|
Keetron posted:Now that [doesn't] mean there was nobody to do the job; it just [means] that there was nobody at the price they were willing to pay." Further evidence that we have an oceanfront real estate shortage in this country and the government should do something about it.
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
This country has godawful relations with labor in general, and tech is no exception.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
The Protestant work ethic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
I've seen people pivot to calling it 'the Judeo-Christian work ethic'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Keetron posted:http://www.npr.org/2017/08/31/547646709/u-s-employers-struggle-to-match-workers-with-open-jobs I recently had a recruiter cold-email me with an open posting for a "senior mobile developer." They wanted native iOS and Android experience, plus React on the web. AND they wanted experience with NoSQL databases, Elasticsearch-like platforms, and deployment of the whole shebang to AWS. Oh yeah and it was a 12 month contract, not full time. The mix of competencies here is like three or four distinct people's jobs. But they don't want to actually hire one, let alone the three or four necessary to do the job right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
fritz posted:I've seen people pivot to calling it 'the Judeo-Christian work ethic'. I dunno, culturally catholic countries don't seem to have the same problems. Just different ones. And I have no idea what japans deal is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
that's even more dubious than the classic uses of the "protestant work ethic" as a concept, given that, for instance, germany and the scandinavian countries are all majority-protestant too
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
kitten smoothie posted:I recently had a recruiter cold-email me with an open posting for a "senior mobile developer." They wanted native iOS and Android experience, plus React on the web. AND they wanted experience with NoSQL databases, Elasticsearch-like platforms, and deployment of the whole shebang to AWS. Oh yeah and it was a 12 month contract, not full time. There are people who can do that and you would actually trust but you're paying 300k+ for them
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:that's even more dubious than the classic uses of the "protestant work ethic" as a concept, given that, for instance, germany and the scandinavian countries are all majority-protestant too However, all the lovely hardcore protestants left for the new world as they were prosecuted as sects in the 1700's.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:that's even more dubious than the classic uses of the "protestant work ethic" as a concept, given that, for instance, germany and the scandinavian countries are all majority-protestant too It's really more of a Calvinist work ethic. Calling it "Protestant" is just an attempt to normalize it, "Judeo-Christian" even more so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
Whatever it is, it sure is useful to capitalism, so it's spread quite far.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
The Judeo-Calvinist work ethic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
FamDav posted:There are people who can do that and you would actually trust but you're paying 300k+ for them And they're already happily employed
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 11:35
|
|
|
venutolo posted:For what it is worth, I would not consider your age a liability. We've had a couple guys come through for interviews for entry/junior positions that were at least of similar age and experience and they were the best candidates we have seen for that level. We offered them jobs, but they were scooped up by somewhere else. I agree that age doesn't matter, I think you've taken it too far in the opposite direction. You can't assume anything about someone's work ethic by their age. That hard working 30 year old was almost definitely a hard worker at 20 as well. The biggest frustration I find with devs is dogmatism and an inability to compromise for real world requirements and expectations. And I've seen that in 20 year olds and 40 year olds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 11:38
|
|
|
FamDav posted:There are people who can do that and you would actually trust but you're paying 300k+ for them Instead companies would rather hire someone who's mediocre at best all all those things, and let them cost the business well over $300K worth in fuckups.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
kitten smoothie posted:Instead companies would rather hire someone who's mediocre at best all all those things, and let them cost the business well over $300K worth in fuckups. Every company does something that's penny-wise and pound-foolish. Some apparently advertise it right on their job boards, though 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
I received an offer from a company. In the employment agreement, it says that within a certain period, if they ask, I have to inform them of any New Employer I jump to. Also, I think it basically says, they own anything I do whether it's related to the job or not. IANAL so I don't know for sure. How standard is this? I'm thinking of telling them to amend some sections.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Ither posted:I received an offer from a company. 1) Does it *prevent* you from being employed by someone else? 2) Do they own things you do on your own time that is not related to their industry?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
lifg posted:1) Does it *prevent* you from being employed by someone else? There is a non-complete clause in addition. The Contract posted:Employee expressly agrees that Employee will not (either directly or indirectly, by assisting or acting in concert with others) Compete with the Company during the Restricted Period within the Restricted Territory. quote:2) Do they own things you do on your own time that is not related to their industry? It seems so: The Contract posted:Employee further agrees to and hereby grants the Company, as directed by the Company, a non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide, sublicensable and assignable license to make, have made, copy, modify, make derivative works of, use, publicly perform, display or otherwise distribute any copyrightable works Employee creates during Employee’s Employment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
That'd be a no-go for me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
I signed an agreement like this once, like ten years ago, and I wouldn't do it again. There weren't legal repercussions for me but the noncompete definitely was an intimidating factor when the job began to suck hard and I started looking for other places of employment. IANAL but if I could do it over I would send it back with the noncompete clause crossed out altogether, and the IP assignment amended to be limited to intellectual property created during the ordinary course of employment (i.e. work done on company time and company equipment) or that otherwise directly relates to the company's business. The more narrow definition California has is pretty good. If they would not accept those amendments I'd walk away, the market's too good to put up with that crap.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
that Letter looks like it was Written by a Wannabe who thinks that Capitalizing Words gives them the Force of Law i second the suggestion that you try california where this bullshit doesn't fly 
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
JewKiller 3000 posted:that Letter looks like it was Written by a Wannabe who thinks that Capitalizing Words gives them the Force of Law Eh, that's normal, because elsewhere those terms would be expressly defined so they need something to distinguish between "an employee in general" and "an employee specifically as it relates to the definition listed". It seems redundant but in legal poo poo the devil is always in the details.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
"Overly Broad Intellectual Property Clause" is that, and it us exactly what it sounds like. Yes, they own anything you create. Typically, courts will not find in their favour as they generally say something like "you make retail software. This is a sculpture of a squid. They aren't competing with you. Maybe don't be a dick." so if you REALLY want this job, that's a risk you need to consider yourself. Despite that, I did a lot of research on this while job searching and the short answer is that if it's too broad, just find a new job. Like pretty much everyone else here, I am also not a lawyer, though. To be fair, most companies have one of these to some degree so don't bail in EVERY case. I believe "anything you create while on the job is ours" to be fair, but the wording can be bad if you're salaried or remote(I.e when are you "on the clock"). The other common one is "anything you create that can directly compete with us", which I believe is also fair. Mostly because I work in an industry where I have access to a lot of info and data that would make it trivial to create very powerful alternative. Even if I create it on my own time, my own implementation wouldn't work well without my up to date info. It really depends a lot on where you work and what you do in your free time. Work at Nintendo, and want to make platform games in your own time? Second one is not for you, but the first will work fine. Want to make games in your spare time, but work at a marketing firm? Both are probably fine. But always stay away from overly broad clauses that basically say they own you. If for no other reason than they're probably a lovely company.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
Ither posted:There is a non-complete clause in addition. It never assigns them any right to actually access the work, so I guess if you do the work at home and keep it to yourself there'd be no problem. They can't copy what they don't have in the first place right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
Vincent Valentine posted:Yes, they own anything you create. Typically, courts will not find in their favour as they generally say something like "you make retail software. This is a sculpture of a squid. They aren't competing with you. Maybe don't be a dick." so if you REALLY want this job, that's a risk you need to consider yourself. Despite that, I did a lot of research on this while job searching and the short answer is that if it's too broad, just find a new job. Like pretty much everyone else here, I am also not a lawyer, though. There's a lot of not-lawyers in this thread, but one thing I've learned is don't broad statements about contract law without specifying what state you're talking about. From your assumption that the court will in any way be the employee's friend suggests you're talking about California or maybe Washington. There are states that would happily enforce an IP agreement that said the enterprise software company you work for owns your fan fiction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
Speaking of not being a lawyer, I recommend contacting a lawyer. "Look over this contract" is a standard lawyer task. They'll tell you the price up front and it won't be too much. I've done it twice and it was interesting an helpful to hear a professional opinion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:That'd be a no-go for me. I tend to assume that language that silly was written by Legal departments who want everything and face no repercussions for demanding such, but otherwise doesn't represent the attitude and behavior of the company or the people you'll actually be working for. My path forward if I wanted that job would be to cross out the poo poo I'm not willing to agree to and then sign. If the company sees that and then demands that I sign the contract as originally stated, then I conclude that my first assumption was wrong and laugh my way back into the job hunt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
The general consensus when asked about salary is to give the interviewer a range of two numbers, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
Why? "Oh 80k to 100k? Cool, we were thinking 100k too!" Edit: like, seriously head over to the negotiation thread in BFC ohgodwhat fucked around with this message at 13:52 on Sep 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
"Oh 110k to 120k? Cool, we were thinking 100k too."
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
Grump posted:The general consensus when asked about salary is to give the interviewer a range of two numbers, right? If you're not trolling, no this is the opposite of what you should do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
Ok geez relax it was a question
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
Grump posted:Ok geez relax it was a question Oh, I also thought you were trolling because thats like the exact opposite of everything thats been said on the subject ITT and I see you in this thread a lot... Don't give them a number at all. (Yes that's often hard to do)
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
Grump posted:The general consensus when asked about salary is to give the interviewer a range of two numbers, right? The last couple of times anyone has asked me I just say "market rate" and usually its enough to get them off the topic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
The Dark Wind posted:The last couple of times anyone has asked me I just say "market rate" and usually its enough to get them off the topic. As I've found out, some people hear "market rate" and think "how am I gonna explain to the other engineers that they're being underpaid?".
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
At my last job, I helped interview a guy who had roughly the same amount of experience as I had and was interviewing for a position at the same level as I was. My boss made him an offer, but the guy turned it down. My boss, frustrated with the process, grumbled about the guy "scoffing at $125k" or something. I was making $85k at the time. I just stared at him until he realized how dumb it was for him to say that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
CPColin posted:At my last job, I helped interview a guy who had roughly the same amount of experience as I had and was interviewing for a position at the same level as I was. My boss made him an offer, but the guy turned it down. My boss, frustrated with the process, grumbled about the guy "scoffing at $125k" or something. I was making $85k at the time. I just stared at him until he realized how dumb it was for him to say that. What happened next?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
huhu posted:What happened next? I lobbied for a title change and a raise and they gave me neither. Then I lobbied for a title change and they finally gave it to me after I wrote my own job description. Then I got laid off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
CPColin posted:I lobbied for a title change and a raise and they gave me neither. Then I lobbied for a title change and they finally gave it to me after I wrote my own job description. Then I got laid off. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 22:09
|
|
