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

He got 1%, we can't hire him

codingjohnson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 594 posts

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#121

Post by Fuxy »

flexie wrote: post #91
Xylakant wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I respectfully disagree. Get some decent HR people and don't give them the last call on hiring decisions. Make it clear that HR is supporting the process, but not leading the process and that the last call is with the department/team that is looking for a hire. Let HR take all the tedious tasks of hiring from the developers, such as all the legalese, handling employee benefits, sick reports and all associated paperwo…

I don't think there is a need to "respectfully disagree" to a disrespectful comment. Just like there are terrible dev teams there are terrible HR departments, and this sounds like one of them. But as you mention, if developers were to handle everything related to hiring, firing, sick reports, vacation, benefits, contracts, compliance etc. that HR does, I doubt there would be any profit.

Are there good HR departments? I haven't had the honor of seeing any so by my book they're classified in the same section as unicorns and fairies.

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#122

Post by seanmcdirmid »

Peroni wrote: post #108
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't developers in London get paid crap though? I've heard horror stories about ridiculously low London salaries here on Hackernews. Are the low salaries just because their is a surplus developer talent in the UK?

It really depends on your definition of crap. London dev salaries range from £24k for absolute juniors to £120k+ for the top 2%. Contractors fare substantially better. In my recruiter days I placed a Python developer who had experience with a particular trading system on a contract with a large trading firm. His contract was £1,100 per day for 6 months. Keep in mind the other notable differences between here and the…

And a much higher cost of living...in London its insane.

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#123

Post by Drakim »

antirez wrote: post #93
flexie wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there is a need to "respectfully disagree" to a disrespectful comment. Just like there are terrible dev teams there are terrible HR departments, and this sounds like one of them. But as you mention, if developers were to handle everything related to hiring, firing, sick reports, vacation, benefits, contracts, compliance etc. that HR does, I doubt there would be any profit.

The problem with HR is that they do tasks they are not qualified to as a mission . It's the role that's broken, note the teams.

It's not even really their fault. The HR person wouldn't know about databases and the deep knowledge and great insight a candidate might possess.

What the HR person would know is how the person appears socially and how he manages to present himself.

The company should make sure the HR person isn't the only one deciding if somebody gets hired or not, because the HR person simply does not possess the tools needed to get the best man for the job by himself.

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#124

Post by lutusp »

I'm astonished that this sort of thing still goes on. Who is not aware that this kind of psychological testing has been shown to be utterly subjective, unscientific and sometimes destructive?

And who isn't aware that psychologists have recently been forced to abandon the Asperger Syndrome diagnosis, after an epidemic of phony diagnoses of people who are often very successful in spite of the diagnosis, people like Bill Gates, Nicola Tesla and Albert Einstein?

The big picture is that society is in the midst of a re-assessment of the role and meaning of psychology, and the future doesn't look very bright for psychiatrists and psychologists. More here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/side-effects/201305/the-...

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#125

Post by Houshalter »

ajuc wrote: post #105
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people say "doing fizzbuzz" rather than just programming? Fizzbuzz is just a trick question to see if new programmers know how to use the modulo operator or not.

You can solve fizbuzz without modulo operator: bool divisible_by(int a, int b) { return a==((a/b)*b); } It doesn't require anything more than knowledge about what division means, and I think it's fair play to require such knowledge from programmers.

Maybe this is a stupid question, but wouldn't that always return true? (a/b)*b just cancels out the b right? Unless there is weird floating point stuff going on.

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#126

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

I have no issue with testing as part of a recruitment process but it should be a single input into the overall decision and certainly shouldn't be able to override other more significant factors.

In this instance a reasonable compromise would seem to be to have the HR manager state what the specific issues they felt might exist were and call the candidate back to talk through them and see if they could be substantiated. If someone was that bad a fit then I doubt very much it would be hard to surface supporting evidence in a face to face discussion.

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#128

Post by BillyMaize »

HR should never have the final say in a hire or no hire. I interviewed with a company recently which originally said they wanted me but later took the offer away. I was interviewed by 3 engineers and realized after talking to them that they were all very smart and that I would love working for the company. Apparently they all 3 liked me and I was told they wanted me after I talk to HR and filled out an application. Turns out I had about a 2.9 gpa and they wanted at least a 3.0 so my offer was never official. I still want to work for the company and I might in a few years when my gpa isn't even looked at because I'm sure the engineers will like me again...

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#129

Post by RamiK »

So the company you work for is filled with engineers and the best hiring practice they could come up with is to give the final call on staff hiring to a humanities \ social "sciences" graduates...

Maybe you should consider Google's old screening logic test. While being completely ridiculous and ineffectual in finding intelligent engineers, they still do a decent job at deterring the anti=authoritarians quite effectively while saving you money and time on HR.

Personally, I like the old maniac hiring. You take a complete loon and put him in-charge of the process. Have him do tarot card readings, crystal energy vibes tests, skull measurements... But instruct him to pass any person who keeps his mouth shut during all of this.

100% team player guaranteed!

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#130

Post by einhverfr »

Xylakant wrote: post #117
antirez wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with HR is that they do tasks they are not qualified to as a mission . It's the role that's broken, note the teams.

As with all departments in a company, HR does the tasks that they're assigned to do. It's a task, not a mission. There's scope creep and mission creep as with every task we're used to. If they do stuff that they're not supposed to do and make decisions that they're not supposed to make, it's the team and the person handling the team that's broken and time to reevaluate and adjust what value the team is supposed to br…

What, specifically is that task?
Post reply on HN