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

211–220 of 462 posts

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#211

Post by dclowd9901 »

xnorswap wrote: post #187
cleansy wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never had to deal with multinationals - not much of a corporate guy. I was reading through the comments here and it seemed to be common that "well, there's nothing you can do". Actually, there is, write it in your contract and see what comes back. If your new employer does not allow for this, at least a) you tried and b) you are fully aware of the risk that the employer might just leave you out cold. In which case,…

I've also not worked for mega-corps, but I've also had good experience with writing things into contracts and having them agreed to. I find it odd that people are fine with contract negotiation when it comes to remuneration but treat actual contract clauses like holy text that can't be changed. There's even a good chance that what you think is "unchanging boilerplate" is boilerplate that gets updated all the time and…

I think the standard experience is “this hiring rep is barely competent enough to call me back, why the hell would they have the pull to change a contract?”

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#212

Post by maerF0x0 »

This is the purpose of a signing + relocation bonus. And if the contract is well written it will be yours regardless if you start, and also if the company chooses to terminate you before 1yr. Unfortunately it's hard to negotiate with $BIGTECH .

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#214

Post by 93po »

AlwaysRock wrote: post #203
yebyen wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How's that supposed to work, when the process dictates that onboarding begins on your start date? If only we could give -10 days notice.

Then you give -10 days notice. 2 weeks is a nicety and not legally required in the USA. Probably not required in many other places as well. It's unfortunate but I've never had a manager get too upset about it.

Also jobs often/usually fire people with 0 day notice and no severance. I don't know why it's an expectation that employees would give notice without any reciprocation.

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#215

Post by roflyear »

ResearchCode wrote: post #163
bojo wrote: post #48

I've had a similar story happen in the past. I was living in Japan looking for remote jobs and came across Couchbase. Interviewed well with the team who all seemed excited to get someone with my experience on board, however, the hiring manager said he wasn't sure he wanted to manage someone in my timezone. He pulled me into a separate call at the end of the rounds and asked some weird questions, which in hindsight we…

What difference does it make if you're at-will. You could be let go on the first day, no reason given.

The difference is the company knew they didn't want them. It's awful

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#216

Post by joshmanders »

haspok wrote: post #143
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'm not sure which part of the world you are in, but for example in Europe it is common to have 1 month as a minimum notice period, and not uncommon to have 3 or even 6 months (this latter usually if you stay at a company for a long time). It is also common in certain countries to either get a "reference" letter from previous employers or provide a reference about a person in email or on the phone - going back to 3 o…

> I'm not sure which part of the world you are in

Most likely the US, where at-will employment is the norm. Companies can let you go immediately but you're "obligated" to provide an at-minimum 2 week notice.

OP is stating they don't have to give such notices, so we should change the narrative and treat them the same way we get treated.

I agree wholeheartedly with this.

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#217

Post by scythe »

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…

In this case, you could probably just impose a severance if an offer is terminated before X days (say 40) on the job without employee malfeasance; the problem with banning revoking offers is that the downside is very large. If companies had to pay out a few thousand bucks every time they screwed up like this, they'd have to be more cautious, but I don't think it would tip the scales towards not hiring at all or depending on consultants, etc. To avoid excessive moral hazard, the severance value should be calculated based on (X - Y)/2, where X is the minimum days worked and Y is the actual days worked.

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#218

Post by ouid »

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…

This simply isnt true. The idea that every cost of regulation is born entirely by the non-corporate party is corporate PR.

Unionizing does not result in worse outcomes for employees or new hires. Lawsuits don't raise the prices of McDonald's coffee. And stronger labor laws won't stop companies from needing personnel. It might move the needle a little, but these things are subject to more forces than you are imagining here, and most of them are much stronger than the offchance that you would need to pay to relocate someone you are immediately terminating.

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#219

Post by chippiewill »

bojo wrote: post #48

I've had a similar story happen in the past. I was living in Japan looking for remote jobs and came across Couchbase. Interviewed well with the team who all seemed excited to get someone with my experience on board, however, the hiring manager said he wasn't sure he wanted to manage someone in my timezone. He pulled me into a separate call at the end of the rounds and asked some weird questions, which in hindsight we…

Sounds like a procedural fuckup. All the usual hiring checks (technical etc.) got approved but Manager Larry's objection wasn't handled correctly by HR so the job offer went through anyway. They really should have paid out at least two months to be honest considering it was their fuck up.

I used to work for Couchbase and a lot of the teams were distributed, but spanning too many timezones caused problems in places. If the team you were joining were already spread across say US and Europe then they'd be totally justified in saying that adding Japan to the list would be a bad idea - although that should have been picked up much earlier.

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#220

Post by ivalm »

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…

You can do something softer, like mandate 3 mo severance for not for cause revocation of offer. The problem is that they can still fire you on day 1.
Post reply on HN