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

391–400 of 462 posts

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#391

Post by tough »

l33t233372 wrote: post #371
tough wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I’m not sure why you are referring to the “land of the free,” as I was referring to laws of countries in general. Laws are nearly always created to benefit the country creating them.

Sorry in HN I default to US centrism.

Anyways I'm assuming you can be legally imigrating to a country at which points laws should be make to protect you too.

I don't see how is there any morality in laws that disregard a human being due to their passport or lack of thereof.

I understand it is what it is, still madness.

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#392

Post by Dylan16807 »

logicalmonster wrote: post #206
stdbrouw wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> I don't see what one has to do with the other. It is incredibly connected. There is business risk introduced for making an offer. Increasing that risk means that the vetting process can be increased to make up for that extra risk incurred. If companies feel they need 4 or 5 rounds of interviews today before making an offer and you all of a sudden mandate that there's more of a risk for making an offer, they might d…

> There is business risk introduced for making an offer. Increasing that risk means that the vetting process can be increased to make up for that extra risk incurred.

Why does it increase the risk? Are they regularly screwing over hires like this? If so, it's good to force the behavior change. If they only screw over hires like this in economic downturns, then "more rounds" wouldn't affect that so they wouldn't add more rounds.

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#393

Post by octacat »

crdrost wrote: post #87
mschild wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They at least lost some money from ads from new possible products, if everything is doom and gloom. But these cost-cutting measures are just to be in the news and protect the price of their stocks (look, we are decreasing our costs). Because otherwise in the news it would be "look, people don't care about online products like it was 2020, so stocks should go down a bit".

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#394

Post by samstave »

samstave wrote: post #309
ghaff wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A couple of things there. 1. A Verbal Contract Isn’t Worth the Paper It’s Written On -- attributed to Samuel Goldwyn, the G of MGM. I don't agree with all the advice to work 2 jobs simultaneously but definitely wait for a written offer. No sensible HR person is going to have an issue with that. 2. In the case of acquisitions/mergers/etc. make it crystal clear that you're not trying to claim a school/employer with may…

To put icing on the cake, Google recruiters kept calling me for FIVE FUCKING YEARS for the same job... I had to finally tell them I had gone through three months of panel interviews, Ive designed parts of your data centers, video studio and have built every salesforce office in the US at that point, and designed shit for other FAAN companies so give me the damn job or lose my damn number. They stopped calling me for…

Oh, and I have posted this here before, when I was a design eng for ILM/Lucas/Lucas Arts...

I was asked "when will you be able to deliver 'Power Over Fiber' (This was a mtg with all of the top execs at Cisco, and All tops at ILM.. and I murdered this this guy (in a polite way)

but I pissed my pants on the drive back from Bigrock about how funny that was...

Yes, that was me sitting in a design mtg with Cisco CTO and the CTO of Lucas Arts asked me to provide that... Ill leave it there...

(Just for context, the design req was "fiber to every desktop such that the workstations will be render nodes when workers leave... but they wanted Power Over Fiber"

So, if you know how, there is a dude with 15 billion dollars waiting for your call,.... and he has the best property in the US.

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#395

Post by miniwark »

gberger wrote: post #271
miniwark wrote: post #250

The "business reasons" by Google are probably completely fake, but we have some pointers from OP who give us the real reason : - OP is russian - OP was working at Yandex (who had an history of "strange" relationships with the russian government) - in December 2022 Vladimir Poutine take over the russian subsidiaries of Yandex (through Alexeï Koudrine) -> more "strange" relationships - OP received an official offer in…

That doesn't check out, your timeline is not quite correct. Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, not 2023. That's before OP even started the application.

Yes your right... Seem like i was wrong. Sorry, I have made a brain fart here.

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#396

Post by tick_tock_tick »

McSwag wrote: post #101
slymon99 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Literally they will if tech workers unionize, which has its own baggage and list of disadvantages for everyone but if tech companies get in a bad habit of treating employees poorly that’s exactly what will happen.

No! A union explicitly means a random employee will lose the ability to add or remove any clause from their contract as the Union will negotiate that. That doesn't mean the Union wouldn't negotiate a better contract then the employee would on their own but you absolutely lose that power in almost all Union setups.

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#397

Post by cortesoft »

joshmanders wrote: post #323
cortesoft wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So giving zero notice is not unprofessional? I have a ton of important things I am doing at work, if I left without doing any work to transition that work to new people, it is going to put all the people at my company in a tough position. They could figure it out eventually, but it would be a lot of extra work for my coworkers that could be avoided if I spent two weeks working with the team to transition the work.

Sounds to me like the company didn't plan correctly or have adequate staffing in place for the workload. If they did, an abrupt loss of an employee wouldn't put them "in a tough position" I hope you don't die and put them in a tough position for not giving a 2 week notice beforehand.

I am not saying they wouldn’t survive without the two week notice, that isn’t the same as saying it wouldn’t be difficult. Same with my death. I am sure that would be hard on my team.

I don’t understand your position. Any time a coworker leaves, it is hard to deal with. That doesn’t mean people shouldn’t leave or that anything is being done wrong; if someone leaving causes ZERO difficulties, then why were they employed in the first place? It shouldn’t be devastating, but it should matter when someone leaves.

I am just saying as a professional who cares about my coworkers, I want to do right by them when I leave. Just like a good company has a severance package for layoffs, a good professional will have a transition period when they leave a company. If you despise the companies you work for so much that you won’t do the smallest thing to help them when you leave, I feel very bad for you. That sounds like miserable working conditions.

I get paid good money to be a professional, and I take that responsibility seriously. I don’t think my company owns me, but the fair trade for my salary is to act like a professional, which includes giving two weeks notice when you leave.

This attitude has done me very well in my 20 year career, and I have a huge network of former coworkers and bosses who know they can trust me if they hire me, and that has lead to very good jobs for good pay and the ability to choose exactly where I work.

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#398

Post by SauciestGNU »

fsociety wrote: post #315
tyingq wrote: post #17

I've heard several stories about companies rescinding offers in a timeframe where it's obvious the candidate would have already made irreversible decisions. Funny thing is that the same HR people will tell their own stories about candidates backing out with huge eyerolls, distain, etc. I suppose the more common it becomes, the less the "offer" process will mean in practice. Candidates will hedge their bets. Edit: If…

I will out myself to some folks, and hope they keep me pseudo-anonymous :). I rescinded my Google offer to take another which had a more personally meaningful role and paid significantly higher (I think 50% higher?). Google then put me on a call with a "senior" recruiter who said they'd beat the offer no question, which would have had me start at N level but be paid at the upper end of N+1 level. I refused. Then they…

Yeah this resonates with my experience with a group at Apple. When I declined an offer the hiring manager made all sorts of deeply personal attacks seemingly trying to bully me into accepting the offer. I bet this stuff isn't all that uncommon, especially at the FAANGs where hiring managers are probably not used to hearing "no".

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#399

Post by dilyevsky »

alberth wrote: post #348
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…

> He pulled me into a separate call at the end of the rounds and asked some weird questions, which in hindsight were documentation. Would you mind elaborating? Really hope you were able to find something better. Sounds like that’s not a place you’d want to be at anyways.

Guessing the manager didn’t want someone in that timezone but had to extend an offer due to some pressure from above / internal policy so he baited gp to tell on himself in that last session and then used that as grounds to back out

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#400

Post by l33t233372 »

tough wrote: post #391
l33t233372 wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure why you are referring to the “land of the free,” as I was referring to laws of countries in general. Laws are nearly always created to benefit the country creating them.

Sorry in HN I default to US centrism. Anyways I'm assuming you can be legally imigrating to a country at which points laws should be make to protect you too. I don't see how is there any morality in laws that disregard a human being due to their passport or lack of thereof. I understand it is what it is, still madness.

It was my understanding we were talking about laws making companies want to hire from within at the expense of hiring people from “overseas”.

That is, I was under the impression we were discussing things that happened before the legal immigration process had began.

Post reply on HN