Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

mattermark.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 517 posts

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#71

Post by peteretep »

redwards510 wrote: post #14
lacampbell wrote: post #11

I wish more companies would give example problems to solve in your own time. I did one for a fairly large Australian company, and they rejected it. By the time they got round to letting me know (very long turn around time) I had already found other employment. But still, their reasons for rejecting my solution - the output was not formatted to their liking, and they didn't seem to know what an anonymous function was…

I don't mind homework, but companies need to start specifying their salary range up front. I've been having a lot of time wasted lately by getting through Tech Interview #1 or Homework #1, only to find out their max salary is laughable for San Francisco. "You should just find that out upfront" I hear you saying. Well that is not always possible. Recruiters either don't know the range, or lie about not knowing, or you…

Recruiter here with a history of working as a developer

    > but companies need to start specifying their salary
    > range up front
The costs outweigh the benefits for employers (encouraging existing employees to ask for more money, losing candidates who will accept significantly less but wouldn't apply at a lower range, etc) -- so don't hold your breath.

    > I've been having a lot of time wasted lately by
    > getting through Tech Interview #1 or Homework #1, only
    > to find out their max salary is laughable for San
    > Francisco.
State it upfront when you submit your application, rather than "find that out":

"I am interested in roles paying above my current salary of $xxx,xxx only, and am looking for an improvement on that to reflect my increased experience and the risk of moving roles"

    > Recruiters either don't know the range
Yeah they do.

    > or lie about not knowing
"Could you tell me about offers you've previously made for this client?" They may also be lying about actually being authorized to recruit for the role(!!!) so consider asking them for a copy of the technical specification. If it's a larger company, ask what the salary banding and official job title for the range is, then head to Glassdoor.

    > you have to submit a big packet of info (cover letter,
    > history, resume, homework) before you can even talk to
    > a human about salary
I had a hunch that roles like this weren't worth applying for when I was a developer. As a recruiter, this has been almost completely confirmed.

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#72

Post by deckar01 »

ahh wrote: post #10

This system is interesting but has a crucial flaw: I legally can't take part. I have a job now, which claims ownership over any tech-related IP I create. There are processes for getting exceptions, but a) you won't get them for actual job-related things b) I'm not asking Google for an exception so I can interview somewhere else. This is true for nearly anyone with a standard SV job. So if you're willing to restrict y…

[Ask HN] Does my company have IP rights to the stuff I do in my spare time?

> California ... has a law on the books that generally prohibits employers, on public policy grounds, from making claims to IP generated by employees working on their own time and using their own resources.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2208056

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#73

Post by peteretep »

ryandrake wrote: post #22
redwards510 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mind homework, but companies need to start specifying their salary range up front. I've been having a lot of time wasted lately by getting through Tech Interview #1 or Homework #1, only to find out their max salary is laughable for San Francisco. "You should just find that out upfront" I hear you saying. Well that is not always possible. Recruiters either don't know the range, or lie about not knowing, or you…

This is true, and one of the worst inefficiencies you encounter as a candidate (and probably as an employer, I don't know): There's so much song and dance that has to go on before you get to the meat of things: Compensation. Companies could easily solve this by posting clear salary ranges, but most just don't. Another thing that companies could do better is think really hard about "required" and "desired" skills, and…

    > There's so much song and dance that has to go on
    > before you get to the meat of things
This can be an advantage of using an external recruiter, because they sure as shit know what their potential cut of the revenue will be.

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#74

Post by eveningcoffee »

ahh wrote: post #10

This system is interesting but has a crucial flaw: I legally can't take part. I have a job now, which claims ownership over any tech-related IP I create. There are processes for getting exceptions, but a) you won't get them for actual job-related things b) I'm not asking Google for an exception so I can interview somewhere else. This is true for nearly anyone with a standard SV job. So if you're willing to restrict y…

Interesting. I probably could not work in Google then if this is something that is not negotiable to a reasonable level before signing the contract. I consider myself a free man.

But I am afraid that they just slipped it in and you were too worried to ask it taken out. This is definitely something one should look in the contracts and ask to be redacted (IANAL).

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#75

Post by bigiain »

chubot wrote: post #39
ahh wrote: post #10

This system is interesting but has a crucial flaw: I legally can't take part. I have a job now, which claims ownership over any tech-related IP I create. There are processes for getting exceptions, but a) you won't get them for actual job-related things b) I'm not asking Google for an exception so I can interview somewhere else. This is true for nearly anyone with a standard SV job. So if you're willing to restrict y…

Do you think Google would sue you over 2 hours of coding? Technically, they might be able to, but anyone can sue you for anything. If you think they would, you're probably overvaluing what you can accomplish in 2 hours, and you're underestimating the cost of a lawsuit to them. I can't imagine a situation in which they would actually pay any of their legal staff to even look at something like this, given all the rest…

I dunno about Google, but I've got a friend who's legal advice was "Stop working on your phd immediately" when his lawyer read the new employment contract we was being asked to sign when his company got acquired by Oracle. It took months for him to get an extremely limited exemption to the standard contract to be allowed to publish his thesis according to his phd requirements...

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#76

Post by peteretep »

ahh wrote: post #10

This system is interesting but has a crucial flaw: I legally can't take part. I have a job now, which claims ownership over any tech-related IP I create. There are processes for getting exceptions, but a) you won't get them for actual job-related things b) I'm not asking Google for an exception so I can interview somewhere else. This is true for nearly anyone with a standard SV job. So if you're willing to restrict y…

    > I legally can't take part. I have a job now, which
    > claims ownership over any tech-related IP I create
    > ... This is true for nearly anyone with a standard
    > SV job.
For the majority of (admittedly non-SV) employment contracts I've read, most will limit it to work that is linked to your employment only. In the few cases as a developer and recruiter where that's not been the case, I've had no trouble at all getting the company to sign-off on a clause that limits it to that. Legal is much much much more worried that you'll rip off actual company IP or technologies that you've built in the workplace than that you'll discover cold fusion in your garage and they won't get their cut.

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#77

Post by peteretep »

kasey_junk wrote: post #34
RandomOpinion wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This system is interesting but has a crucial flaw: I legally can't take part. I have a job now, which claims ownership over any tech-related IP I create. By that interpretation, you can never legally take part in a whiteboard coding session during an interview either since the code you whiteboarded also belongs to your current employer. There is such a thing as being too literal.

Anti-moonlighting agreements, where they are legal, are common and definetly apply in this situation without requiring extra literal interpretation.

    > and definetly apply in this situation
Are you a lawyer?

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#78

Post by zaroth »

throwaway4job wrote: post #59
zachd1_618 wrote: post #49

This. 100% this. As many others are saying, I find that this is the most comfortable way for me as an interviewee to demonstrate that I do in fact know what I'm talking about. Put me in front of a room full of people and a whiteboard and throw something at me, and I'll freeze. Freezing in that situation and being a bad engineer are wholly separate things. Anecdotally, when I get one of these problems, I spent 20 minu…

This isn't a viable approach for much of the hiring pool, as a majority of working engineers have contracts which explicitly forbid work for contract for other employers. As such, if you hire any of those, you're hiring somebody with a proven willingness to ignore their contract, which is a strong anti-pattern.

IANAL, but that's not what this is.

"Work for contract for other employers" could literally mean I can't help my neighbor mow his lawn in exchange for a beer. In this case what it really means is a non-trivial amount of work done for meaningful profit.

If I fix a friends computer in exchange for a nice meal, I am using my relevant skills to perform work, but I'm not actually violating a contract forbidding outside work in a way that could ever possibly result in damages or firing for cause.

For a potential employee to be so rule-stricken as to concern themselves with performing a coding interview, that would be the potential red flag for me. So this could actually be another positive outcome of this approach.

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#79

Post by duskwuff »

pmiller2 wrote: post #69

There's an inexplicably [dead] comment in reply to your comment here. I'm reposting it so more people can see it. @throwaway4job, you appear to be hellbanned for no reason I can discern. :( > throwaway4job 8 minutes ago [dead] [-] > This isn't a viable approach for much of the hiring pool, as a majority of working engineers have contracts which explicitly forbid work for contract for other employers. As such, if you…

I've vouched for the comment, making it-- undead? I suppose.

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#80

Post by kasey_junk »

peteretep wrote: post #77
kasey_junk wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anti-moonlighting agreements, where they are legal, are common and definetly apply in this situation without requiring extra literal interpretation.

> and definetly apply in this situation Are you a lawyer?

No, if you need an actual legal opinion specific to your situation you should consult a lawyer.

I have received legal advice in my jurisdiction on this specific issue such that I was part of a team that decided not to offer pay in situations due to this advice.

Post reply on HN