Glass Walls
jamestgreen.com
jamestgreen.com
I can't help but think that this is just a VC-funded version of traditional media, where the # of "sufficiently talented" people (i.e the supply) vastly outstrips the number of full-time well-paying positions (the demand), and therefore creates a massive power disparity in the labor market. Most employers will operate in a way like this because they can.
What's surprising here is that we'd think of podcasting as new media. Why would really talented people work for Gimlet vs. trying to get their own shows off the ground?
Financial security is probably the only reason. In fact, it's cited as THE reason this guy went to Gimlet both times. Holding his nose both times. Even the 2nd time, knowing what the company was.
So let's talk about Substack. (Didn't you know? All discussions of online media MUST go back to Substack these days).
This is why Substack is genius. Give the producers more direct access to monetizing their creative efforts. Even give the most promising ones an advance on their efforts to create some short-term financial security so they can do their thing. Let the talented people control their output and business.
Otherwise, in markets where labor vastly outstrips demand, you are fodder for the people with sufficient resources/capital to take the chance. And minority / disadvantaged folks are more at prey to it.
MGR: "Actually, it's really hard to onboard new people right now. We're stretched very thin. Can you do this urgent project for us and then get back to me?"
MGR: <onboards some new hires>
ME: <finishes urgent project>
ME: "So, any chance I can join the team?"
MGR: "Actually, I'm not sure we really have space on the team anymore, I'm really sorry about that."
Takeaway: If you're in a meeting with a manager and they sound completely unenthusiastic, and not even making eye contact, and falling back on their basic lead training to feed you non-committal apologies, you have lost hard. I don't know how you messed up or what clues you misread, but there is nothing for you there. Stop hoping to strike gold. Run.
But I don’t know why he took the second offer for contract work other than lack of options, as they say “fool me once…”
Sadly doesn't help for some cases, like the code snippets in Apple's docs. Have to use the Inspect Element tool for that. https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/technotes/tn2091...
Contracting agencies are inherently predatory.
'Working hard' to get 'hired on full-time' has and always will be a myth. The 'corporate finance' line makes no sense. If the company didn't have the budget to bring you on full-time then they wouldn't have had the budget to bring you on as a contractor.
My entire employment history consists of contract gigs like this and they all play out the same way.
1) Promise of a full-time position
2) Excuses like 'It's not in this year's budget, but we're in the process of renegotiating the budget so we can have some of you contractors brought on full-time'
3) Contract's extended indefinitely/you're let go only to be offered another contract position with the same organization several months later
Regulations to stop this may be necessary.
Hell, one of my previous co-workers has a PhD in mathematics from an Ivy League university and was being paid $15/hr by a contracting agency to work as a programmer while some of our teammates had no IT experience and struggled to figure out how to use their computers.
Right now I'm working for a contracting company at a massive healthcare organization (16,000+ employees) as 1 of 9 people on our IAM team where I'm tasked with automating all the things and I'm only making $24/hr while the full-time employees that do less work are being paid double, some even triple what I earn.
Wow, the author of this is so drenched in his own racist worldview that he can only blame a situation of his own making on his skin color. In reality, he was taken for a ride by sleazy NY media venture people. (Is there any other kind?) The color of their, or his, skin is irrelevant. If people treat you like crap, they're garbage humans, regardless of skin color.
As the old saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." From where I sit, bringing race into this at all is the worst sort of hateful excuse-making. This was the author's stupid call, and the fallout of his poor decision to work for known untrustworthy a-holes twice falls entirely on him. And has nothing to do with race - a-holes come in all colors.
This doesn't strike me as drenched in a racist worldview, rather than just an observation of racism.
> This was the author's stupid call this is the same kind of narrative that blames women for the clothes they wear.
Be better. Expect better.
Reply All (the leading show at Gimlet Media) has had something of a public implosion lately, following their reporting on 'Bon Appetit', with accusations of racism (or at least non-diversity) in their hiring practices, and a lack of support for the unionization efforts there. The irony being that this is the exact sort of behavior they were investigating at Bon Appetit.
Their co-host PJ Vogt and a producer has now left the show (the interplay between PJ and Alex was the primary highlight of the show, so if it continues it will be a very different show).
Following that, there's been a few articles like this one looking at some of the behind the scenes at Gimlet.
One should never rely on a statement from an employer that isn't in writing. Furthermore, even if it is in writing, if it says "discretionary bonus," you should consider that a big fat ZERO. If it says "possible," "maybe," "if," etc. you should consider it to never happen (if it's for your benefit, otherwise, assume it definitely will happen).
Only after the above can you reasonably compare offers between prospective employers or value your current job.
HR is trained to hire you at the lowest price and say the most that they can without making fraudulent claims.
Additionally, if you are a current employee, and you EVER speak to HR, walk in with a pen and notepad and take long long notes and do not hesitate to ask someone to pause while you document. Treat it as a legal deposition. They are not your friends, they are trained to extract or give statements that protect the firm (not you).
It's unfortunately a pretty stark reality but it's business. It's even worse if the people involved are your friends - because it will hurt more if you aren't protected or have the wrong expectation. There's a reason that the expression, "never go into business with your family," is a thing.
I've seen many junior employees hold the wrong expectation of HR in terms of who's on their side. I can't directly fault them at the times that the company is pushing that version of the world.
At the same time, HR does regularly help employees avail themselves of resources (communications with health insurers, 401k providers, etc.). So in that sense, they are "there" for employees.
As far as I can tell, HR does a few things:
1. promote the idea that the company is a great place at which to work (market the company to potential hires, tell current employees about all the great perks, downplay negatives or ignore them)
2. answer most general questions of current employees (benefits)
3. document statements given to and taken from employees (hiring them, firing them, workplace allegations, rules violations, etc.)
Most of it is designed to protect the company but some of it is sometimes the only way to get something if you're an employee. If you ask: "where should I go to set up my 401k?" or some variation, you are pointed to HR.
So they help employees, but it’s to a large degree self-serving (even if the HR person himself does not realize it — it’s why he doesn’t get in trouble for wasting time on it). But when it becomes actively detrimental to the company, always assume HR will make the decision in favor of the company.
Treating HR as generally hostile is also a bad idea — the assumption of hostility is often met with the same, and now both you and HR are acting slowly, carefully and inefficiently — but never assume they’ll always be your friends. They’re generally friendly, and they may even be considered friends, but ultimately their loyalty is not to you.
The same is true of really anyone in the company — your boss, your coworkers, your attorneys, etc. Their loyalties are always to themselves, and their families first (by which job preservation is a very strong incentive), and maybe you fall in line somewhere.
I think we agree on the role played by HR. You need to be aware they serve the organization first (as do we all). I just wanted to point out that in the day-to-day, they often provide real benefits to employees, which may be self-serving but there’s no rule that self-serving behavior can’t be mutually beneficial.
And to be honest I don't see myself doing anything different than that as well. It's going to be very unlikely I am picking a fight with my employer whatever you are coming to me with.
"Friend or foe" is a super reductive way to look at it, and will limit your ability to actually understand what is going on.
To the generic employee, HR thinks of you the same way a farmer treats cattle. Within the range you are judged to be worth, they want you content, quietly productive and enjoying whatever perks they throw your way.
But if you're problematic in some way, you're only worth so much effort.
And worse, if whatever is wrong with you threatens to spread to the rest of the herd (eloquent expressions of shared discontent, organizing, even being a bit of a natural leader, if they're paranoid), well, who employs things that threaten them?
There would be a few factors driving this
1) The stress of not having a job is extreme, and represents a state that people try to avoid thinking about too much.
2) It is, in fact, true for many people, and we want to think of ourselves as people that it's true for, instead of one of the "suckers" that it's not true for.