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

Google Fights Back In Battle For Talent

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 65 posts

Re: Google Fights Back In Battle For Talent

#31

Post by jessriedel »

> And worse – he’s confirmed that many Google employees are interviewing with Facebook and Twitter, among others, simply to get a hefty raise. “Many people at Google use Facebook offers in order to get a big raise,” says Buchheit.

I don't understand why this is "worse", i.e. why interviewing purely to get a raise should be thought of as a bad thing. To me, having many (hopefully low cost) interviews simply allows software developers to be efficiently priced as market conditions change.

Now, the natural response, if employee value can move upward more easily, is that employers will be less willing to offer job/salary security. But, on average, this is good, right? Fighting this is like fighting to go back to the old pensions system, which drastically reduced employment flexibility and was a major source of economic friction.

Re: Google Fights Back In Battle For Talent

#32

Post by nickelplate »

edw519 wrote: post #22
Andys wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Phase III Boss: You're fired. We just offered you more $$ temporarily so we could have time to find a replacement because we no longer trust you after you quit the first time.

Boss: You're fired. Is this your experience, Andys, are you speculating, or is this just a joke? This has never happened to me or anyone I know. Loyalty doesn't mean shit anymore and everyone knows it. On the other hand, my experience has shown that having the balls to stand up for yourself and do whatever you have to do earns new respect. Phase III (what really happens) Boss treats you better than ever before.

I have seen it happen. You're not fired outright, you're just moved to the top of the layoff list, and you will be a clear target in tough times.

Re: Google Fights Back In Battle For Talent

#33

Post by siculars »

antirez wrote: post #23
siculars wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I second your experience, edw519. Unfortunately, often the only way to get management to loosen the purse strings is to come back with another offer from another firm. This exact situation has happened to me. Sad, really.

The problem is understanding if the inability of a given company to recognize the value of an employer is a good enough reason to move away...

Agreed. It may well be. I took the counter offer from the original company for various reasons. But it left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I'm not sure if I would have made the same decision had I had it to do over.

When a company does not value your contribution until there is a competing offer you feel a bit taken for granted and unappreciated. Any academic work in the HR/recruiting field will tell you that money is not the sole motivator or even the main motivator. Under-appreciation is a great way to lose employees.

Re: Google Fights Back In Battle For Talent

#34

Post by btilly »

edw519 wrote: post #22
Andys wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Phase III Boss: You're fired. We just offered you more $$ temporarily so we could have time to find a replacement because we no longer trust you after you quit the first time.

Boss: You're fired. Is this your experience, Andys, are you speculating, or is this just a joke? This has never happened to me or anyone I know. Loyalty doesn't mean shit anymore and everyone knows it. On the other hand, my experience has shown that having the balls to stand up for yourself and do whatever you have to do earns new respect. Phase III (what really happens) Boss treats you better than ever before.

It is both something I have seen, and is very common.

See http://www.thedailyrecruiter.com/the-daily-recruiter-blog/co... for some sobering statistics.

Re: Google Fights Back In Battle For Talent

#35

Post by jasonkester »

shareme wrote: post #30

The problem with the article is that it misses the big point.. Google is attempting to save some costs in hiring at the high levels of coding engineers..with a comparison of that costs per employee against the cost to offer a 20% raise is somewhat a miss-leading and pointless article..or what we call link-bait. And some of the Hr hiring costs per employee can be determine from the Google SEC filings..by making some a…

Where do you get your 80% non-productive number?

Every job I've had in the last 10 years, I've delivered production code on day one. I expect that anybody good enough to get hired at Google would be capable of the same. I mean sure, we've all hired our share of useless junior devs, but then we've all done that at places that were a notch or two below Google on the minimum-standards front.

For talented developers with experience, I could see losing a few percentage points of your max speed during the first week while you get used to process, but do you really think you can stumble along at 20% of your capability for an entire year and not be noticed? At a top-tier software company???

Re: Google Fights Back In Battle For Talent

#36

Post by sushrutbidwai »

antirez wrote: post #29
jasonkester wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minus the Phase II (never tell them you're planning to leave), I've done this a couple times with good success. It's healthy for both sides. You get a better job and a bit of self-satisfied pleasure during the "no, you lost me" speech. They get to understand why they lost a good worker, and the real costs associated with it. With luck, the team you left behind will have a better environment, since just maybe manageme…

Yep sorry I was not clear, in phase II you are not supposed to tell you are looking for another job.

People also tend to use interviewing to gauge what is current market price for talent they have. Specially when economic conditions start looking to change for better.

Re: Google Fights Back In Battle For Talent

#37

Post by ovi256 »

jasonkester wrote: post #35
shareme wrote: post #30

The problem with the article is that it misses the big point.. Google is attempting to save some costs in hiring at the high levels of coding engineers..with a comparison of that costs per employee against the cost to offer a 20% raise is somewhat a miss-leading and pointless article..or what we call link-bait. And some of the Hr hiring costs per employee can be determine from the Google SEC filings..by making some a…

Where do you get your 80% non-productive number? Every job I've had in the last 10 years, I've delivered production code on day one. I expect that anybody good enough to get hired at Google would be capable of the same. I mean sure, we've all hired our share of useless junior devs, but then we've all done that at places that were a notch or two below Google on the minimum-standards front. For talented developers with…

>Every job I've had in the last 10 years, I've delivered production code on day one.

We all did, but it's not enough. You probably took time away from other engineers to coach you and explain the system. If you took more time than it would have took them to accomplish what you did, you're not productive. And his point is that's what you did.

Re: Google Fights Back In Battle For Talent

#38

Post by shpxnvz »

baddspellar wrote: post #12

Effectively they're rewarding employees for interviewing with other companies. What about the equally-valuable employees who are very happy with their jobs and don't choose to interview? Won't they become a little less happy, once they know they're making less than the guy who was a little unhappy and chose to interview? I've spent quite a bit of time as a manager at some larger tech companies. We'd monitor turnover…

What about the equally-valuable employees who are very happy with their jobs and don't choose to interview? Won't they become a little less happy, once they know they're making less than the guy who was a little unhappy and chose to interview?

It's always been the case that those who negotiate effectively tend to end up with better compensation than those who don't. I wouldn't expect re-negotiation to turn out any different.

I'd guess that those who are unhappy that their co-workers successfully re-negotiate their compensation would tend to be just as unhappy when a new employee negotiates a compensation package better than theirs. I doubt there's much you can do to make those people happy, short of helping them to be better negotiators themselves.

I've had experience with a company who responded to this sort of employee dismay by putting salary caps on new hires. The end result was, predictably, that the really talented people we found walked away when the company refused to negotiate, and pressure to increase head count forced the company to hire a lot of less-than-ideal candidates.

Regarding the use of offer letters to negotiate - it seems like a risky tactic. The appeasement is certainly not sustainable, and when they start refusing to counter-offer, those employees better be ready to make good on their threat of leaving.

Re: Google Fights Back In Battle For Talent

#39

Post by yummyfajitas »

btilly wrote: post #34
edw519 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boss: You're fired. Is this your experience, Andys, are you speculating, or is this just a joke? This has never happened to me or anyone I know. Loyalty doesn't mean shit anymore and everyone knows it. On the other hand, my experience has shown that having the balls to stand up for yourself and do whatever you have to do earns new respect. Phase III (what really happens) Boss treats you better than ever before.

It is both something I have seen, and is very common. See http://www.thedailyrecruiter.com/the-daily-recruiter-blog/co... for some sobering statistics.

While the facts stated may be true, I would love to see a source that did not have a vested interest in inducing you to change jobs.

Re: Google Fights Back In Battle For Talent

#40

Post by semuelf »

jasonkester wrote: post #35
shareme wrote: post #30

The problem with the article is that it misses the big point.. Google is attempting to save some costs in hiring at the high levels of coding engineers..with a comparison of that costs per employee against the cost to offer a 20% raise is somewhat a miss-leading and pointless article..or what we call link-bait. And some of the Hr hiring costs per employee can be determine from the Google SEC filings..by making some a…

Where do you get your 80% non-productive number? Every job I've had in the last 10 years, I've delivered production code on day one. I expect that anybody good enough to get hired at Google would be capable of the same. I mean sure, we've all hired our share of useless junior devs, but then we've all done that at places that were a notch or two below Google on the minimum-standards front. For talented developers with…

yes
Post reply on HN