal in Japan.

Asking what is common or legal in a specific jurisdiction hardly qualifies as “seeking legal advice”. If the users wish to apply this approach consistently, they will have to remove a significant number of other posts from stackexchange.com as well.

In the other version of the question which is also put on hold the question related to Rakuten’s policies (“Is this just one of the remaining excesses deriving from Rakuten’s Japanese origins that will change somewhere along its way into a truly global company or something that represents the entire corporate culture?”) is a part of the review submitted to Glassdoor rather than a question addressed to users and guests of stackexchange.com. Without including this sentence in the question it would not be possible to comprehensively answer the question addressed to stackexchange.com users and guests. The quote that some users have referred to as the basis for their decision to vote for closing the question ("Questions seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies should be directed to your manager or HR department. Questions that address only a specific company or position are of limited use to future visitors.") would seem to refer to a company you are working for ("your manager or HR department") rather than a company like Glassdoor, which many job seekers are likely to use. I would thus argue that Glassdoor's "company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies" are not "of limited use to future visitors." As workplace.stackexchange.com even has a tag for Glassdoor, Glassdoor clearly is a legitimate topic in the forum.

Lars Friedrich’s answer neglects the fact that Rakuten appears to be merely making the forms publicly available through their website, which is quite different from informing every potential candidate of the request – let alone requirement – to fill them out. It is not obvious from the question that Rakuten is actually informing potential applicants of a “request” to fill out the forms, in which case providing forms at specific web addresses without appropriate links to them in the application and recruitment sites and explanation of their significance in the selection process can hardly be regarded as “making the process public”. It is quite possible that candidates do indeed hear about the “request” or requirement to provide such information from a “shady interviewer” rather than through a public process. Furthermore, the fact that the “requested” information is in fact “necessary in the selection process” may not be public. It is quite possible that asking for itemized salary information and medical history is legal in Japan, while requiring them is not, and this is why Rakuten is not stating the requirement in the forms or elsewhere publicly. Once again, the actual question here refers to what is common or legal in Japan, not Rakuten. However, without the ability to discuss the specific case of Rakuten as an example on the stackexchange.com forum, few users and guests might be able to get a broad enough understanding of some of the issues involved in the question and their potential implications.

It would be more constructive to publish feedback and modification proposals (including this text) on stackexchange.com rather than giving the same users who have already decided to put the question on hold on potentially dubious grounds exclusive access to such comments.

  • I can't tell what you're asking, but if it's about a question then meta is the place to ask it. Questions on main need to be actual questions about the workplace, not commentary on other questions. Also, you can propose an edit to any post by clicking on the "edit" link below it; your edit will then be reviewed. Nov 24 '15 at 3:41
  • 3
    Why was this migrated instead of just outright deleted? I don't see an actual question here or even links to the original question(s) that this seems to be about. Surely Meta shouldn't be a dumping ground for people trying to bypass posting privileges or limits.
    – Lilienthal Mod
    Nov 24 '15 at 9:37
  • @Lilienthal: Ha! People love to be "anti-dumping ground". This question is, in fact, quite poor (I've voted to close it). But it can be rehabilitated.
    – Jim G.
    Nov 24 '15 at 12:30
  • @Lilienthal I migrated because it sounded like a question about a (closed) question. I also left a comment saying that what the person is asking was unclear to me, but for me it was late and I was a little fuzzy-brained so I wasn't going to go straight for "delete". It feels like there's a question in here somewhere, but the asker is going to have to clarify. Or maybe other people who were involved in the question understand what this is about? Nov 24 '15 at 16:43
  • @MonicaCellio That's fair enough, I had to give it a few hours before I could be bother to read this (semi-)properly myself :). As I understand it this is just a case of an unregistered user opening his question from another machine and creating two accounts in the process by trying to post his comments as a new question. This whole thing could be added as an edit to the original question though that's still not a great practice. Suggested approach would be to migrate the users but since they're unregistered....
    – Lilienthal Mod
    Nov 24 '15 at 19:04
  • Yeah, I just wasn't sure if my failure to parse was at my end or the other end, and I didn't know what question was being discussed. But I figured somebody here might know what this is about. Anybody should feel free to make (or propose) an edit, especially if it's on a closed question that you can help advance. Nov 24 '15 at 19:14

Asking what is common or legal in a specific jurisdiction hardly qualifies as “seeking legal advice”

Well yes it does, if someone asks "is it legal" and someone answers (yes or no), that could be (wrongly) construed as legal advice. The question of "is it common" is probably more answerable, but again is more region specific, and the answers here are aimed to be as relevant as possible to someone in the US, UK, India, or wherever, so again could be seen as off topic.


I'll answer about your two versions of the question separately:

For the first one: any answer to it, and the way it is worded, could be construed as legal advice. You asked if something is legal, so any answer is legal advice.

For the second one: you have asked about why Glassdoor have refused a review for publication and there are at least two very good reasons why this post has been closed:

  • It's totally up to Glassdoor what they accept and refuse. Perhaps try asking them.
  • Your review doesn't read as a review; it reads as a rant, especially

    Apparently sense of privacy is not among the dimensions along which Rakuten aims at diversifying the people they employ. Is this just one of the remaining excesses deriving from Rakuten’s Japanese origins that will change somewhere along its way into a truly global company or something that represents the entire corporate culture?

General advice and thoughts:

  • If you register here, you can always edit your posts, so you could start with doing that.
  • Companies requiring you to fill in information, including personal information, before you have an interview is pretty normal, and as long as they protect that data correctly wouldn't worry me at all. I'd see it as correct due diligence in the hiring process.
  • A Glassdoor tag does not mean that all questions on Glassdoor are appropriate here.
  • Close reasons are often titled with a simple boilerplate rather than going in to depth as to the specifics. This is just the way the process works.