Hacker News Reader

What do you mean by this: Commitment is a thing. Even if it is just for now, it's a thing.

All the CEO was asking was that the guy committed to his job offer.

How do you "commit" to a job offer other than accepting it? Doesn't make much sense.

You commit. You say I like what you are doing, or you say I like what you are trying to do, and I can help. I'm here to help and I'm going to help.

That guy didn't do that, he was thinking about his next job.

As a hiring manager what I'd say is don't be that guy. I get that you want more than what I can give you. That's fine. But I'm giving you a job. You need to give back. If you can't get that, you are weird and I don't want to hire you and pretty much everyone doesn't want to hire you.

Huh? Thinking about his next job? Of course he was, what else would he be thinking of? He had offers for both Uber and Zenefits and didn't know which one to take.

What are you even saying? If you can't get that, you are weird and I don't want to hire you and pretty much everyone doesn't want to hire you. Are you like trolling or something?

He was thinking about the job after the one he was about to take.

Thinking about the future of one's career seems like one of those things that Everyone has been telling us to think about, in some manner, for our entire lives:

- "Keep fresh on skills, because future career needs will arise (at this job or the next)" - "Keep interviewing skills sharp, because we have little control over company loyalty/success" - "Most companies have little loyalty to the cogs within, and it's foolish to expect them to be"

Obviously, exceptions exist for such things, but it certainly seems to be the conventional wisdom.

Asking which company would be better for one's career, Foo Corp or Bar Inc, seems like the sign of someone who cares about _having_ a career future. Wanting to learn more means that they're critical enough to _care_ about your culture, what they might learn there, etc. This is _especially_ true for someone who does not have personal contacts within those companies.

In the hypothetical case where I had an offer from both Google and Facebook at the same time, I'd certainly be trying to find out which would help me grow better as a developer and as a person.

Thinking about staying fresh is great, of course you should do that.

Your hypothetical is fine, any sane person should do that. The problem with the engineer in question was that he clearly wanted to use the company as a stepping stone. While companies are fully aware that people move on, they are going to prioritize the people that seem like they are going to stick around for a while.

Turn it around and imagine you are the hiring manager. If your prospect is making it clear that the only reason they are hiring on is so they can go elsewhere, how does that make you feel? Remember, it costs money and time to bring someone in.

There is a difference between an employee and a contractor. A lot of what people are saying here would make sense for a contractor. A contractor is supposed to have a well honed skill set where they can come in, make a useful contribution right away, and move on to the next task. Employees, at least in my mind, aren't like that. The company is signing up to educate the new hire, that's an investment. In the places I've worked (system places like Sun), it was fairly normal that it would be at least a year before the new hire did any work that shipped. Maybe it's different now but that's the world I'm used to. So I'm looking at about $200K investment before I see anything at all hit the bottom line. In that context, yes, I'm looking for someone to stick around for a while.

Again, I'm old, but I've been hiring in the valley for 20, maybe 25, years. Maybe it's different now, but one screening technique everyone used was to look at how long someone stayed in one place. Someone who moves every 5 years is fine, someone who never makes it to 1.5 years is not great.

In this day of apps, maybe the dev cycle there is a lot shorter and so in that arena maybe you can pull in those numbers.

@luckydude

If anyone ever says, “I like what you are doing, I want to help”, they are probably just blowing smoke up your ass. We're workers. We want to get paid in return for labor. It's not like choosing which non-profit you want to sit on the board of.

You are someone I'd have trouble hiring.

For the record, I pay better than google, apple, facebook, netflix for top talent.

I hire people who want to help. And I'm super happy with the set of people I've hired. I didn't use to pay that well because there wasn't enough money. They stuck with me and the money thing got better.

The idea that you are just a worker makes me sad. If you are that, OK, but I bet you are more than that. Very few people in tech are that sucky, most of us can make a difference. Make that difference and demand the pay that your difference made.

I make a huge difference wherever I have worked; you may ask any of my employers. However, my interest and my soul are my own; they do not belong to my employer. I do not even rent them to my employer.

But honestly, I couldn't imagine having so few interesting thoughts of my own that I would actually willingly let myself be filled up with enthusiasm for some ephemeral product, or some ephemeral business, or even worse a "vision" or a "mission". I've got better things to think about at night.

Also, re "just a worker", I am happier to be called a "worker" than any other of the made-up terms which Capital has come up with in order to divide the working class. It at least puts me in the right bucket as far as the class struggle is concerned.

BTW, don't be too broken up about me not being a suitable hiring prospect for you. I'm going to leave the hell-hole that is tech as soon as the school debts are paid, and then go do something worthwhile.

FWIW, there are many times I've joined a company because I liked what they are doing and wanted to help. It's actually at the top or near the top of my list of why I'd work at a company. Money's only so useful once you've made a bunch of it; at some point, doing meaningful work becomes more important.

But I'd also want any potential employer to respect my right to gather information and make an informed decision. That's where I think Zenefits went wrong here. Too bad; from everything I've heard, they're an excellent company.

By contrast to this - when Google sent me my offer letter, they also sent a list of reasons why I should take a job at Google. One of them was explicitly "Google's brand name will position you well for future moves in your career". Others included "You will get to work on hard technical problems" and "Your work will be used by millions of people." They also explicitly said "Most people do not choose to work at Google for financial gain."

I was very impressed by how forthright they were with both the benefits and drawbacks relative to other options. I thought I'd stay at Google for maybe a year; I ended up there for 5+, because it was a company that worked very hard to make sure that it's actually the best place to work for its employees and isn't trying to hide better places.

It's fine for a company to discriminate in who it hires and makes sure that everyone is a good culture fit. But when you cull out people because they might end up leaving you for a better employer, it reeks of insecurity. I don't want to work with insecure people; I don't want to work for insecure companies. That's fine; they don't have to work with me, and we're both better off.

Relationships are two-way.

Businesses prioritize the interests of its investors and the business itself over the interests of its employees.

Why should employees then be expected to put the business's interests ahead of their own career prospects?

I think it's disconcerting for employers who are used to employees "needing" them, to adjust to the new, more equal, arrangement. The new arrangement is one of profitable collaboration instead of "I'm giving you a job, you should be grateful."