Tell HN: Recruiters are lying about remote positions
452 comments
When I went looking for a fully remote position last year, I was worried that exactly this might happen.
Then I heard that Shopify had literally shut down and sold their offices. It's not actually possible for the company to go back to the office because they don't exist.
So that's where I work now.
Then I heard that Shopify had literally shut down and sold their offices. It's not actually possible for the company to go back to the office because they don't exist.
So that's where I work now.
+1 On this. Find somewhere that was remote before pandemic or that shifted fully.
I've worked fully remotely for the same company for almost 6 years now. Having worked in an office before, one belief I've formed over the years is that working at a place that doesn't have remote at the core and that has staff that's remote and staff that isn't, would create a two-tier system and I'd be very afraid of trying it.
In fact for a lot of the company history, we've had an office in a location next to the founders, that people were not allowed to use as a work place. You could go there for a day here and there but not as a group and not as a regular activity. There weren't even spots for more than 5 or 6 people at the same time in there, so mostly used to receive mail. This sort of thing won't even be in the minds of a huge corporation that is only doing remote because the pandemic forced them to.
So my advice if you want to go remote, is to find a company that was either fully remote before the pandemic, or a company that has truly embraced it and shifted completely.
edit: seems like there's a bit of attention here, if you're struggling with remote or starting something and you want to exchange some war stories for fun, I'm always up to share some thoughts even though the internet is full of experts on remote nowadays. I've done it as an engineer in a company of 12, later as an engineering manager and more recently being manager of managers and we've surpassed 250 people, so I have thoughts about it from multiple angles. You can figure out how to contact me from my profile.
I've worked fully remotely for the same company for almost 6 years now. Having worked in an office before, one belief I've formed over the years is that working at a place that doesn't have remote at the core and that has staff that's remote and staff that isn't, would create a two-tier system and I'd be very afraid of trying it.
In fact for a lot of the company history, we've had an office in a location next to the founders, that people were not allowed to use as a work place. You could go there for a day here and there but not as a group and not as a regular activity. There weren't even spots for more than 5 or 6 people at the same time in there, so mostly used to receive mail. This sort of thing won't even be in the minds of a huge corporation that is only doing remote because the pandemic forced them to.
So my advice if you want to go remote, is to find a company that was either fully remote before the pandemic, or a company that has truly embraced it and shifted completely.
edit: seems like there's a bit of attention here, if you're struggling with remote or starting something and you want to exchange some war stories for fun, I'm always up to share some thoughts even though the internet is full of experts on remote nowadays. I've done it as an engineer in a company of 12, later as an engineering manager and more recently being manager of managers and we've surpassed 250 people, so I have thoughts about it from multiple angles. You can figure out how to contact me from my profile.
The company I'm working for is struggling with this. They firmly believe in no remote. They won't entertain it for juniors, and generally to get approval you need to be pretty vital. But at the same time they've also opened up multiple offices (that are all in different geos, timezones). What the end result is that in my section of the company I'm effectively remote working from the off as my team has a remote contractor, and the other teams in my area are all dispersed between home and the new other offices. It's frustrating being told to go into work and getting no benefit from it besides a change of scenery. I'm not sure I'm cut out for full remote at least in my current housing situation/skill level.
I suspect other companies are in a similar situation, and it's part of the growing pains of getting larger. But fuck is it hard to be happy with it.
I suspect other companies are in a similar situation, and it's part of the growing pains of getting larger. But fuck is it hard to be happy with it.
Dude, you're an employee. If management doesn't respect you, look elsewhere. You're working in IT, it's not like you can't change work. You'll risk getting less money, but if you're happier who cares?
Small note: there are people who cannot change work in IT because it would affect their visa or immigration status.
Thanks for pointing this out. I'm a U.S. citizen, but I have had friends that were not, and I was horrified to hear the stories of how companies (that I worked for at the time as well) were using that 'leverage'.
I will no longer work for those sorts of companies.
I will no longer work for those sorts of companies.
It does not necessarily need to be something that companies actively do, it's also that the process is set up that way. For example, I know I was not actively seeking other opportunities until I got my green card. IIRC, even transferring to a slightly different role within the same company could affect how quickly the process progressed (I think part of the paperwork would need to be re-filed).
H1-B transfer is possible if your potential new employer will perform the transfer with USCIS.
(Edit: typo corrected, thanks kaapipo)
(Edit: typo corrected, thanks kaapipo)
IIRC the transfer can affect the green card process depending on the stage you are at. IANAL, check with your immigration attorney.
(this also assumes that the person is on H-1B and not on L-1, which cannot be transferred)
A person on L-1 should've known they will be moving home soon. This works exactly the same in EU and IMHO it's only logical - you'd be able to skip the usual "queue" otherwise.
L-1 can be extended a couple of times (up to 7 years total I think?), so "soon" is relative (especially given that it gives you a couple tries at the H-1B, but only if you can hold on to the job).
I think my main point still stands: you can't always just pack up your things and leave (or rather, you can, but the consequences aren't always a simple job hunt, sometimes they involve relocating internationally) so you may be willing to tolerate more abuse or conditions that are less than perfect for you.
I think my main point still stands: you can't always just pack up your things and leave (or rather, you can, but the consequences aren't always a simple job hunt, sometimes they involve relocating internationally) so you may be willing to tolerate more abuse or conditions that are less than perfect for you.
You can also get denied and get kicked out, it's not a guaranteed process AFAIK IANAL.
*your
yup, I have to bear with the bullshit. I love my daughter man.
It's a combination of: I really like my manager and have had much worse, I'm using the company to move me to one of the other locations, and not really minding the going in. I'll probably start looking after the move.
My manager doesn't have much control of the WFH thing, it's the CEOs directive. I'm just a junior engineer with not much sway so my remote request was denied by their bosses boss who has never met me.
My manager doesn't have much control of the WFH thing, it's the CEOs directive. I'm just a junior engineer with not much sway so my remote request was denied by their bosses boss who has never met me.
[deleted]
+1, similar situation here and I agree completely. I've been working for the same remote-only company for almost 10 years now. In my opinion, it's very important/essential that the company culture has "remote" in its DNA.
(anybody who may be interested in working at such a company, check my profile)
(anybody who may be interested in working at such a company, check my profile)
Focusing on remote-only, remote-first, remote-from-scratch companies is how I ended up at my current, and literally best company I've ever worked for, gig. Obviously the pool of such companies is smaller than in-person and they tend to have more competition for roles, but my unscientific guess is that pool is growing larger.
Bonus points for those companies because they didn't have to "figure it out" or change upper management corporate culture to go remote.
Bonus points for those companies because they didn't have to "figure it out" or change upper management corporate culture to go remote.
I am still flabbergasted that more companies have not gotten it through their skulls yet. Even if you keep an office, all-remote is simply a better model. Not only do you have access to a global labor pool (including the best candidates), the communication is better and work is more flexible (which literally everyone appreciates), you can lower overhead or even hire people for less based on location. The only major downside to going all-remote is the initial pain of the culture shift. You can keep an office for those that need in-person coworkers. It's all been figured out already so it's not a mystery.
A funny thing in this regard is that companies using an open office to save money are often not willing to go remote because they are worried it will hurt productivity.
I find it bizarre that so many (American?) companies make such an issue out of this. I have no idea if my experience is typical for my country (NL), but both companies I've worked for since the start of the pandemic were eager to let everybody work remotely. Both are very big and traditional: a major bank and an international accountancy firm, and one is selling off their HQ office. Both let the teams decide, and generally aim for one day at the office per week, with the rest remote. But that day is pretty optional, and we've never had the entire team present.
Here is why: extraverts who need constant hyperactive human interaction are the only people psychopathic enough to ascend into the leadership tiers that make decisions about remote vs. in-person.
So they just can't, and I mean CAN'T, handle the idea of all-remote.
At all.
So they just can't, and I mean CAN'T, handle the idea of all-remote.
At all.
That‘s very drastic. I‘m a rather extroverted head of engineering and would fight tooth and nails to keep remote for my teams.
Agreed. Except it's the quiet intro-psychos that are the most dangerous.
I would love to go to a remote first company. How do you even find such a thing without just being super lucky?
I'm actually onboarding at a remote position right now where the people I work with are clearly used to everything happening in an office. It's Thursday, I started Monday, and I have spent a grand total of maybe 3 hours speaking to my teammates or direct manager.
I've been dumped with a ton of documentation and stuff to read, but I feel extremely isolated. No one on my team has reached out to welcome me or make themselves available for questions or anything.
If this is what some people are experiencing in the remote world I don't blame them for wanting to go back to the office. It certainly is not how I've experienced remote work in the past so far.
I'm actually onboarding at a remote position right now where the people I work with are clearly used to everything happening in an office. It's Thursday, I started Monday, and I have spent a grand total of maybe 3 hours speaking to my teammates or direct manager.
I've been dumped with a ton of documentation and stuff to read, but I feel extremely isolated. No one on my team has reached out to welcome me or make themselves available for questions or anything.
If this is what some people are experiencing in the remote world I don't blame them for wanting to go back to the office. It certainly is not how I've experienced remote work in the past so far.
If there isn’t an IRC, Slack, or other instant messaging system in place, that should be the first step. Without that, I cannot imagine how remote work would actually… work.
From there, start being proactive about asking questions or starting conversations. Do not wait for others to reach out. You must initiate. That is a huge part of remote culture.
If you are initiating on instant messaging and not generating feedback or conversation, then you have a much bigger problem.
From there, start being proactive about asking questions or starting conversations. Do not wait for others to reach out. You must initiate. That is a huge part of remote culture.
If you are initiating on instant messaging and not generating feedback or conversation, then you have a much bigger problem.
There is a Slack, of course. I've found people quite slow to reply so far.
Expecting a new hire to initiate is pretty unrealistic imo. Even in an office, leaders should be encouraging employees to reach out to the new hire and make that connection. In person new hires would be getting a team lunch of some kind at most companies I've ever worked at, some kind of scheduled time to meet and interact with people.
I don't see why remote should be different really. Onboarding should be a hands on process for the whole team to participate in, remote or not.
So, yes. I am kind of wondering if this is a bigger problem or if once I have stuff to work on things will improve.
Expecting a new hire to initiate is pretty unrealistic imo. Even in an office, leaders should be encouraging employees to reach out to the new hire and make that connection. In person new hires would be getting a team lunch of some kind at most companies I've ever worked at, some kind of scheduled time to meet and interact with people.
I don't see why remote should be different really. Onboarding should be a hands on process for the whole team to participate in, remote or not.
So, yes. I am kind of wondering if this is a bigger problem or if once I have stuff to work on things will improve.
The problem at your new company isn’t to do with location, it’s that for whatever reason, their culture is terrible. There are zero scenarios where a good-culture company doesn’t very effectively welcome new people into a team.
Remote and office work are not the same in my experience. Your expectations need adjustment, if only because they conflict with the reality that you have observed.
Moreover, senior roles absolutely require you to initiate. If you are in a junior role, proactive behavior will help you advance past those who wait for things to come to them.
In general terms, initiating is an active behavior, while expecting others to initiate is passive. If you want “hands on” from others, tell those hands that you need their engagement.
In general, I strongly advise against passive behavior, unless you want your career driven by the good graces of others.
Moreover, senior roles absolutely require you to initiate. If you are in a junior role, proactive behavior will help you advance past those who wait for things to come to them.
In general terms, initiating is an active behavior, while expecting others to initiate is passive. If you want “hands on” from others, tell those hands that you need their engagement.
In general, I strongly advise against passive behavior, unless you want your career driven by the good graces of others.
I started searching for remote-first companies and specifically targeted them. I have 10-15 years of experience (depending on the specific needs of the company) in software, I was in a stable position at yet another zombie startup so I had time to hone my resume, interviewing skills, etc. Took me 2 tries and 2 years to land this particular position but it was worth it.
Interviewing can definitely be a numbers game but in hindsight (and just my experience) it's important to only go for companies where you think you'd be happy working.
As for onboarding, whether it's a remote first, omg-remote-because-of-covid, or an in-person company I've had varied results. My experience at most startups is that onboarding is pretty low on the priority list and quality is very dependent on the hiring manager and the team you've been hired onto.
Interviewing can definitely be a numbers game but in hindsight (and just my experience) it's important to only go for companies where you think you'd be happy working.
As for onboarding, whether it's a remote first, omg-remote-because-of-covid, or an in-person company I've had varied results. My experience at most startups is that onboarding is pretty low on the priority list and quality is very dependent on the hiring manager and the team you've been hired onto.
Yours is a bad example. I on-boarded at a remote-first company (they were remote pre-COVID) a year ago and my experience was nothing like yours.
I was warmly welcomed and immediately partnered with a senior person. People were extremely helpful and if I needed help, people were always open to hopping on a call to get me unstuck. Most people respond to slack messages quickly.
The only downside is the codebase/tech stack sucks and the technical culture leaves something to be desired. But they have really nailed the remote experience.
I will never willingly go back to the office. My employer definitely gets more productivity out of me than if I were in office. It really is a win-win in my case. [Edit]:removed repetition
I was warmly welcomed and immediately partnered with a senior person. People were extremely helpful and if I needed help, people were always open to hopping on a call to get me unstuck. Most people respond to slack messages quickly.
The only downside is the codebase/tech stack sucks and the technical culture leaves something to be desired. But they have really nailed the remote experience.
I will never willingly go back to the office. My employer definitely gets more productivity out of me than if I were in office. It really is a win-win in my case. [Edit]:removed repetition
> Yours is a bad example. I on-boarded at a remote-first company (they were remote pre-COVID) a year ago and my experience was nothing like yours.
Mine is not a remote first company, it's a an office-first company that moved to remote for covid and is trying to embrace it.
That's why I was expressing a desire to find a remote-first company instead, to get the kind of experience you are describing.
Mine is not a remote first company, it's a an office-first company that moved to remote for covid and is trying to embrace it.
That's why I was expressing a desire to find a remote-first company instead, to get the kind of experience you are describing.
I've been in all remote companies since '12, and will never go back unless forced. For what we do, it's pointless to travel to an office. Same goes for a huge majority of corporate work. It's gonna simultaneously trigger and require the economic destruction of a huge amount of office real estate investments to enable the change to remote work to become the majority.
> It's gonna simultaneously trigger and require the economic destruction of a huge amount of office real estate investments to enable the change to remote work to become the majority.
Baring in mind this could be worse than 2008. It's not going to be pretty and workers will ultimately feel the brunt.
Baring in mind this could be worse than 2008. It's not going to be pretty and workers will ultimately feel the brunt.
Yet, if that cooperate real estate were converted into mixed use residential, the corporations might save themselves at the expense of every single family homeowner and investor. This is a likelihood because the single family real estate market would normalize to 1970 home prices with the amount of corporate real estate that could be converted. Don't underestimate corporations willingness to save themselves at the expense of everything else, including our planet.
I am in this process now. Only looking for companies without offices and who will put in my contract that I never have to come in even if they do buy one.
I am beyond sick of my current company pretending like everything is going to go back to normal one day. We have 75% of people working from home although not labeled remote and maybe 25% back in some offices. The CEO pushing that we are an office company has destroyed communication and meant that over the last two years instead of adjusting how we work just pretending like nothing every happened. So now we have terrible communication even within teams and no one who wants to fix it because that would be a waste of time since soon everyone will be in the office. This has been going on for over a year.
Maybe they will fix this but it’s completely destroyed my desire to work for what was once a great company. They have over 1k employees. It’s unbelievable how much time and energy have been wasted because management has refused to accept the current situation. If i had taken this same approach when things changed at this current job or others I would be fired. I need to switch to management.
I am beyond sick of my current company pretending like everything is going to go back to normal one day. We have 75% of people working from home although not labeled remote and maybe 25% back in some offices. The CEO pushing that we are an office company has destroyed communication and meant that over the last two years instead of adjusting how we work just pretending like nothing every happened. So now we have terrible communication even within teams and no one who wants to fix it because that would be a waste of time since soon everyone will be in the office. This has been going on for over a year.
Maybe they will fix this but it’s completely destroyed my desire to work for what was once a great company. They have over 1k employees. It’s unbelievable how much time and energy have been wasted because management has refused to accept the current situation. If i had taken this same approach when things changed at this current job or others I would be fired. I need to switch to management.
> I am beyond sick of my current company pretending like everything is going to go back to normal one day.
> management has refused to accept the current situation
You don't state what country you're in, but in the US, the pandemic is effectively over. Everyone (that wants to be) is well-vaccinated, many 3 or 4x, Omicron blew through the country and left us mostly unscathed, and the news hasn't talked about daily numbers in at least two months. There is little reason to wear a mask indoors unless you want to lessen your chances of catching the flu - which is ticking up a bit.
We probably don't meet the scientific/medical definition of the end of a pandemic, but socially, we're there.
However, if you're in the US and still feeling this way, you may be suffering from some low-grade PTSD. Don't be afraid to reach out for help.
> management has refused to accept the current situation
You don't state what country you're in, but in the US, the pandemic is effectively over. Everyone (that wants to be) is well-vaccinated, many 3 or 4x, Omicron blew through the country and left us mostly unscathed, and the news hasn't talked about daily numbers in at least two months. There is little reason to wear a mask indoors unless you want to lessen your chances of catching the flu - which is ticking up a bit.
We probably don't meet the scientific/medical definition of the end of a pandemic, but socially, we're there.
However, if you're in the US and still feeling this way, you may be suffering from some low-grade PTSD. Don't be afraid to reach out for help.
Same story here. I was interviewing through much of 2021 and got a _fantastic_ offer from a local startup but I ended up passing because I just didn't believe their remote work promises. Ended up taking a position at a fully remote company and I'm very happy with it.
Similarly, I focused on companies that were based abroad but hiring in the US. Can't be forced to commute from Seattle to Mexico City.
And if anyone is interested in for real remote work, we're hiring SDE & Sr SDE frontend (React) and backend (Python). See my profile for contact info if interested.
And if anyone is interested in for real remote work, we're hiring SDE & Sr SDE frontend (React) and backend (Python). See my profile for contact info if interested.
> See my profile for contact info if interested.
No contact info on profile (not interested, just saying).
No contact info on profile (not interested, just saying).
Fixed!
My wife's employer shut down their office and my employer did the same. It really helps build trust that they're not about to make us go back to an office.
My remote option is a global team. We have offices at my location, but since management and the rest of the team is spread around the globe, the risk of me needing to show up at the office is minimal.
Shopify is an excellent company to work for. Congratulations!
Would love to follow you on Twitter what’s yours?
HackerNews is the most 'social' network I do these days. Facebook and Twitter trigger some very unhealthy buttons in my brain, so I stopped using social media.
Frankly I need to back off on HN as well.
Frankly I need to back off on HN as well.
> I'm not sure what the compensation model for recruiters is, but it seems to encourage bringing in as many candidates as possible over treating them with honesty and respect.
From experience dealing with recruiters for the last 25 years they universally lie to both sides to pocket the commission at all costs.
I drove 400 miles once to do an interview for a solution architect position. Got there and the company were recruiting an Oracle DBA. The recruiter had plain up lied because I had some Oracle experience on my CV. They assured me they would ream the recruiter and bought me lunch and gave me an Amazon voucher to cover the fuel and time though which was nice.
From experience dealing with recruiters for the last 25 years they universally lie to both sides to pocket the commission at all costs.
I drove 400 miles once to do an interview for a solution architect position. Got there and the company were recruiting an Oracle DBA. The recruiter had plain up lied because I had some Oracle experience on my CV. They assured me they would ream the recruiter and bought me lunch and gave me an Amazon voucher to cover the fuel and time though which was nice.
I drove to LA once to do an interview the next day after confirming with the in-house recruiter. When I got there they told me they didn’t think I was actually coming because they had already hired someone. Also they didn’t want to pay expenses despite offering to do so in their letter to me.
So I called up a consultant firm I knew in LA and sez, “hey I’m in town interviewing at X for Y, but I don’t like them and I wonder if you got any Y jobs" and they got me a (consultant) job as the technical lead for the job the X company had placed the other DBA at.
Later I had my attorney send a letter with my documentation to X company and settled up for time, expenses, and atty fees.
So I called up a consultant firm I knew in LA and sez, “hey I’m in town interviewing at X for Y, but I don’t like them and I wonder if you got any Y jobs" and they got me a (consultant) job as the technical lead for the job the X company had placed the other DBA at.
Later I had my attorney send a letter with my documentation to X company and settled up for time, expenses, and atty fees.
This is how you play the game, hats off to you!
did it work ?
> did it work ?
Hah! it was a 3 month DBA contract at an LA legal firm that specialized in converting publicly available data from court cases and data mining the results for various ordinary and/or predatory legal practices...I upgraded the SQL Server databases, fixed the document vector mining, fixed the license compliance issues (this was during the Business Software Alliance predatory compliance era). I didn’t want to continue because I didn’t like the culture, but I did work with the guy I supervised to help him achieve a perm position. I got paid, got my stipend, got my bonus, got my expenses with no delay after my attorney letter. The lying recruiter faded out of sight, I didn’t pay any attention to what happened to her because my pals at the consulting firm put me into a new contract immediately with a higher pay rate.
Hah! it was a 3 month DBA contract at an LA legal firm that specialized in converting publicly available data from court cases and data mining the results for various ordinary and/or predatory legal practices...I upgraded the SQL Server databases, fixed the document vector mining, fixed the license compliance issues (this was during the Business Software Alliance predatory compliance era). I didn’t want to continue because I didn’t like the culture, but I did work with the guy I supervised to help him achieve a perm position. I got paid, got my stipend, got my bonus, got my expenses with no delay after my attorney letter. The lying recruiter faded out of sight, I didn’t pay any attention to what happened to her because my pals at the consulting firm put me into a new contract immediately with a higher pay rate.
This is probably more true for headhunters than for in-house recruiters.
FAANG mostly (completely?) use in-house.
FAANG mostly (completely?) use in-house.
I’ve had third party recruiters contact me for Amazon roles, although I believe it was mainly sourcing and they passed you off to an internal recruiter if you got past the very basic sourcing screen. Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft were all internal-only in my experience.
with the the roles of recruiters being so metrics driven, most recruiters seem to be optimizing for funnel metrics. FAANG or not. But especially at FAANG where the number of recruiters and candidate pool is large that they prefer metrics.
The only good experience I have had with a 3rd party recruiter was when they put the name of the company in the email and I contacted that company directly.
It just doesn't work well to have a non technical person be the middle man between two technical people
It just doesn't work well to have a non technical person be the middle man between two technical people
I once went for an interview, setup by a recruitment agency, in a town nearby. The job looked great, and it was a step up for my career. It was for a mature company that made software for the oil drilling industry amongst other things.
The interview went well, the coding test was good. Finally, I were just chatting with the CEO, and he asked "So you're ok with spending 2 years on site in Kazakhstan?"
Needless to say we both agreed that it was a wasted interview and that the recruitment agency should have mentioned the Kazakstan bit...
The interview went well, the coding test was good. Finally, I were just chatting with the CEO, and he asked "So you're ok with spending 2 years on site in Kazakhstan?"
Needless to say we both agreed that it was a wasted interview and that the recruitment agency should have mentioned the Kazakstan bit...
This is very anecdotal, but I have a friend that interviewed at Google for a Remote SWE position - everything indicated that it was remote: the posting, the recruiter and the hiring manager.
Now they announced RTO, his manager said: "We're excited to have you at the office" - he was really confused about this messaging, so they forced him to apply to work remotely (even if he had been hired as such) denied his application on the grounds that this SWE role that requires a lot of cross regional interaction and virtual meetings - requires "intense collaboration that you can only get in an office". Total BS.
Needless to say he's leaving. This is such a travesty, total misdirection.
Now they announced RTO, his manager said: "We're excited to have you at the office" - he was really confused about this messaging, so they forced him to apply to work remotely (even if he had been hired as such) denied his application on the grounds that this SWE role that requires a lot of cross regional interaction and virtual meetings - requires "intense collaboration that you can only get in an office". Total BS.
Needless to say he's leaving. This is such a travesty, total misdirection.
I too interviewed at Google for a remote position; we got through team matching, and I'd found a great new potential manager, before one of his bosses nixed the idea of me being permanently remote. My recruiter ended up finding me another team match under a different director where I could be permanently remote, but the delay and difficulty was a major factor in me going to Facebook, which has a strong commitment to remote work.
Just to be clear, I really loved my Google recruiters -- they were very forthright and open with me during the whole process, and the Facebook recruiter was honest too. Great recruiting experiences. They worked really hard to move fast, and I think I went from initial phone screen to offer at FB within two weeks, and from phone screen to team matching at Google within three.
Just to be clear, I really loved my Google recruiters -- they were very forthright and open with me during the whole process, and the Facebook recruiter was honest too. Great recruiting experiences. They worked really hard to move fast, and I think I went from initial phone screen to offer at FB within two weeks, and from phone screen to team matching at Google within three.
G is losing candidates given how long the team matching process takes place.
I know multiple people (including myself) who have passed up opportunities at Google because of how long it takes for them to make a hiring decision. It's incredible how much value they must be leaving on the table.
At some point, Google won't be the kind of place that people wait around for. Then they're really screwed.
At some point, Google won't be the kind of place that people wait around for. Then they're really screwed.
No, they're kinda screwed right now.
Google used to hire A+ players -- the cream of the cream of the crop. The workforce at early Google was spectacular. Everyone wanted to work there -- tenured faculty were leaving their jobs.
Right now, Google hires good people, but the very best people I know all work elsewhere (and many are former Googlers).
Nonsense like this won't discourage B or C players, who fight tooth-and-nail to get there, but it does discourage the people were Google is fighting for individuals with other employers.
I haven't heard any elite university faculty leave for Google in close to a decade, for example. It used to be common. Google would poach from Stanford and MIT.
I've seen companies go this way, and this kind of slide only tends to accelerate. Folks like Sebastian Thrun bring in the cream of Stanford, and the cream of Stanford brings in everyone else. Once you lose those top two tiers....
Google used to hire A+ players -- the cream of the cream of the crop. The workforce at early Google was spectacular. Everyone wanted to work there -- tenured faculty were leaving their jobs.
Right now, Google hires good people, but the very best people I know all work elsewhere (and many are former Googlers).
Nonsense like this won't discourage B or C players, who fight tooth-and-nail to get there, but it does discourage the people were Google is fighting for individuals with other employers.
I haven't heard any elite university faculty leave for Google in close to a decade, for example. It used to be common. Google would poach from Stanford and MIT.
I've seen companies go this way, and this kind of slide only tends to accelerate. Folks like Sebastian Thrun bring in the cream of Stanford, and the cream of Stanford brings in everyone else. Once you lose those top two tiers....
Their hiring process could use some serious streamlining. When I've applied in the past, it seems like recruiters have a good half hour to an hour of mandatory spheal about how their "unique" interview process works... and even if you try to tell them that you've done these kinds of interviews before, and even interviewed with Google successfully but turned an offer down before, they'll still helpfully offer you their "insider tips" to... read cracking the coding interview and brush up on data structures.
God forbid you have an unusual niche in industry -- last time I applied, the recruiter took at least two weeks with regular calls to update me on their attempt to get me an interview for the niche I work in. Google's software output definitely reflects just how bureaucratic and convoluted their hiring process has become.
God forbid you have an unusual niche in industry -- last time I applied, the recruiter took at least two weeks with regular calls to update me on their attempt to get me an interview for the niche I work in. Google's software output definitely reflects just how bureaucratic and convoluted their hiring process has become.
It’s worse than that: the only people who hang around are the ones they probably wouldn’t want.
Their hiring model is theoretically a bell curve but when you cut off the top percentiles it severely affects the resulting performance (ie you failed to hire the 20% of ppl who were going to do 80% of the good work)
Their hiring model is theoretically a bell curve but when you cut off the top percentiles it severely affects the resulting performance (ie you failed to hire the 20% of ppl who were going to do 80% of the good work)
Google is one of the few companies that can get away with this due to the overwhelming backlog of talent they have lining up for jobs. I doubt they lose much from this process, but at a lesser company it would certainly have a far more damaging impact.
As was said prior. It used to be so. It is not anymore, Google is now cold messaging people on Linkedin, they were not doing that. I do not think you look for best of the best people this way.
Part of it is just the incentives on Google to improve things, which is to say...very little pressure to change. Google, given its historical reputation and current great WLB is very sought after. Attrition is low (by faang standards), everyone wants to work there and will even take pay cuts to do so. Google loses candidates everywhere through the process and it doesn't seem to matter.
Considering how aggressively they prune candidates with their "false positives are better than hiring someone bad" policy you'd think they'd be more motivated to retain people they hire.
Your friend probably has a claim against the company for breach of contract. When people leave a job to join a new one and incur expenses and then the new company lays them off or fires them for no fault then the judges usually side with the employee.
Indeed, and then he finds that not only is there breach of contract but that the company is also quite vindictive and will use any kind of claim as a reason to not even consider hiring you in the future, assuming that it stays within the one company and doesn't get passed around between recruiters.
Every background check that companies put you through include any history of litigation against employers, no need for recruiters to talk to each other.
I can understand at least the reasoning behind checking criminal history of potential hirings (even though as an European, I disagree with the concept on a fundamental level and it's illegal in Germany to demand a criminal record check outside of very specific industries).
But how on earth do civil lawsuit records in the US end up anywhere where the background-checking industry can get their grubby paws on them?!
But how on earth do civil lawsuit records in the US end up anywhere where the background-checking industry can get their grubby paws on them?!
The simple answer to "how do civil lawsuit records end up where they can get their hands on them" is that civil lawsuit records are of course public, and available to anyone who wants them. Although I haven't specifically heard of this one before.
Are civil suit records not public not in Germany?
But hearing that a criminal history check is illegal in Germany outside of specific industries continues to reinforce my belief that everything just works right in Germany.
How do I get residency?
Are civil suit records not public not in Germany?
But hearing that a criminal history check is illegal in Germany outside of specific industries continues to reinforce my belief that everything just works right in Germany.
How do I get residency?
> Are civil suit records not public not in Germany?
Usually, the verdict of popular lawsuits is published but with all PII redacted to a reasonable degree, and you can request a redacted copy of a verdict if it hasn't been published [1].
Additionally, 99.9% of all court proceedings can be visited and listened to by anyone, the exception being matters involving minors, national security and especially if psychological examinations of the accused or participants or details of sexual and domestic violence are being discussed, highly private details of someone's life - that is usually done only for the relevant period of a proceeding.
To me, that's a fair balance between the interest of the general public and the rights of the people subjected to the court - especially that to the right to live a normal life once one has served their sentence.
[1] https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/bgh-hzivilgerichte-...
Usually, the verdict of popular lawsuits is published but with all PII redacted to a reasonable degree, and you can request a redacted copy of a verdict if it hasn't been published [1].
Additionally, 99.9% of all court proceedings can be visited and listened to by anyone, the exception being matters involving minors, national security and especially if psychological examinations of the accused or participants or details of sexual and domestic violence are being discussed, highly private details of someone's life - that is usually done only for the relevant period of a proceeding.
To me, that's a fair balance between the interest of the general public and the rights of the people subjected to the court - especially that to the right to live a normal life once one has served their sentence.
[1] https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/bgh-hzivilgerichte-...
I would not know how to access such records. Doubt they are publicly available. Germany isn‘t perfect, but if you want to come, the blue card process is pretty straightforward. If you do python backend stuff, talk to me.
Alas, no, ruby. Does the "blue card process" require a job offer? Looks like yes, good to know that if you have that, it can be done. https://www.germany-visa.org/immigration-residence-permit/eu...
I wonder where I'd find software job postings in Germany (or possibly other EU) that are suitable for blue card (looks like salary must be sufficient, possibly other requirements).
It is increasingly apparent to me that the USA is a fully broken society, and a dangerous place to live.
I wonder where I'd find software job postings in Germany (or possibly other EU) that are suitable for blue card (looks like salary must be sufficient, possibly other requirements).
It is increasingly apparent to me that the USA is a fully broken society, and a dangerous place to live.
There are job seeker visa as well, so that you can travel to Germany with the intention of finding a job. I'm currently recruiting an Indian engineer and he indicated that it'll take him about 2 months to get the visa.
> General Work Permit – You can apply for this type of German work permit if you have found a job in Germany which could not have been filled by an EU national. You don’t need to have extraordinary skills as long as you are qualified for the job. Highly Skilled Worker Permit – You can apply for this type of work permit if you are a highly skilled worker with a lot of experience and a high income. The EU Blue Card for Germany – You can apply for an EU Blue Card if your salary will be at least €56,800 per year or €44,304 per year if you are in a shortage occupation.
Software Devs are in such demand that any of these conditions are easily fulfilled.
> General Work Permit – You can apply for this type of German work permit if you have found a job in Germany which could not have been filled by an EU national. You don’t need to have extraordinary skills as long as you are qualified for the job. Highly Skilled Worker Permit – You can apply for this type of work permit if you are a highly skilled worker with a lot of experience and a high income. The EU Blue Card for Germany – You can apply for an EU Blue Card if your salary will be at least €56,800 per year or €44,304 per year if you are in a shortage occupation.
Software Devs are in such demand that any of these conditions are easily fulfilled.
They are not in a standard background check. They might show up in a Google search though.
[deleted]
Have you seen this happen in practice?
Signing for my current job, I learned that there's a legal concept for "quitting with reason", which is essentially the inverse of "firing for cause". Among a few other things, if it procs (which is excessively unlikely), my stock grant is accelerated.
The concept amounts to "a material change in working conditions", and covers pay, work load and type, work location, and location in the hierarchy (aka demotions, even if the company doesn't call it one).
(It's also why I made sure my paperwork specified "remote" rather than "LA")
The concept amounts to "a material change in working conditions", and covers pay, work load and type, work location, and location in the hierarchy (aka demotions, even if the company doesn't call it one).
(It's also why I made sure my paperwork specified "remote" rather than "LA")
If there was in fact a contract. Most employment is at-will.
Meanwhile FAANG leadership are taking meetings in their mountain homes and beach houses in the Mediterranean while we plebs are expected to commute on the daily.
I think that WFH has major downsides for collaboration, but I agree with the sentiment on this thread: If they say it's remote, it should be remote.
The easy thing to do, I would think, would be to demand in the hiring contract specific language guaranteeing 90%+ "remote" work.
The easy thing to do, I would think, would be to demand in the hiring contract specific language guaranteeing 90%+ "remote" work.
Protip from an old guy: Always get everything in writing. No verbal promises. Make sure everything you discussed is written in the offer. If you discussed 100% remote, make sure the offer says 100% remote. If it doesn't, ask them to add it before you sign.
And then if they go back on it, keep working there, look for a new job, don't go to the office even if they tell you that you have to, and bring up that you have it in writing that it's 100% remote.
And if they fire you anyway, you've got a good basis for a wrongful termination suit, while hopefully working at a new job and/or collecting unemployment.
And then if they go back on it, keep working there, look for a new job, don't go to the office even if they tell you that you have to, and bring up that you have it in writing that it's 100% remote.
And if they fire you anyway, you've got a good basis for a wrongful termination suit, while hopefully working at a new job and/or collecting unemployment.
Another datapoint for getting it in writing:
I attended and then later worked at a graduate program in a high-demand niche of computer science. When I was a student a company rescinded an offer that had been signed months before and left one of my classmates scrambling at the last minute.
Several years later I taught there and found out the employer was still blocked from participating in the program's recruiting events. Had there been a handshake instead of a written offer it would be unlikely that they would have maintained that block for so long. The written offer was also referenced when communicating with the company in question, students, other programs in our niche, university administration, and especially other recruiters.
Needless to say, no student has had a similar issue since.
I attended and then later worked at a graduate program in a high-demand niche of computer science. When I was a student a company rescinded an offer that had been signed months before and left one of my classmates scrambling at the last minute.
Several years later I taught there and found out the employer was still blocked from participating in the program's recruiting events. Had there been a handshake instead of a written offer it would be unlikely that they would have maintained that block for so long. The written offer was also referenced when communicating with the company in question, students, other programs in our niche, university administration, and especially other recruiters.
Needless to say, no student has had a similar issue since.
That feel when jedberg is now an old guy.
I agree with you, but in my experience that’s also a recipe for misery. If management is determined to get rid of you, they will find a way. And you’ll be stuck on awful do-nothing projects in the meantime.
Admittedly it’s much nicer to do that while being remote though. Just saying that it feels better to work at a place where management has your back.
I agree with you, but in my experience that’s also a recipe for misery. If management is determined to get rid of you, they will find a way. And you’ll be stuck on awful do-nothing projects in the meantime.
Admittedly it’s much nicer to do that while being remote though. Just saying that it feels better to work at a place where management has your back.
> That feel when jedberg is now an old guy.
How do you think I feel! :)
> I agree with you, but in my experience that’s also a recipe for misery.
Agreed. When management doesn't have your back it's time to move on, which is why my advice starts with, "start your next job search", but in the meantime you can at least push back. At least you still get paid for do-nothing work!
How do you think I feel! :)
> I agree with you, but in my experience that’s also a recipe for misery.
Agreed. When management doesn't have your back it's time to move on, which is why my advice starts with, "start your next job search", but in the meantime you can at least push back. At least you still get paid for do-nothing work!
And keep a red Swingline stapler with you...
What are your recommendations for those of us who work in "at-will" states, where it's common to see "Offer letter is not a contract" in the offer emails, contracts are often eschewed except for certain key roles, and where employers have a much easier time changing parameters of your employment? (No I'm not uprooting the family and moving, either)
Since most of us work in at-will states, the advice is pretty much the same. Once you get a sign that management is no longer on your side, start your next job search and document as much as you can.
And also try to get an actual contract and not just an offer. Most decent companies will actually give you a real contract beyond the offer that details what the job duties are and the compensation and anything else you've agreed on if you ask nicely. Or you can write one yourself and ask them to sign it.
But of course a lot of that depends on what leverage you have -- how badly do they want you on board.
And also try to get an actual contract and not just an offer. Most decent companies will actually give you a real contract beyond the offer that details what the job duties are and the compensation and anything else you've agreed on if you ask nicely. Or you can write one yourself and ask them to sign it.
But of course a lot of that depends on what leverage you have -- how badly do they want you on board.
Why document?
I've gotten that advice, but I've almost never seen it to be helpful:
- It's almost impossible to win a law suit for being fired, unless it's clearly based on sex/race/etc.
- If you sue, you'll burn bridges
- If future employers find out you sued, they won't want to hire you.
It's one of those things that's nice in abstract, but in practice, seems like a waste of time, relative to practising for interviews, applying for jobs, or trying to fix things with the old employer.
My advice is to jump ship, and leave on good terms.
Companies aren't people. I once worked for a company which wasn't a great employer, but I'm glad I left on good terms. The place no longer exists, and there are lots of people there whom I value.
I've gotten that advice, but I've almost never seen it to be helpful:
- It's almost impossible to win a law suit for being fired, unless it's clearly based on sex/race/etc.
- If you sue, you'll burn bridges
- If future employers find out you sued, they won't want to hire you.
It's one of those things that's nice in abstract, but in practice, seems like a waste of time, relative to practising for interviews, applying for jobs, or trying to fix things with the old employer.
My advice is to jump ship, and leave on good terms.
Companies aren't people. I once worked for a company which wasn't a great employer, but I'm glad I left on good terms. The place no longer exists, and there are lots of people there whom I value.
The main purpose of documenting is to show HR that you are documenting, which may get them to reconsider sketchy behavior. But beyond that you are right, suing for being fired rarely works and usually is worse for you than them.
The main purpose of documenting is to show HR that you are documenting, which may get them to reconsider sketchy behavior.
I respect the ideal state you’re shooting for here, but that “may” leaves too much wiggle room for HR sleight-of-hands. I sit here and tell you with a straight face I’ve watched first hand companies doing some pretty shady things under the banner of HR that raised several ethical flags, but because they weren’t outright illegal, when the employee came back with plenty of documentation they still walked away with no judgement, no settlement, and no job.
“Showing” HR that I’m documenting just seems like a REALLY good way to get a very large target painted on my back and… I don’t know if people want to show their hands like that.
I respect the ideal state you’re shooting for here, but that “may” leaves too much wiggle room for HR sleight-of-hands. I sit here and tell you with a straight face I’ve watched first hand companies doing some pretty shady things under the banner of HR that raised several ethical flags, but because they weren’t outright illegal, when the employee came back with plenty of documentation they still walked away with no judgement, no settlement, and no job.
“Showing” HR that I’m documenting just seems like a REALLY good way to get a very large target painted on my back and… I don’t know if people want to show their hands like that.
I have no desire to be vindicated. I'd like a peaceful life. That involves minimizing fights.
IANAL or OP; I work in CA (which AFAIK is at-will) and I made sure the actual employment contract specified remote, and didn't consider myself as having a new job until I had that paperwork (aka - didn't quit existing job, literally or emotionally, or stop other job search prospects, etc)
This works if they try to get you to come in right away, but things change and the company is allowed to change a remote position to an in-office position. It can even happen soon after hiring (but is obviously much more suspect). The company changing its mind !== wrongful termination.
> The company changing its mind !== wrongful termination.
It's true, it doesn't always mean that. But as with anything legal, it might mean that, it's mostly how well you can convince a judge!
It's true, it doesn't always mean that. But as with anything legal, it might mean that, it's mostly how well you can convince a judge!
That's not how contracts work. It does not matter if the company changes its mind. If it's in writing then it has to be honored or else contracts would be pointless if anyone can just change its mind without consequences.
There are no employment contracts in the US. Or rather, they are so incredibly rare (mostly executives, and even rare among them) it's not worth discussing in the context of employment.
That's brutal. We're on the other side of it right now trying to get exec and HR to actually commit to something so we can hire remote. We had multiple good people in the pipeline who we had to pass on, because they won't actually say if they'll demand these people move to Toronto (one of the worst housing markets in the world) as soon as they sign the papers. It's like we're supposed to surprise them with that?
Rents and prices in Ontario are absurd and unless a company is offering remote - or is a satellite dev shop for a US company taking advantage of currency and R&D tax credits and can pay US salaries, they just aren't going to be able to be competitive for talent. If your product market is global like any product has to be right now, Toronto is more of a constraint than a strategy. I'd be skeptical of how much leverage that HR approach has for tech staff right now.
They don't have any. We're bleeding talent and destroying our pipeline for more. We don't pay well to begin with, so asking people to relocate for a worse quality of life is just ... mind boggling.
That’s rough. The housing market there is like the SF Bay Area’s housing market, but with extremely abysmal pay. I’m surprised you guys didn’t go remote sooner.
> I'm not sure what the compensation model for recruiters is, but it seems to encourage bringing in as many candidates as possible over treating them with honesty and respect.
This is exactly how it works, recruiters don't get paid unless they get a candidate hired. Despite all the words they write and say to you, they only care about getting you and the hiring manager to say yes and _everything_ else doesn't matter or is immaterial to them.
Unfortunately it's nothing new to see recruiters being less than honest. In their defense, right now is a weird time with many companies who were firmly in the remote only culture now backtracking and reopening again. It could be the case when this position opened things were much different with its requirements.
But ultimately never trust a thing a recruiter says unless it is signed in writing from your hiring manager/HR of the company. Never believe anything they say about compensation, the future of the company or your position, etc. Never.
This is exactly how it works, recruiters don't get paid unless they get a candidate hired. Despite all the words they write and say to you, they only care about getting you and the hiring manager to say yes and _everything_ else doesn't matter or is immaterial to them.
Unfortunately it's nothing new to see recruiters being less than honest. In their defense, right now is a weird time with many companies who were firmly in the remote only culture now backtracking and reopening again. It could be the case when this position opened things were much different with its requirements.
But ultimately never trust a thing a recruiter says unless it is signed in writing from your hiring manager/HR of the company. Never believe anything they say about compensation, the future of the company or your position, etc. Never.
OP experience makes me think some kind of added process like Letter of Agreement or Letter of Intent from the initial outreach that says “assuming you pass all the rounds, we will hire you to a remote position at a salary to be determined but between the range of x-y, etc.” could be helpful.
It’s not a contract but a precursor and some lighter level of commitment. Common in enterprise sales scenarios but not in mid level job searches.
It’s not a contract but a precursor and some lighter level of commitment. Common in enterprise sales scenarios but not in mid level job searches.
That might work for much more senior or established roles where the hiring pool is small and candidates few. But for your bog standard engineer roles it's not worth the company time and hassle to fuss with negotiations before interviews even start. The unfortunate reality is they'll just pass over anyone demanding such things and grab any of the other resumes on the stack.
[deleted]
If the hiring manager or the people on the hiring committee change their mind about remote work, you are not getting hired anyway not matter what the intent was when you started interviewing.
[deleted]
At the end of the day it's a sales position and just like any sales people they can have a flexible relationship with the truth.
not good people who plan to develop long term relationships. A good recruiter can place the same person many times over the years. But not if they lie.
This depends a lot on their incentive structures - the other side of this coin is that many recruiters are simply full-time employees, who get measured more on their time-to-hire.
Unless we're talking about freelancer/indie recruiters, of course.
Unless we're talking about freelancer/indie recruiters, of course.
> This is exactly how it works, recruiters don't get paid unless they get a candidate hired.
Not exactly. I mean yes - exactly. But they also typically have riders on the contract. Firstly, our recruiters do not get the same cut if the new hire doesn't pan out. Also recruiters I have worked with in the past tend to get a percent of the salary number. That helps as the recruiter is really trying to get you the highest number.
So yes, and no.
Not exactly. I mean yes - exactly. But they also typically have riders on the contract. Firstly, our recruiters do not get the same cut if the new hire doesn't pan out. Also recruiters I have worked with in the past tend to get a percent of the salary number. That helps as the recruiter is really trying to get you the highest number.
So yes, and no.
Amazon is doing this. I went through the process and the recruiter tried to manipulate me into "assigning a local office" otherwise it has to go through "an approval process". I told him put it through the approval then or I walk. He also tried car-salesman tactics of trying to get me to accept a lower total comp package. I stood firmly at the top of my range and after days of trying to convince me otherwise, they finally caved.
They're also holding back-to-the-office meetings where they want local individuals to come in a few times a week and remote individuals to come in on a somewhat regular frequency (e.g. once a month). I told them to shove it, I'm not coming in, ever. I don't need their money that badly. I'd rather slash my salary in half and work somewhere that's not trying to screw me over at every turn. I think after 3-6 months I'm quitting anyway.
EDIT: I should mention I just started at the company and it's already pissing me off. Thankfully my old cushy job will take me back any time.
They're also holding back-to-the-office meetings where they want local individuals to come in a few times a week and remote individuals to come in on a somewhat regular frequency (e.g. once a month). I told them to shove it, I'm not coming in, ever. I don't need their money that badly. I'd rather slash my salary in half and work somewhere that's not trying to screw me over at every turn. I think after 3-6 months I'm quitting anyway.
EDIT: I should mention I just started at the company and it's already pissing me off. Thankfully my old cushy job will take me back any time.
> I'm not coming in, ever.
In my experience working remote for the past decade "remote" usually involves coming to the office or having an offsite once a quarter. I don't think that's unreasonable at all.
In my experience working remote for the past decade "remote" usually involves coming to the office or having an offsite once a quarter. I don't think that's unreasonable at all.
I've been doing remote longer than a decade and never ever had to come in to the office when designated as such. Might be reasonable for you, but that's up to the individual and at the very least needs to be disclosed in the interview stage if it's mandated. Some people work remote because they have debilitating anxiety, phobias, or mental health issues. Others are single parents that don't have the ability to offload those responsibilities. There are valid reasons for never going in.
I respectfully disagree. Traveling to the office or for an offsite once a quarter is totally reasonable and when planned some three weeks ahead or so, should pose no issues whatsoever.
If you are unable to fit this in your schedule, or are actually that mentally unfit you cannot oblige your fellow humans in your job... Every once in a while? Then you should not have that job. This should be considered reasonable by any standard.
Not wanting to deal with humans most of the time... Fine. Not being able to deal with your human colleagues, who do want to deal with each other, ever? Not fine. $0.02
If you are unable to fit this in your schedule, or are actually that mentally unfit you cannot oblige your fellow humans in your job... Every once in a while? Then you should not have that job. This should be considered reasonable by any standard.
Not wanting to deal with humans most of the time... Fine. Not being able to deal with your human colleagues, who do want to deal with each other, ever? Not fine. $0.02
You can disagree all you want, but at the end of the day it's still only your opinion and is unrealistic.
For full disclosure, I have a neurological disease with physical ailments, I have digestive medical problems which would make it embarrassing for me and very uncomfortable for them, and I have a personality disorder which includes anxiety and depression as a bonus. All of which makes onsite participation literally torture for just a few hours, let alone a whole week of it. Clearly I've done my job so effectively for so long that I can work anywhere in tech and demand top salaries, so your comment about "not having that job" is not only extremely lacking in empathy, but downright wrong.
EDIT: just to clarify, this is only relevant for employers that do not disclose the requirement during the hiring phase. If they disclose it ahead of time, then I might agree with you.
For full disclosure, I have a neurological disease with physical ailments, I have digestive medical problems which would make it embarrassing for me and very uncomfortable for them, and I have a personality disorder which includes anxiety and depression as a bonus. All of which makes onsite participation literally torture for just a few hours, let alone a whole week of it. Clearly I've done my job so effectively for so long that I can work anywhere in tech and demand top salaries, so your comment about "not having that job" is not only extremely lacking in empathy, but downright wrong.
EDIT: just to clarify, this is only relevant for employers that do not disclose the requirement during the hiring phase. If they disclose it ahead of time, then I might agree with you.
Sorry to hear about your issues, and good for you you have enjoyed, and feel assured you can maintain, good paying work fully remote. I indeed assumed full disclosure, both ways. When you have explicitly agreed you will never come in, this should definitely not become an expectation later on.
For the vast majority of jobs though and in the vast majority of cases I still feel it is very normal for people to expect to see each other every now and then in person. Even when the work itself can be done equally well remote and even when there is a significant effort involved.
For the vast majority of jobs though and in the vast majority of cases I still feel it is very normal for people to expect to see each other every now and then in person. Even when the work itself can be done equally well remote and even when there is a significant effort involved.
In that case I apologize for making a bad assumption and wording my response in an emotionally charged way.
I don't get the absolutes here, this can easily be discussed during interviews and before signing anything. Either the company and the future employee agree on what's reasonable and they sign, or they don't, and that's it.
There will be in person positions for people like yourself. A remote position means no traveling either.
Of course the terms of the role and how much travel is required should be disclosed up front.
That said, for a highly paid role at a company like Amazon one should expect that they'll have to occasionally travel. Demanding that you never visit the office is unreasonable. The job is not simply sitting in your room shipping code—it also involves in person conversation from time to time.
That said, for a highly paid role at a company like Amazon one should expect that they'll have to occasionally travel. Demanding that you never visit the office is unreasonable. The job is not simply sitting in your room shipping code—it also involves in person conversation from time to time.
Coming on-site once in a while isn't only not unreasonable, but an incredibly good idea.
Ought to be well-structured to be productive. My old employer used to set up a full day of 1:1 or small meetings with folks, end-to-end with short breaks in between. These were pretty informal (often walks) and cut across the company (not just my part of the org).
Ought to be well-structured to be productive. My old employer used to set up a full day of 1:1 or small meetings with folks, end-to-end with short breaks in between. These were pretty informal (often walks) and cut across the company (not just my part of the org).
That is completely unreasonable.
GE burnt me out within six months doing the same crap. In my case I was coming in as a contractor for six months (and then on to FTE) and the original contract mentioned "travel" which I had them remove and they told me no travel ever...not a big deal.
Whole story changed when it came to hiring on as an FTE. Occasional travel was required and no guarantees on getting hired with some wired interview process that they actually took seriously. Total bait and switch trash.
I went through with it because I had already left my previous job fucking six months earlier. I hired in at, as I come to find out, some illustrious Senior Staff level that is nearly impossible to achieve for people starting thier career there. I was soon meeting people who had been kissing ass for a decade who were getting denied senior level.
I spent the next six months telegraphing my lack of enthusiasm for the company and was laid off when the pandemic set in. People were offering me other jobs etc but I refused and took the package...which was very nice at my level. I had just been paid full bonus and I received a bonus the following year for time I spent with the company on the next bonus cycle. A year after being laid off another $5k drops in my account. These people are batshit.
Whole story changed when it came to hiring on as an FTE. Occasional travel was required and no guarantees on getting hired with some wired interview process that they actually took seriously. Total bait and switch trash.
I went through with it because I had already left my previous job fucking six months earlier. I hired in at, as I come to find out, some illustrious Senior Staff level that is nearly impossible to achieve for people starting thier career there. I was soon meeting people who had been kissing ass for a decade who were getting denied senior level.
I spent the next six months telegraphing my lack of enthusiasm for the company and was laid off when the pandemic set in. People were offering me other jobs etc but I refused and took the package...which was very nice at my level. I had just been paid full bonus and I received a bonus the following year for time I spent with the company on the next bonus cycle. A year after being laid off another $5k drops in my account. These people are batshit.
What led you to go from a cushy job to a sweatshop, if I may ask?
Sure thing. Going in I knew I would hate working at a FAANG, so there were a few factors really: 1) my old job loves what I do and I can easily return at any time, 2) I literally doubled my salary, 3) polish up my experience, and 4) it would bullet-proof my resume.
On that last point: I haven't had issues getting in the door anywhere for the last decade, but I think if the industry were to sour, it would help my resume stand out from other candidates.
On that last point: I haven't had issues getting in the door anywhere for the last decade, but I think if the industry were to sour, it would help my resume stand out from other candidates.
Being assigned an office doesn't mean that it's not remote. It entirely depends on the team. I worked for a team that wanted me in office for three days a week last year. My current team is entirely remote, but I'm still assigned to an office that I can go to anytime I want, which is totally optional.
On the other hand, I had exactly this sort of issue with Amazon subsidiary Zoox a couple months ago. We had verbally agreed on terms that would have me doing primarily remote work. When they finally sent me terms, they specified full time in-office and changed a few other things like salary. The excuse was that some higher-up wouldn't approve remote right now, but they were trying to convince them.
No, but here's the catch that I learned about: if you're assigned to an office, they can make you go into that office at the same frequency as in-office workers. You'd basically have nothing in writing that states you're a remote employee (I specifically asked the recruiter about this, and he confirmed). Otherwise why would being fully remote need "special approval"? That doesn't make any sense.
Ask the people you're talking to where the teammates are, the expectations of return to office. Ask them in the very first call. Either they'll be offended because they probably have nefarious plans (dodged a huge time waste), or they'll happily explain how their team is spread across 4 timezones and could never return to the office since there isn't one.
Sadly "remote" is just a buzzword to a lot of people. But on the flip side a lot of companies are truly serious about it.
Sadly "remote" is just a buzzword to a lot of people. But on the flip side a lot of companies are truly serious about it.
So far that has been my experience with a handful of FAANG interviews the last couple of years: I get a recruiter coming to me talking about 100% remote positions. I get to phone interviews, ask the people I'm actually interviewing with what their thoughts on remote work are and am honest that I'd be most interested in 100% remote myself (but I am flexible on it). Most of those stopped at the phone interview because it was generally clear the recruiter telling me that 100% remote options were on the table had me interviewing with 100% "can't wait to get back to the office" teams.
I have a couple friends obsessed with the “digital nomad” term and are swayed by things and jobs with terms like remote or digital nomad
That crowd is almost incapable of just applying for jobs that have always been remote, if the job description doesn't lead with that in the title. Many software startups and the development consultancies they rely on have been this way for many years.
So instead they get led on by things catering to the remote and digital nomad industry than just having a job that already had supported the lifestyle they wanted!
That crowd is almost incapable of just applying for jobs that have always been remote, if the job description doesn't lead with that in the title. Many software startups and the development consultancies they rely on have been this way for many years.
So instead they get led on by things catering to the remote and digital nomad industry than just having a job that already had supported the lifestyle they wanted!
Good advice, and should also ask if the team was mostly WFH before Covid because old habits die hard.
At my last role, I got all the way to the "signing your hiring paperwork" to find out that vaccines were mandatory for all new hires. Seeing as that's 30% of the workforce or so who isn't, and this being a senior level position, and a year more after they were first available (meaning, anyone who wanted to get a vaccine - probably would have already)... you'd think they'd bring that up day one.
I about flipped shit on the recruiter.
I about flipped shit on the recruiter.
People just assume anyone with a reasonable amount of common sense would be fine with it I imagine.
It seems bizarre to me you wouldn't put requirements up front, which seems to be what this thread is complaining about. Thank you for implying I am a moron
Well, you are a moron for refusing a free vaccine that significantly reduces chance of getting covid, AND lessens severity of ailments if you do get it.
I'd say it was a bullet dodged by the company.
I'd say it was a bullet dodged by the company.
I'm good thanks - I don't take medical advise (free or not) from people who call me nasty names online
Maybe a year ago you could make a comment like that when everyone was locked down but the vaccines don't work anymore for the current variant. Common sense needs to be updated
There's millions of people that have already been infected with COVID and receive no calculable benefit from taking a vaccine. While the vaccine has been proven to be safe and effective, there are rare side effects that some people might not want to expose themselves to for no reason. Springing that blanket requirement on people at the end of the hiring process is a shitty move.
There are significant benefits to getting the vaccine after infection https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html
I really wish people would read their sources, and specifically with the CDC, read the sources the CDC is using. The CDC page you referenced uses https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm as its only source for this recommendation.
The study monitors outcomes for a group that were all infected at some point in 2020. The vaccine was released at the end of 2020. The study monitors the infection status of these people in May-June 2021. It's purposefully selecting people who had no recent exposure via natural infection and comparing them to people that recently had the vaccine. I don't know how they can use this to support their recommendation with a straight face.
The study monitors outcomes for a group that were all infected at some point in 2020. The vaccine was released at the end of 2020. The study monitors the infection status of these people in May-June 2021. It's purposefully selecting people who had no recent exposure via natural infection and comparing them to people that recently had the vaccine. I don't know how they can use this to support their recommendation with a straight face.
I don't understand your point. People who say "I don't need the vaccine because I already had COVID" never qualify that with how recent their natural infection was. Many of them assume that having it once is forever enough, like with chickenpox. The study shows that this common belief is wrong.
Neither the vaccine or infection will protect against reinfection indefinitely. That much I believe everyone is in agreement with. If you had natural infection or the vaccine a year ago or more, you will likely be reinfected with the most recent strain, typically with mild or no symptoms. My point about the study was that it specifically selecting people who were recently vaccinated vs. people whose natural exposure was the prior year. Of course the vaccinated people whose immune systems were recently exposed to the spike protein had lower reinfection rates.
That's why taking the vaccine is valuable! It provides protection, even to those who have had COVID before! Even if you had it last year, you can protect yourself by taking the vaccine! That's what the study shows! Just because you think it's obvious doesn't mean the study isn't valuable!
On the other hand, the job did not require that a recent vaccination is required, just some. So it’s still comparing apples to oranges.
On top of that: A recently recovered infection provides probably even more protection than a recent vaccination.
It’s difficult to reason about all cases, in my opinion.
On top of that: A recently recovered infection provides probably even more protection than a recent vaccination.
It’s difficult to reason about all cases, in my opinion.
The post that started this chain said there were significant benefits to vaccine after infection. That post was correct. Since then, tdfx and others have been launching a barrage of red herrings to somehow undermine and misdirect away from this correct point, rather than simply acknowledging it and moving on to whatever they actually want to say.
If you don't want to be required to take the vaccine, we can have that conversation, but enough spouting nonsense to cast doubt on a correct point.
If you don't want to be required to take the vaccine, we can have that conversation, but enough spouting nonsense to cast doubt on a correct point.
> Since then, tdfx and others have been launching a barrage of red herrings to somehow undermine and misdirect away from this correct point
The original point is an interesting example of being correct, but also misleading in that it paints getting the vaccine after natural infection as the best course of action. It has benefits, but probably not as many immune benefits as having a second asymptomatic infection after the original one.
I'm not anti-vaccine at all, but the CDC presents the vaccine to everyone in every circumstance as the optimal course of action and it's very clear the science on that is not settled. Blanket statements and their inability to acknowledge edge cases are the reason their credibility has been so badly eroded in the past few years. In their quest not to give anti-vax people a thread to pull on, they've treated the public as too stupid to understand nuance and created an even larger distrust than they would've had to begin with.
The original point is an interesting example of being correct, but also misleading in that it paints getting the vaccine after natural infection as the best course of action. It has benefits, but probably not as many immune benefits as having a second asymptomatic infection after the original one.
I'm not anti-vaccine at all, but the CDC presents the vaccine to everyone in every circumstance as the optimal course of action and it's very clear the science on that is not settled. Blanket statements and their inability to acknowledge edge cases are the reason their credibility has been so badly eroded in the past few years. In their quest not to give anti-vax people a thread to pull on, they've treated the public as too stupid to understand nuance and created an even larger distrust than they would've had to begin with.
each time you are exposed via vaccine or getting infected, it builds immunity.
Getting exposed turns out to be similar to having gotten one shot, though Im sure the immune response has a wider antigen coverage.
Keep in mind that getting infected has a substantially higher risk of bad outcomes than getting the vaccine. Getting the vaccine substantially reduces the risk of bad outcomes.
Getting infected then getting the vaccine is not as good as getting vaccinated then getting infected.
Also getting infected likely makes you completely immune to that variant. But getting vaccines/boosters likely gives you stronger partial immunity to mutated variants.
Getting exposed turns out to be similar to having gotten one shot, though Im sure the immune response has a wider antigen coverage.
Keep in mind that getting infected has a substantially higher risk of bad outcomes than getting the vaccine. Getting the vaccine substantially reduces the risk of bad outcomes.
Getting infected then getting the vaccine is not as good as getting vaccinated then getting infected.
Also getting infected likely makes you completely immune to that variant. But getting vaccines/boosters likely gives you stronger partial immunity to mutated variants.
Each time you get a vaccine you suppress a part of your body that would naturally react. You won't over react to covid but you will also not react in a natural way like previously. What does this mean We will find out in 2024 when the first longterm studies are due out.
What's the advantage of natural reaction?
The natural reaction to viper venom is blood coagulation in the veins.
There's no reason to believe, a priori, that the natural reaction to a biological antagonist is the best one.
The natural reaction to viper venom is blood coagulation in the veins.
There's no reason to believe, a priori, that the natural reaction to a biological antagonist is the best one.
> Each time you get a vaccine you suppress a part of your body that would naturally react.
What exactly is being suppressed?
What exactly is being suppressed?
I don't think he's concerned with common sense. Or even vaccines.
His entire HN biography:
"i write for shock value, if you are shocked, thank you!"
His entire HN biography:
"i write for shock value, if you are shocked, thank you!"
I think it's pretty reasonable to require vaccination as a condition for participating in some settings. Office settings being one of them.
But that said, I dislike surprises in employment agreement terms, and I've started to ask for people to send over their employment agreement along with offer letters so I can include terms in negotiation.
But that said, I dislike surprises in employment agreement terms, and I've started to ask for people to send over their employment agreement along with offer letters so I can include terms in negotiation.
If it's that important to you, it probably wouldn't hurt to get a prospective employer's vaccine policy in writing before accepting an offer. You can ask for that without revealing your own views on the subject.
I guess, I have never before been asked to meet any vaccine requirement in my professional career, and all health and safety requirements are typically listed up front, including steel toed shoes and lifting up to 50lbs, I don't know why I would have to ask an endless list of requirements.
I am pro-vaccine but I agree with you that this should be disclosed upfront.
Seems like downvoters are having a knee-jerk reaction of EVIL ANTIVAXXER and not listening to the actual point made.
Seems like downvoters are having a knee-jerk reaction of EVIL ANTIVAXXER and not listening to the actual point made.
> [...] the job opening didn't say remote, the agreement they signed didn't say remote.
I don't understand. Do people sign a contract that states something differently than they were being told verbally before?
Imho what isn't in writing doesn't exist. Especially when it comes to "promises" from potential employers.
For example I would not trust a promised raise in 12 months when nothing was done in writing. Even with the best of employers I would not agree to anything if they didn't agree to writing it down.
I don't understand. Do people sign a contract that states something differently than they were being told verbally before?
Imho what isn't in writing doesn't exist. Especially when it comes to "promises" from potential employers.
For example I would not trust a promised raise in 12 months when nothing was done in writing. Even with the best of employers I would not agree to anything if they didn't agree to writing it down.
> Do people sign a contract that states something differently than they were being told verbally before?
Yes. All the time.
And verbal agreements are valid contracts too, if you can prove they exist (but good luck in that).
Anyway, this particular case looks more like the OP believed on the promises of a 3rd party (the recruiter), so it's not actually a contract.
Yes. All the time.
And verbal agreements are valid contracts too, if you can prove they exist (but good luck in that).
Anyway, this particular case looks more like the OP believed on the promises of a 3rd party (the recruiter), so it's not actually a contract.
That's a pretty hard standard to hold. I've never had a company promise a particular desk to me in writing, but I trust that if they show me their nice office space and verbally tell me that's where I'll be sitting they won't put me on a folding table in the broom closet.
I think you've crossed over into the unnecessarily absurd.
When I got my offer and contract to sign which stated remote work I made damn sure it was in the contract along with compensation, holidays, sick leave etc. If any of these differed from the job advert, interview discussions etc then I'd be bouncing it back to the employer to correct.
These are not "pretty hard standard[s] to hold" a potential employer to.
When I got my offer and contract to sign which stated remote work I made damn sure it was in the contract along with compensation, holidays, sick leave etc. If any of these differed from the job advert, interview discussions etc then I'd be bouncing it back to the employer to correct.
These are not "pretty hard standard[s] to hold" a potential employer to.
you are right. if it’s not in writing, don’t accept it.
My contract specifically states that my primary work location is the company office.
If I had applied to a remote position and the contract did not specifically state it's primarily a remote location, I would demand the contract was changed to reflect this before signing.
If I had applied to a remote position and the contract did not specifically state it's primarily a remote location, I would demand the contract was changed to reflect this before signing.
Surely you can see the difference between things like salary, whether you're expected to commute several hours a week, etc. and whether you're sitting next to a window or not.
I’m sure there are talented recruiters but generally I’m lucky if they connect any dots properly. Things like: “I see you have years of experience on X, here’s an opening in Y”, or “I found your resume <that clearly states objectives, including where I would work>, here’s a job in $faraway_city!”.
In other words, they barely seem to read resumes or anything else so if they totally screw up key details of the position, that is probably par for the course.
(Insert rant about losing StackOverflow Developer Stories, which actually allowed explicit tagging of things like preferred tech which made matching really easy.)
In other words, they barely seem to read resumes or anything else so if they totally screw up key details of the position, that is probably par for the course.
(Insert rant about losing StackOverflow Developer Stories, which actually allowed explicit tagging of things like preferred tech which made matching really easy.)
Recruiters use automated tools to scrape LinkedIn profiles and send what amounts to customized spam.
> I’m sure there are talented recruiters but generally I’m lucky if they connect any dots properly.
I'd love to meet one. Every recruiter I've worked with had trouble walking and chewing gum. It's infuriating that they aren't better at their jobs given how much they can make by placing even 1 developer.
I'd love to meet one. Every recruiter I've worked with had trouble walking and chewing gum. It's infuriating that they aren't better at their jobs given how much they can make by placing even 1 developer.
Same thing happened with me @ Apple last year. Went through 4 or so interviews with the expectation that it was a remote role. Then the day before the big remote "onsite" I was told they actually wanted someone in-person. So I removed myself from the process. I'll chalk it up to 2021 being a confusing time for everyone - but I felt pretty burned by it.
It was well known across the industry Apple required most people back in the offices.
My advice for those people is: don't go to the office. Simply work remotely as it was agreed and let the managers make a move.
Considering how insanely difficult it is to hire right now, I predict most of times they will do nothing. However this might sour your relationship with your manager so you might want to consider looking internally for someone who supports remote work, or look for another company that's more honest and transparent.
Considering how insanely difficult it is to hire right now, I predict most of times they will do nothing. However this might sour your relationship with your manager so you might want to consider looking internally for someone who supports remote work, or look for another company that's more honest and transparent.
I would also recommend starting interviewing after the first request to get back into the office.
You definitely need to name the company that did this.
I'll bet I know which company (I won't name them, but I get regular automated contacts for them. They used to be onsite-only, but the contacts recently, have been stressing "remote-only." I don't believe them, at all).
"hiring committee" = Google.
Haha you'd be surprised of the amount of Google cargo-culting happening in the industry. Lots of companies have 'hiring committees' now.
[deleted]
Why? This isn't Twitter, piling on a company doesn't add much to the discussion, it just lets people focus their outrage better
I would like to know if a company is willing to waste thousands of dollars (interviewers' time, hiring manager's time, hiring committee's time, not to mention the candidate's time) knowing full well that they will not commit to terms (at least verbally) agreed upon upfront. That is a clear sign of a dysfunctional organization.
It'd be really valuable for me, personally. I suspect I know the company (Google) as I'd seen a Glassdoor review mentioning the same thing. It'd be really nice to know if the sample size is > 1 as I'm considering going through the application process myself and this would suck.
Because companies going back on their word during the hiring process is a bad thing. It's a bait and switch.
This has happened to a number of folks that I have known over the years, and long predates remote work.
I have known many people that have picked up and moved across the country for "the dream job," only to return, a couple of months later, tail between their legs, because the job turned out to be unsuitable in any of a dozen different ways (usually, it was because the duties did not match what they were told, but I know of at least one case, where the pay was drastically reduced, or they were hired as a contractor, even though they were told it was a salaried employee of the corporation).
I have known many people that have picked up and moved across the country for "the dream job," only to return, a couple of months later, tail between their legs, because the job turned out to be unsuitable in any of a dozen different ways (usually, it was because the duties did not match what they were told, but I know of at least one case, where the pay was drastically reduced, or they were hired as a contractor, even though they were told it was a salaried employee of the corporation).
Sounds like a bunch of excellent reasons why such companies should be named.
Companies are huge and they can hurt many people at scale. Individuals are small, relatively powerless and easy to manipulate. Especially if they don't organise themselves. Spreading information is the first step of getting organised.
Companies are huge and they can hurt many people at scale. Individuals are small, relatively powerless and easy to manipulate. Especially if they don't organise themselves. Spreading information is the first step of getting organised.
I agree, but it's also a good way to get "blackballed" in today's tech industry.
I would not encourage people early-to-mid-career, to do this.
I would not encourage people early-to-mid-career, to do this.
I'm sceptical as to whether you can actually get blackballed, unless your misdeeds achieve a Hans Reiser level of publicity.
I've had recruiters claim that if I use the offer they got me to negotiate a raise from my current employer, they'll make sure I never work in this town again - and yet recruiters keep calling.
I've had recruiters claim that if I use the offer they got me to negotiate a raise from my current employer, they'll make sure I never work in this town again - and yet recruiters keep calling.
I've seen it happen.
Maybe it's less prevalent than it has been in the past, but managers hate "troublemakers," even if the "troublemakers" are 100% correct.
Also, this is a FAANG company. Get problems there, it's likely to metastasize. It would be another thing, if it were BillyBob's WebApp Emporium.
Maybe it's less prevalent than it has been in the past, but managers hate "troublemakers," even if the "troublemakers" are 100% correct.
Also, this is a FAANG company. Get problems there, it's likely to metastasize. It would be another thing, if it were BillyBob's WebApp Emporium.
>unless your misdeeds achieve a Hans Reiser level of publicity.
Really. I know people with felony convictions for serious crimes who got back into the industry they offended against. It turns out that background check firms are only reliable when the applicant has no criminal background, heheh.
Really. I know people with felony convictions for serious crimes who got back into the industry they offended against. It turns out that background check firms are only reliable when the applicant has no criminal background, heheh.
Ahh...not hot dog.
[deleted]
I'm not seeing why that would be a problem.
In what context is focusing ones outrage at all useful, ever? This is just reinforcing destruction, promoting group identity, enabling a mob mentality, and sometimes promotes violence.
Honest critique is one thing, mob mentality outrage is not an honest critique.
Honest critique is one thing, mob mentality outrage is not an honest critique.
Mob mentality outrage is one of the few things that produces effective change.
Would you encourage the same policy of not naming the the accused parties with the #meToo movement? Because it's not productive or worthwhile to focus on a few individuals? And where would that movement have gotten if none of the parties involved had ever been named?
Would you encourage the same policy of not naming the the accused parties with the #meToo movement? Because it's not productive or worthwhile to focus on a few individuals? And where would that movement have gotten if none of the parties involved had ever been named?
You can't figure out why, in a community full of developers, that it might be useful to know which employers are lying about remote work?
That wasn't my point. I think that would be part of an honest critique.
The other commenter basically said focusing outrage was not problematic. I don't have any issue with honesty and transparency around hiring practices. However, I do think the appropriate place to do something like that would be on a site like glassdoor, and not a platform like twitter. I think as a country we have way more than enough "outrage" at the moment, I don't see any benefit to adding fuel to fire and communicating it a way that is likely going stir up hashtag vomit.
The other commenter basically said focusing outrage was not problematic. I don't have any issue with honesty and transparency around hiring practices. However, I do think the appropriate place to do something like that would be on a site like glassdoor, and not a platform like twitter. I think as a country we have way more than enough "outrage" at the moment, I don't see any benefit to adding fuel to fire and communicating it a way that is likely going stir up hashtag vomit.
The company is doing what would be illegal in most places, and definitely immoral here.
They deserve the outrage and the outrage is the only thing that's gonna fix this.
Also to answer your question. Literally every single positive change in this country has come out of focused outrage.
Civil rights movement LGBT rights Women's rights The basic amount of worker and consumer rights.
They deserve the outrage and the outrage is the only thing that's gonna fix this.
Also to answer your question. Literally every single positive change in this country has come out of focused outrage.
Civil rights movement LGBT rights Women's rights The basic amount of worker and consumer rights.
So we've escalated from "top paying tech company decided I can't work remote" to the civil rights movement... this thread is an interesting study in internet discourse
Individuals can choose to do the actions you describe and that needs to be dealt with at an individual level.
What is being discussed is responsibility for actions.
What is being discussed is responsibility for actions.
Society runs on example making, sadly. For all the good or ill that entails.
Someone deserves to be named and shamed, with the caveat of, there must be an agreement to actually accept the results of further digging.
If the recruiter said yes to a remote position that wasn't, the fault is rightly on the recruiter. If the recruiter was told remote was fine only for eventual reneg when ink was being put to paper... That is absolutely a reputation hit the client of said recruiter needs to take.
Fixing a fault requires identification, localization & characterization, and remediation.
This fault has been identified, but not localized and characterized.
Ergo, if remediation is the goal, naming and shaming absolutely needs to happen.
And everyone involved, up to the company execs making the decision themselves should understand the importance of this dynamic unless they've all been playing games to get to where they are, in which case, the callout is doubly needed.
Someone deserves to be named and shamed, with the caveat of, there must be an agreement to actually accept the results of further digging.
If the recruiter said yes to a remote position that wasn't, the fault is rightly on the recruiter. If the recruiter was told remote was fine only for eventual reneg when ink was being put to paper... That is absolutely a reputation hit the client of said recruiter needs to take.
Fixing a fault requires identification, localization & characterization, and remediation.
This fault has been identified, but not localized and characterized.
Ergo, if remediation is the goal, naming and shaming absolutely needs to happen.
And everyone involved, up to the company execs making the decision themselves should understand the importance of this dynamic unless they've all been playing games to get to where they are, in which case, the callout is doubly needed.
As much as it pains me to say it... In my experiences if the recruiter email has an Indian name, it's going to be an uttar shitshow.
They will lie to you, blatantly.
They'll use non-standard English that will have tons of ambiguities and brokenness. I believe this is a benefit to them, to provide ambiguity.
The remote/hybrid/in-person status is whatever you ask, and will be updated to the real answer when talking to the client.
The job will flip/flop from to w2 and c2c by whatever you seem to express.
Pay is whatever they think you will like.
There's "benefits" until it flips to contract with no benefits.
Now, that's not to say that a standard American recruiter is somehow good. They're also pretty sketch as well. But so far, in 2y of looking for a new job, 100% of the Indian recruiters have not "did the needful" for me.
They will lie to you, blatantly.
They'll use non-standard English that will have tons of ambiguities and brokenness. I believe this is a benefit to them, to provide ambiguity.
The remote/hybrid/in-person status is whatever you ask, and will be updated to the real answer when talking to the client.
The job will flip/flop from to w2 and c2c by whatever you seem to express.
Pay is whatever they think you will like.
There's "benefits" until it flips to contract with no benefits.
Now, that's not to say that a standard American recruiter is somehow good. They're also pretty sketch as well. But so far, in 2y of looking for a new job, 100% of the Indian recruiters have not "did the needful" for me.
So that other people don't waste their time on that company, of course.
Why do you believe the company should be able to keep bad behavior secret?
Why do you believe the company should be able to keep bad behavior secret?
It lets you know not to trust the recruiter, at least, I know I'd like to know who did that.
Credibility is paramount on these things, and a recruiter doing this is wasting people's time and money.
Credibility is paramount on these things, and a recruiter doing this is wasting people's time and money.
Because it helps people make better decisions about where they apply and how far they get before getting commitments like remote working in writing!
The Recruiter could have left, they could have been told it was Remote and the company changed their minds later, could have been a simple mistake. Why burn a company without knowing the facts?
The company and only the company could have prevented it, but they didn’t.
Yep. I don't care what the reasoning behind the scenes is. I care that a candidate got bamboozled.
OP dodged a bullet frankly, but it really sucks when most big companies all shoot at you.
We don't even need to promote much discussion on it TBH. If OP is to be believed, the company blatantly lied to OP and wasted a large chunk of his time.
Just like in anything else in life, if someone is not held to the consequences of their actions, they'll keep doing it.
It's frankly pathetic if this remains the norm for our profession.
It's not like most of us applicants go in, blatantly lie, and waste the companies time. We, and every other worked applying to any job, should at least be treated the same as a bare minimum.
We don't even need to promote much discussion on it TBH. If OP is to be believed, the company blatantly lied to OP and wasted a large chunk of his time.
Just like in anything else in life, if someone is not held to the consequences of their actions, they'll keep doing it.
It's frankly pathetic if this remains the norm for our profession.
It's not like most of us applicants go in, blatantly lie, and waste the companies time. We, and every other worked applying to any job, should at least be treated the same as a bare minimum.
It adds the most important thing to the discussion: Which company is it, so we - the other people working in the same field, applying for the same jobs - can avoid it.
And without it the post is pointless. Recruiters lie. Yes. Sales people lie all the time. It's not news.
It might even be read by employees of that very company that are in a position to improve things.
> it just lets people focus their outrage better
Sounds like a 'win' to me.
Sounds like a 'win' to me.
A friend of mine went to an interview after a recruiter called him and said it was hybrid (up to one day at the office every two weeks and rest remote) but at the interview when it was done, they said that he needed to be at the office a minimum of four days a week. I feel like this is sort of common these days.
It is, but it's worth giving companies the benefit of the doubt here. A lot of companies are actively changing their policies. At my day job we're transitioning from full remote to hybrid, and the rules on hybrid are themselves in flux. It'd be real easy for a candidate to get mixed messages if they entered the hiring funnel now. Yes, the company should be up front about the circumstances, but I could see how it would happen.
And yes, other companies are just malicious.
And yes, other companies are just malicious.
I've literally had recruiters email me job descriptions with "remote" in the email header and the document inside says "hybrid".
None of these people actually read the crap they shovel onward.
None of these people actually read the crap they shovel onward.
Recruiters and hiring teams are hardly ever on the same page. Always get your information straight from the company, not a third party that is enticed to land interviews for higher chance of converting to landing a candidate.
I do think the bait and switch of offering employees who entered the workforce full time employment and then asking them to come into the office two years later is disgusting. There's something bigger going on with how fast this has been swept under the rug.
If you're reading this and want to be fully remote, don't settle for anything less. People have been doing remote work for decades at this point and contributing more than most people do in an office. If you prefer to work at an office then do whatever suits you.
I do think the bait and switch of offering employees who entered the workforce full time employment and then asking them to come into the office two years later is disgusting. There's something bigger going on with how fast this has been swept under the rug.
If you're reading this and want to be fully remote, don't settle for anything less. People have been doing remote work for decades at this point and contributing more than most people do in an office. If you prefer to work at an office then do whatever suits you.
"Always get your information straight from the company"
I remember the hiring manager walking me out of a prospective employer's high security area after a really successful interview, and I asked him in the hallway about the full employee conversion process. He said the entire team is interviewing to keep their current jobs and they'd be shutting down their office to consolidate on the east coast. No way I'd accept after that. I still wonder if he was lying to me since I've talked to their kubernetes people at DevOps Days, so I know they have a team here still.
I remember the hiring manager walking me out of a prospective employer's high security area after a really successful interview, and I asked him in the hallway about the full employee conversion process. He said the entire team is interviewing to keep their current jobs and they'd be shutting down their office to consolidate on the east coast. No way I'd accept after that. I still wonder if he was lying to me since I've talked to their kubernetes people at DevOps Days, so I know they have a team here still.
Those people are rare breeds to tell you the truth. I've had similar in my career and also do the same for those who are entering a minefield.
If you get to the point you get an offer, always make sure to get that in the contract. I was working remotely for a company that went through some re-org and ended up with a different manager who wasn't very excited about having remote team members. Unfortunately for him it was part of my contract so he couldn't force me to relocate.
Very few workers in the U.S. have actual employment contracts. If you work in the tech sector in the U.S. you almost certainly don't. Instead, your employment is "at-will"; i.e. terminable by either party, with or without cause or notice (unless you live and work in Montana). You may have received a written offer of employment when you were hired (outlining your title, salary, hiring bonuses, etc.), but that is not an employment contract. The important distinction for the OP is that a written offer of employment is not legally binding. They can lie or change their minds.
> If you work in the tech sector in the U.S. you almost certainly don't.
I've been working in the tech sector in the US for a long time, and have had an employment contract at literally every company. I'm genuinely surprised to hear that people are working without one. That seems unwise.
I've been working in the tech sector in the US for a long time, and have had an employment contract at literally every company. I'm genuinely surprised to hear that people are working without one. That seems unwise.
Same - I've always had contract (but the sample size is quite small). The problem is that even if you have "full remote" in your contract, you also probably have "at will" in the same contract, which IMO means they can still play the game of "come in person or you're fired".
You're almost certainly mistaken. An employment contract is a very specific legal document that ensures certain rights (including pay) and obligations. You (almost certainly) do not have a contract, you work "at will." Your pay could be changed to minimum wage tomorrow and you'd have no legal recourse other than to quit. Similarly, you could quit your job with no notice today and your employer could do nothing. Neither of those would be true if you had an actual contract.
I've worked for 4 companies in the U.S. and they only sent Employment offers/letters/agreements that I had to sign. Didn't see the word contract in any of them.
[deleted]
If you have an agreed rate of pay you have an employment contract.
That that contract does not contain terms modifying the default at-will status of employment does not mean it is not a contract. (A terminable at will contract is still a contract.)
That that contract does not contain terms modifying the default at-will status of employment does not mean it is not a contract. (A terminable at will contract is still a contract.)
You're right. But at least you would have enough proof to seriously damage their reputation in case they change the terms in the letter. I'd like to believe they would care about that, especially in tech where everybody is struggling to hire good employees.
Wow, this is crazy to me.
Was this not at-will employment?
While getting it in writing is good, it doesn't actually protect you. Vast majority of people are working at-will. Which means either party can change the terms of employment whenever. And if the other party disagrees then employment is terminated.
In this case meaning, if your contract says remote then they can change it to not remote at any time. That said, any company that will pull shenanigans like that you don't want to be working for anyhow as they don't respect you and that will impact you across all aspects of your work.
While getting it in writing is good, it doesn't actually protect you. Vast majority of people are working at-will. Which means either party can change the terms of employment whenever. And if the other party disagrees then employment is terminated.
In this case meaning, if your contract says remote then they can change it to not remote at any time. That said, any company that will pull shenanigans like that you don't want to be working for anyhow as they don't respect you and that will impact you across all aspects of your work.
> the agreement they signed didn't say remote
While the recruiter lying is the cause of the problem, there are several points during the process when they could have confirmed the relevant job details. Just before signing the agreement is the last such opportunity.
> but that's not the company's problem
If it causes enough problems, such as people not signing when offered because they have read the agreement or people leaving without notice during probationary periods (in most legal jurisdictions these periods work both ways) because of the divide in expectations, it will become the company's problem, and they'll stop using those recruiters.
Unfortunately some are desperate enough for work that they'll just go with it until finding something else, so there may not be enough signal to insight change that way. Especially given that there are apparently very few recruiters who don't act in similar ways.
> but it seems to encourage bringing in as many candidates as possible over treating them with honesty and respect
That is exactly how it works.
If it is any consolation they often lie to the employers too, though that isn't quite as easy to get away with due to the differing power dynamic.
While the recruiter lying is the cause of the problem, there are several points during the process when they could have confirmed the relevant job details. Just before signing the agreement is the last such opportunity.
> but that's not the company's problem
If it causes enough problems, such as people not signing when offered because they have read the agreement or people leaving without notice during probationary periods (in most legal jurisdictions these periods work both ways) because of the divide in expectations, it will become the company's problem, and they'll stop using those recruiters.
Unfortunately some are desperate enough for work that they'll just go with it until finding something else, so there may not be enough signal to insight change that way. Especially given that there are apparently very few recruiters who don't act in similar ways.
> but it seems to encourage bringing in as many candidates as possible over treating them with honesty and respect
That is exactly how it works.
If it is any consolation they often lie to the employers too, though that isn't quite as easy to get away with due to the differing power dynamic.
Yes, this happened to me with my last position.
Overall, they weren't one of the worst third party recruiters I've dealt with (though I shouldn't have dealt with them at all), but they told me in the first few calls that the position was "fully remote". This was only half-true. It turned out that the employer wanted me to come in 1 to 2 times a week. That was during late-pandemic, so who knows whether that would have been changed to not being remote.
Maybe it was miscommunication, but there's no way I can know that. An honest or competent recruiter would have sorted out those facts.
IMO, do whatever you can to bypass recruiters. Networking, doing presentations, and even just finding the emails of those who are really in charge of hiring, have a much greater payoff with modest effort than dealing with recruiters, particularly of the third-party kind. I believe this is particularly true for junior developers. If you are junior developers, expect most recruiters who reach out to you to be scum of the earth who will drop you like a hot potato if a single employer doesn't end up hiring you. They will tell you that you have "all the skills" and are "perfect" for a position and then they'll ghost you just as fast. Don't take it personally. Those people suck.
Overall, they weren't one of the worst third party recruiters I've dealt with (though I shouldn't have dealt with them at all), but they told me in the first few calls that the position was "fully remote". This was only half-true. It turned out that the employer wanted me to come in 1 to 2 times a week. That was during late-pandemic, so who knows whether that would have been changed to not being remote.
Maybe it was miscommunication, but there's no way I can know that. An honest or competent recruiter would have sorted out those facts.
IMO, do whatever you can to bypass recruiters. Networking, doing presentations, and even just finding the emails of those who are really in charge of hiring, have a much greater payoff with modest effort than dealing with recruiters, particularly of the third-party kind. I believe this is particularly true for junior developers. If you are junior developers, expect most recruiters who reach out to you to be scum of the earth who will drop you like a hot potato if a single employer doesn't end up hiring you. They will tell you that you have "all the skills" and are "perfect" for a position and then they'll ghost you just as fast. Don't take it personally. Those people suck.
I'm not sure how selling something "fully remote" when you're expected to be in-office 40% of the time is only half-true. That's a complete fabrication. I would even have a hard time considering something fully remote if it required annual meetings or something, unless they were optional and remote-friendly.
My Amazon team (based out of Toronto) is hiring remotely. I know the hiring manager won't change their mind because I am the manager.
[deleted]
Nice of you to post. I hope you find good folks.
Yeah but you're also amazon
And?
Can confirmed the others that pointed out ex-Amazonians aren't pleasure to work with/for.
Will avoid 10/10.
I believe they were molded to survive the Amazon culture, unfortunately.
Will avoid 10/10.
I believe they were molded to survive the Amazon culture, unfortunately.
I found Amazon's culture - in particular the relentless obsession with solving actual customer needs - to be a perfect fit for my own engineering training from day one. I was not "molded" to fit it. As I see it, as an engineer I have expertise my customer can't truly know or measure. They really have to trust me. I earn that trust by taking on their problem as if it were my own. That's how I've worked my entire career, and that's what I love about the parts of Amazon I have actually observed.
It is interesting to me that the tens of thousands of people that work at Amazon with their obsession of solving customer needs are not worried about solving the problem of customers not being able to trust where the goods are being sourced from.
Leaving aside the efficiencies of commingling inventory, even the simple filter option to only show sold and shipped by Amazon.com search results was deemed not to be a customer need. In fact, it was removed. Quite a puzzling “culture” of solving customer’s needs.
Leaving aside the efficiencies of commingling inventory, even the simple filter option to only show sold and shipped by Amazon.com search results was deemed not to be a customer need. In fact, it was removed. Quite a puzzling “culture” of solving customer’s needs.
> I found Amazon's culture - in particular the relentless obsession with solving actual customer needs - to be a perfect fit for my own engineering training from day one.
So... Where's the "Report counterfeit" button again?
Oh yeah. That's right. There isn't one. Intentionally.
So... Where's the "Report counterfeit" button again?
Oh yeah. That's right. There isn't one. Intentionally.
This reads like a marketer wrote it. "A perfect fit for my own engineering training". It's vague and feel-goody and adulation for the company.
What parts of Amazon did you not like?
What parts of Amazon did you not like?
He's an Engineering Manager of Amazon trying to recruit people for Amazon that is losing people at the moment.
I mean, do you really get anything out of hiring more people?
Anyone else smell astroturf?
https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/amazons-controversial-hire-to...
I don't think most of us want to go for the lottery.
Also:
Majority of amazon alumni I've had experience with (to be fair it's not a lot) has been extremely toxic and a they've been a jerk. I don't blame the individuals. They are probably required to be a jerk to survive at Amazon and unlearning that is hard as fuck.
I don't think most of us want to go for the lottery.
Also:
Majority of amazon alumni I've had experience with (to be fair it's not a lot) has been extremely toxic and a they've been a jerk. I don't blame the individuals. They are probably required to be a jerk to survive at Amazon and unlearning that is hard as fuck.
That report is nonsense. For one thing, hiring takes a lot of work. No manager is going to invest the time in hiring someone just to have an expendable on the team to sacrifice. No manager is going to accept the drag on the team that arises by having a below-standards person on the team. Everyone here is clear that we'd rather do without than have a low-performing co-worker. Finally, even if some misguided manager did want to do this, each Amazon hiring loop has an independent person to enforce the policy that each new hire be better than half the people in a similar role.
It's true that some people leave, and sometimes you're not sorry to see them go. This is true in every line of work.
It's true that some people leave, and sometimes you're not sorry to see them go. This is true in every line of work.
Amazon trains its employees to be back stabbers. I'm at the point where if I see a long stint Amazon on your resume, I count that as a point against you, because if we work together, you're probably gonna try to give me the runaround and/or fuck me over.
I doubt anything I say could convince you otherwise, but I've had no experience at all in 8 years at being "stabbed" in the back. Nor have I any way to prove I am not an evil one. Amazon is large, you may be judging on a small sample size.
Curious: have you ever worked elsewhere, particularly anywhere that is generally praised? It's possible that your experience has genuinely been wholly positive or it's possible that what you tolerate as a normal working environment is entirely unhealthy compared to other companies.
By definition, your experience is a small sample size.
I won't say my sample size (about 5 people who worked there and 10 people that have interviewed) is massive either, but mine is 100% negative. Yes, all IT people, so I'm not even dealing with the poor line workers.
Their turnover numbers IMO validate the negative views of Amazon. The ass-covering and lying during their downtimes over holiday also show a degrading culture.
Their UIs also show a poorly managed IT staff. I can understand warts, but why not gradual improvement? The biggest sign was their awful redesign of the console, which was demonstrably worse and has not improved.
"You're not supposed to use the UI in AWS"
Well OK, their APIs are not well documented. When you have a command with literally 100 options, you need a LOT of examples. The documentation of their error codes is basically "stackoverflow", and change over releases with no warning. And this is for their most used services, who knows what the various other crap is like. And they only show examples of invocations, they almost never show the OUTPUT format.
This is something that should be actively improved for the leading cloud provided that will probably hit 100 billion in revenue in 2022. You can't invest .0001% of your revenue to better documentation and tooling? Like that HASN'T cost you 1000x that in services and revenue already with people unable to get their prototypes off the ground or fix problems to scale more quickly?
They show management, they show low worker motivation, their marketing and press is so bad that Walmart seems like a good corporate citizen in comparison.
All of their policies can be glossed over with growth.
Unfortunately, AWS isn't a startup company anymore, it is a utility, an important core component in the foundation of the internet. Their culture and hiring and communication show that their growth HR policies are going to backfire in the coming decades as all their systems are likely on the their third or fourth "generation" of people being responsible for it.
Consider getting a software job at Amazon: likely you're getting shunted onto some "legacy" (you know, written 4 years ago, 2 employee generations ago) and are expected to know a big complicated messy codebase with no docummentation and no organizational memory, and then you get saddled with ridiculous expectations.
You either get to greenfield redevelop it (if you have a nice manager) which is risky, or you are utterly fucked from an advancement perspective and you are just meat to chew.
I won't say my sample size (about 5 people who worked there and 10 people that have interviewed) is massive either, but mine is 100% negative. Yes, all IT people, so I'm not even dealing with the poor line workers.
Their turnover numbers IMO validate the negative views of Amazon. The ass-covering and lying during their downtimes over holiday also show a degrading culture.
Their UIs also show a poorly managed IT staff. I can understand warts, but why not gradual improvement? The biggest sign was their awful redesign of the console, which was demonstrably worse and has not improved.
"You're not supposed to use the UI in AWS"
Well OK, their APIs are not well documented. When you have a command with literally 100 options, you need a LOT of examples. The documentation of their error codes is basically "stackoverflow", and change over releases with no warning. And this is for their most used services, who knows what the various other crap is like. And they only show examples of invocations, they almost never show the OUTPUT format.
This is something that should be actively improved for the leading cloud provided that will probably hit 100 billion in revenue in 2022. You can't invest .0001% of your revenue to better documentation and tooling? Like that HASN'T cost you 1000x that in services and revenue already with people unable to get their prototypes off the ground or fix problems to scale more quickly?
They show management, they show low worker motivation, their marketing and press is so bad that Walmart seems like a good corporate citizen in comparison.
All of their policies can be glossed over with growth.
Unfortunately, AWS isn't a startup company anymore, it is a utility, an important core component in the foundation of the internet. Their culture and hiring and communication show that their growth HR policies are going to backfire in the coming decades as all their systems are likely on the their third or fourth "generation" of people being responsible for it.
Consider getting a software job at Amazon: likely you're getting shunted onto some "legacy" (you know, written 4 years ago, 2 employee generations ago) and are expected to know a big complicated messy codebase with no docummentation and no organizational memory, and then you get saddled with ridiculous expectations.
You either get to greenfield redevelop it (if you have a nice manager) which is risky, or you are utterly fucked from an advancement perspective and you are just meat to chew.
[deleted]
every single manager i've had whose sole managerial experience was Amazon/AWS before i encountered them was a raging turdwaffle, and having 20+ years of experience i've seen my share of shitty managers to compare them to.
please, any readers, i beg of you: think three times before diving in that swamp.
please, any readers, i beg of you: think three times before diving in that swamp.
[deleted]
"Amazon's a normal workplace"
- NYSE Trading Desk Employee
"Amazon cares about you"
- A deep water explosives petroleum rig diver
"Amazon is a supporting and caring environment"
- Ukrainian volunteer soldier
"Amazon cares about the success and long term health of every employee"
- A Russian soldier digging trenches near Chernobyl
- NYSE Trading Desk Employee
"Amazon cares about you"
- A deep water explosives petroleum rig diver
"Amazon is a supporting and caring environment"
- Ukrainian volunteer soldier
"Amazon cares about the success and long term health of every employee"
- A Russian soldier digging trenches near Chernobyl
Judging by the recruiting emails I receive, FAANG companies are definitely not interested in remote employees. I get 2-3 emails a week from Amazon, and they always list an office, but hint at remote possibilities. I suspect it is Amazon that is doing the bait-n-switch.
I am having somewhat of an opposite problem. I actually want a hybrid position, but LinkedIn, which is sadly the best place to do an active job search, will advertise a position as local, but it is actually remote. Roles will appear when filtering on-site, but the job description will definitely specify remote. The companies are not even local. LinkedIn will add these positions in local searches.
I am having somewhat of an opposite problem. I actually want a hybrid position, but LinkedIn, which is sadly the best place to do an active job search, will advertise a position as local, but it is actually remote. Roles will appear when filtering on-site, but the job description will definitely specify remote. The companies are not even local. LinkedIn will add these positions in local searches.
I have founded 5x companies now. My last two have been remote only. I don't think I will ever go back unless I made physical hardware again--even then I might question it.
I have moved my family from California to Berlin. It is great we can travel Europe and I can work from anywhere. The tooling is great these days. Dealing with several timezones has its own issues but we aim to do quick daily standup over discord (yes no more terrible threaded messages in Slack). We use Deel to handle payroll around the globe. We try and get a face-to-face meetup once/year. Everyone seems very happy.
Now the only hard part is finding Rust engineers ;)
I have moved my family from California to Berlin. It is great we can travel Europe and I can work from anywhere. The tooling is great these days. Dealing with several timezones has its own issues but we aim to do quick daily standup over discord (yes no more terrible threaded messages in Slack). We use Deel to handle payroll around the globe. We try and get a face-to-face meetup once/year. Everyone seems very happy.
Now the only hard part is finding Rust engineers ;)
Friendly tip: if timezones are an issue, try hiring in south America. We have the advantage of sharing 4 working hours with Europe and California. Also with similar salaries you will get more qualified candidates. You might be surprised with the amount of rust engineers you will find.
Thanks for the heads up. I'll be sure to get it in writing if I find myself in the job market.
If I could do it again, I'd probably still go through the interviews but I'd have spent little if any time on prep. If they asked the knapsack problem and I couldn't code up a solution in 40 minutes, oh well - I tried.
And if you could do it the time after that you'd probably make it the first thing you say when you speak to anyone from the actual company
That’s a pain. I recently went through an active search and I have to say this was not my experience. There was one mixup about remote that we figured out in the first 15 minutes with the internal recruiter. For the rest, both the recruiter and the company explicitly assured me the positions were 100% remote and part of the interview was about each party’s experience and perspective working remotely. I had LinkedIn set to remote only, which may have helped.
> When they pointed out they had been hired as remotes they were met with a collective shrug - the job opening didn't say remote, the agreement they signed didn't say remote.
While I wish we could live in a world where people would uphold their word, alas. If it’s not written down on paper it might as well not be real.
While I wish we could live in a world where people would uphold their word, alas. If it’s not written down on paper it might as well not be real.
Adding my own anecdote about this:
Despite the job ad, recruiter and hiring manager all confirming "yes we are a remote first company", Hybrid-RTO was announced recently with a mandatory minimum of one day in the office for those who live in HQ city.
And while on the one hand I appreciate the Hybridization of "if you want to work primarily from the office, fine, if you want to work primarily from home, fine", it also doesn't feel like a true choice of home or office considering my manager has nagged me each Friday since this was announced because "someone said you only went to the office once this week?"
Which I guess means someone in leadership has someone else silently taking attendance and reporting back to managers who shows up and who doesn't?
Within my department and even my functional team of six, I'm the only one who actually lives in the HQ city-which means I'm beholden to the RTO. Which means even when it's time to have face-to-face, talkie-talkies with people on my team or in my department, even if I'm in the office: none of them are.
Is it worth leaving over? Probably not. I've been very firm on my boundaries and disconnecting from work, and so far the company hasn't tried stepping over them.
Frankly, I'd probably be in the office a lot more if we didn't subscribe to that stupid-damn open office workspace layout, and the internet weren't so dodgy..
Despite the job ad, recruiter and hiring manager all confirming "yes we are a remote first company", Hybrid-RTO was announced recently with a mandatory minimum of one day in the office for those who live in HQ city.
And while on the one hand I appreciate the Hybridization of "if you want to work primarily from the office, fine, if you want to work primarily from home, fine", it also doesn't feel like a true choice of home or office considering my manager has nagged me each Friday since this was announced because "someone said you only went to the office once this week?"
Which I guess means someone in leadership has someone else silently taking attendance and reporting back to managers who shows up and who doesn't?
Within my department and even my functional team of six, I'm the only one who actually lives in the HQ city-which means I'm beholden to the RTO. Which means even when it's time to have face-to-face, talkie-talkies with people on my team or in my department, even if I'm in the office: none of them are.
Is it worth leaving over? Probably not. I've been very firm on my boundaries and disconnecting from work, and so far the company hasn't tried stepping over them.
Frankly, I'd probably be in the office a lot more if we didn't subscribe to that stupid-damn open office workspace layout, and the internet weren't so dodgy..
This is exactly the experience you get with a military recruiter, but on some other deep level of cohesion and intimidation. It's like the used car dealer of legend that your dad (or mom, to be fair) told you about and never to trust them much like the class of mechanics that were (and some if not most?) dishonest about what you were being sold as a service or job detail.
I remember going through the Air Force wanted para-rescue CC (specifically the path to get there, not the direct application into) and man was a sold a bill of goods. Grades amazing, physically (at that time not an software developer [slowly slouching fat sloth profile in 2022]) fit, and ready for a career in the service.
The promises that dude that recruited me were legendary. My pops was a military and the whole family basically, and even he was amazed at what I was offered. He eventually said to go to college and if you wanted it go to OCS school.
Point being, this is not new in times of great demand on talent - in my case, it was retention of and callbacks that active duty members trying to retire were experiencing during the first decade of our involvement in the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts.
Its insane, how some talent is scouted in this way. But .. if its on paper, through the process its grounds for legal action. Will it ever happen? depends, but most likely not.
Just walk into the interviews with open eyes and be authentic, and most importantly honest on some level about this in specific going forward. I'd say use it for all relationships you want professionally, because well - "it's just business" in the end.
I remember going through the Air Force wanted para-rescue CC (specifically the path to get there, not the direct application into) and man was a sold a bill of goods. Grades amazing, physically (at that time not an software developer [slowly slouching fat sloth profile in 2022]) fit, and ready for a career in the service.
The promises that dude that recruited me were legendary. My pops was a military and the whole family basically, and even he was amazed at what I was offered. He eventually said to go to college and if you wanted it go to OCS school.
Point being, this is not new in times of great demand on talent - in my case, it was retention of and callbacks that active duty members trying to retire were experiencing during the first decade of our involvement in the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts.
Its insane, how some talent is scouted in this way. But .. if its on paper, through the process its grounds for legal action. Will it ever happen? depends, but most likely not.
Just walk into the interviews with open eyes and be authentic, and most importantly honest on some level about this in specific going forward. I'd say use it for all relationships you want professionally, because well - "it's just business" in the end.
I've worked for multiple companies as a remote employee for many years. I've had this concern in the past. Now I look for others at the company who work remote while applying (this helps work as a check) and I make sure there is something in writing.
In the EU at least, you get a contract that specifically mentions place of work (and many countries have standardized remote clauses now).
What you sign MUST reflect the terms you agreed to…
What you sign MUST reflect the terms you agreed to…
It's the same in the US, if only for tax reasons you need to specify in your offer letter where you'll be working from.
The author's friends were a bit careless.
The author's friends were a bit careless.
Maybe we should get a list going of scummy recruiters.
A whitelist (or whatever the correct term for that is now) would be more effective.
Frankly, I'd say the vast majority of recruiters are bad. They are worse than a used car salesperson, and I will never deal with any of them again besides the occasional one that's actually working directly for the employer, as opposed to third-party recruiters from large recruiting firms.
A few years ago, I was working on some software that would find quality job listings and auto-apply for them (in theory; I don't believe I finished the form-filling part). Part of that filtering involved removing any listings from third-party recruiting firms. Blocking on the person-level really wasn't practical. While it worked somewhat, it seems that more of these firms appear and change names every year. It would always be imperfect unless someone was constantly monitoring the countless number of recruiting firms.
My best experiences were with small-time recruiters who worked for themselves. I'd much rather identify who these recruiters are and then ignore all the other ones by default.
Frankly, I'd say the vast majority of recruiters are bad. They are worse than a used car salesperson, and I will never deal with any of them again besides the occasional one that's actually working directly for the employer, as opposed to third-party recruiters from large recruiting firms.
A few years ago, I was working on some software that would find quality job listings and auto-apply for them (in theory; I don't believe I finished the form-filling part). Part of that filtering involved removing any listings from third-party recruiting firms. Blocking on the person-level really wasn't practical. While it worked somewhat, it seems that more of these firms appear and change names every year. It would always be imperfect unless someone was constantly monitoring the countless number of recruiting firms.
My best experiences were with small-time recruiters who worked for themselves. I'd much rather identify who these recruiters are and then ignore all the other ones by default.
I would be on board with this. I would even pay a small fee to have access to this list.
It would be too huge.
Maybe we should gamify it. Actually I was thinking of places with the same posting for months or years. My inspiration was remembering the amusement that FuckedCompany provided... and it was surprisingly accurate.
It would be a whitelist more than a blacklist, frankly.
I make my employers put it in the contract before I sign. But I’m not unsympathetic to people being abused by big companies and recruiters. This is some bullshit.
This.
It's something that applies to the general case, not just employment, and not just with big companies: if it's not in the contract, it doesn't exist. Any condition that's important to you MUST be in the contract.
It's something that applies to the general case, not just employment, and not just with big companies: if it's not in the contract, it doesn't exist. Any condition that's important to you MUST be in the contract.
I don't know how many times I have to repeat this advice: if it isn't in writing in your contract then it doesn't count. It doesn't matter what a recruiter or hiring manager promises. Get it in writing. Always and forever!
I'm often contacted by recruiters that have no formal connection with the company that is hiring. They simply find wanted ads, go look for people that sort of match the requirements. When they find some, they'll take them to the company.
There are firms that only do this kind of pirate recruiting, and they even do it for roles where the company explicitly says "no recruiters".
There are firms that only do this kind of pirate recruiting, and they even do it for roles where the company explicitly says "no recruiters".
scene, ten years ago
I apply for a job at a university. Job description says a college degree is required. I state in the cover letter that I do not have a degree, but hoped my experience would make up for it.
HR emails a few days later. Phone interview? I disclose NoDegree. Not a problem, she says.
Phone interview with her goes fine. She passes me off to the department and a C-level dude who apparently has to sign off on all hires for this category.
Phone interview with the C-level dude. I disclose NoDegree. Not a problem, he says.
Email from the department business manager asking for an in-person interview. Disclose NoDegree. Not a problem, when can you come in?
In-person interview with the business manager, a lab assistant, and about 6 or so faculty members. The faculty in particular love me. Disclose NoDegree to each of them. No problem, they say. Lots of experience.
Two weeks later, not a peep. Email the business director.
Response: "sorry, we went with a candidate with a degree."
Fucking assholes wasted easily 40 hours of my life on that bullshit.
I apply for a job at a university. Job description says a college degree is required. I state in the cover letter that I do not have a degree, but hoped my experience would make up for it.
HR emails a few days later. Phone interview? I disclose NoDegree. Not a problem, she says.
Phone interview with her goes fine. She passes me off to the department and a C-level dude who apparently has to sign off on all hires for this category.
Phone interview with the C-level dude. I disclose NoDegree. Not a problem, he says.
Email from the department business manager asking for an in-person interview. Disclose NoDegree. Not a problem, when can you come in?
In-person interview with the business manager, a lab assistant, and about 6 or so faculty members. The faculty in particular love me. Disclose NoDegree to each of them. No problem, they say. Lots of experience.
Two weeks later, not a peep. Email the business director.
Response: "sorry, we went with a candidate with a degree."
Fucking assholes wasted easily 40 hours of my life on that bullshit.
You likely made the degree a deciding factor by voluntarily raising it as an issue with every single person you spoke to.
In the future, I would suggest not even mentioning that you don’t have a degree (unless there’s a legal/licensing requirement for one).
Simply do not include an “education” section on your resume.
You’re not being dishonest, and given sufficient work experience, most people won’t even notice the section’s absence. The few that do notice, won’t care.
In the future, I would suggest not even mentioning that you don’t have a degree (unless there’s a legal/licensing requirement for one).
Simply do not include an “education” section on your resume.
You’re not being dishonest, and given sufficient work experience, most people won’t even notice the section’s absence. The few that do notice, won’t care.
Sorry for you to be in that situation. Unsolicited advice for next time: interview with several companies and get multiple offers. The additional leverage would have definitely strengthened your position in this and also would have given you more options in case things turned out equally disappointing with employer A.
Many people are not really in the position to just go and get multiple (in this case remote) job offers.
How is getting one offer
different from getting multiple? At least for me, prep is the main part and the interviews themselves are a smaller commitment compared to that. This is greatly helped by the pandemic causing on-site interviews mostly being replaced by online video conferencing ones.
For most professionals, landing a decent job offer is a multi-month process.
Totally, but is landing two offers twice as hard as one? No way. Once you’re ready for interviewing at a top company, you are also ready to interview at 3 other ones - with marginal overhead compared to the months of prep.
Apple did this. Initial recruiter said remote. Thankfully before interviews the hiring manager said not remote, I had done a challenge already though.
Facebook did this. Recruiter said remote. Changed their mind that the rotational position would need to be in person.
I'm very up front about being remote. I live in LA. A lot of companies don't have offices here. I have a nice life, property. I'm not a 24 year old who will upend their life for a job anymore. I like working from home. I like hanging out with my dog. I've lived in both Seattle and SF. I loathe SF and find Seattle incredibly depressing. I guess I've made it if I can say no to such opportunities.
Facebook did this. Recruiter said remote. Changed their mind that the rotational position would need to be in person.
I'm very up front about being remote. I live in LA. A lot of companies don't have offices here. I have a nice life, property. I'm not a 24 year old who will upend their life for a job anymore. I like working from home. I like hanging out with my dog. I've lived in both Seattle and SF. I loathe SF and find Seattle incredibly depressing. I guess I've made it if I can say no to such opportunities.
The recruitment industry needs to be massively disrupted to stop this bullshit, but unfortunately there's too much money involved so it's unlikely to happen. Stack Overflow had a good effort, but have recently bowed out.
This is just another thing in a long line of scrupulous things that recruiters do. If bad actors will edit your resume before sending it in then lying about the remote nature of a job is just another part of that.
Which FAANG? Name and shame.
Which FAANG? Name and shame.
I'm still holding on to a slight hope that the recruiter will find a hiring manager willing to override the committee and all of my time and effort will not have been wasted. They said they'd keep looking but they were probably just trying to get me off the phone.
I'll put it this way. One FAANG I wouldn't work at under any circumstances. One FAANG has been very clear that they want employees on site. One FAANG has a recruiting proc where you are hired once you pass the interviews, you can figure out your team later. One FAANG doesn't really fit in the FAANG acronym.
I'll put it this way. One FAANG I wouldn't work at under any circumstances. One FAANG has been very clear that they want employees on site. One FAANG has a recruiting proc where you are hired once you pass the interviews, you can figure out your team later. One FAANG doesn't really fit in the FAANG acronym.
> One FAANG I wouldn't work at under any circumstances. One FAANG has been very clear that they want employees on site.
...One FAANG to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
...One FAANG to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
Can you just name companies? You haven't given any personally identifiable information and you're not the only person given an offer from a FAANG recently. It's also not unique to say you'd never work at Amazon/Netflix/Apple/FB (like me). I'd only work for google if it were fully remote, and it would be super helpful to know if your experience was with google
> One FAANG I wouldn't work at under any circumstances.
Uh Amazon? I hope it's Amazon, not Facebook.
> One FAANG has been very clear that they want employees on site.
Both Netflix and Apple.
> One FAANG has a recruiting proc where you are hired once you pass the interviews, you can figure out your team later.
Google?
> One FAANG doesn't really fit in the FAANG acronym.
Amazon? Apple? Facebook because they've changed their name to Meta?
Uh Amazon? I hope it's Amazon, not Facebook.
> One FAANG has been very clear that they want employees on site.
Both Netflix and Apple.
> One FAANG has a recruiting proc where you are hired once you pass the interviews, you can figure out your team later.
Google?
> One FAANG doesn't really fit in the FAANG acronym.
Amazon? Apple? Facebook because they've changed their name to Meta?
>One FAANG has a recruiting proc where you are hired once you pass the interviews, you can figure out your team later.
I suppose Google fits here, but Facebook is even stronger in that you generally have to accept the offer not knowing what you're going to work on and team match after boot camp.
I suppose Google fits here, but Facebook is even stronger in that you generally have to accept the offer not knowing what you're going to work on and team match after boot camp.
This is really not true for either. You can be pre-assigned teams before bootcamp/hiring in both. Many/most don't. And sometimes the pre-allocated team does not exist anymore when you finally show up to work.
> > One FAANG has a recruiting proc where you are hired once you pass the interviews, you can figure out your team later.
Google?
That's definitely Facebook.
Google?
That's definitely Facebook.
Isn't it true of both? Team match?
I'd guess Microsoft.
Everyone's trying to figure out which is which, so here are my takes:
Wouldn't work ever - Amazon
Wants on-site - applies to Apple, Google, Netflix. My guess is Apple.
Team assigned later - Facebook/Meta with its bootcamp process
Doesn't fit FAANG - Netflix, it's not uncommon for folks to exclude it due to much smaller size
So most likely op interviewed at Google, which seems all the more likely given a months-long interview process that the company is infamous for, and usage of a hiring committee. My general sense is that their remote story has been somewhat inconsistent over time, so I'm not particularly surprised at internal misalignment.
Wouldn't work ever - Amazon
Wants on-site - applies to Apple, Google, Netflix. My guess is Apple.
Team assigned later - Facebook/Meta with its bootcamp process
Doesn't fit FAANG - Netflix, it's not uncommon for folks to exclude it due to much smaller size
So most likely op interviewed at Google, which seems all the more likely given a months-long interview process that the company is infamous for, and usage of a hiring committee. My general sense is that their remote story has been somewhat inconsistent over time, so I'm not particularly surprised at internal misalignment.
Facebook/Meta can for sure assign team before bootcamp. The candidate can still change teams during bootcamp, but there will be a spot ready for them. At least that is how I have seen it.
One thing to notice about FAANG and other large companies is that the team assignment is not as important as you think. Reorgs are often large and frequent so suddenly you work on something completely different. How much choice you have in this process varies based on many factors, the company being one of them.
One thing to notice about FAANG and other large companies is that the team assignment is not as important as you think. Reorgs are often large and frequent so suddenly you work on something completely different. How much choice you have in this process varies based on many factors, the company being one of them.
For sure, I was one of those preallocated folks. That said, bootcamp allocation is far and away the most common way people get assigned to teams. Good point in not focusing too much on it, so many people switch teams in their own every 1-2 years on their own.
> One FAANG I wouldn't work at under any circumstances.
Amazon
> One FAANG has been very clear that they want employees on site.
Apple
> One FAANG has a recruiting proc where you are hired once you pass the interviews, you can figure out your team later.
Meta/FB
> One FAANG doesn't really fit in the FAANG acronym.
Netflix
QED
Amazon
> One FAANG has been very clear that they want employees on site.
Apple
> One FAANG has a recruiting proc where you are hired once you pass the interviews, you can figure out your team later.
Meta/FB
> One FAANG doesn't really fit in the FAANG acronym.
Netflix
QED
I don't really feel like solving a riddle.
Why so indirect?
This happened to me with Amazon.
Me too, but they actually connected me with 1 hiring manager hiring remote. His team seemed very new and disorganized (and not in my expertise) so I preferred not to join it. The recruiter said they couldn't find any other remote hiring managers, kinda blamed me for not taking the first. Now every month I get a email or inMail from Amazon recruiters :)
And, which recruiter?
In a weird way - this kind of thing has pushed me towards companies that aren't anywhere near my current location, even/especially international. It makes the conversation super clear, recruiters & hiring managers can't dance around it. International brings in the prospects of visas and such.
I am in the Midwest and just joined a company headquartered in SV in a remote role. If they had tried to pull some remote bait-and-switch I would have just chuckled and asked for first class tickets in/out one day a week, or asked for the moon in relocation fees.
I am in the Midwest and just joined a company headquartered in SV in a remote role. If they had tried to pull some remote bait-and-switch I would have just chuckled and asked for first class tickets in/out one day a week, or asked for the moon in relocation fees.
Spray and pray works until your reputation takes a hit. Recruiters definitely have incentive for quantity over quality and are basically the sales branch of HR. They're your friend just as much as the croupier is. Just business.
Not sure what the solution for us is. Having someone promise you something that is totally disconnected from what you later receive in writing reeks of exploitation of your sunk cost. Not accepting it is the first necessary step.
Not sure what the solution for us is. Having someone promise you something that is totally disconnected from what you later receive in writing reeks of exploitation of your sunk cost. Not accepting it is the first necessary step.
I have yet to work with an external recruiter (not an in-house one) that wasn't horrible at their job. I'm aware of how much a recruiter can make when placing someone and it's surprising to me that the world of recruiters doesn't look more like real estate (where repeat business is their bread and butter). I wish I had friends/coworkers who could recommend a competent recruiter but I've only ever heard horror stories from them as well.
All recruiters I've worked with have the following failings:
1. Zero, and I mean zero, knowledge of anything technical and/or related to tech. They will fumble/mixup frameworks and languages constantly. I'm not asking for deep knowledge but it's not hard to learn about the big frameworks (just the names and generally what they do "frontend framework", "backend framework", "ORM") and google is free.
2. Terrible communication. They will ghost you or miss scheduled calls and then come up with sob stories of why they couldn't even send a text/email letting you know they wouldn't be able to make the meeting
3. Liars. They will lie about any and everything to try to place you. Have a tiny blurb about a lang/framework on your resume? They will mis-represent you as an expert and/or they will lie to you about what a company is looking for.
4. This is a part-time gig at best for them. Before I learned all recruiters were terrible I tried contacting a recruiter I had talked to in the past when I was looking for a new job, of course they weren't doing recruiting anymore. There must be massive turnover in this industry.
5. Lazy. 2 jobs ago I literally handed the recruiter the company I wanted to work for on a silver platter. I was young and native and thought I needed to go through a recruiter even though I knew the company was hiring. They failed at the simple task of handing the company my resume. I ended up contacting the company directly and was hired within a week. I never heard from that recruiter again, they didn't even follow up.
I know that real estate has high turnover as well but there /are/ good agents out there. Do good recruiters even exist (not talking in-house)? Every time I switch jobs I consider quitting tech and just becoming a tech recruiter because they are all so terrible and I know I could do better.
All recruiters I've worked with have the following failings:
1. Zero, and I mean zero, knowledge of anything technical and/or related to tech. They will fumble/mixup frameworks and languages constantly. I'm not asking for deep knowledge but it's not hard to learn about the big frameworks (just the names and generally what they do "frontend framework", "backend framework", "ORM") and google is free.
2. Terrible communication. They will ghost you or miss scheduled calls and then come up with sob stories of why they couldn't even send a text/email letting you know they wouldn't be able to make the meeting
3. Liars. They will lie about any and everything to try to place you. Have a tiny blurb about a lang/framework on your resume? They will mis-represent you as an expert and/or they will lie to you about what a company is looking for.
4. This is a part-time gig at best for them. Before I learned all recruiters were terrible I tried contacting a recruiter I had talked to in the past when I was looking for a new job, of course they weren't doing recruiting anymore. There must be massive turnover in this industry.
5. Lazy. 2 jobs ago I literally handed the recruiter the company I wanted to work for on a silver platter. I was young and native and thought I needed to go through a recruiter even though I knew the company was hiring. They failed at the simple task of handing the company my resume. I ended up contacting the company directly and was hired within a week. I never heard from that recruiter again, they didn't even follow up.
I know that real estate has high turnover as well but there /are/ good agents out there. Do good recruiters even exist (not talking in-house)? Every time I switch jobs I consider quitting tech and just becoming a tech recruiter because they are all so terrible and I know I could do better.
This sounds situational. I know someone personally that just landed a remote L5 position at Google. I have spoken with dev managers at Facebook who are hiring remote positions. I have spoken with dev managers at Amazon who are hiring remote positions.
My guess is that was the least offensive way the recruiter could come up with to tell you you didn't pass the "bar". And the hiring committee is, afaik, another "bar".
My guess is that was the least offensive way the recruiter could come up with to tell you you didn't pass the "bar". And the hiring committee is, afaik, another "bar".
The non-offensive way would be not to lie.
This is very much, not, situational.
Going through the process now and has happened every time but 2 of the 10 or so I'm looking at.
That is definitionally situational: In my anecdotal situations things happened differently than in your anecdotal situations.
If you made it through the FAANG dynamic-programming circus then plenty of people on here would love to engage you at some level, including me.
> the job opening didn't say remote, the agreement they signed didn't say remote
The bright side is that's one of the least harmful ways to learn the lesson: read contracts thoroughly before signing them.
Anyways, sorry for your experience. As an alternative to what others suggest, consider career as independent contractor :) Been here around 8 years and never dealt with recruiters so far.
The bright side is that's one of the least harmful ways to learn the lesson: read contracts thoroughly before signing them.
Anyways, sorry for your experience. As an alternative to what others suggest, consider career as independent contractor :) Been here around 8 years and never dealt with recruiters so far.
I once got hired for a remote position at a company in TX (I'm in WA). I was to fly into TX on Sunday to start 2 weeks of training on Monday, and on Friday evening I got an email saying "Sorry, we changed our mind about hiring remotely." That really sucked. I'm guess I am just glad they didn't do it a week into training.
I feel for the OP. I have a more general question. Let's say your contract states that you are remote. What if the company changes their mind say 12 months down the road, are there any recourse? As far as I know, there isn't much you can do about it other than perhaps a X-month severance package or go back to the office.
I’m fairly sure there is no recourse since this has happened previously at places like Yahoo? They told everyone to be on site, even remote employees who had been that way for years. In fact it appeared to be used like a stealth layoff, so they were banking on people disagreeing.
Having it written into the contract would probably make it easier to collect unemployment if you quit before they fired you for non-compliance? I think a major change like that is already a fairly easy case of constructive dismissal though.
Otherwise yeah, there's not going to be much recourse unless specific penalties were also written into the contract.
Otherwise yeah, there's not going to be much recourse unless specific penalties were also written into the contract.
I am so sorry you had been treated like this!
It make sense to specifically ask about the remote policy when you are meeting with the hiring team - if you are working with outside recruiters (who got paid a fee for each placement, as oppose to inside recruiters, who are salaried) they may not know the current policy or the plan for the future.
In all fairness, at least SOME of the FAANG companies were pretty transparent about their plans for 'return to office'.
For people interested in being fully remote, check out the company I work for - LeanTaaS. We had adopted "flexibility first" model in late 2021: https://leantaas.com/blog/the-future-of-work-at-leantaas-is-...
Several months going through an interview is too much. No company is worth that much time unless you have an attorney drawing up contracts along the way, so that is the first red flag.
Now, the hiring manager convinced you to spend evenings/weekends prepping for coding and design interviews. This sounds training, and by law they may have been required to pay for that. In the future, you shouldn't spend more than an hour or two prepping for an interview unless they offer to pay. If you don't have the skills needed, then I'd recommend just telling them that. Companies that try to get you do make a big initial unpaid investment in time will also be the kind that will expect you to work a ton of overtime unpaid.
In regards to the remote work, get it in writing upfront. Recruiters are dirty, so maybe this is a valuable lesson to understand that from now on.
Now, the hiring manager convinced you to spend evenings/weekends prepping for coding and design interviews. This sounds training, and by law they may have been required to pay for that. In the future, you shouldn't spend more than an hour or two prepping for an interview unless they offer to pay. If you don't have the skills needed, then I'd recommend just telling them that. Companies that try to get you do make a big initial unpaid investment in time will also be the kind that will expect you to work a ton of overtime unpaid.
In regards to the remote work, get it in writing upfront. Recruiters are dirty, so maybe this is a valuable lesson to understand that from now on.
Recruiters are lying about positions all the time at first place.
While I feel for the people being fooled by recruiters I can not comprehend how come they did not make sure in their first interview that they're indeed hired for remote and it will be stated in their contract. I would never trust recruiter as they're responsible for nothing.
Not everyone is as expert at job hunting as you are.
One does not have to be the expert to realize simplest things. I came to Canada from USSR some 30 years ago. Even then fresh from detached scientist I've had enough sanity to dismiss the words of a middle man.
Also for the reference I am a vendor for the last 20 years and have never used a middle man to find contracts or a job before that.
Also for the reference I am a vendor for the last 20 years and have never used a middle man to find contracts or a job before that.
True, but these aren't entry level jobs either.
You could have stopped with "Recruiters are lying"... however if the hiring manager said it was for a remote position that is still a verbal contract with a Deep Pockets entity. You're still not hired (and it's At Will), but if they require to show up on-site after hiring without telling you they could open themselves up to legal liability. If you (or your friends) are "quitting" anyway, it may be worth letting HR know the liability position they are putting the company in. Especially, if multiple people all file against the same company with the same complaint, they become more likely to settle out of court (for PR reasons) than fight.
Unlikely that you'll keep the jobs, though.
Unlikely that you'll keep the jobs, though.
Was it Amazon?
When I interviewed just before COVID, I was fed hook, line, and sinker that the position was for a headcount in San Francisco on a new team. Recruiter "confirmed" multiple times for me that it was an SFO location team/org.
Then I was invited to do the on-site interview in Seattle (later found out typically they only fly you there if the role is in Seattle). So I flew there, did the on-site, etc.
I receive news I passed the bar raiser or whatever, will be getting an offer. But wait, it's Seattle only with no plans to open headcount in SF.
Had to spend a few months being traded between different org's recruiters to find a new open role in the SFBA.
When I interviewed just before COVID, I was fed hook, line, and sinker that the position was for a headcount in San Francisco on a new team. Recruiter "confirmed" multiple times for me that it was an SFO location team/org.
Then I was invited to do the on-site interview in Seattle (later found out typically they only fly you there if the role is in Seattle). So I flew there, did the on-site, etc.
I receive news I passed the bar raiser or whatever, will be getting an offer. But wait, it's Seattle only with no plans to open headcount in SF.
Had to spend a few months being traded between different org's recruiters to find a new open role in the SFBA.
It's hard to know what happened here without knowing the company and the internals - I know for Google, for the hiring committees I'm aware of (I'm a PM hiring committee member), we cant' even easily see where the candidate is based vs. where the role is based, and it's not something we take into account. We don't care, we just want to say whether the candidate passed the bar to work at Google, and from there it's between them and whatever team they're joining.
Now, there are other places where problems can arise. For example most (all?) hires go to a VP-level review, which is mostly a rubber stamp for more junior levels, but I have seen a few cases where a VP steps in with concerns about a candidate, and potentially that's what happened here - the hiring manager didn't have buy-in up the chain for the role location, and it got flagged at some point.
I'll also throw out there that maybe the recruiter was not wholly truthful, from the perspective that perhaps there was some other problem, either concerns around passing the hiring committee or negative internal references, and the recruiter told you that the remote was the issue instead. I haven't seen a recruiter be directly untruthful, but I have seen situations where the recruiter represented things slightly differently in order to try to keep the candidate's morale up.
As an example, I once got asked to do an interview redo for a candidate - this happens from time to time, either because an interview had to get cut short, or the candidate did really poorly and they want to give them another chance, or the interviewer left the company, but they don't tell you the situation when they ask you to re-interview so as not to bias you. When I spoke to the candidate, they said they'd been told something about the interviewer leaving bad notes and transferring orgs, so they had to redo it - I redid the interview, filed my feedback, and later found out that actually the candidate had bombed the previous interview, so much so that the hiring committee felt like it was an outlier and requested a re-interview.
Again, this is just from my narrow window on one company, but I wanted to share some of the dynamics at at least one company in the FAANG space.
Now, there are other places where problems can arise. For example most (all?) hires go to a VP-level review, which is mostly a rubber stamp for more junior levels, but I have seen a few cases where a VP steps in with concerns about a candidate, and potentially that's what happened here - the hiring manager didn't have buy-in up the chain for the role location, and it got flagged at some point.
I'll also throw out there that maybe the recruiter was not wholly truthful, from the perspective that perhaps there was some other problem, either concerns around passing the hiring committee or negative internal references, and the recruiter told you that the remote was the issue instead. I haven't seen a recruiter be directly untruthful, but I have seen situations where the recruiter represented things slightly differently in order to try to keep the candidate's morale up.
As an example, I once got asked to do an interview redo for a candidate - this happens from time to time, either because an interview had to get cut short, or the candidate did really poorly and they want to give them another chance, or the interviewer left the company, but they don't tell you the situation when they ask you to re-interview so as not to bias you. When I spoke to the candidate, they said they'd been told something about the interviewer leaving bad notes and transferring orgs, so they had to redo it - I redid the interview, filed my feedback, and later found out that actually the candidate had bombed the previous interview, so much so that the hiring committee felt like it was an outlier and requested a re-interview.
Again, this is just from my narrow window on one company, but I wanted to share some of the dynamics at at least one company in the FAANG space.
Also at Google, and my impression is that during the role posting exercise when the hiring manager is first talking with their recruiter, the recruiter asks which locations are acceptable, and "remote" is an option. Often the hiring manager will say, essentially, "I don't care" because they don't want to artificially restrict their candidate pipeline due to location preference.
Then, once finalist candidates are in/through interviews, the rubber hits the road and the hiring manager realizes they probably actually do have location preference, and pulls the rug out from beneath the candidate(s). What seems like a small detail on the Google side is likely not appreciated for its enormity on the candidate's side, imho.
As a hiring manager and frequent interviewer for other teams, this is my somewhat informed opinion of at least one likely root cause.
Then, once finalist candidates are in/through interviews, the rubber hits the road and the hiring manager realizes they probably actually do have location preference, and pulls the rug out from beneath the candidate(s). What seems like a small detail on the Google side is likely not appreciated for its enormity on the candidate's side, imho.
As a hiring manager and frequent interviewer for other teams, this is my somewhat informed opinion of at least one likely root cause.
In the off chance you're open to feedback...
I don't understand why the hiring committee had to be the last step in a months long process. If I'd gotten though the 5 grueling interviews and heard a "no", that would have been fine - these things happen. Instead, my last interview was in Jan and I got bounced by the hiring committee in March. I know that I was naïve, but I thought I must be set. I though the hiring committee was going to look for red flags but other than that, they'd say yes.
Why drag me through all that process and all that stress just to have some faceless committee reject me with no feedback and no explanation? Why not figure out if I'm a good fit before or during the interview process?
At the risk of sounding dramatic, it was cruel. It felt like a romantic relationship where everything is going great and then you get a call that says "Sorry, bye, don't call me again".
I don't understand why the hiring committee had to be the last step in a months long process. If I'd gotten though the 5 grueling interviews and heard a "no", that would have been fine - these things happen. Instead, my last interview was in Jan and I got bounced by the hiring committee in March. I know that I was naïve, but I thought I must be set. I though the hiring committee was going to look for red flags but other than that, they'd say yes.
Why drag me through all that process and all that stress just to have some faceless committee reject me with no feedback and no explanation? Why not figure out if I'm a good fit before or during the interview process?
At the risk of sounding dramatic, it was cruel. It felt like a romantic relationship where everything is going great and then you get a call that says "Sorry, bye, don't call me again".
I am very open to feedback, thank you for sharing your thoughts. As a quick note just as a reminder, I'm on the PM side of things, so I don't have ANY influence on SWE hiring, and things might not work the same way over there. With that caveat:
Last interview in Jan and hiring committee in March is a terrible experience, and I'm sorry you had to deal with that. When I notice a packet where the interviews were more than a month prior to my seeing them in committee, I ask why, because it's a bad experience. The reasons I have seen that happen are:
- The interview feedback was mixed, and the recruiter wants to go line up a hiring manager to write a statement of support to the committee to help make the case, and that can take time.
- The hiring manager who was already attached has to pause hiring, or is in final talks with another candidate, or goes on leave, and something gets dropped for a while
I'm sure there are others, but those are the big ones. BTW, neither of those are acceptable reasons for things to have gone the way they did for you, I'm just sharing how I have seen it happen.
I'm not sure if you team matched before or after your interviews - at least at Google, they mostly used to team match after interviews and hiring committees, and are now pivoting to team matching BEFORE interviews, partially to avoid experiences like you describe. If a hiring manager is interested and engaged and supportive upfront, they can help push and move things along. In addition, if interview feedback is universally positive, they're looking at skipping hiring commmittee entirely, or doing a lighter review in the interest of speed. In general, I think these are positive changes that hopefully will streamline things, but it's new and we will have to see.
One point I do want to address is that hiring committees, at least at Google, are not rubber stamps or sanity checks before hiring - we are expected to carefully review each interview against the assessment rubrics, read the notes, ask follow up questions of the interviewers as necessary, privately vote, and then jointly come to a consensus on our recommendation.
Of the packets themselves, those are largely negative don't even go to hiring committee, so we only see the ones where there's at least mixed positive and negative feedback or better. I would estimate that perhaps 10% of the packets I see are "hire" or "strong hire" across the board, and those are the ones where it's a quick sanity check to make sure that nothing unusual happened (e.g. one interviewer was the hiring manager and two others were people who report to the hiring manager). Those are easy, it's great, but it's the exception.
Most packets are a mix of positive and negative feedback, because people are people and conversations are hard, and you're trying to remove as much bias as possible, but stuff happens. Maybe the interviewer wanted a particular answer they didn't get, or maybe there was a misunderstanding, or maybe the candidate got flustered. So when someone says "TC did poorly on this dimension", you look at the notes to see if you also see that, you try to interpret whether something else might have been going on, and then you go look in the other interviews to see if maybe signs of that dimension show up there, positive or negative. Positive? Maybe it was a bad discussion, and you can focus on the other positive signals in the other interviews. Negative? Seems like maybe this is a gap in the candidate's skills.
I'm absolutely not trying to defend your experience, because it's indefensible, and I try to raise a stink when I see it happen (which is not that often). But I wanted to add some context about the role of the hiring committee and the work that goes into making those determinations.
Last interview in Jan and hiring committee in March is a terrible experience, and I'm sorry you had to deal with that. When I notice a packet where the interviews were more than a month prior to my seeing them in committee, I ask why, because it's a bad experience. The reasons I have seen that happen are:
- The interview feedback was mixed, and the recruiter wants to go line up a hiring manager to write a statement of support to the committee to help make the case, and that can take time.
- The hiring manager who was already attached has to pause hiring, or is in final talks with another candidate, or goes on leave, and something gets dropped for a while
I'm sure there are others, but those are the big ones. BTW, neither of those are acceptable reasons for things to have gone the way they did for you, I'm just sharing how I have seen it happen.
I'm not sure if you team matched before or after your interviews - at least at Google, they mostly used to team match after interviews and hiring committees, and are now pivoting to team matching BEFORE interviews, partially to avoid experiences like you describe. If a hiring manager is interested and engaged and supportive upfront, they can help push and move things along. In addition, if interview feedback is universally positive, they're looking at skipping hiring commmittee entirely, or doing a lighter review in the interest of speed. In general, I think these are positive changes that hopefully will streamline things, but it's new and we will have to see.
One point I do want to address is that hiring committees, at least at Google, are not rubber stamps or sanity checks before hiring - we are expected to carefully review each interview against the assessment rubrics, read the notes, ask follow up questions of the interviewers as necessary, privately vote, and then jointly come to a consensus on our recommendation.
Of the packets themselves, those are largely negative don't even go to hiring committee, so we only see the ones where there's at least mixed positive and negative feedback or better. I would estimate that perhaps 10% of the packets I see are "hire" or "strong hire" across the board, and those are the ones where it's a quick sanity check to make sure that nothing unusual happened (e.g. one interviewer was the hiring manager and two others were people who report to the hiring manager). Those are easy, it's great, but it's the exception.
Most packets are a mix of positive and negative feedback, because people are people and conversations are hard, and you're trying to remove as much bias as possible, but stuff happens. Maybe the interviewer wanted a particular answer they didn't get, or maybe there was a misunderstanding, or maybe the candidate got flustered. So when someone says "TC did poorly on this dimension", you look at the notes to see if you also see that, you try to interpret whether something else might have been going on, and then you go look in the other interviews to see if maybe signs of that dimension show up there, positive or negative. Positive? Maybe it was a bad discussion, and you can focus on the other positive signals in the other interviews. Negative? Seems like maybe this is a gap in the candidate's skills.
I'm absolutely not trying to defend your experience, because it's indefensible, and I try to raise a stink when I see it happen (which is not that often). But I wanted to add some context about the role of the hiring committee and the work that goes into making those determinations.
I appreciate your response. As I said, I didn't understand the HC's role during this which was unfortunate. Another recruiter failure.
I did match with the team after the interview which was part of the delay, but that is part of my frustration. It seems to me like the HC could have met post-interview but pre-team match. If the HC says no at that point then fine, I'll move on. If they say yes, it's still on me to find a good team match and if one isn't found than tough luck.
I passed the leet interviews, I had a great interview with an interested hiring manager, at that point everything seemed positive. It's why the HC reject was such a shock.
I did match with the team after the interview which was part of the delay, but that is part of my frustration. It seems to me like the HC could have met post-interview but pre-team match. If the HC says no at that point then fine, I'll move on. If they say yes, it's still on me to find a good team match and if one isn't found than tough luck.
I passed the leet interviews, I had a great interview with an interested hiring manager, at that point everything seemed positive. It's why the HC reject was such a shock.
Thanks for the additional context, it's helpful. Here's my guess as to what happened - you went through your interview loop, and the feedback was mixed, maybe one interview was a "no hire" or two were a "lean no hire". The recruiter decided that your packet was too weak to go to hiring committee as-is, so they went and lined up a hiring manager to support the packet. All of this took time, unfortunately, and then the packet got rejected at HC anyway.
Do you know what level you were interviewing at? At least for PMs, the more junior/early-career levels, the more latitude we are willing to give hiring managers (within reason- big red flags are big red flags regardless) - effectively, if someone is borderline and the hiring manager says "I'm willing to take them on and here's how I'm going to mentor them to address the gaps", I'm typically willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. For more senior levels where the expectations are higher anyway, fundamental skills gaps are more concerning.
All this is just to say - I'm sorry this was such a bad experience. The new hiring process rolling out, where you team match before you interview, is specifically to reduce the cycle times in hiring so we don't miss out on great candidates due to our bureaucracy. I'd encourage you to reapply when you are eligible again - ask your recruiter when you become eligible (a year? I don't remember), but obviously I understand if this experience has soured you on the process entirely. You can also always reach out to me privately - my work email is zito@ (the google).
Do you know what level you were interviewing at? At least for PMs, the more junior/early-career levels, the more latitude we are willing to give hiring managers (within reason- big red flags are big red flags regardless) - effectively, if someone is borderline and the hiring manager says "I'm willing to take them on and here's how I'm going to mentor them to address the gaps", I'm typically willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. For more senior levels where the expectations are higher anyway, fundamental skills gaps are more concerning.
All this is just to say - I'm sorry this was such a bad experience. The new hiring process rolling out, where you team match before you interview, is specifically to reduce the cycle times in hiring so we don't miss out on great candidates due to our bureaucracy. I'd encourage you to reapply when you are eligible again - ask your recruiter when you become eligible (a year? I don't remember), but obviously I understand if this experience has soured you on the process entirely. You can also always reach out to me privately - my work email is zito@ (the google).
Google recruiters have been doing this sort of thing for years. Most google SWE roles advertised in San Francisco didn't exist there, they just advertised to dupe you into taking the bus to Mountain View. I was told that if my interview was successful I'd need to work in Mountain View for a while, then apply to work in SF.
I asked a friend who works there, he said that requested to move to SF as soon as he was done with his first few month. He's a there 3 years, fairly senior and with three kids, commuting from the east bay (he loved covid), but he's still on the "waiting list".
I asked a friend who works there, he said that requested to move to SF as soon as he was done with his first few month. He's a there 3 years, fairly senior and with three kids, commuting from the east bay (he loved covid), but he's still on the "waiting list".
I'm curious, what level was the position? The process was months long and went to a hiring committee? That sounds like a what you'd have for a faculty position or something, was this a research position?
Sounds like the standard google process to me.
SWE. Some of the time I needed so I could answer leet questions and system design questions on the fly. A lot of time was spent scheduling, particularly around the holidays. There were some 'bonus' rounds of interviews I took because they f'd up.
Thank you. I had someone reach out to me from one of those companies recently and was considering going through the process (or trying to). I had no idea it was this long.
nah that just sounds like google
This is something that we are trying to solve at Careersaas.
We take "remote ratings" from those who have applied for roles at companies, but also we algorithmically measure the ratio of remote positions, text indicating a remote role within a job post, and then add a score. Here's Gartner, for example: https://app.careersaas.com/portal/companyprofile/662a55634c1...
I'm sure that at least Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft are hiring remote engineers. I got offers from them and I'm located in Canada.
However, I'm a pretty senior engineer so it may be harder for more junior roles.
However, I'm a pretty senior engineer so it may be harder for more junior roles.
FAANG recruiters will lie with a straight face. Not surprised at all by this.
You can remove FAANG from that statement without reducing its correctness. The recruiting business is like the used car business -- there are good recruiters out there, but the odds aren't fantastic that the one you're talking to is in that group.
When you find a recruiter that is honest and genuinely wants what's in the best interest of all concerned, hang onto them. Keep in touch with them. When you're thinking about changing things up, make them your first call. They are gold.
Treat all others with great care and suspicion.
When you find a recruiter that is honest and genuinely wants what's in the best interest of all concerned, hang onto them. Keep in touch with them. When you're thinking about changing things up, make them your first call. They are gold.
Treat all others with great care and suspicion.
> When they pointed out they had been hired as remotes they were met with a collective shrug - the job opening didn't say remote, the agreement they signed didn't say remote. The recruiter was wrong but that's not the company's problem.
That's why during the interview process you need to repeat it multiple times to all parties involved - to make sure they are all on board. After the interview/when accepting the offer you need to get it in writing as an appendix to the contract or any other form that's legally acceptable.
That's why during the interview process you need to repeat it multiple times to all parties involved - to make sure they are all on board. After the interview/when accepting the offer you need to get it in writing as an appendix to the contract or any other form that's legally acceptable.
Short of a contractual guarantee, you should always approach a new job with this expectation. They may say remote now. But almost all of us are subject to 'at will' employment laws and the company could absolutely change its mind later.
I've only been looking at remote jobs that also happen to have big offices or headquarters in places I'd be okay moving to, because I might use it as a plausible path to move there. My ties to the area I live in are about to end, and I'm feeling the itch to shake things up.
I've only been looking at remote jobs that also happen to have big offices or headquarters in places I'd be okay moving to, because I might use it as a plausible path to move there. My ties to the area I live in are about to end, and I'm feeling the itch to shake things up.
This. I am currently going through talking with HR ( mostly because management did not want to 'create a precedent'; clearly they got orders from higher ups ) hoping to get full time remote, while, at the same time, interviewing for other positions ( which will worst case serve as a leverage - worst case, I will just go to a different office making more money ).
It sucks, but yeah. Unless this is in writing somewhere, it can change at any moment.
If I wasn't so scared of being my own boss ( it is genuinely hard to keep track of everything ), I would consider trying consulting.
It sucks, but yeah. Unless this is in writing somewhere, it can change at any moment.
If I wasn't so scared of being my own boss ( it is genuinely hard to keep track of everything ), I would consider trying consulting.
I’ve had a similar FAANG experience. They approached me, I made “no relocation” a non-negotiable condition from the start. We started talking, I did the marathon interview until late in the night (CET vs PT), put my formal application in their system, and after two months they said they were ready to make me an offer. On the same day, it turned out that they had not even bothered to look up the pay range for my country. Instead, I was asked for the fifth time if I were willing to move to California.
To everyone who is reading this, I'm hiring at On Deck (beondeck.com) We are are a 100% Remote company and will stay remote forever.
Contact me if you'd like to join: [email protected]
Contact me if you'd like to join: [email protected]
What roles are you hiring for?
https://beondeck.com/careers incl. senior engineering roles
Hmm looks like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch
> I'm not sure what the compensation model for recruiters is, but it seems to encourage bringing in as many candidates as possible over treating them with honesty and respect.
Recruiter here. You nailed it!
Recruiters are influencers: nothing more, nothing less. I'm writing a video essay to help me grieve the human-centric inane events you are describing that I lived daily for years.
Compensation model differs but if people are interested I can let you know.
Sometimes it’s the recruiter that originates the lie, sometimes it’s the company/process that dictates the lie. Regardless, your interview process is a datapoint that I have collected to influence hiring managers to allow more remote roles if they really liked you. Sometimes that data has been used to boot other agencies from working for them so I can have more control and make myself and my team look better. Who tf knows really? There is but only asymmetric information in this deal.
It's disingenuous from the start sometimes. I've hired loads of devs that weren't looking for a job (passive candidates) even pre 2020. A lot of those wanted remote or even partial WFH and I still got them to commute from West Seattle to Redmond. Sometimes it works out where the recruiter can establish rapport with a candidate enough to coax them into a hybrid situation (i've done it dozens of times) for $5-15k more a year (puke emojis). For me, that eventually turns into self loathing, disdain.
How do you make it to hiring committee, when you wanted remote as that was established from the start (on your side)? The recruiter (mistake by moving too fast, lies, who tf knows why) may or may not have known you wanted remote and at the worst expected you to be a fence sitter and pushed you through as 'it all comes out in the wash' (on their side). Maybe they take candidates through the process to stack rank them and see who they can make exceptions for and yeet the rest. Who knows: everyone is different as much as the company they are interviewing for.
Like, I have read the posts about tech hiring being broken, and let me tell you what. It's more than just a mental athletic gauntlet of tree traversal and finding big O. Together - candidates and recruiters alike - we are helplessly nibbling at yet just a mouthful of the present soul crushing sausage-like shitberg.
Recruiter here. You nailed it!
Recruiters are influencers: nothing more, nothing less. I'm writing a video essay to help me grieve the human-centric inane events you are describing that I lived daily for years.
Compensation model differs but if people are interested I can let you know.
Sometimes it’s the recruiter that originates the lie, sometimes it’s the company/process that dictates the lie. Regardless, your interview process is a datapoint that I have collected to influence hiring managers to allow more remote roles if they really liked you. Sometimes that data has been used to boot other agencies from working for them so I can have more control and make myself and my team look better. Who tf knows really? There is but only asymmetric information in this deal.
It's disingenuous from the start sometimes. I've hired loads of devs that weren't looking for a job (passive candidates) even pre 2020. A lot of those wanted remote or even partial WFH and I still got them to commute from West Seattle to Redmond. Sometimes it works out where the recruiter can establish rapport with a candidate enough to coax them into a hybrid situation (i've done it dozens of times) for $5-15k more a year (puke emojis). For me, that eventually turns into self loathing, disdain.
How do you make it to hiring committee, when you wanted remote as that was established from the start (on your side)? The recruiter (mistake by moving too fast, lies, who tf knows why) may or may not have known you wanted remote and at the worst expected you to be a fence sitter and pushed you through as 'it all comes out in the wash' (on their side). Maybe they take candidates through the process to stack rank them and see who they can make exceptions for and yeet the rest. Who knows: everyone is different as much as the company they are interviewing for.
Like, I have read the posts about tech hiring being broken, and let me tell you what. It's more than just a mental athletic gauntlet of tree traversal and finding big O. Together - candidates and recruiters alike - we are helplessly nibbling at yet just a mouthful of the present soul crushing sausage-like shitberg.
I recently had a slew of interviews at FAANG and FAANG-adjacent companies (and accepted a great offer at one of them) that were 100% remote. It's good to name and shame the ones that are lying or otherwise underhanded about it, but I've never seen so many good-paying, 100% remote roles available. Do get it in writing and it never hurts to focus on companies with a track record of doing remote well rather than just doing it under pandemic duress.
As a rule, recruiters lie about everything (there are good ones, but they seem to be the exception). Why not apply to jobs directly rather than going through recruiters?
That's probably something that should be discussed with the employer early - just bring it up casually on the first meeting with them, and then you're sure.
And of course, how many days a week you should be in office, and how many days remote should be in the contract too. Usually I would also ask what are the working hours and add this to the contract, because the clearer everybody's expectations are, the better it will be for you and the company.
And of course, how many days a week you should be in office, and how many days remote should be in the contract too. Usually I would also ask what are the working hours and add this to the contract, because the clearer everybody's expectations are, the better it will be for you and the company.
If it's something important, and it's not in writing – it's best to assume that it won't happen.
Recruiters will tell you anything to close the deal: fake valuations & equity info, incorrect work responsibilities, made up descriptions of work culture.
Recruiters are a sales position. They are selling you the company. Their job is to close you. And there is little if any recourse to them lying unless it's documented and protected by employment law.
Recruiters will tell you anything to close the deal: fake valuations & equity info, incorrect work responsibilities, made up descriptions of work culture.
Recruiters are a sales position. They are selling you the company. Their job is to close you. And there is little if any recourse to them lying unless it's documented and protected by employment law.
Just in the past few days I got contacted by a British recruiter offering a job via LinkedIn which had a particularly generous package and conditions for the German market, so I jumped on the phone and had a chat with him about it.
It was all good until the second phone call to clarify that the pay was 30K less than what was originally advertised and there were no stock option benefits.
I found it pretty deceiving, the old cloak and dagger sales technique.
I found it pretty deceiving, the old cloak and dagger sales technique.
> I'm not sure what the compensation model for recruiters is
There are three models of recruiting, first-party, retained and commission. You do not want to speak to recruiters working on commission, because they take the shotgun approach and have the least information and least incentive to tell the truth. One of my first questions to third party recruiters is "are you retained or on commission" and if the second, end the conversation.
There are three models of recruiting, first-party, retained and commission. You do not want to speak to recruiters working on commission, because they take the shotgun approach and have the least information and least incentive to tell the truth. One of my first questions to third party recruiters is "are you retained or on commission" and if the second, end the conversation.
[deleted]
I've learned to look for any ambiguous "weasel words" which nullify anything else they're attached to
me: how much does this job pay? them: well they hired a guy a few months ago at $X for a similar role or them: we strive to pay market! me: which for your company and this role now is... ?
me: can it be worked remotely 100%? them: yes probably, though I think they'd like you to come into office as much as possible me: brain melts
me: how much does this job pay? them: well they hired a guy a few months ago at $X for a similar role or them: we strive to pay market! me: which for your company and this role now is... ?
me: can it be worked remotely 100%? them: yes probably, though I think they'd like you to come into office as much as possible me: brain melts
Many companies are struggling with is issue. I wouldn't be surprised if the policy evolved from when the recruiter got the assignment.
Disruptive change is hard. In the business units that I manage, some units thrived under COVID and get better working remote. Others collapsed and remain barely functional. It requires alot capital and ROI to justify dealing with it. It's one of the infuriating aspects for working for giant companies.
Disruptive change is hard. In the business units that I manage, some units thrived under COVID and get better working remote. Others collapsed and remain barely functional. It requires alot capital and ROI to justify dealing with it. It's one of the infuriating aspects for working for giant companies.
>I'm not sure what the compensation model for recruiters is, but it seems to encourage bringing in as many candidates as possible over treating them with honesty and respect.
There is no downside to them for getting you to interview. The best case is you decide non-remote isn't a deal breaker after all and they get the commission; the worst case is you decline the job and the recruiter finds another candidate.
There is no downside to them for getting you to interview. The best case is you decide non-remote isn't a deal breaker after all and they get the commission; the worst case is you decline the job and the recruiter finds another candidate.
>When they pointed out they had been hired as remotes they were met with a collective shrug - the job opening didn't say remote, the agreement they signed didn't say remote. The recruiter was wrong but that's not the company's problem.
One thing they can do is stay enough so that the company has spent funds training them, while they're not productive yet, and then quit.
One thing they can do is stay enough so that the company has spent funds training them, while they're not productive yet, and then quit.
Did this never come up in ANY of the interviews? I just went through hours and hours of interviews and I talked about this with the interviewers all the time because it impacts team cohesion, collaboration, company culture so obviously a lot of questions were targeted towards remote work. At least the hiring manager would have been able to clarify any wrong assumptions, no?
Prediction: offices are going to become a status symbol for an enterprise to prove it's substantial enough to afford one. It will be mostly style, negligible substance. Perhaps a receptionist/office manager, a couple of private offices in the back for those who desire them, and a conference room. That's all that'll be needed.
When I joined my current company, I made sure to have it specified in my offer that I had the option to be fully remote in perpetuity. I know it doesn't actually make a difference — they can fire me for any reason, and I'm not going to take them to court over it — but it makes me feel like at least we have agreed on terms.
And if they aren't willing to even write it into the initial offer (despite how toothless that promise is in the long term in the US legal system), you know they aren't really serious about remote.
It is also partly your friend's mistake. These things should be in writing for many reasons -
- the recruiter could just possibly lie that she never mentioned remote work
- the recruiter could have left the company and could possibly never answer your messages
- the doc would stand as a point of argument with the company without involving another person into the discussion
- the recruiter could just possibly lie that she never mentioned remote work
- the recruiter could have left the company and could possibly never answer your messages
- the doc would stand as a point of argument with the company without involving another person into the discussion
[deleted]
I work for a startup that's full-remote (been that way since before COVID) and we are hiring. If you'd like to work in golang, come apply!
who is hiring link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30878768
who is hiring link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30878768
Confirmed! I've been happily working at Fevo for years, more than a thousand miles from headquarters.
I don't understand the point of this actually, if supposedly the hiring process is so expensive and error prone and takes so long to get the right person, why would you go through all that with someone who says they will only work remote and then when it is time for work to start say - gotcha!
I've seen this around, Meta/FB for example currently are hiring people anywhere and letting them work remotely because of current circumstances but you have to declare that you're open to relocation and pick a "home office" regardless of your preference for remote work.
I'm remote for Meta/FB I can say that remote means remote. There is no pressure to come to the office, and they are OK with people relocating away from the office. The comp gets adjusted based on zip code or something like that. You are probably coming out ahead anyway, from what I have seen the adjustments are smaller than the cost of living and tax comparisons.
I do live in the area and meet up with coworkers from time to time because I enjoy that, but there is really zero pressure to do so.
The home office thing is because when I get devices they send them to the closest office first, then they will get delivery to my home. Never heard anyone having an issue because they are too far from an office. I do have coworkers that live far from offices.
I do live in the area and meet up with coworkers from time to time because I enjoy that, but there is really zero pressure to do so.
The home office thing is because when I get devices they send them to the closest office first, then they will get delivery to my home. Never heard anyone having an issue because they are too far from an office. I do have coworkers that live far from offices.
I want to reiterate this: I live literally three hours from any Meta office, I have never heard anyone encourage me to go to an office, and my team even has no three people in the same state. There's certainly the freedom to live near and go to the office if you need that work-life separation, but it's a freedom. And I really admire our senior leadership working to spend more time geographically distributed and remote themselves, to show their commitment to make Facebook treat geographically diverse, remote employees with equality.
Most of FAANG has been pretty open about they want people back in the office, at least part of the time.
A lot of companies are talking about hybrid models, so that is probably where we will end up. We will get there a lot faster if the economy tanks and the power shifts away from the employee.
Hope I am wrong, I love WFH.
A lot of companies are talking about hybrid models, so that is probably where we will end up. We will get there a lot faster if the economy tanks and the power shifts away from the employee.
Hope I am wrong, I love WFH.
Since you are referring to the HC, and mention FAANG, I’ll assume this was Google. If so, it’s not that they don’t want remote hires. It’s that you didn’t qualify to work remote / without closer guidance. This is a typical way these rejections are worded.
Throwaway account for obvious reasons.
Throwaway account for obvious reasons.
Recruiting is like fishing. They're not lies, they're lures. I doubt that will ever change. The lesson is don't be a fish.
Hell, I had a recruiter steal contacts from the company we were both working for, and try to recruit me when she had left for another company.
Hell, I had a recruiter steal contacts from the company we were both working for, and try to recruit me when she had left for another company.
Well, in my book, if someone promises X and does Y and pretend that X was never mentioned, then it's a lie, not a lure. Besides, isn't "lure" a "lie" that we are trying to cover as a "lure" in order to feel better with ourselves?
I was trying to paint the picture that recruiters are held to the same moral standards towards their candidates that fishermen are to fish. No one criticizes fishermen for using lures that look good but are not food.
I see a few possibilities:
1) Recruiter was misinformed and/or policies changed while you were interviewing. A lot of companies, including some of the big names, have been changing their remote policies in 2022. They're also playing off each other and the hiring market, so the situation is evolving quickly. Given what I've seen lately, it's possible that they were hiring remotely when your process started but they ended that policy before you crossed the finish line. (EDIT: Op mentioned scheduling interviews around the holidays in a different comment. With such a long interview cycle, I'd expect changing policies is the most likely explanation)
2) Recruiter was lying. I actually don't think this is likely because the recruiter would just be wasting their time. Recruiters don't actually gain anything and lose a lot of opportunity cost by running dead-end candidates through the pipeline for jobs they know won't be accepted.
3) You might have been switched to a different opening or department during the interview process. If the initial hiring manager declined you, they may have found someone else who wanted to pick up the thread. They should have notified you about the difference, of course.
4) Finally, it's possible they decided you weren't a good fit for remote work. Hybrid remote/in-office companies are becoming more picky about who they're allowing to work remote because not everybody can handle it. Usually the strongest candidates are afforded remote opportunities, but borderline maybes will be asked to be on-site at the start so they can be closely mentored.
1) Recruiter was misinformed and/or policies changed while you were interviewing. A lot of companies, including some of the big names, have been changing their remote policies in 2022. They're also playing off each other and the hiring market, so the situation is evolving quickly. Given what I've seen lately, it's possible that they were hiring remotely when your process started but they ended that policy before you crossed the finish line. (EDIT: Op mentioned scheduling interviews around the holidays in a different comment. With such a long interview cycle, I'd expect changing policies is the most likely explanation)
2) Recruiter was lying. I actually don't think this is likely because the recruiter would just be wasting their time. Recruiters don't actually gain anything and lose a lot of opportunity cost by running dead-end candidates through the pipeline for jobs they know won't be accepted.
3) You might have been switched to a different opening or department during the interview process. If the initial hiring manager declined you, they may have found someone else who wanted to pick up the thread. They should have notified you about the difference, of course.
4) Finally, it's possible they decided you weren't a good fit for remote work. Hybrid remote/in-office companies are becoming more picky about who they're allowing to work remote because not everybody can handle it. Usually the strongest candidates are afforded remote opportunities, but borderline maybes will be asked to be on-site at the start so they can be closely mentored.
Number 4 is an interesting point. Personally, as a hiring manager who works exclusively remote (though my company does have offices) if I thought someone was borderline or even under the line at handling remote work, I would not make them an offer at all.
Well, I might if we were talking about an internship and there was someone on site I trusted to keep an eye on them. Otherwise, one of the most important things I look for in any direct report is the ability to do their work without the need for a lot of hand-holding. IOW, if I don't trust them to work remote, then I just don't trust them.
Well, I might if we were talking about an internship and there was someone on site I trusted to keep an eye on them. Otherwise, one of the most important things I look for in any direct report is the ability to do their work without the need for a lot of hand-holding. IOW, if I don't trust them to work remote, then I just don't trust them.
> IOW, if I don't trust them to work remote, then I just don't trust them.
It really depends. There are a lot of good people out there who don't do well with remote work. A lot.
If your company is mostly remote, it makes sense to pass on people who aren't great at remote work. But if you have in-office teams where they'd be a good fit, it can still be worth bringing them in if (and only if) they're interested in an in-office position.
It's really hard to tell if someone can handle remote work during an interview, though. People who have successfully worked remote and have good references are easy. People who have only worked in offices and want to go remote are much harder to evaluate in an interview context.
It really depends. There are a lot of good people out there who don't do well with remote work. A lot.
If your company is mostly remote, it makes sense to pass on people who aren't great at remote work. But if you have in-office teams where they'd be a good fit, it can still be worth bringing them in if (and only if) they're interested in an in-office position.
It's really hard to tell if someone can handle remote work during an interview, though. People who have successfully worked remote and have good references are easy. People who have only worked in offices and want to go remote are much harder to evaluate in an interview context.
I think smaller/mid sized companies have fully embraced remote in many cases. The people I talk to appear pretty serious about it and have highly distributed teams that just aren't all going to go back to an office.
So lying liars, lying? All of these corporate companies are pure grifters. If they don't allow remote, don't work there. They have no legitimate reason for office work except authoritarian control measures.
They're not lying, there are just significant internal miscommunications. A lot of the big companies right now have a lot of internal disagreements on the policies that pop up at various stage of the process.
I find it interesting how people define a lie. It's the responsibilities of these people to be on the same page and so if they are not lying they are rife with poor internal practices which gives me about the same impression of them as if they had been lying.
Anyone have experience being remote cofounders in the very beginning of a startup?
In my case it’s someone I know well but we would be located in different cities. Would love to talk to anyone who has experience with this.
In my case it’s someone I know well but we would be located in different cities. Would love to talk to anyone who has experience with this.
"Recruiters are lying about remote positions"
They lie about a lot more than that.
They lie about a lot more than that.
Verba volant, scripta manent. If someone promise something that's need to be black on white, if not you can't count that as true nor false, it might or might not be true...
> the agreement they signed didn't say remote
Just read stuff you sign, don't sign unless you agree, and ask to modify if needed. Incredibly easy way to avoid problems like this.
Just read stuff you sign, don't sign unless you agree, and ask to modify if needed. Incredibly easy way to avoid problems like this.
How would that have helped OP - who wasted a lot of time interviewing and didn't have anything to sign?
This happened to me. The interview process went well but the company's closest office was 15 miles from me, which in Atlanta traffic is over an hour. I said I would need to be remote, they wanted me in the office full time. We were using an external recruiter, which I had never done before. Eventually the recruiter negotiated that I'd be onsite for the first month for onboarding and then remote after that.
My first week I mentioned something to my boss about being remote after the first month and he had no idea. The recruiter had simply lied about "negotiating" so that I'd accept the offer.
Luckily it all worked out. Although company policy was officially no work from home, my directly manager didn't care at all. And shortly after corona hit and they company ended up going 100% remote anyway.
My first week I mentioned something to my boss about being remote after the first month and he had no idea. The recruiter had simply lied about "negotiating" so that I'd accept the offer.
Luckily it all worked out. Although company policy was officially no work from home, my directly manager didn't care at all. And shortly after corona hit and they company ended up going 100% remote anyway.
> 15 miles from me, which in Atlanta traffic is over an hour.
Sounds like bicycle speed.
Sounds like bicycle speed.
If I had to drive into Boston or Cambridge from 15 miles out at rush hour, it would almost certainly take me about that long.
Welcome to Atlanta. There isn't an easy way to get from Gwinnett to Alpharetta.
I did try it via bicycle, and it did take about the same amount of time. But the streets here are vary narrow and southern hospitality ends when you get in a car.
I did try it via bicycle, and it did take about the same amount of time. But the streets here are vary narrow and southern hospitality ends when you get in a car.
Sounds like a situation asking for some dedicated bike paths. Make it easy for people to bypass the heavy car traffic, maybe even introduce a shortcut from Gwinnett to Alpharetta, and reduce the pressure on the roads.
Just going to help everyone out here that got a RTO notice: https://remoteok.com/
I’ve heard similar things happening in my network recently. On the other hand, it seems to be much easier than earlier to get FAANG offers in the first place.
If you think that they're dishonest with you, then ... play that dishonest game with them: you can tell them that you accept that onsite job and will be in the office at that time on that day. On the day that you're supposed to be in the office, you tell them that their office is too far and you cannot go there. They'll let you go and will also have to spend all the time and effort to find another person for your position. After a few times like that, they'll realize that it's better to be frank at the beginning.
"When they pointed out they had been hired as remotes they were met with a collective shrug"
If it's not in the contract, it doesn't exist.
If it's not in the contract, it doesn't exist.
I've heard of this happening quite a bit, oftentimes after a lengthy interview process had already begun.
You will notice this thread is being pushed off the front page despite having an absurd amount of comments...
One question related to remote position: how much less should I expect compated to in-person one?
You can truncate and generalize this to : "Recruiters are lying".
IANAL but this sounds like a recipe for a lawsuit against the recruiter?
send this FAANG company an invoice for the time you spent interviewing
Read the contracts and emails carefully. Written word is Gold.
I'm thinking hybrid work is the best older companies can do.
The only way to know you'll never need to come into an office is to work somewhere without an office. If they company isn't fully remote they'll eventually want you to come in.
I'd love something like working a straight week per quarter in the office.
Then if you decide to have a San Francisco office, I can endure The tenderloin for a single week every 3 months
The only way to know you'll never need to come into an office is to work somewhere without an office. If they company isn't fully remote they'll eventually want you to come in.
I'd love something like working a straight week per quarter in the office.
Then if you decide to have a San Francisco office, I can endure The tenderloin for a single week every 3 months
Name the company, please.
Long-time remote-only recruiter here (and previous developer & startup CEO).
In the worst case, they're lying.
In the best case, there's a communication breakdown.
Some possible communication breakdowns:
1) Identifying decision makers - It sometimes takes a while to find all the decision makers in an organization for an open position. It isn't always just the hiring manager and as a recruiter I'm not always told up front. Sometimes it might be embarrassing for the hiring manager, or maybe they don't even know. Sometimes the decision maker hands off a hiring assignment, but then sees its not what they want and takes back control. Unfortunately, that can sometimes mean a couple candidates getting deep into the hiring pipeline before it's clear. And then once you find the decision maker, that's when requirements can change where "remote ok" becomes "remote not ok".
2) Hiring ahead of the curve - Some clients will start a hiring process in anticipation of a new project coming through and then have to shut it down when it doesn't pan out. So it's possible a new remote team might be designed around a specific project and then the project gets modified or shut down and the remote team is no longer needed, but some candidates are funneled into other open positions that have different requirements.
3) Changing strategy - Some clients, especially startups, pivot in reaction to client or team feedback pretty quickly. If a job gets posted and candidates start moving through the pipeline, but the team keeps rejecting them, then the job req might change based on that feedback, but candidates already partially through the pipeline might feel like it's a bait and switch.
I'm sure there are more possible explanations, but those are a few I've experienced myself even though I'd consider myself a very ethical recruiter.
> I'm not sure what the compensation model for recruiters is
I charge 0 up front, 10% of the base salary on the start date and another 10% of the base salary on the 6mo anniversary if they're still employed.
Every recruiter is different though. Many charge an upfront fee or minimal hourly/weekly rate in addition to a % of the salary (or total comp).
> it seems to encourage bringing in as many candidates as possible over treating them with honesty and respect.
Those recruiters don't last very long. And it's a sign that they don't know what they're doing. At that point they're glorified paper pushers, shuttling resumes from one place to another.
If I don't have someone specific in mind for a role, then I typically review up to 150-300 resumes for a given position and reach out to 50-100 for pre-screening questions. Of those, only about 25-50 might respond. Of those, I might interview 10-20. Of those, I typically recommend the top 2-4 candidates to my client. I don't wait to pick the top 2-4, I just know from running my own company and engineering teams who I would hire and who I wouldn't and recommend candidates as soon as they successfully cross all of my screening steps.
The problem is if you flood a company with candidates, it takes them too long to schedule all those interviews and make a decision. By sending only 2-4, I can get them all through 2-3 rounds of company interviews in 1-2 weeks, and then the company can make a quick decision.
In the worst case, they're lying.
In the best case, there's a communication breakdown.
Some possible communication breakdowns:
1) Identifying decision makers - It sometimes takes a while to find all the decision makers in an organization for an open position. It isn't always just the hiring manager and as a recruiter I'm not always told up front. Sometimes it might be embarrassing for the hiring manager, or maybe they don't even know. Sometimes the decision maker hands off a hiring assignment, but then sees its not what they want and takes back control. Unfortunately, that can sometimes mean a couple candidates getting deep into the hiring pipeline before it's clear. And then once you find the decision maker, that's when requirements can change where "remote ok" becomes "remote not ok".
2) Hiring ahead of the curve - Some clients will start a hiring process in anticipation of a new project coming through and then have to shut it down when it doesn't pan out. So it's possible a new remote team might be designed around a specific project and then the project gets modified or shut down and the remote team is no longer needed, but some candidates are funneled into other open positions that have different requirements.
3) Changing strategy - Some clients, especially startups, pivot in reaction to client or team feedback pretty quickly. If a job gets posted and candidates start moving through the pipeline, but the team keeps rejecting them, then the job req might change based on that feedback, but candidates already partially through the pipeline might feel like it's a bait and switch.
I'm sure there are more possible explanations, but those are a few I've experienced myself even though I'd consider myself a very ethical recruiter.
> I'm not sure what the compensation model for recruiters is
I charge 0 up front, 10% of the base salary on the start date and another 10% of the base salary on the 6mo anniversary if they're still employed.
Every recruiter is different though. Many charge an upfront fee or minimal hourly/weekly rate in addition to a % of the salary (or total comp).
> it seems to encourage bringing in as many candidates as possible over treating them with honesty and respect.
Those recruiters don't last very long. And it's a sign that they don't know what they're doing. At that point they're glorified paper pushers, shuttling resumes from one place to another.
If I don't have someone specific in mind for a role, then I typically review up to 150-300 resumes for a given position and reach out to 50-100 for pre-screening questions. Of those, only about 25-50 might respond. Of those, I might interview 10-20. Of those, I typically recommend the top 2-4 candidates to my client. I don't wait to pick the top 2-4, I just know from running my own company and engineering teams who I would hire and who I wouldn't and recommend candidates as soon as they successfully cross all of my screening steps.
The problem is if you flood a company with candidates, it takes them too long to schedule all those interviews and make a decision. By sending only 2-4, I can get them all through 2-3 rounds of company interviews in 1-2 weeks, and then the company can make a quick decision.
I went through a long remote job search in mid-2019. What I experienced was that even when companies said they were open to remote, my status as a remote hire was almost always a decisive factor in them hiring some other candidate over me. I need to remain remote for family reasons so it's a bit disappointing to hear that the recruitment and interview problems for remote candidates may not have improved that much from COVID.
Yeah at this point I either would look for on-site positions or for companies that logistically cannot call people into the office, heh.
My company, for example, literally has no real estate. There is no office to even go into.
My company, for example, literally has no real estate. There is no office to even go into.
The mainstreaming of remote work is going to ruin all the fun for people like me who have been doing it for decades.
Should’ve seen this coming. My reaction is going to be to start my own company I guess.
Should’ve seen this coming. My reaction is going to be to start my own company I guess.
> When they pointed out they had been hired as remotes they were met with a collective shrug
That sounds like an exceptionally stupid thing for the employers to do in the current market.
That sounds like an exceptionally stupid thing for the employers to do in the current market.
Don’t worry, remote WFH is ending. Soon, this situation will never happen.
Hardly. I work at a startup that doesn't even have an office. We are distributed around the world, and everyone, CEO included, is WFH. Perhaps your comment was sarcastic, but that doesn't make it any less incorrect.
Not a startup, but my (small) company is absolutely hiring remotely, preferring EU timezones. We have an office, but it's generally unused. We've got people in at least 4 countries now, maybe 5 by next week. They were supportive when I took a ~year~8 months with the family to drive/airbnb around europe precovid.
I have the same deal here.
Pre-COVID, they had a WeWork office, but some employees were remote around the USA. Once COVID hit, they left the WeWork and became fully remote. We don't have an office, and now have people from all over the world.
HR and the C-suite make a big point of advertising both internally and externally that we are a 100% remote company. They've also arranged full-company gatherings so we can meet each other and put an actual person behind the face we see in Zoom. A couple months ago, it was in Chamonix, France.
Pre-COVID, they had a WeWork office, but some employees were remote around the USA. Once COVID hit, they left the WeWork and became fully remote. We don't have an office, and now have people from all over the world.
HR and the C-suite make a big point of advertising both internally and externally that we are a 100% remote company. They've also arranged full-company gatherings so we can meet each other and put an actual person behind the face we see in Zoom. A couple months ago, it was in Chamonix, France.
My company more than doubled its workforce during COVID and we don't plan on leasing any more office space.
Not to mention we hired people all around the country, so most of them don't have a place to come in to.
Not to mention we hired people all around the country, so most of them don't have a place to come in to.
[deleted]
Yeah good luck with that.
yeaaaaaaaaah buddy i haven't been in an office since before covid
If you're good enough that they need you, they'll hire you anywhere with a net connection.
If you're good enough that they need you, they'll hire you anywhere with a net connection.
You realize WFH was a thing before the pandemic, right?
I was offered the opportunity to work 100% remotely for a large financial corporation which has the bulk of its operations in my home town. This was back in 2006. One of my best friends was outfitted with a DS1 to his house back in the mid '90's so he could work remotely.
tl;dr: Telecommuting has been around for decades and is only going to become more common, not less. The pandemic merely accelerated the trend.
tl;dr: Telecommuting has been around for decades and is only going to become more common, not less. The pandemic merely accelerated the trend.
Can confirm. Buddy of mine was good, lived far away, and basically threatened to walk if accommodation was not made. Remote existed for a while, but it was considered a 'favor' bosses bestowed upon you. Now it is the norm and suddenly not only normal order is upset, but also one carrot is gone from the manager's quiver.
I completely agree with your post.
I completely agree with your post.
The hiring committee said no, they didn't want remote hires.
I have friends in arguably worse situations. They were recruited for remote positions, accepted the jobs, and are now being told they have to show up onsite. When they pointed out they had been hired as remotes they were met with a collective shrug - the job opening didn't say remote, the agreement they signed didn't say remote. The recruiter was wrong but that's not the company's problem.
I'm not sure what the compensation model for recruiters is, but it seems to encourage bringing in as many candidates as possible over treating them with honesty and respect.