They offered to pay me for time spent working asynchronously on a task with them that they would potentially be able to use. They gave me a retainer up front and had me bill them based on agreed-upon hourly amount.
Ultimately the offer was based on that work. We ended up pressing pause as they were able to find help more local to them so I didn't join up but all around good experience. And it is certainly nice to be paid when it is work they may potentially use!
Dodged a bullet there.
If there's a preference for a co-located candidate, that means their processes are not built to put a remote candidate on equal footing.
Remote work is hard.
NOTHING beats the bandwidth and fidelity of face to face conversations.
As a result, remote workers need MORE help, not less to be successful.
One way of MORE help is to have an async work flow.
Let me guess:
1. this company has most of their employees live in the same city or state although they all "work from home most of the time"?
2. this company has a slack channel where their employees hang out and are almost always available?
They already had some remote staff and contacted me out of my expressed desire to work remotely. I was caught up in a critical project and needed more time however they needed the extra set of hands earlier than I could commit to. I'm guessing colocation was an added bonus because it is a bit easier.
I think my largest concern was the sustainability of my rate for them in the long term being a small outfit. No regrets one way or the other. And like I said, they paid my retainer up front and it was definitely to my satisfaction.
I would love to hear your thoughts on this:
My opinion is that if there's a preference for a co-located candidate, that simply means their processes are not built to put a remote candidate on equal footing.
Hence the preference.
The fact that they have remote workers does not invalidate the fact that those remote workers are at a disadvantage.
> I think my largest concern was the sustainability of my rate for them in the long term being a small outfit
This is one more red flag: companies that have to work remotely because they have to not because they want to.
There is a world of difference between a company that had to settle for remote work just because they could not afford to hire locally from a company that was built remote first because the founders believed in remote work.
The former will always be on the lookout for local candidates, forever deprioritizing remote workers while the latter don't have any such discrimination in mind.
I am glad it turned out well for you in the short term. Maybe you can follow up on how their remote workers are currently doing.
Part of my fee and role was the decision to have me head up initiating and experimenting with remote work procedures and practices for the team.
Sometimes what comes is little more than circumstantial.
You underestimate the insight that comes with looking at different solutions to the same problem.
I have been showing the value of GraphQL to a few startups for a while now to the point where I can get a GraphQL/Express server up and running from a frequently used template I built, in 90 minutes will full support for Query, Mutation and Subscription.
Create new users, tasks, updates, votes? Check
Check Update users, tasks, updates, votes? Check
Get realtime notification of changes to users, tasks, updates, votes? Check
This new insight has tremendous value to a company that's struggling with a RPC like system hidden behind "REST" endpoints.
At a company I know the R&D team routinely interviews PhD candidates of which an hour is kept aside specifically for the R&D team to come up to speed on the latest research that these PhD candidates read up on.
> The company is spending time and money (a LOT of money at big companies) to interview you, expect to spend some of your own.
I dont think you thought this through.
The company is spending time and money to make sure they don't make a hiring mistake. The time and effort sunk in by the candidate is part of the cost subsidized by the candidate.
An argument can be made that it would be cheaper for the employer to hire a candidate on an at-will basis once the candidate passes a basic skill and design test.