Author here, feel free to ask me things I guess. I never expected this page of all things to get on the front page of Hacker News.
I imagine if someone on a very high SWE salary published this, people (family, friends, the public) would treat them differently. I also am curious if there would be safety concerns?
But it doesn't matter. If they didn't list the terminations, would you still be curious? If they lied and said they were laid off, when in reality they slept on the job and stole pens, would it matter?
Ultimately employers still rely on trust via interviews, and possibly reference checks, but most importantly by often having some sort of trial period (a year, six months) or simply being at-will. Isn't working? So long, no hard feelings.
Obviously it helps to weed out bad apples but don't read into it too much. If the person is fired because they performed poorly in a hostile environment, they could still thrive in the right environment. We've all had shitty jobs.
I’m curious specifically because they voluntarily chose to list the terminations on a public website, then left a comment inviting everyone to ask questions.
To be honest, it's an employer who found this page during the resume screening process would likely flag your resume as a pattern job hopper, at least in the pre-2017 years. The multiple terminations within the first 90 days would be a red flag to most employers.
So the fact that nobody brought it up is likely survivorship bias: Resume screeners who did find this page probably just quietly declined to proceed with the interview process.
I work with a boatload of extremely talented, top recruiters and, unless searching your name returns crimes, getting fired doesn't matter.
If you're the type of employer to hyperfocus on dumb details like this, then we're all better off not working for you.
The point for the recruiter is to close positions fast. The point for the interviewers is to get out of the interview and back to work. The hiring manager wants to increase the size of their team without having to deal with a fuckup.
But how much is the hiring manager even involved in the interview?
I've been part of interview processes in some companies, and while I would not care about a couple of holes or being fired once or twice, I would definitely care about 9 jobs in 3 years.
It shows either that the person is hard to work with, and in this case I'd rather have someone else, or that the person prefers to jump ship very often, and in this case I'd rather not pay the price of onboarding.
But in 2017, if I actually need someone in because we're a small structure and recruiting errors are costly ? I'll definitely go for a less risky candidate.
9 times in 3 years, it at best means that you're really really bad at judging and picking workplaces.
But from the outside, if out of 9 places all are shitty, the problem might not be the workplaces.
I’m constantly baffled by HN assertions that nothing should matter in an interview.
If 3 early terminations and 9 jobs in 3 years are “dumb details” then I don’t even know what these people would consider relevant when it comes to work history.
Juxtapose this with the “Ask HN” posts from people asking how to deal with incompetent or difficult coworkers, where the response is usually a chorus of “GTFO”.
Like you said, there’s a reason hiring managers focus on these details: It’s because we have to protect the team, and bringing in someone who has a history of causing problems or failing to deliver puts everybody at risk.
> If you're the type of employer to hyperfocus on dumb details like this, then we're all better off not working for you.
I’m sorry, but evaluating candidates like this is the entire point of the interview process.
You’re also massively downplaying what’s going on here: I’m not referring to a single termination a long time ago after working somewhere for a long time, I’m referring to the pattern of firings within the first 3 months.
Firing someone within the first 3 months of a job is extremely rare. Two of these happened with a little more than one month on the job. I don’t know if I’ve ever worked at a company that fired anyone that early for anything other than flagrant workplace violations, which is why it’s a big deal to have one early firing on your resume, let alone 3.
I’m sorry, but these aren’t dumb details. I think you’re forgetting that the hiring process isn’t just about protecting the company, it’s about protecting the team. It’s also the hiring manager’s job to screen for someone who might have interpersonal issues or a failure to deliver results in a workplace environment that would negatively impact the team.
Screening people is fine, but the signal here is incredibly weak -- so weak I wouldn't even look back that far. It's one thing if a person has never held a job for more than three months in ten years. Sure, lots of red flags. But the example here is not remotely noteworthy.
If I was the hiring manager skimming this resume I'd assume they were either in a bad place in life (I've lived in situations which made work incredibly difficult) or were perhaps going through something (illness, addiction (which is an illness)) or perhaps just ended up at a few consecutive shitty gigs, which statistically speaking is incredibly likely: most jobs are shitty. I wouldn't even give this a second thought.
The hiring process is all about gathering signal. Will this person be a good fit? Will they succeed? The things you are focusing on do not indicate in any way those things. If you disagree, then you are deeply misguided and I would run, very quickly, away from anything resembling employment at your company.
Additionally, as someone who has been on the hiring side, unless you're getting let go from multiple positions in a short (fiveish years) time span, I don't care. Most people get fired at some point in their career. It can be for so many reasons that it doesn't mean anything unless it forms a pattern.
The last thing I can say about it is make sure you have a very good explanation of what happened just in case someone does ask. Don't put all the blame on the employer/boss/team. Take some responsibility but make it clear that it was a one off situation that you have learned from and won't be repeating. The fact you understand why you were let go and what you learned from it so that I won't have to fire you for the same thing is a big plus when I'm considering if I want you on my team.
My gut says that most people do in fact leave at least one company in their careers under less-than-ideal circumstances.
My approach is just to be honest: "I was terminated from xxxx. Here's what I did wrong, here's what I would do differently today, and here's how I think they could have handled it to better."
For the second one... I mostly focus on how that experience motivates me to be as transparent as possible with my employer and seek solid metrics to judge my own performance.
I don't know if those events being on my history have negatively impacted me or not. I don't think I've ever been passed over during interviews because of them, but it's entirely possible that I was filtered out before getting to that point.
The bottom line is that I know where my strengths and weaknesses are. I know what value I bring to the table and more importantly I know how to communicate that. I'm not afraid to speak up and acknowledge when I'm wrong, and I do my best to use empathy in dealing with others in similar circumstances.
I've long told the story in interviews about the time I accidentally wiped out a production database, and how I was able to work under pressure to very quickly fix the problem. I say another company has already "paid for that part of my education" - I learned from the experience and am very confident I won't be making that mistake again. Those two terminations? Those were also part of my education. I learned from them, and won't be making those mistakes again either.
It’s absolutely possible they were all just terrible companies, but…
But publishing it here doesn’t make a difference, presumably the same information is on their CV.
Let me first say I think it's a terrible idea to publish this information publicly. The hiring company holds all the cards already, you don't need to give them additional power by showing yours. Companies understand this very well. But I get this has been done more for ideological reasons rather than practical ones.
Regarding the possibility that all companies were bad, that's actually important information that could point to the candidate's difficulty in evaluating opportunities. If that's an important part of the job which you're hiring for, you absolutely are going to take that into consideration.
I've been in the biz 13 years and only had 4 jobs but I felt varying degrees of "doing the job I wasn't hired to do" by two of them. This actually seems to have almost meme-status from others on the internet talking about their new jobs. Lots of these people stick around these jobs because, "Hey, I have a job!" but that's not for everyone. Some people, like the author of this post, have a bunch of cool personal shit under their belts (check the homepage) and afford to be picky.
The TL;DR here is that job interviews aren't always about an employer trying to impress a potential employee.
You do not specify if it was on-site or remote, that could be a nice addition!
Also, your most recent jobs/salaries are in CAD. Did you move to Canada? Or is it like working for CA company but on the US?
I am physically located in Canada at the moment.
What kind of discrimination do you refer to here?