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

I worked at Google for -10 days

andgein.ru

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 462 posts

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#81

Post by twawaaay »

sashank_1509 wrote: post #7

There’s no great solution to this apart from the economy and company doing well so that this doesnt happen. I’ll lay out the reasons below: 1. Let’s say we pass a law that prevents offers from being revoked. This will make hiring much harder and increase 5 rounds to like 10 and involve many more committees and even then most candidates other than sureshots getting rejected. 2. Ban revoking offers only for overseas em…

I fail to see the reason for why ban on revoking offers would cause 2x more interview rounds.

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#82

Post by zippergz »

cleansy wrote: post #8

Time to learn about a relocation clause in the general employee agreement: Clause [X]: Relocation Expenses and Redundancy Protection The Company agrees to reimburse the Employee for reasonable and necessary relocation expenses incurred by the Employee in connection with the Employee's relocation to the work location specified in this Agreement, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein ("Relocation Expense…

Please get back to me once you've gotten a multinational corporation to agree to this (or any other candidate-provided clause) for a non-executive employee.

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#83

Post by HeavyFeather »

Sounds like there should be a legally mandated escrow for this kind of hiring. The employer should guarantee 2/3 months of employment if they’re asking someone to move across the world. This really shouldn’t be an issue if companies actually fulfilled their duties.

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#84

Post by slymon99 »

cleansy wrote: post #62
samwillis wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's that from and in what jurisdiction?

It's a general clause that any employee who is moving for a certain job should put into their contracts. If the company does not agree to cover at least the basics, then hey, maybe it's not a good idea to move for that job in the first place? EDIT: to your point, this should be enforceable in any jurisdiction that generally holds up with the law?

literally no big tech employer is going to allow you to add clauses to your employment contract

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#85

Post by FredPret »

TideAd wrote: post #54

Remember in the hot 2021 hiring market when Coinbase revoked offers because of a layoff? I remember deciding they were on my blacklist after that. I thought their leadership and recruiting were too disorganized to trust with my career. Of course you can lose your job at any time, but letting a candidate quit their old job and relocate and then get laid off is not something that should ever happen. And now it's layoff…

Keep growing that blacklist and put it online. The cornerstone of the free market is that you have to exercise your power of choice in intelligent pursuit of your best interests

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#86

Post by kdmccormick »

no-2-wk-notice wrote: post #23

This is why I suggest not giving two weeks notice when leaving a job for another. Instead send a resignation email the morning you start at the new company. This seems fair and reasonable given that companies are willing to pull offers.

I posted this on your other comment, but I'll post it here again.

Leaving without 2 weeks notice seems like a good way to incinerate your professional relationship with your outgoing manager/teammates. I guess if you would never use them for a reference anyway, that's fine, but what if you do want to use them as a reference in the future? Or is your experience that your former team didn't actually mind that you just quit one day?

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#87

Post by crdrost »

mschild wrote: post #22
sashank_1509 wrote: post #7

There’s no great solution to this apart from the economy and company doing well so that this doesnt happen. I’ll lay out the reasons below: 1. Let’s say we pass a law that prevents offers from being revoked. This will make hiring much harder and increase 5 rounds to like 10 and involve many more committees and even then most candidates other than sureshots getting rejected. 2. Ban revoking offers only for overseas em…

On a general level sure maybe, but for this particular case, there was little economical need for Google to have any layoffs. They're swimming in money and are highly profitable. Pulling the rug out underneath a new employee who is days away from starting and moving his whole life to a new country is simply shitty behaviour.

Per The Goal, these sorts of broad untargeted cost-cutting measures usually hit revenue as hard as they do costs, I do wonder if Sundar’s “we're heading for a different economic reality” doom mindset will become a self-fulfilling prophecy... At Google that looks like "oh we lost our gov't contacts because we couldn't meet the new software build-chain rules in time because we were understaffed and trying to bet more people on Bard... now we have to lay off more people" and so on.

But they are definitely so flush with cash that any prediction of a doom spiral of every increasing cost-cutting measures would be way way premature.

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#88

Post by tough »

l33t233372 wrote: post #75
sashank_1509 wrote: post #7

There’s no great solution to this apart from the economy and company doing well so that this doesnt happen. I’ll lay out the reasons below: 1. Let’s say we pass a law that prevents offers from being revoked. This will make hiring much harder and increase 5 rounds to like 10 and involve many more committees and even then most candidates other than sureshots getting rejected. 2. Ban revoking offers only for overseas em…

> Ban revoking offers only for overseas employees (who are hurt most by this). This will ensure that the hiring bar for overseas employees is set sky high and it will already be harder for them to compete Laws are generally created to benefit people who are not described as “overseas”

Well fuck your laws if they will discriminate me based on whereever seas I come from or whatever.

So much for the land of the free, supposing these people have their visas and shit in order, I don't see why the law shouldn't protect them too

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#89

Post by cowl »

stdbrouw wrote: post #52
sashank_1509 wrote: post #7

There’s no great solution to this apart from the economy and company doing well so that this doesnt happen. I’ll lay out the reasons below: 1. Let’s say we pass a law that prevents offers from being revoked. This will make hiring much harder and increase 5 rounds to like 10 and involve many more committees and even then most candidates other than sureshots getting rejected. 2. Ban revoking offers only for overseas em…

> Let’s say we pass a law that prevents offers from being revoked. This will make hiring much harder and increase 5 rounds to like 10 and involve many more committees and even then most candidates other than sureshots getting rejected. I don't see what one has to do with the other. You only extend an offer after you've vetted the candidate, and afterwards there is no more screening, so sudden revocation doesn't have…

The Effect of that kind of policy was already tried in Italy to a certain extent. The result was that For every new "Temporary Investment" (meaning a project that needed 1-3 years of pushing) Noone was hiring and everyone, no exceptions was "renting" bodies from "consultancy firms". The result was distatrous for the companies that needed to pay Consultancy prices because they could not afford to hire without being able to downsize after 1-3 years and the employees who ended up in the consultancy sweat shops because they were pratically the only ones who would offer to hire. The salaries stagnated because the market stagnated (and still Italian Salaries in Tech are among the lowest in all EU). The only ones who profited from this were the middle men. Many still see this kind of a policy as something to be admired but I would rather have a vibrating market and change jobs every 2-3 years rather than "settling for life" like the proponents of this system predicate at a sweat shop.

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#90

Post by irorodkdj »

zippergz wrote: post #82
cleansy wrote: post #8

Time to learn about a relocation clause in the general employee agreement: Clause [X]: Relocation Expenses and Redundancy Protection The Company agrees to reimburse the Employee for reasonable and necessary relocation expenses incurred by the Employee in connection with the Employee's relocation to the work location specified in this Agreement, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein ("Relocation Expense…

Please get back to me once you've gotten a multinational corporation to agree to this (or any other candidate-provided clause) for a non-executive employee.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN