strangerlands

Either (a) they want you or (b) they want someone like you. If (a), they find any reason for hiring you, if (b) they find any reason for not hiring you. This explains most of the interview dynamics, especially at large companies.

The matter is not being nicer for the sake of it, but more not being a bunch of cultish, indoctrinating, out-of-touch-with-the-world, fake-no-nonsense people. I also tend to judge very negatively people who are "nice" or "not nice" depending on the economic benefit they get from their conduct.

There are no performance reviews at Netflix.

Putting aside the very rude "dude", it is not a matter of how RSUs work or do not work, more simply they never talk about RSUs because they do not give RSUs. As I said, you never got an offer or you did not pay any attention. It is fine either way, of course. No need for any letter.

Not everything that is lawful is also ethical. He can do it and I firmly believe it is unethical at the same time. Also, and I am not necessarily referring to the CEO, being a bad person – when the noun would actually start with the letter a – doesn't mean having a mental disorder.

Not even remotely similar. RSU for a public company given at $100 per share can be sold at $100 per share (or more or less depending on the value of the share when it is sold). For public companies, that is basically cash. If you buy an option at 40% of current $100 value means you pay now $40 dollars for the option of buying the share at $100 in the future (Netflix has a 10 years horizon). That means that you start making money ($1, pre-tax!) when the stock reaches $141. If it does not happen, you have lost your $40.

Most of the time they do not hire average people – in the sense that they are not considered average, then some of them are actually pretty bad, but it is part of the business of false positives.

Stoic maybe if the same rules applied to him, but it is not the case, they apply to everyone except himself. Maybe it is just me, but I don't like when people apply harsh rules for everyone except themselves. Cult or dictatorship come to mind.

It is wrong and it is very unlikely that you read it in an article, since it is not a secret. There are no stocks, it is all cash for everybody, at least below the C-suite. You can use up to 100% of your salary to buy stock options at 40% of current value. The options are delivered each month and vest immediately.

There is a huge difference between shares and stock options.

It is very common at Netflix.

There are no RSUs at Netflix, just for everyone 5% each year of annual salary in free stock options at 40% of current value, vesting every month. You can also use up to 100% of your salary for buying stock options at 40% of current value. The policy made rich many people who invested heavily in the stock options program years back.

The severance package is 4 months of salary.

I doubt you got an offer from there, because it is all very clear, or you did not pay any attention.

The initial offers are often higher than 400 for Senior Software Eng, Senior Data Scientists, Senior Machine Learning Research Scientists and Engineers. 600 is actually pretty common for experienced people. On paper, there are no Juniors (there are associates in Marketing and Business and I think other teams). They pay top of the market according to their Excel sheets.

Netflix does not have "tech lead" or "Principal" roles for the Software or Science teams. It is Senior, then you have Managers (who can be paid less than Seniors), Directors (no senior Directors), VP (no Senior VPs), and C-suite (with comp that is publicly available).

I agree, they sometimes exchange dignity for money.

In fact, it is not-my-wild guess that the probability of stopping a homicide steeply decreases with the amount of money given to look the other way. For some, even their sister's. Go figure for a job in tech.

Well, we are talking about back-stabbing nerds, they typically do not get physical, they prefer "politics". And it is the opposite, it is not self-assured people who stay there, but insecure people who team up to make the self-assured fired. A very strange environment.

I hope you understand that there are people who worked at these companies and received offers and they know what they are talking about.

They largely badmouth people. I have seen very harsh things written after the employee was fired, with the employee having no opportunity to answer. Harsher for ICs than for Director and up – cowardice is always cheap.

You cannot write that that person is not at the level of their peers, that she was not able to communicate with the stakeholders in a company-wide email, with no opportunity for the fired person to comment.

In my book, that is all very unfair. I hope you are not used to that behavior, either actively or passively.

They don't, of course, people game the system. The trick is recognizing that a good fraction of people in tech at a company like Netflix could disappear tomorrow along with their work and the company would not even notice. So it is not that the fire someone and other people protest because they recognize they have lost "talent". Life goes on, paycheck comes and they are all ready to code again.

They definitely pay more at Netflix for equal IC positions and very likely for Director roles. It is very rare to find ICs making 600-700 k total comp at Facebook or Google, not rare at all at Netflix.

Transparent lies are still lies.

Don't worry, the propaganda machine is already at work. Maybe they will send a CEO-hand-written letter with lemonade mixed with tears.

> Netflix employees, why do you accept this?

Money, of course. Plus, people working in tech and making very good money are not known for "spine-straightness".

It is very common. Senior Software Engineers are commonly at 400+ up to 7-800. Director level for Software, Data Eng, Data Science are very rarely under 600+. VP in the same areas rarely (never?) under 800+.

Sure, they fire for performance reasons by setting up one of those kangaroos courts where your voice is nowhere to be heard. The build-up to the inevitable firing is something akin to an Ionesco play, one absurdity after the other. The higher-up gets some sidekicks onboard, people who would sell their grandmother for a half-chewed piece of chocolate, and the smearing campaign begins.

The apologist has the words ready: they pay you a lot, they are clear about firing liberally, and you get your severance package. What's to complain about? Unfortunately (for the apologist), there are people who still have some dignity and do not like to be on trial with the kangaroo court. It is better to be punched in a leg than in the face, we all agree on that, but some people – a dying breed, apparently – do not like to be punched at all.

The article is a good description of what happens at Netflix, including the creepiness trickling down from the top with the lemonade, although there was never an email from the CEO asking the leaker to expose herself.