Joel Spolsky On Tech Hiring: Beware the Exploding Offer • Hacker News Board

Re: Joel Spolsky On Tech Hiring: Beware the Exploding Offer

#121

Post by jamieb » Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 8:34 AM UTC

nupark2 wrote: post #116

jamieb wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>One shouldn't have to pay for people to do what they say they'll do: if they accept the offer, barring some act of god, they should start work for the company. You are missing the point nupark. What they said they would do is "I will work for you, and I will give you two weeks notice if I choose not to." By your own criteria, they have fulfilled their obligation. Move on.

> You are missing the point nupark. What they said they would do is "I will work for you, and I will give you two weeks notice if I choose not to." No, they accepted an offer of employment, with a start date. The employer has every reason to believe they've done so in good faith. If, in fact, they were insincere in their acceptance, that's both unethical and unprofessional.

You will see a contract that says "Employee to start July 1st. Employment is at will. Either party may terminate with two weeks notice". You will think the first is the most important. The student might find the last clause most important.

When the student calls in January to give several months notice that they wont be accepting the offer, you have a fucking tantrum and say that the student is unethical and unprofessional. You will imagine in your head that the contract meant "Notice cannot be given until after employment has commenced". That this clause is not there will not bother you. Thats what you thought it meant, and by golly you are a man of your word, whereas this student is clearly a liar and a cheat, weaseling out of a contract with word tricks.

I have met many moral absolutists, and their primary attribute is that everyone else is a liar and a cheat. They then use that excuse to break any deal they chose.

Re: Joel Spolsky On Tech Hiring: Beware the Exploding Offer

#122

Post by einhverfr » Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 9:02 AM UTC

nupark2 wrote: post #65

cletus wrote: post #51

A lot of people are viewing this from the employer, which I guess makes a certain amount of sense, but as a potential employee that's not your problem . The simple fact is that as an employee you should be looking out for yourself. Period. That means pushing back on a hard deadline that will exclude you from trying to get your dream (or simply preferred) job. If the company won't budge and you're unsure of your prosp…

A lot of people are viewing this from the employer ... I view this as simple ethics. You keep your word, period. For those that object to this on ethical grounds, consider this scenario: the company has their preferred employee who passes on the job and then they offer it to you. If that first guy comes back and changes his mind, will the company say "oh sorry, we've offered it to someone else". They might. Or they m…

"I view this as simple ethics. You keep your word, period."

In general I agree. But what is the limitation? "I will work for you" is filled if you quit half way through your first day on the job and that's far worse for the employer than if you bailed out in advance.

"If a company rescinds their offer due to no fault of your own (e.g, misrepresentation), then it's just as unethical as you rescinding your acceptance of the offer."

I am going to say here that someone giving an exploding offer based on when you say your other interviews are is at least guilty here. I would argue that if someone does this, they entirely deserve what they get.

Re: Joel Spolsky On Tech Hiring: Beware the Exploding Offer

#123

Post by einhverfr » Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 9:08 AM UTC

rdtsc wrote: post #94

nupark2 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Certainly in the US in most states, employment is "at will", meaning the company can fire you for pretty much any reason at any time (ignoring protected classes and so on). Likewise, the employee can leave at any time. You're mixing things up. Ethically speaking, if the company winds up having _cause_ to fire them later, that's a separate matter, and there's no ethic quandary. Likewise, if the employee makes an eff…

> You're mixing things up. I actually agree with him. The point of "at will" employment is that usually firing happens if the employee has done something terribly wrong. Usually they are "let go" for "no reason." It avoids a potential legal mess. Well a reason is given but it is a safe reason "we are restructuring" and such. The real reason could be anything, heck it could be race or gender, as long as nobody puts th…

The point is that morality doesn't and shouldn't play into it. Usually companies don't follow moral principle but rather legal principle. Smart individual should do the same thing. Otherwise they are and will be abused and taken advantage of.

There is a middle ground of course. Not unbending personal morality above all else but rather a good faith effort to both stand up for yourself in safe ways and to stand by the interests of those who you want to stand by yours.

This is why I am not opposed to withdrawing acceptance of an exploding offer at the last minute. It's better for the employer and yourself if you quit then rather than two weeks into the job.

Re: Joel Spolsky On Tech Hiring: Beware the Exploding Offer

#124

Post by stuffeverything » Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 9:13 AM UTC

herf wrote: post #66

This was a really common tactic at Microsoft back in the 90s, which is probably why Joel is familiar with it. It worked on me--I took an internship with MSFT instead of Apple, because Microsoft gave me under a week to respond, and the recruiting manager at Apple was on a week's vacation.

Microsoft is still very notorious for this. It's a shame, because out of the top five (Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft), I felt that they otherwise have the most pleasant and effective recruitment policies (Google being the polar opposite here).

(I declined both MSFT's and Google's offers)

Re: Joel Spolsky On Tech Hiring: Beware the Exploding Offer

#125

Post by einhverfr » Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 9:37 AM UTC

nupark2 wrote: post #63

orijing wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that we (on Hacker News) tend to come from a startup perspective, so it makes sense where you're coming from. But in the context that Joel was describing, that's not a valid comparison. Surely Joel isn't recommending dropping a startup of one founder using this tactic (it would be better to say no early). He specifically mentioned Microsoft as an example. If you as an individual got your offer rescinded…

If it's wrong, it's wrong, whether you do it to your best friend or your worst enemy. A big company can absorb the cost of a schedule slip or missing an opportunity to hire a great alternative candidate. That doesn't make it any more right to break your word.

I like Cicero's answer to the question of when it is OK to break your word. Updating for the modern world... Suppose someone gives you a gun and you promise to give it back when requested. Then the individual goes insane and then comes back to request the gun back. In that case (Cicero uses a sword but same story) Cicero says you have a moral obligation to break your word. I can't imagine you'd disagree with that and give back the gun to someone not mentally fit to handle one. So there are cases where it is morally right to break one's word.

Now, two points I would make: 1) I think it is always better to assume good intentions than bad, but I have been scammed by others in this regard in the past, though fortunately for not a huge amount of money. So keep your eyes about you when you enter.* This means among other things looking at the people who work in a specific environment and actively look for trouble signs.

* Keep your eyes about you when you enter

Be watchful always, be wary always

For you never know when need will be

To fight the hidden foe in the hall

-- Havamal, 12th century Icelandic poem

2) In the event where someone is patently dishonest, (and there are signs to watch for here, for example anyone who accuses everyone else of being dishonest....), then I see no moral obligation to treat them better. I am not a Christian. I feel that it is perfectly acceptable to pay back lie for lie.

3) Key question during an interview: Ask the hiring manager when they'd need a decision by. If the recruiter moves up the date, you know the recruiter is lying.

Re: Joel Spolsky On Tech Hiring: Beware the Exploding Offer

#126

Post by einhverfr » Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 9:40 AM UTC

jamieb wrote: post #121

nupark2 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are missing the point nupark. What they said they would do is "I will work for you, and I will give you two weeks notice if I choose not to." No, they accepted an offer of employment, with a start date. The employer has every reason to believe they've done so in good faith. If, in fact, they were insincere in their acceptance, that's both unethical and unprofessional.

You will see a contract that says "Employee to start July 1st. Employment is at will. Either party may terminate with two weeks notice". You will think the first is the most important. The student might find the last clause most important. When the student calls in January to give several months notice that they wont be accepting the offer, you have a fucking tantrum and say that the student is unethical and unprofes…

"I have met many moral absolutists, and their primary attribute is that everyone else is a liar and a cheat."

In my experience, people who have very low opinions of everyone else (and those include the absolutists on both sides of this debate) are usually the least trustworthy people I have met.

Re: Joel Spolsky On Tech Hiring: Beware the Exploding Offer

#127

Post by MarkMc » Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 9:42 AM UTC

nupark2 wrote: post #101

cletus wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By reneging on an offer you may cost the company time but you almost certainly won't cost them money. More than likely they'll go to the next candidate on the list that they've already interviewed. If there are no other candidates... sorry but that's not the employee's problem. Personally I'd be more concerned with people who start, work a few months and then up and leave because something better came along. By that…

> By reneging on an offer you may cost the company time but you almost certainly won't cost them money. Where do you think the time comes from? > But before they even start? The investment (and thus the commitment) is minimal. That's not your decision to make with their money. > This is not a meeting of equals. When one party is dealing with survival and the other with inconvenience, sorry but you're just going to ha…

Who the hell keeps downvoting nupark2? His comments are on-topic and well argued. If you disagree post a reply, don't downvote.

Re: Joel Spolsky On Tech Hiring: Beware the Exploding Offer

#128

Post by MarkMc » Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 10:26 AM UTC

salvadors wrote: post #118

nupark2 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With a company, all that matters from an ethical and legal point of view is what's written down on paper and signed by both parties. Companies are comprised of people. If you break your word and cost the company money, you're costing those people (and the investors) money. As a business owner, I find it very frustrating how some people's morals seem to not apply to their dealings with corporations. I wonder if it's a…

> If you break your word and cost the company money, you're costing those people (and the investors) money. There is nothing even remotely immoral about costing a company (and their investors) money. If there were it would immoral to launch a competing company.

Sure, there's nothing wrong with costing a company money. There's also nothing wrong with costing a person money - for example: if I make a bid at an auction it causes another bidder to pay more.

The point is that you should treat others like you want to be treated. Do you want people to break their word to you? If not, don't break your word to them, even if they have formed a group which is legally recognised as a company.

Also consider that it is possible for a single person to form a 'company' to run his business - is it OK to break your word to this person? Or only when he takes on a business partner?

Re: Joel Spolsky On Tech Hiring: Beware the Exploding Offer

#129

Post by rondon1 » Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 2:02 PM UTC

nupark2 wrote: post #65

cletus wrote: post #51

A lot of people are viewing this from the employer, which I guess makes a certain amount of sense, but as a potential employee that's not your problem . The simple fact is that as an employee you should be looking out for yourself. Period. That means pushing back on a hard deadline that will exclude you from trying to get your dream (or simply preferred) job. If the company won't budge and you're unsure of your prosp…

A lot of people are viewing this from the employer ... I view this as simple ethics. You keep your word, period. For those that object to this on ethical grounds, consider this scenario: the company has their preferred employee who passes on the job and then they offer it to you. If that first guy comes back and changes his mind, will the company say "oh sorry, we've offered it to someone else". They might. Or they m…

It would be like the a professional basketball player refusing to intentionally foul Shaq because they feel that hitting someone is simply immoral. I respect your desire to "Keep your word, period" and I also respect someone who refuses to hit someone in a sport. But you are simply putting yourself at a disadvantage to the team you are playing against.

Re: Joel Spolsky On Tech Hiring: Beware the Exploding Offer

#130

Post by TeMPOraL » Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 2:33 PM UTC

rdtsc wrote: post #98

rcfox wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with almost everything you say here, I disagree with your view of the ethics involved. Just because something is allowed, it doesn't automatically become ethical. If you accept multiple job offers with the intention of waiting for the best possible offer, you are actively lying to the other companies. Sure, it might be im(ex?)plicitly allowed by the contracts you sign, but that doesn't change the fact t…

> Sure, it might be im(ex?)plicitly allowed by the contracts you sign, but that doesn't change the fact that you are acting unethically. But why does that matter? The point is that it should be irrelevant. Ethical considerations are obviously not deterring these companies from exercising their offer strategies. Why should young graduates be made to feel guilty by also playing a counter-strategy?

Because it's about personal ethics. Simple as that. The fact that companies, or someone else, are not acting in accordance to ethics should not influence anyone's decision in that matter. If one wants to be a honest person, one should be that person regardless of what everyone else is doing.