341–350 of 633 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Real tech people don't blather. Yeah, I know, that's not "hard data". It's a pretty consistent pattern, though. Tech people have to be able to communicate with precision; they usually don't do "blowing smoke".
> Real tech people Ah this fun gatekeeping meme rears it's head again. So how do you define "tech" people? Do you have a scorecard? How do they meet your assessment for "real"? Cohesive organization of atomic matter generally constitutes "real" in a lot of physics definitions. I'd argue trying to label someone a "real tech person" is a laughably subjective exercise that's so corrupted by personal bias and toxicity as…
You like the posters approach? Fine. I don't find their style (or yours) to be either healthy or productive and it just can stress teams out to have to work with someone super high need.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I bet you it's those keywords in your profile that draw them to send you a message
Up until I added that line it was "rust" which was doing it. Perhaps the line makes it worse, but at least I'm happy to ignore those requests now. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Hey ____. Before we move forward, can you provide me with the company name, a job description, and the expected compensation. Regards" I've found that this makes 80-90% of recruiters go completely silent. For some reason, asking for this basic information scares off the vast majority of recruiters. I'm genuinely unsure what I - or they - get out of dragging this out into a screenful of blah blah blah.
One of the most common reasons is simply that they don't want you to go direct to the company in question and bypass their commission. If they give you too much, it is very easy to do and many companies will recruit directly and the recruiter would have no legal basis to do anything about that. On the other hand, because of commission, it is in the recruiter's interest to get you as much money as possible so you migh…
Up to a point. They get a fraction of the marginal increase in salary, and they’d much sooner “close the sale” than risking having someone else fill the job to try and get an extra 500$ commission.
It’s the same story with real estate agents: selling your house for an extra 20k might be a lot to you but to the agent it’s an extra 400$ in commission (exact percentage varies). In other words, it’s hardly worth risking the seller losing interest or working an extra 2–3 weeks for so little.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Real tech people don't blather. Yeah, I know, that's not "hard data". It's a pretty consistent pattern, though. Tech people have to be able to communicate with precision; they usually don't do "blowing smoke".
100% spot on. You can usually tell on which side of the sales vs tech spectrum someone is on organizationally by this.
Maybe mixed in with all the microaggression / toxic work environment type stuff?
The folks who code are usually like, hey, let me show you this, or do you have time to look at this.
THe managers, sales etc folks never say this. They will schedule you for long long boring meetings on any topic they can think of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Hey ____. Before we move forward, can you provide me with the company name, a job description, and the expected compensation. Regards" I've found that this makes 80-90% of recruiters go completely silent. For some reason, asking for this basic information scares off the vast majority of recruiters. I'm genuinely unsure what I - or they - get out of dragging this out into a screenful of blah blah blah.
One of the most common reasons is simply that they don't want you to go direct to the company in question and bypass their commission. If they give you too much, it is very easy to do and many companies will recruit directly and the recruiter would have no legal basis to do anything about that. On the other hand, because of commission, it is in the recruiter's interest to get you as much money as possible so you migh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We may be violently agreeing here; what is bad is the idea that someone can get a job because they know someone else, over a more qualified candidate who doesn't know that person already. We agree this is bad, yes? Our industry is uniquely , as in above-replacement-industry, plagued by a diversity problem, and I'm asserting the practice among those in power of favoring relatives, friends, or even friends of friends o…
We may be violently agreeing here; Violence is completely counter to my way of being - so No. What is bad is the idea that someone can get a job because they know someone else, over a more qualified candidate who doesn't know that person already. We agree this is bad, yes? We keep going in circles - with this idea that person that someone in the company already "knows" (or who came in via a referral anyway) gets the…
And I'm confused about where I said anything about certainty. I'm not talking about how all companies operate all of the time, I'm talking about how some companies operate an unfortunate number of times.
> Holding everything else constant, from job title to industry to location, female and minority applicants were much less likely to report receiving an employee referral than their white male counterparts. More specifically, white women were 12% less likely to receive a referral, men of color were 26% less likely and women of color were 35% less likely. [1]
This is not good. Can we agree on that?
[0] https://wiki.c2.com/?ViolentAgreement
[1] https://hbr.org/2018/03/how-to-use-employee-referrals-withou...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I bet you it's those keywords in your profile that draw them to send you a message
Up until I added that line it was "rust" which was doing it. Perhaps the line makes it worse, but at least I'm happy to ignore those requests now. :)