3 ms·

If I were seeking a job, the primary motivator would be having peers/assignments from which I can learn, I will gladly invest a day of my time to ensure the pla

by sorbits 17y ago

If I were seeking a job, the primary motivator would be having peers/assignments from which I can learn, I will gladly invest a day of my time to ensure the place I am going to spend the next many months/years of my life, is actually an interesting place — even if the other party might (also) get something out of it. Though if I know in advance that the “trial day” will consist of me “donating work for free” then I doubt it is a place for me. This might sound like a cliché, but money is the last thing on my mind when selecting a job or employee (I am presently an employer), and I am somewhat surprised by the point assignments given to the parent and grand parent comments.

j_baker 17y ago
"Though if I know in advance that the “trial day” will consist of me “donating work for free” then I doubt it is a place for me." It sounds like you and I actually agree for the most part. Both the hirer and the hiree have the same problem: hiring is almost like extracting War & Peace from a newspaper. Is it necessarily fair for me to turn somebody down for wanting me to do a "trial day"? Of course not. But I have to go on what I have to go on. Just like it's not fair for an employer to hire me using a cover letter, a resume, and a couple of hour-long interviews. So if a company asks me to work for free for a day, should I draw the conclusion that they're really wanting to evaluate me well or that they're cheapskates who won't pay people for doing work? Just like you'd probably rather turn away a superstar than hire a dud, I'd rather turn down a kickass company than work for a crappy one. So I'm probably going to go with the latter. Don't get me wrong, money isn't what I'm in this for either. But that doesn't mean I should let people take advantage of me.
- sorbits 17y ago
  Presumably we have different views of what was originally meant with “come in to work with you for a day”, seeing as this has now turned into “work for free for a day” ;) Of course the intent was not to just get someone in to work for free, but more like when you take a first meeting with a new accountant or similar, you may ask him lots of questions related to your situation, and he will answer you based on his knowledge and experience. Most will not charge for the first meeting, presumably under the assumption that providing the client with useful information only increase the chance of having the client pay for future services. Similarly if you come work with me for a day, and I am impressed with your abilities, you can be rather sure I will hire you. If I am not impressed by your abilities, I am almost certain that you will have learned something from the experience (either about your own skills or the tech. we work with), so for the client I would say this is win/win.
barrkel 17y ago
Maybe it's something that happens as you get older. The risk / reward trade-offs change. Taking a lower salary in return for a chance of big rewards starts looking less appealing than selling your accumulated skills and experience for the market rate. The breadth of skills and experience are themselves what will help select for interesting work; and if the new place doesn't work out, no big deal, it's easy to move on to somewhere else.
donaq 17y ago
That's probably because you're making the erroneous assumption that just because money is your lowest priority, it's also the lowest priority for others.

by sorbits 17y ago

j_baker 17y ago

"Though if I know in advance that the “trial day” will consist of me “donating work for free” then I doubt it is a place for me." It sounds like you and I actually agree for the most part. Both the hirer and the hiree have the same problem: hiring is almost like extracting War & Peace from a newspaper. Is it necessarily fair for me to turn somebody down for wanting me to do a "trial day"? Of course not. But I have to go on what I have to go on. Just like it's not fair for an employer to hire me using a cover letter, a resume, and a couple of hour-long interviews. So if a company asks me to work for free for a day, should I draw the conclusion that they're really wanting to evaluate me well or that they're cheapskates who won't pay people for doing work? Just like you'd probably rather turn away a superstar than hire a dud, I'd rather turn down a kickass company than work for a crappy one. So I'm probably going to go with the latter. Don't get me wrong, money isn't what I'm in this for either. But that doesn't mean I should let people take advantage of me.

sorbits 17y ago
Presumably we have different views of what was originally meant with “come in to work with you for a day”, seeing as this has now turned into “work for free for a day” ;) Of course the intent was not to just get someone in to work for free, but more like when you take a first meeting with a new accountant or similar, you may ask him lots of questions related to your situation, and he will answer you based on his knowledge and experience. Most will not charge for the first meeting, presumably under the assumption that providing the client with useful information only increase the chance of having the client pay for future services. Similarly if you come work with me for a day, and I am impressed with your abilities, you can be rather sure I will hire you. If I am not impressed by your abilities, I am almost certain that you will have learned something from the experience (either about your own skills or the tech. we work with), so for the client I would say this is win/win.

barrkel 17y ago

Maybe it's something that happens as you get older. The risk / reward trade-offs change. Taking a lower salary in return for a chance of big rewards starts looking less appealing than selling your accumulated skills and experience for the market rate. The breadth of skills and experience are themselves what will help select for interesting work; and if the new place doesn't work out, no big deal, it's easy to move on to somewhere else.

donaq 17y ago

That's probably because you're making the erroneous assumption that just because money is your lowest priority, it's also the lowest priority for others.