Glass Walls(jamestgreen.com)
jamestgreen.com
Glass Walls
https://www.jamestgreen.com/thoughts/115
28 comments
ME: "I've been supporting your team a lot for the past year. Can I just join your team? You have a lot of interesting projects available."
MGR: "Actually, it's really hard to onboard new people right now. We're stretched very thin. Can you do this urgent project for us and then get back to me?"
MGR: <onboards some new hires>
ME: <finishes urgent project>
ME: "So, any chance I can join the team?"
MGR: "Actually, I'm not sure we really have space on the team anymore, I'm really sorry about that."
Takeaway: If you're in a meeting with a manager and they sound completely unenthusiastic, and not even making eye contact, and falling back on their basic lead training to feed you non-committal apologies, you have lost hard. I don't know how you messed up or what clues you misread, but there is nothing for you there. Stop hoping to strike gold. Run.
MGR: "Actually, it's really hard to onboard new people right now. We're stretched very thin. Can you do this urgent project for us and then get back to me?"
MGR: <onboards some new hires>
ME: <finishes urgent project>
ME: "So, any chance I can join the team?"
MGR: "Actually, I'm not sure we really have space on the team anymore, I'm really sorry about that."
Takeaway: If you're in a meeting with a manager and they sound completely unenthusiastic, and not even making eye contact, and falling back on their basic lead training to feed you non-committal apologies, you have lost hard. I don't know how you messed up or what clues you misread, but there is nothing for you there. Stop hoping to strike gold. Run.
He did get hired as full time eventually.
But I don’t know why he took the second offer for contract work other than lack of options, as they say “fool me once…”
But I don’t know why he took the second offer for contract work other than lack of options, as they say “fool me once…”
I assume it's some combination of hard luck and interesting work.
You have no real leverage in that position. Your best bet would be to find something else and then see if they want to keep you. Only thing is you can't bluff.
The article should be called "glass text", because I can barely see it.
lately i have been having a pavlovian reaction to seeing barely readable text on websites - i associate it in my mind with downvoted HN comments
Firefox's Inspect Element tool comes in handy a lot lately. You can use it to disable CSS styles to make text readable. I feel like that would make for a good browser extension: detect the page background color and make all text on the page either #FFF or #000 as appropriate.
You can also just press F9 to toggle reader view.
That is a great tool, and I should use it more often.
Sadly doesn't help for some cases, like the code snippets in Apple's docs. Have to use the Inspect Element tool for that. https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/technotes/tn2091...
Sadly doesn't help for some cases, like the code snippets in Apple's docs. Have to use the Inspect Element tool for that. https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/technotes/tn2091...
Poor mans option: press ctrl+A to highlight everything on the page.
Reader Mode in Safari is the main reason I use it. One click and any unfortunate website styles change into plain text, any size and/or font I want.
This article provides excellent insight into contemporary recruiting techniques.
Contracting agencies are inherently predatory.
'Working hard' to get 'hired on full-time' has and always will be a myth. The 'corporate finance' line makes no sense. If the company didn't have the budget to bring you on full-time then they wouldn't have had the budget to bring you on as a contractor.
My entire employment history consists of contract gigs like this and they all play out the same way.
1) Promise of a full-time position
2) Excuses like 'It's not in this year's budget, but we're in the process of renegotiating the budget so we can have some of you contractors brought on full-time'
3) Contract's extended indefinitely/you're let go only to be offered another contract position with the same organization several months later
Regulations to stop this may be necessary.
Hell, one of my previous co-workers has a PhD in mathematics from an Ivy League university and was being paid $15/hr by a contracting agency to work as a programmer while some of our teammates had no IT experience and struggled to figure out how to use their computers.
Right now I'm working for a contracting company at a massive healthcare organization (16,000+ employees) as 1 of 9 people on our IAM team where I'm tasked with automating all the things and I'm only making $24/hr while the full-time employees that do less work are being paid double, some even triple what I earn.
Contracting agencies are inherently predatory.
'Working hard' to get 'hired on full-time' has and always will be a myth. The 'corporate finance' line makes no sense. If the company didn't have the budget to bring you on full-time then they wouldn't have had the budget to bring you on as a contractor.
My entire employment history consists of contract gigs like this and they all play out the same way.
1) Promise of a full-time position
2) Excuses like 'It's not in this year's budget, but we're in the process of renegotiating the budget so we can have some of you contractors brought on full-time'
3) Contract's extended indefinitely/you're let go only to be offered another contract position with the same organization several months later
Regulations to stop this may be necessary.
Hell, one of my previous co-workers has a PhD in mathematics from an Ivy League university and was being paid $15/hr by a contracting agency to work as a programmer while some of our teammates had no IT experience and struggled to figure out how to use their computers.
Right now I'm working for a contracting company at a massive healthcare organization (16,000+ employees) as 1 of 9 people on our IAM team where I'm tasked with automating all the things and I'm only making $24/hr while the full-time employees that do less work are being paid double, some even triple what I earn.
I'm sure my view of this will provoke some, though that's not my intent.
Wow, the author of this is so drenched in his own racist worldview that he can only blame a situation of his own making on his skin color. In reality, he was taken for a ride by sleazy NY media venture people. (Is there any other kind?) The color of their, or his, skin is irrelevant. If people treat you like crap, they're garbage humans, regardless of skin color.
As the old saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." From where I sit, bringing race into this at all is the worst sort of hateful excuse-making. This was the author's stupid call, and the fallout of his poor decision to work for known untrustworthy a-holes twice falls entirely on him. And has nothing to do with race - a-holes come in all colors.
Wow, the author of this is so drenched in his own racist worldview that he can only blame a situation of his own making on his skin color. In reality, he was taken for a ride by sleazy NY media venture people. (Is there any other kind?) The color of their, or his, skin is irrelevant. If people treat you like crap, they're garbage humans, regardless of skin color.
As the old saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." From where I sit, bringing race into this at all is the worst sort of hateful excuse-making. This was the author's stupid call, and the fallout of his poor decision to work for known untrustworthy a-holes twice falls entirely on him. And has nothing to do with race - a-holes come in all colors.
> We noticed the new batch of contractors were Black and Brown like us, and the Full Timers were mostly white.
This doesn't strike me as drenched in a racist worldview, rather than just an observation of racism.
> This was the author's stupid call this is the same kind of narrative that blames women for the clothes they wear.
Be better. Expect better.
This doesn't strike me as drenched in a racist worldview, rather than just an observation of racism.
> This was the author's stupid call this is the same kind of narrative that blames women for the clothes they wear.
Be better. Expect better.
Some context behind this article for those not in the know -
Reply All (the leading show at Gimlet Media) has had something of a public implosion lately, following their reporting on 'Bon Appetit', with accusations of racism (or at least non-diversity) in their hiring practices, and a lack of support for the unionization efforts there. The irony being that this is the exact sort of behavior they were investigating at Bon Appetit.
Their co-host PJ Vogt and a producer has now left the show (the interplay between PJ and Alex was the primary highlight of the show, so if it continues it will be a very different show).
Following that, there's been a few articles like this one looking at some of the behind the scenes at Gimlet.
Reply All (the leading show at Gimlet Media) has had something of a public implosion lately, following their reporting on 'Bon Appetit', with accusations of racism (or at least non-diversity) in their hiring practices, and a lack of support for the unionization efforts there. The irony being that this is the exact sort of behavior they were investigating at Bon Appetit.
Their co-host PJ Vogt and a producer has now left the show (the interplay between PJ and Alex was the primary highlight of the show, so if it continues it will be a very different show).
Following that, there's been a few articles like this one looking at some of the behind the scenes at Gimlet.
There is a lot going on here but I'll comment on just one facet: the seemingly inexhaustible supply of trust that current(prospective) employees have for their employer(possible future employer).
One should never rely on a statement from an employer that isn't in writing. Furthermore, even if it is in writing, if it says "discretionary bonus," you should consider that a big fat ZERO. If it says "possible," "maybe," "if," etc. you should consider it to never happen (if it's for your benefit, otherwise, assume it definitely will happen).
Only after the above can you reasonably compare offers between prospective employers or value your current job.
HR is trained to hire you at the lowest price and say the most that they can without making fraudulent claims.
Additionally, if you are a current employee, and you EVER speak to HR, walk in with a pen and notepad and take long long notes and do not hesitate to ask someone to pause while you document. Treat it as a legal deposition. They are not your friends, they are trained to extract or give statements that protect the firm (not you).
It's unfortunately a pretty stark reality but it's business. It's even worse if the people involved are your friends - because it will hurt more if you aren't protected or have the wrong expectation. There's a reason that the expression, "never go into business with your family," is a thing.
One should never rely on a statement from an employer that isn't in writing. Furthermore, even if it is in writing, if it says "discretionary bonus," you should consider that a big fat ZERO. If it says "possible," "maybe," "if," etc. you should consider it to never happen (if it's for your benefit, otherwise, assume it definitely will happen).
Only after the above can you reasonably compare offers between prospective employers or value your current job.
HR is trained to hire you at the lowest price and say the most that they can without making fraudulent claims.
Additionally, if you are a current employee, and you EVER speak to HR, walk in with a pen and notepad and take long long notes and do not hesitate to ask someone to pause while you document. Treat it as a legal deposition. They are not your friends, they are trained to extract or give statements that protect the firm (not you).
It's unfortunately a pretty stark reality but it's business. It's even worse if the people involved are your friends - because it will hurt more if you aren't protected or have the wrong expectation. There's a reason that the expression, "never go into business with your family," is a thing.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a company successfully sued on the basis that they've been promising HR is for employees when it is not at some point in the future.
I've seen many junior employees hold the wrong expectation of HR in terms of who's on their side. I can't directly fault them at the times that the company is pushing that version of the world.
I've seen many junior employees hold the wrong expectation of HR in terms of who's on their side. I can't directly fault them at the times that the company is pushing that version of the world.
> I've seen many junior employees hold the wrong expectation of HR in terms of who's on their side
"Friend or foe" is a super reductive way to look at it, and will limit your ability to actually understand what is going on.
To the generic employee, HR thinks of you the same way a farmer treats cattle. Within the range you are judged to be worth, they want you content, quietly productive and enjoying whatever perks they throw your way.
But if you're problematic in some way, you're only worth so much effort.
And worse, if whatever is wrong with you threatens to spread to the rest of the herd (eloquent expressions of shared discontent, organizing, even being a bit of a natural leader, if they're paranoid), well, who employs things that threaten them?
"Friend or foe" is a super reductive way to look at it, and will limit your ability to actually understand what is going on.
To the generic employee, HR thinks of you the same way a farmer treats cattle. Within the range you are judged to be worth, they want you content, quietly productive and enjoying whatever perks they throw your way.
But if you're problematic in some way, you're only worth so much effort.
And worse, if whatever is wrong with you threatens to spread to the rest of the herd (eloquent expressions of shared discontent, organizing, even being a bit of a natural leader, if they're paranoid), well, who employs things that threaten them?
I don't think you're wrong.
At the same time, HR does regularly help employees avail themselves of resources (communications with health insurers, 401k providers, etc.). So in that sense, they are "there" for employees.
As far as I can tell, HR does a few things:
1. promote the idea that the company is a great place at which to work (market the company to potential hires, tell current employees about all the great perks, downplay negatives or ignore them)
2. answer most general questions of current employees (benefits)
3. document statements given to and taken from employees (hiring them, firing them, workplace allegations, rules violations, etc.)
Most of it is designed to protect the company but some of it is sometimes the only way to get something if you're an employee. If you ask: "where should I go to set up my 401k?" or some variation, you are pointed to HR.
At the same time, HR does regularly help employees avail themselves of resources (communications with health insurers, 401k providers, etc.). So in that sense, they are "there" for employees.
As far as I can tell, HR does a few things:
1. promote the idea that the company is a great place at which to work (market the company to potential hires, tell current employees about all the great perks, downplay negatives or ignore them)
2. answer most general questions of current employees (benefits)
3. document statements given to and taken from employees (hiring them, firing them, workplace allegations, rules violations, etc.)
Most of it is designed to protect the company but some of it is sometimes the only way to get something if you're an employee. If you ask: "where should I go to set up my 401k?" or some variation, you are pointed to HR.
HR can be very useful and has helped me on multiple occasions, so the advice I often see that HR isn’t your friend might be a little reductive. Perhaps the advice should be that HR is not your friend during a dispute with your organization?
What it is, is that HR exists to serve the company. Helping you onboard, get your basic finances straight, resolving conflicts, etc, ultimately serves the company (or is neutral to the company, so free to be executed under moral/friendly obligation without repercussion) — a happy employee is a working employee (and resources suddenly quitting in anger is not good for anyone).
So they help employees, but it’s to a large degree self-serving (even if the HR person himself does not realize it — it’s why he doesn’t get in trouble for wasting time on it). But when it becomes actively detrimental to the company, always assume HR will make the decision in favor of the company.
Treating HR as generally hostile is also a bad idea — the assumption of hostility is often met with the same, and now both you and HR are acting slowly, carefully and inefficiently — but never assume they’ll always be your friends. They’re generally friendly, and they may even be considered friends, but ultimately their loyalty is not to you.
The same is true of really anyone in the company — your boss, your coworkers, your attorneys, etc. Their loyalties are always to themselves, and their families first (by which job preservation is a very strong incentive), and maybe you fall in line somewhere.
So they help employees, but it’s to a large degree self-serving (even if the HR person himself does not realize it — it’s why he doesn’t get in trouble for wasting time on it). But when it becomes actively detrimental to the company, always assume HR will make the decision in favor of the company.
Treating HR as generally hostile is also a bad idea — the assumption of hostility is often met with the same, and now both you and HR are acting slowly, carefully and inefficiently — but never assume they’ll always be your friends. They’re generally friendly, and they may even be considered friends, but ultimately their loyalty is not to you.
The same is true of really anyone in the company — your boss, your coworkers, your attorneys, etc. Their loyalties are always to themselves, and their families first (by which job preservation is a very strong incentive), and maybe you fall in line somewhere.
Yes, but then I never expected someone in HR to fall on the sword on my behalf and risk their livelihood because I’ve picked a fight with the boss. Perhaps others did?
I think we agree on the role played by HR. You need to be aware they serve the organization first (as do we all). I just wanted to point out that in the day-to-day, they often provide real benefits to employees, which may be self-serving but there’s no rule that self-serving behavior can’t be mutually beneficial.
I think we agree on the role played by HR. You need to be aware they serve the organization first (as do we all). I just wanted to point out that in the day-to-day, they often provide real benefits to employees, which may be self-serving but there’s no rule that self-serving behavior can’t be mutually beneficial.
I think it can be extended, anyone being paid by your employer is working for your employer and not for you (I guess unless you are the CEO or something). Expecting them to be even neutral is a mistake. They will do what they believe is best for the company.
And to be honest I don't see myself doing anything different than that as well. It's going to be very unlikely I am picking a fight with my employer whatever you are coming to me with.
And to be honest I don't see myself doing anything different than that as well. It's going to be very unlikely I am picking a fight with my employer whatever you are coming to me with.
I'm not sure that trust is the right word. If I had to guess, 'hope' might be more appropriate, because at some level we all know the reality of the situation, but I think we hope that it's not applicable to us.
There would be a few factors driving this
1) The stress of not having a job is extreme, and represents a state that people try to avoid thinking about too much.
2) It is, in fact, true for many people, and we want to think of ourselves as people that it's true for, instead of one of the "suckers" that it's not true for.
There would be a few factors driving this
1) The stress of not having a job is extreme, and represents a state that people try to avoid thinking about too much.
2) It is, in fact, true for many people, and we want to think of ourselves as people that it's true for, instead of one of the "suckers" that it's not true for.
Is "Gimlet Media" a quirky name?
I can't help but think that this is just a VC-funded version of traditional media, where the # of "sufficiently talented" people (i.e the supply) vastly outstrips the number of full-time well-paying positions (the demand), and therefore creates a massive power disparity in the labor market. Most employers will operate in a way like this because they can.
What's surprising here is that we'd think of podcasting as new media. Why would really talented people work for Gimlet vs. trying to get their own shows off the ground?
Financial security is probably the only reason. In fact, it's cited as THE reason this guy went to Gimlet both times. Holding his nose both times. Even the 2nd time, knowing what the company was.
So let's talk about Substack. (Didn't you know? All discussions of online media MUST go back to Substack these days).
This is why Substack is genius. Give the producers more direct access to monetizing their creative efforts. Even give the most promising ones an advance on their efforts to create some short-term financial security so they can do their thing. Let the talented people control their output and business.
Otherwise, in markets where labor vastly outstrips demand, you are fodder for the people with sufficient resources/capital to take the chance. And minority / disadvantaged folks are more at prey to it.