Hacker News Reader

Comment by developer2 | Hacker News Reader

Holy crap, you've just done your company - or if you are an external recruiter, your client - a huge disservice by posting this reply. You've done nothing to assuage future candidates' concerns. You've merely confirmed that your compensation offers, and likely the entire hiring process, is driven by undesirable corporate metrics. This makes GitLab sounds seem like a company that only knows how to regurgitate HR 101 tactics. No thanks.

GitLab, diversify/improve your recruitment strategy. Why you only have "the recruiter", aka a single person heading your recruitment, rather than a group of competent personnel, is concerning. Your public image is of a medium-sized company which is already established, not a tiny startup outfit wherein all hires rely on a sole (apparently inadequate) person vetting each potential employee.

View on HN

Since the first part of your comment is addressed to Sasha I'll let her reply to it, but to address the second part:

There are multiple people involved in the hiring process here at GitLab, specifically several people who handle phone screens and resumes. The responsibility of vetting doesn't rest solely on one person and is actually a pretty collaborative process in my experience. As an example, I was able to vet every single candidate's resume myself for roles I was involved in hiring for.

With all due respect, the parent to my comment - an apparent employee at GitLab - said "I am the recruiter at GL". "The recruiter", not "a recruiter" How else is that to be interpreted? With whom does the candidate discuss compensation? This one single recruiter, or the manager of the team with whom the employee would be placed? Why does GitLab have a "recruiter", rather than an "HR employee" or "hiring manager"? The term "recruiter" generally means an external non-employee who is financially compensated for each new hire brought on board. "HR" or "hiring managers" are company employees, given a flat salary irrespective of the number or quality of hires. Which do you have?

Either way, the parent comment is full of language that raises red flags to competent developers. Personally, my first thought is "oh hell no!". It's possible that their comment is not representative of the company's effective policies, but when one perceives this kind of reply as an official stance of the company's standpoint, it is difficult to retract.

> With all due respect, the parent to my comment - an apparent employee at GitLab - said "I am the recruiter at GL". "The recruiter", not "a recruiter" How else is that to be interpreted?

The way I understood it, at least, was 'the recruiter who handled the interview with "matthewvincent"'. Doesn't imply that there are, or are not, other recruiters at gitlab.

And if so, at least to me it seems honest for said recruiter to come forwards personally, instead of some feel-good mumbo-jumbo from the PR department.

I'd LOVE to hear what red flags are in the comment from the recruiter or the other person - whom I guess is a manager. I've re-read it a few times but I see nothing but reasonableness. Then again, I'm neither a developer myself (does that make a difference) nor a recruiter...

Speaking from the candidate's perspective, I tend to avoid companies where money is discussed upfront. I want to be able to demonstrate the value I can add, and then have a negotiation about remuneration based on that value.

Bluntly, yes, it does put the candidate in a much stronger negotiating position but, hey, if you really want to hire good people then I'm afraid it's hard cheese. Conversely talking about remuneration upfront puts the candidate on the back foot because there's substantially less of a basis for convincing negotiation, so it really becomes about cutting costs for the company.

Unless you absolutely have to - sometimes you might not have any other option, and you shouldn't let pride blind you to that reality when you're facing it - I'd always recommend you avoid working for anyone where you've had to discuss money first.

The discussion of compensation is an extremely simple concept: you wait for the candidate to bring it up, and you discuss it only at that point in time. The interviewer should never bring up compensation before the candidate does, unless the potential employee is so shy that they are waiting for the employer to do so first. The moment an employer tries to pre-emptively bring up the topic of money before it makes sense, it shows their true colors - they care far too much about the money rather than the talent they are hiring.

It really is that basic. When the company cares more about the money than what the employee can bring, they've shown their company cares more about their internal politics then they do about their future success. Simple as that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com