5 ms·

Having worked at a “name” company is not the big boost to your value lots of people think it is. That’s a lie that those big companies use to get people to acce

by ebbv 9y ago

Having worked at a “name” company is not the big boost to your value lots of people think it is. That’s a lie that those big companies use to get people to accept bad working conditions.

scarface74 9y ago
You can't just "work" at the company, you have to produce. There was an anecdote about Netflix about how a group of engineers who were top performers were let go after they did their part in transistioning Netflix's data center to AWS. So should we feel bad for the people that got laid off? They will be some of the most sought after people in the industry.
- ebbv 9y ago
  That's exactly it. And the thing is no matter where you worked, if you did great things and have great skills, you're going to get opportunities and recognition. If you don't have the skills and don't do the work, it doesn't matter where you filled a seat.
twblalock 9y ago
In my experience the HR people think more highly of resumes when a big-name company is on them. Maybe they shouldn't, but they do.
- mathattack 9y ago
  HR people have to market candidates internally, many times to hiring managers who tell their bosses “Your recruiters don’t bring me quality candidates.” To protect themselves, the recruiters go after brand names. (“Is it my fault they didn’t like someone from Cornell who worked at Google?”) The reality is this is suboptimal for the company, but can still be rational for HR.
  - twblalock 9y ago
    Is it really sub-optimal for the company? Consider that the goal of HR is not to hire the best, but to avoid hiring the worst.
    - scarface74 9y ago
      I'm no different as an an architect. I don't always choose the best technology. I sometimes choose the most popular. The practical reason being its easier to find people who know it and there is plenty of documentation. The CYA reason is that if things go south, It's much easier to say it came highly reccomended. "No one ever got fired for buying IBM."
      - mathattack 9y ago
        Right, but look who is stuck with IBM technology now.
        scarface74 9y ago
        It was an analogy. But, you'd be surprised. https://www.serverwatch.com/server-news/ibm-mainframe-revenue-growing-as-overall-systems-revenue-decline.html https://www.serverwatch.com/server-news/ibm-mainframe-revenu...
        mathattack 9y ago
        It’s not the revenue that I’m knocking. It’s being stuck with obsolete legacy technology that you can’t get rid of. Better things are out there but you are stuck because someone else made a decision that wouldn’t get them fired. (I’m at a place that is going through the painful process of showing IBM the door)

by ebbv 9y ago

Having worked at a “name” company is not the big boost to your value lots of people think it is. That’s a lie that those big companies use to get people to accept bad working conditions.

scarface74 9y ago

You can't just "work" at the company, you have to produce. There was an anecdote about Netflix about how a group of engineers who were top performers were let go after they did their part in transistioning Netflix's data center to AWS. So should we feel bad for the people that got laid off? They will be some of the most sought after people in the industry.

ebbv 9y ago
That's exactly it. And the thing is no matter where you worked, if you did great things and have great skills, you're going to get opportunities and recognition. If you don't have the skills and don't do the work, it doesn't matter where you filled a seat.

twblalock 9y ago

In my experience the HR people think more highly of resumes when a big-name company is on them. Maybe they shouldn't, but they do.

mathattack 9y ago
HR people have to market candidates internally, many times to hiring managers who tell their bosses “Your recruiters don’t bring me quality candidates.” To protect themselves, the recruiters go after brand names. (“Is it my fault they didn’t like someone from Cornell who worked at Google?”) The reality is this is suboptimal for the company, but can still be rational for HR.
- twblalock 9y ago
  Is it really sub-optimal for the company? Consider that the goal of HR is not to hire the best, but to avoid hiring the worst.
  - scarface74 9y ago
    I'm no different as an an architect. I don't always choose the best technology. I sometimes choose the most popular. The practical reason being its easier to find people who know it and there is plenty of documentation. The CYA reason is that if things go south, It's much easier to say it came highly reccomended. "No one ever got fired for buying IBM."
    - mathattack 9y ago
      Right, but look who is stuck with IBM technology now.
      - scarface74 9y ago
        It was an analogy. But, you'd be surprised. https://www.serverwatch.com/server-news/ibm-mainframe-revenue-growing-as-overall-systems-revenue-decline.html https://www.serverwatch.com/server-news/ibm-mainframe-revenu...
        mathattack 9y ago
        It’s not the revenue that I’m knocking. It’s being stuck with obsolete legacy technology that you can’t get rid of. Better things are out there but you are stuck because someone else made a decision that wouldn’t get them fired. (I’m at a place that is going through the painful process of showing IBM the door)