Live data from Hacker News

My Time at Snap

medium.com

231–240 of 264 posts

Re: My Time at Snap

#231
post #47

We have all worked for a "John" in the industry. The big systematic problem is that after being fired from Snap (probably after already collecting massive paychecks and a hefty chunk of equity), he will go to another big tech company and impress them with his resume and bullshitting skills. They will hire him and deal with his antics for a few years, while he ruins more people's careers, then he will move on. Rinse a…

> They will hire him and deal with his antics for a few years, while he ruins more people's careers, then he will move on. Rinse and repeat. He'll eventually be fired -- with a golden parachute, no doubt -- after reports of sexual harassing women emerge in the media. He'll go under the radar for a few months until the media storm and Twitter mob find something else. He'll reemerge in a new startup, promising to have…

He sounds like a horrible boss but I’m not sure why you added a hypothetical sexual harassment charge to his already long list of bad traits.

The real problem we have is that there are many highly competent sexual harassers in workplaces and these issues get swept under the rug specifically because they’re good workers.

Re: My Time at Snap

#232
post #25
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Spend 5 minutes flattering the king, and benefit from the outsized rewards from it.

Spend 5 minutes flattering the king, and benefit from the outsized rewards from it. Sure. The first time. But the king isn't stupid. He'll make you more and more subservient until eventually you'll be flattering him for bread and lentils else you'll be put in prison. People in power do that a lot.

The great thing about business unlike monarchies is there is always more than one king. Go find another one.

Re: My Time at Snap

#233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's say the place had no toilets, so they build some and you go in and it's just stand up men's urinals. So you politely point out this won't work for you, they're breaking the law and frankly, making you feel very excluded, and they're like: "Meh, women . We'll get around to it. But yeah we'll put some signs up in the meantime. You can use the ones in the building down the street. Thanks for pointing that out..."…

I think everyone would agree the women's bathroom should be built, yes. What's confusing is why you'd close the men's bathroom until the women's bathroom was built?

The point is to compel compliance by outrage of the majority group.

Re: My Time at Snap

#234
post #213
post #22

Tough break. I also spoke w/ a Snap Recruiter around the same time as you, and was offered that ridic amount of equity- they were talking about 600k for L5, or over 1m for L6. I felt like this was a huge red flag that their equity was bullshit. And that vesting schedule is an obvious scam. Reading Glassdoor is nothing but stories like this one. Sorry you went through it. None of this surprises me, Snap Leadership see…

1M per year?

1m over 4 years in RSU

Re: My Time at Snap

#235
post #162
post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they said the company was keeping a bed in the conference room to "comply" with zoning regulations, essentially pretending the office was also someone's house.

It seems like it would be pretty easy to sort of "discover" it wasn't true. In my case the cops just parked outside and recorded people parking and going in and out for a bit (only after the dude balked and denied he was running an office). Fortunately the guy in question didn't put up a fight after that and promised to move / did.

Yeah, it's such a superficially obvious "hack" that zero regulators would fall for it.

Zoning regulations might just be unenforced unless someone complains. I mean, when was the last time the town just showed up at your house for a regular audit to check you're using your house for it's zoned purpose? I've never heard of that.

Re: My Time at Snap

#236

I find it interesting how split the HN comments on this story are. Half seem to think this guy is an entitled low performer chasing high compensation, and the other half relate to him and feel that he was treated unfairly by Snap. I’m not sure what that means.

The author is seemingly stuck at the end between the work flexibility the stock payouts. I'm curious as to why the author didn't consider a third approach-- just go do it anyway and see if there really was a way forward to get both.

Re: My Time at Snap

#237
Although it certainly sounds like this guy had a really negative experience -- for lots of reasons that were not under his control -- I'm smacking my head at some of the stuff.

First -- when it comes to stuff like remote work (especially since he was first told "no, you can't do that" when he first explored switching teams), that's all stuff that needs to be in writing. Period. I don't even think this is a hard concept or something you need to learn from experience -- it's just common sense. If you are promised something that is outside the norm or what is official company/department policy, you get that in writing. If you can't get it into your contract, it needs to be at least in email communication with the hiring manager -- but you should really get that into your contract.

The second thing is the whole way he switched teams. Obviously there was something super sketchy going on there (and in retrospect, was the first sign that Snap was trying to manage him out), but that's a massive, massive red flag. For his own performance reviews/bonuses/reporting stuff, the idea that he would technically report to someone else while actually working for a totally different team just doesn't make sense. I understand needing to get away from a bad manager, but this was maybe the worst way to go about doing it, because it offers the employee little to no protection if something in that super sketchy scenario breaks down (which is exactly what happened).

Third, although I'm not going to call this guy "entitled" -- I do take issue with some of the work ethic stuff. I understand the hell that is unproductive meetings, especially meetings that don't involve you or that preclude you from doing what you actually need to do to get done. I have significant experience managing requests/meetings from higher ups that impede on getting your actual work done.

If you're called into a last-minute 2 hour meeting and it means you can't leave on time to avoid traffic, in my opinion (which may be unpopular), the adult thing to do is to stay late and attend the meeting -- paying only as much attention as is necessary. Yes, it sucks to have to leave the office late (and potentially hours later if you need to avoid traffic) -- but barring any sort of preset appointment or obligation, stay in the damn meeting and find a way to avoid having to be in the next one. Not to belabor the point, but the way you get a Low Performance review is to skulk out of a meeting and literally hide from your boss as you sneak out of the building.

Anyway. I do hope the author has found a place that is a better fit for them.

Re: My Time at Snap

#238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rationale I see here is that 'disrespecting' standards means we should cut off the nose to spite the face. Why didn't you decide the building should be burned down, rather than just closing the offending restrooms? Or if not burned, closed temporarily? Or, per your example, what is the difference if they leave the restroom open but specifically disable the urinals, letting people use the sinks to wash their hands…

Please, just consider what I actually said, these excessive scorched earth situations are kind of bizarre. The reason you would require the functioning facility to be closed is to make it clear to the business and all others there are consequences for this incompetence and lack of care.

Sure, I still think the consequence qualifies as cutting the nose to spite the face.

Although I don't get why you think you're entitled to come up with a hypothetical scenario but balk at entertaining any questions clarifying it or related hypotheticals. But anyway, agree to disagree.

Re: My Time at Snap

#239
post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They will hire him and deal with his antics for a few years, while he ruins more people's careers, then he will move on. Rinse and repeat. He'll eventually be fired -- with a golden parachute, no doubt -- after reports of sexual harassing women emerge in the media. He'll go under the radar for a few months until the media storm and Twitter mob find something else. He'll reemerge in a new startup, promising to have…

He sounds like a horrible boss but I’m not sure why you added a hypothetical sexual harassment charge to his already long list of bad traits. The real problem we have is that there are many highly competent sexual harassers in workplaces and these issues get swept under the rug specifically because they’re good workers.

> I’m not sure why you added a hypothetical sexual harassment charge to his already long list of bad traits.

Because in this hypothetical situation, John was known to use his position of power to harass women.

Re: My Time at Snap

#240
post #169
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Few will argue against having work-related interaction. That's fully expected. It's the socializing part that's not everyone's cup o' tea.

It's the socializing part that's not everyone's cup o' tea. Socializing exists on a continuum. I hate with a passion any sort of company wide or overly organized 'fun' events, but I would still love to have a few colleagues to drink coffee with while casually chatting about what they think about the new features in tensorflow2.

Yup, amen to that.
Post reply on HN