|
A counter offer runs the risk of them saying no. Run back and forth all you want, it's highly unlikely to go more than one bounce per company.Flaming June posted:Just don't be a dick or outrageous about it.
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:10 |
|
|
You can ask but they might say no... or they might say yes. As long as you don't do something absurd they aren't going to rescind the offer
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
necrobobsledder posted:If you're going to counter, don't move the goalpost again. Only career executives with lawyers on retainer get to do any back-and-forths for a week (see: Carly Fiorina haggling with HP over transport / mooring for her yacht over months). Heck, only time I went beyond a single counter I got shut down and the offer rescinded when I didn't even ask for more comp.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
oliveoil posted:Wait. Then if you got, say, an offer from Amazon and an offer from Microsoft, you couldn't just, you know, tell Amazon that Microsoft offered you 20% more, then when Amazon matches it, you go to Microsoft and tell them you'd love to work there, but Amazon made an offer and the neighborhood you'd live in is so much cheaper, and you'd need an extra 20% to make it break even, and then if they give you that 20%, you go back to Amazon and tell them you'd love to work with them but... You need to be careful about it. If you're not extremely senior, more than one exec review is going to come back with "this person is wasting our time why are we here again?" things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
necrobobsledder posted:A start-up I'm talking to is not offering individual contributors equity because the CEO has had bad experiences with employees doing resting and vesting. Instead, they want to pay at or above market and offer bonuses with stock grants, not options or RSUs. Cynical me sees this as another way to avoid diluting cap tables for the investors and execs and makes even more money for them while screwing over naive folks. CEO has a track record of successful ventures into 9 figures, so this is a strong probability. I'm concerned that they could dangle stock grants in my face and after I burn out once again I'd come out with not much over 3 years when the company sells for $2Bn+ while under 300 employees. The only exit I have as a personal reference for was for ~120% of my annual salary in ISOs when I was a junior engineer and I'd expect 400%+ now. Anyone ever had this variable comp / bonus structure work out for them? lmao  That is some shady poo poo. If I join a company <300 people I expect equity in some form as part of my base comp. It probably won't be worth anything, and I count it as exactly that much when making my decision, but lol at making it discretionary. Just a great way to not give any equity out and be like 'oh thanks everyone, I just sold the company, have fun workin for these chucklefucks, peace'. Rest and vest wasn't even a thing until like 2 days ago when there was that article, and in any case rest and vest applies only to people who you don't want to fire for some good reason. If you're an individual contributor and 'rest'ing, your rear end is gonna get fired so it's not relevant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
necrobobsledder posted:A start-up I'm talking to is not offering individual contributors equity because the CEO has had bad experiences with employees doing resting and vesting. Instead, they want to pay at or above market and offer bonuses with stock grants, not options or RSUs. Cynical me sees this as another way to avoid diluting cap tables for the investors and execs and makes even more money for them while screwing over naive folks. CEO has a track record of successful ventures into 9 figures, so this is a strong probability. I'm concerned that they could dangle stock grants in my face and after I burn out once again I'd come out with not much over 3 years when the company sells for $2Bn+ while under 300 employees. The only exit I have as a personal reference for was for ~120% of my annual salary in ISOs when I was a junior engineer and I'd expect 400%+ now. Anyone ever had this variable comp / bonus structure work out for them? How much of your comp is non-discretionary-- as-in, spelling out in the offer? That's what you should be comparing against your other options, while ignoring any other hand wavy bullshit. Equity is a bit tricky, but assume startup equity is almost zero, and for RSUs of a public company, discounting the current market price by 20% is an ok worst case scenario.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 12:32
|
|
|
VOTE YES ON 69 posted:Rest and vest wasn't even a thing until like 2 days ago when there was that article, and in any case rest and vest applies only to people who you don't want to fire for some good reason. If you're an individual contributor and 'rest'ing, your rear end is gonna get fired so it's not relevant. Didn't they make fun of rest and vest early in the first season of Silicon Valley or am I misremembering?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
oliveoil posted:Wait. Then if you got, say, an offer from Amazon and an offer from Microsoft, you couldn't just, you know, tell Amazon that Microsoft offered you 20% more, then when Amazon matches it, you go to Microsoft and tell them you'd love to work there, but Amazon made an offer and the neighborhood you'd live in is so much cheaper, and you'd need an extra 20% to make it break even, and then if they give you that 20%, you go back to Amazon and tell them you'd love to work with them but... You can but they'll both almost certainly drop you after you do it once. Negotiation works by making counter-offers or planting your feet, at which point either party can walk if they don't like where it's heading. How negotiation does not work, anywhere, is one party accepts the other's offer only to have the other party change their mind and ask for more. If you do that it's almost guaranteed that they'll walk as they won't perceive you as negotiating in good faith, and will believe they're wasting their time. It's sort of similar to gambling rules- once you raise the other person can counter-raise or call or fold. If they call you don't get to raise again- you put your hand down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Didn't they make fun of rest and vest early in the first season of Silicon Valley or am I misremembering? Yes, when Big Head gets all his responsibilities taken away for being a moron, but isn't fired. There's a crowd of shamed employees sunbathing on the building roof. The joke was the CEO trying to make them so ashamed/miserable that they'd either quit or improve, but their souls had already been crushed so they were happy being paid to be useless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
Profit sharing: A thing that actually happens sometimes. After 5 years with my employer, we finally had a year with profit sharing. My cut was 12.5% of my salary, which ain't too shabby.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Still really unhappy at work, no changes are being made, but I am interviewing candidates to be my superior so that's cool. Reviewing code of people with 7+ more years of experience that will make like $50k more than me is a bit odd but I'm happy I'll get a say in a person I'm going to work with on a daily basis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
VOTE YES ON 69 posted:Rest and vest wasn't even a thing until like 2 days ago when there was that article 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
necrobobsledder posted:A start-up I'm talking to is not offering individual contributors equity because the CEO has had bad experiences with employees doing resting and vesting. Instead, they want to pay at or above market and offer bonuses with stock grants, not options or RSUs. Cynical me sees this as another way to avoid diluting cap tables for the investors and execs and makes even more money for them while screwing over naive folks. CEO has a track record of successful ventures into 9 figures, so this is a strong probability. I'm concerned that they could dangle stock grants in my face and after I burn out once again I'd come out with not much over 3 years when the company sells for $2Bn+ while under 300 employees. The only exit I have as a personal reference for was for ~120% of my annual salary in ISOs when I was a junior engineer and I'd expect 400%+ now. Anyone ever had this variable comp / bonus structure work out for them? Er, they're offering you actual money instead of pretend money that has a tiny chance of being worth something and you think you're getting hosed?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Plorkyeran posted:Er, they're offering you actual money instead of pretend money that has a tiny chance of being worth something and you think you're getting hosed?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
oliveoil posted:Wait. Then if you got, say, an offer from Amazon and an offer from Microsoft, you couldn't just, you know, tell Amazon that Microsoft offered you 20% more, then when Amazon matches it, you go to Microsoft and tell them you'd love to work there, but Amazon made an offer and the neighborhood you'd live in is so much cheaper, and you'd need an extra 20% to make it break even, and then if they give you that 20%, you go back to Amazon and tell them you'd love to work with them but... When I was at some Google events, I over heard recruiters talking several times about exactly this and that their counter offer would win the potential hire over Amazon or Uber. Before I took my first real career position, I bluffed another company and surprisingly (to me) they matched and raised. I was always going to take the job I took, but at the same time, it gave me real pause for a moment that I could make much more. But getting out on my own and where I wanted to live took precedence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
Ralith posted:That confused me too. I assumed I was missing something. It sounds like he wants to join a startup specifically for the high risk and reward that comes along with equity as part of the compensation. If I'm reading it correctly, then necrobobsledder should join another startup that aligns with what he wants. @oliveoil: There is no issue going back and forth with a company if you received higher offers from other companies. Most companies in tech at this point understand that they are competing for talent and the will recruiters want to know why you're not accepting their companies offer and if they have the capability to change that then they'll do so. At the same time though you don't want to be perceived as greedy. asur fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Aug 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Plorkyeran posted:Er, they're offering you actual money instead of pretend money that has a tiny chance of being worth something and you think you're getting hosed? Dumb take. Most small startups/tech companies pay good-if-not-great money AND equity. This one company has explicitly chosen to not offer half of that and come up with a really stupid justification for it. It's not like it's wow it's suddenly an incredibly great, profitable, stable late stage company, no risk here -- no, they just don't want to share a possible upside of the business doing well. If your wouldbe boss trying to gently caress you over from day one isn't a bad sign, well IDK what to tell you. The stereotype of getting paid $40k and a few percent of equity isn't a real thing at anywhere that isn't a straight-up scam. 'Startups' will pay you $130k AND a percent or so of equity (or w/e this is just an example). The equity is for the 'risk' (and the morale and buy-in), the salary is for the work. Yeah, they're not gonna compete with a GoogFaceAzon offer, but not everyone wants to move the bay area or work somewhere like that. Mao Zedong Thot fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Aug 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
It depends on what other kind of offers you're getting and what you prefer. If your options are $130k and some an equity lottery ticket vs $130k and no equity then sure, go with the equity. If your options are $130k and equity vs $150k and no equity then take the money in my opinion, but it is all a question of how much you want to gamble.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
VOTE YES ON 69 posted:Dumb take. Most small startups/tech companies pay good-if-not-great money AND equity. This one company has explicitly chosen to not offer half of that and come up with a really stupid justification for it. It's not like it's wow it's suddenly an incredibly great, profitable, stable late stage company, no risk here -- no, they just don't want to share a possible upside of the business doing well. If your wouldbe boss trying to gently caress you over from day one isn't a bad sign, well IDK what to tell you. We don't actually know what this company is offering because all we have to go on is that the company wants to pay at or above market rate. I'm taking that to mean they want to pay a total comp equivalent to an established tech company while you're taking it to mean they only want to pay an equivalent salary. You are right that the 40k thing is mostly a myth, but you're leaving out that established tech companies, at least in SV, also offer equity. It ends up being a 30% - 50% cut in total compensation if the equity from a startup turns out to be worthless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
VOTE YES ON 69 posted:Dumb take. Most small startups/tech companies pay good-if-not-great money AND equity. This one company has explicitly chosen to not offer half of that and come up with a really stupid justification for it. It's not like it's wow it's suddenly an incredibly great, profitable, stable late stage company, no risk here -- no, they just don't want to share a possible upside of the business doing well. If your wouldbe boss trying to gently caress you over from day one isn't a bad sign, well IDK what to tell you. My concern is mostly that I'd be in a leadership position deciding a lot of direction yet no mention of equity. I'm going to get a chance to raise this up in my final interview round it seems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
There's more to a job than comp, if there wasn't this would be a pointless thread. All things equal take more money. Probably all things aren't equal so take the most money at a job that doesn't make you want to kill yourself more than the other options   The 'we dont give equity' thing doesn't have poo poo to do with comp, just seems a powerful sign they're assholes. But I have like zero context and you have tons more, so just spitballin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 07:00
|
|
|
Like it's one thing if equity just isn't on the table. It's another if they have a fuckin paranoid rationale ready to go for why they wont offer it lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 07:06
|
|
|
All I'm hearing is "I haven't heard of anyone doing that with equity" from basically everyone, so that's another bulletpoint for "weird poo poo I haven't seen tech companies do except in this market." As for warning flags of assholery, for one "serial entrepreneur as CEO" yardstick measure I try to look for people that are working with the guy that aren't executive level, and there's several people I've met from his previous companies here. Like, how many people would want to work under Travis Kalanick again, right? Conflicting indicators are what I'm seeing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
necrobobsledder posted:Instead, they want to pay at or above market and offer bonuses with stock grants, not options or RSUs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this mean the grant is immediately taxable based upon the on-paper valuation of the company? This sounds like a back door way of avoiding paying bonuses. If I'm already making market I would decline any "bonus" that required me to pay taxes against imaginary money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Grants are taxable upon receipt into your own brokerage account but I think you can avoid taxes by having something else hold it away from your personal accounts but under your control. There's a lot of funny accounting that can be done.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
kitten smoothie posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this mean the grant is immediately taxable based upon the on-paper valuation of the company? My limited understanding from friends is that the common practice is that it "vests" in that you would keep it if you left the company, but it doesn't actually vest until there is a liquidation event. I haven't really looked into it though since I've never been in that situation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
asur posted:My limited understanding from friends is that the common practice is that it "vests" in that you would keep it if you left the company, but it doesn't actually vest until there is a liquidation event. I haven't really looked into it though since I've never been in that situation. vesting only refers to how much doesn't disappear or get bought back if and when you leave.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
necrobobsledder posted:Grants are taxable upon receipt into your own brokerage account but I think you can avoid taxes by having something else hold it away from your personal accounts but under your control. There's a lot of funny accounting that can be done. Does that protect you from having a tax liability if the shares become worthless? Even if you could defer the taxes until the shares are liquid, it'd suck if your "bonus" became worthless and you still have this tax liability hanging over your head. In that case you could deduct the loss, but since you have to offset capital losses like-for-like against gains (except for $3K/year), it could take you a while to recoup the taxes. At least with options nobody's forcing you to exercise them and have a taxable event.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
So I got hired a few months back into a oldie manufacturing company who is slowly but (at least from our departmental view) desperately wanting to move into the 21st century. My day to day tasks have been about 50% self initiated following general guidance regarding the kinds of things my boss wants us to be doing. The development I've been doing has mostly been working on their legacy applications that interact with their production systems on request and some data warehousing and automation of data collection from sensors and whatnot. We're in the research department so I'm mostly in a support capacity for the researchers on that end. Their production systems guys have been developing code in house for the last 10+ years and are pretty dependent on it, but it's a mess. On my own initiative I've rolled out a demonstration development server with a source control/CI workflow, have been creating upgraded versions of current applications to run side by side to introduce them to some potential areas we can improve on, and have been slowly cataloging all of the crippling issues regarding our network. The people who matter have received the idea of it with a lot of enthusiasm and healthy bits of caution (I can't be the only one capable of interacting with the system, we need to develop more talent, etc..). Without getting to into the weeds about how this came about, there apparently was an internal feud a while back with the net result being that their IT department (under the CFO) said "gently caress it we're not touching it" to their entire production network years ago and gave full control (everything but domain admin) of it over to their systems engineers. So obviously there are dozens of web facing servers running every different type of MS Server you could imagine that haven't been patched in years and heaps of vulnerabilities everywhere. Everyone's known about this but they've just treated it as a sort of non issue because no one has the time to do anything about it, but they don't want IT all in their stuff "slowing things down." Like an idiot I decided to write up a summary threat analysis of their production servers and had a conversation with my boss about it. The reaction I got was actually really positive and mostly just "well seeing it all in one place like that makes me feel pretty dumb about ignoring this for 10 years. This is a full time job isn't it?" So now the idea of creating a production sysadmin/devops/security full time position is on the table. If they decide to go ahead on it I'm thinking of asking them to pay for me to train up on the standard networking certs (I've got funding for training on the books) and pivoting into that role and having them backfill my position instead. So given an ample supply of corporate funding what would be the ideal way for someone with a standard BS C.S. background to train up in that area?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Most people with CS degrees fundamentally want to do some form of development that involves coding. The scenario you're describing is somewhat uncommon in that normally nobody hands over IT duties to developers of any kind because the day-to-day work of sysadmin / operations is pretty much nothing like development. You really just need a solidly competent sysadmin or two that isn't afraid to dig into badly maintained systems, a CS degree may actually be a handicap in some respects because a lot of sysadmin stuff is really nothing you'll learn in any school. You can learn algorithms and approaches to problem solving galore that can help, but that won't matter much when getting down to the nuts and bolts of deploying GPO policies to a fleet of servers or using SCCM to keep servers patched without causing production outages (oftentimes because a patch can interact poorly with a lot of badly designed software that's hacked together to just get it working). However, where you can spin things in recruitment is that you can give someone an opportunity to fix the problems that a lot of places would not have budget to do - this should appeal a lot to admins that have been constantly denied budget throughout their careers. You should have a budget laid out over the course of a couple years to fix the problems and make sure that developers are onboard with any software fixes that will be necessary. If patching a Windows server is ever thought to mean it'll "slow you down" then you've got a software architecture or design problem. Taking out one server shouldn't mean anything whatsoever in modern systems, and even maintenance windows shouldn't exist anymore with software that can be deployed continuously (most programmers do not write anything that can be deployed frequently). kitten smoothie posted:Does that protect you from having a tax liability if the shares become worthless? Even if you could defer the taxes until the shares are liquid, it'd suck if your "bonus" became worthless and you still have this tax liability hanging over your head.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
necrobobsledder posted:Most people with CS degrees fundamentally want to do some form of development that involves coding. The scenario you're describing is somewhat uncommon in that normally nobody hands over IT duties to developers of any kind because the day-to-day work of sysadmin / operations is pretty much nothing like development. Yeah I'm aware that my CS background doesn't translate to doing sysadmin stuff. I've been interested in infosec stuff for years and have a decent nonprofessional understanding of networking fundamentals from that perspective, but I really don't know the first thing about running a network. I guess I'm looking at this as a potential to explore a career path I'm potentially interested in and in the mean time help clean up the low hanging fruit. If I expressed interest in taking over this role I'm pretty confident they'd be willing to invest in me the resources to get it done. When things are as bad as they are any progress makes me look good so it's not like I'd need to become a first class sysadmin over night. I guess on the flip side if we brought someone who is already competent in to fill the role I'd have someone to learn from.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Portland Sucks posted:Yeah I'm aware that my CS background doesn't translate to doing sysadmin stuff. I've been interested in infosec stuff for years and have a decent nonprofessional understanding of networking fundamentals from that perspective, but I really don't know the first thing about running a network. I guess I'm looking at this as a potential to explore a career path I'm potentially interested in and in the mean time help clean up the low hanging fruit. If I expressed interest in taking over this role I'm pretty confident they'd be willing to invest in me the resources to get it done. When things are as bad as they are any progress makes me look good so it's not like I'd need to become a first class sysadmin over night. I guess on the flip side if we brought someone who is already competent in to fill the role I'd have someone to learn from. I don't think you're in the right thread, but I'll answer anyway - It really depends on "do you want to do sysadmin or do you want to develop?" That situation honestly sounds real hosed up - if you wanted to learn how to sysadmin, you'd probably be better off working at a place where things are semi-functional. It depends on your role now though - if you're just some random intern at the company and trying to score a full-time gig, it might be worth a shot, but if you're a software engineer already, that seems like a terrible transition to make..
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
Bruegels Fuckbooks posted:I don't think you're in the right thread, but I'll answer anyway - It really depends on "do you want to do sysadmin or do you want to develop?" That situation honestly sounds real hosed up - if you wanted to learn how to sysadmin, you'd probably be better off working at a place where things are semi-functional. It depends on your role now though - if you're just some random intern at the company and trying to score a full-time gig, it might be worth a shot, but if you're a software engineer already, that seems like a terrible transition to make.. I graduated a few months ago and got the job out of school. I hired in as essentially a software engineer. Still trying to figure out what I want to focus on career-wise I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
Way back when I posted that my boss was trying to hire a Senior engineer for our team that would provide some more hands-on mentorship and review of my work. After I reviewed a candidate's code submission and interviewed him for this Senior role (I'm mid-level) I ultimately gave a "No" because of a lack of overall engineering experience, domain experience, and experience with the frameworks that we use. He's far, far less experienced than me in both engineering and our business domain but he comes from 1 year at Google (no reason for leaving besides 'there wasn't enough diversity or any women on my team" but my boss has a Google boner). I interviewed two people this week and I was way more impressed with the former (I yes'd him) who has worked extensively on the tools and frameworks we use in our pipeline and just showed a more solid engineering background and aptitude for dissection of problems in our field. My boss agreed with my feedback but we're extending a Senior offer to the inexperienced guy in addition to the other guy and a team lead who is more senior than anyone but leaning towards No. I don't even know how to process this, to be honest. I'm doing well and accomplishing things that both of the two more junior people will definitely take longer to accomplish. Everyone's happy with the progress I'm making yet when I say that I'd like some more interaction with someone who can provide lower-level insight into my work and sit with me on things to discuss specs, tradeoffs, etc, I get this? Am I being... slowly replaced.. or?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Good Will Hrunting posted:no reason for leaving besides 'there wasn't enough diversity or any women on my team" *ohshit ohshit ohsit I didn't prepare for this one... OH!* "Yeah, that thing in the news about Google that you've totally heard about is totally why I left. Yep. That thing." *nailed it  *quote:I don't even know how to process this, to be honest. I'm doing well and accomplishing things that both of the two more junior people will definitely take longer to accomplish. Everyone's happy with the progress I'm making yet when I say that I'd like some more interaction with someone who can provide lower-level insight into my work and sit with me on things to discuss specs, tradeoffs, etc, I get this? Am I being... slowly replaced.. or? I'm thinking it's because your boss just wants to fill out a team.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
Understandable. You can't make awkward racist comments or sexually harass coworkers if your team isn't sufficiently diverse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
sarehu posted:Understandable. You can't make awkward racist comments or sexually harass coworkers if your team isn't sufficiently diverse. Hmmm we're all white now and 2 of the hires are not, checks out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Good Will Hrunting posted:I don't even know how to process this, to be honest. I'm doing well and accomplishing things that both of the two more junior people will definitely take longer to accomplish. Everyone's happy with the progress I'm making yet when I say that I'd like some more interaction with someone who can provide lower-level insight into my work and sit with me on things to discuss specs, tradeoffs, etc, I get this? Am I being... slowly replaced.. or? Maybe you are being replaced, or maybe just not being appreciated properly. Either way, the correct response is to look for other jobs, then tell you boss "actually, I should be the team lead". If he says no, quit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Good Will Hrunting posted:Way back when I posted that my boss was trying to hire a Senior engineer for our team that would provide some more hands-on mentorship and review of my work. After I reviewed a candidate's code submission and interviewed him for this Senior role (I'm mid-level) I ultimately gave a "No" because of a lack of overall engineering experience, domain experience, and experience with the frameworks that we use. He's far, far less experienced than me in both engineering and our business domain but he comes from 1 year at Google (no reason for leaving besides 'there wasn't enough diversity or any women on my team" but my boss has a Google boner). I interviewed two people this week and I was way more impressed with the former (I yes'd him) who has worked extensively on the tools and frameworks we use in our pipeline and just showed a more solid engineering background and aptitude for dissection of problems in our field. My boss agreed with my feedback but we're extending a Senior offer to the inexperienced guy in addition to the other guy and a team lead who is more senior than anyone but leaning towards No. As long as there is work for three additional people, it sounds like your boss is filling out the team and complying with your request.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:10 |
|
|
There isn't even enough work specced for the two of us, a discussion I had this week with the other seniors offshore, one of whom is leaving for that reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 01:45
|
|