Getting that good work life balance issue settled usually takes 2 or 3 rounds to pry some useful info out.
Not only are you supporting my argument, you're also showcasing how ridiculously inefficient the hiring process is from the candidate's side. Without it being obvious whether this is a net gain for the employer.
I don't think the GP was arguing with you; was the poster's first comment on this article.
I'm paid to work 40h/week.
Am I going to be expected to be working more than that? If so, I'll pass.
If there's occasional overtime, sure, fine. But do I get paid extra for it? Does it get banked into extra PTO?
And so on, stuff I ask prospective employers in the first conversation.
My contract specifically says I work 40h/week, have X days off/year (outside of statutory holidays) as PTO, etc.
This means that 5 days a week, I am at my keyboard, available on Slack, etc for 8 hours per day.
Hours are logged in a time tracking application (including time spent when there was nothing to do), and overages get added automatically to holiday time.
Maybe it's different elsewhere, but where all the tech companies are, it just doesn't work the way you're describing it. If you're being forced to punch a timecard and salaried, I would contact an attorney.
When I was salaried at a FAANG, they had us start clocking to pay OT when we exceeded 40h, which was most people much of the time. It was a way to keep the pay competitive. This was ten years ago, so no idea if that’s still a thing.
If you were putting less than 40 hours a week in your timesheet, you had to use some form of paid time off (holiday, vacation, sick) or simply not get paid.
I think things should be more based on goals than on time itself, honestly. What I mean is: if you work 40h but you do not deliver anything, how is that good compared to someone that in 32 delivers more? We have to put ourselves on the side of the employer also, even if some people hate them.
This is normal. This is OK.
Asking an employee make this a consideration when negotiating with an employer is a dereliction of duty on behalf of the hiring manager and difficult for the candidate to judge due to information asymmetry. If you're building a team, you should know what kind of talent fits on it and make an offer on those merits. That's what being a hiring manager entails.
What I mean, all in all, is: we all should care. That's why it is called an organization.
I agree with job about the job of a manager. I am just telling you that each one has her responsibility. All of us.
Even then, expectations of what a role does vary from one org to another. I don't think it's realistic to have someone outside of an organization say "I'm a senior/staff engineer" and for that person to have consistent expectations on what that statement means from for a potential employer from one interview to the next.
> I agree with job about the job of a manager. I am just telling you that each one has her responsibility. All of us.
No disagreement there. My intended point is what appropriate expectations are at various points of a potential employees tenure at an organization. A interviewee has no responsibilities: they have no employment contract and no expectations on them other than those a hiring team or manager brings into the room. The responsibilities come after the interviewee agrees to their job responsibilities and signs an employment contract.