4 ms·

Why is that questionable morals? The company got their work done. The offshore developer got more money than they would have otherwise. Basically the guy found

by anbop 7y ago

Why is that questionable morals? The company got their work done. The offshore developer got more money than they would have otherwise. Basically the guy found an inefficiency in the system (companies not believing that the offshore developers themselves were capable of doing the work).

gcheong 7y ago
Depends on if the contract allows it or not. Companies sometimes prohibit this due to non-disclosure agreements or security concerns.
jedberg 7y ago
I think the immoral part was that he would do the interview and get the job, and then hire someone else to actually do the work, which he submitted under his own name. He wasn't honest with the companies that the work product was not his.
- mlevental 7y ago
  lol how about with the offshore devs that rightfully should've gotten the entire fee for the work? why is it always that the company is the loser and not the labor that's being arbitraged against
  - anbop 7y ago
    Presumably the offshore developers could have applied to these jobs, but the company's own blindness / rigidity prevent them from hiring that person.
    - organsnyder 7y ago
      Or the company had contracts that stipulated that work be done within the United States (or whatever locality it was). In that case, assuming the company had the applicant sign something certifying that the applicant was local to their country, OP's friend was committing fraud.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  >He wasn't honest with the companies that the work product was not his. When dealing with companies, so many of them strongly specialize in methods of dishonestly that aren't quite illegal and in using information differences to their advantage, purposefully choosing to avoid any chance of disclosure. To that extent, I have a hard time as seeing the morals as questionable and instead seeing it as someone beating companies at their own game, assuming he never directly lied that it was his own work. Companies almost never tell you what they view the real value of your work to be, which is also hiding a form of information that the other party would have found relevant in negotiation the trade of money for work.
mwfunk 7y ago
Because if they wanted offshore developers that they never met to do the work, they would have paid offshore developers that they never met to do the work. They wouldn't have spent their own time and money seeking out job candidates and interviewing them and attempting to vet them so they could pick the best candidate to do the job. Has nothing to do with whether or not anyone is capable of doing the work. I can see how someone who was doing this might excuse it to themselves as simply exploiting a perceived inefficiency in the system, but nobody other than the person actually doing it would buy that excuse. Even the phrase itself (I was just taking advantage of an inefficiency in the system!) is tainted by associations with white collar crime. That's a phrase that makes people sound like they think they've done something wrong and are trying to spin it, even when they've done nothing wrong.

by anbop 7y ago

gcheong 7y ago

Depends on if the contract allows it or not. Companies sometimes prohibit this due to non-disclosure agreements or security concerns.

jedberg 7y ago

I think the immoral part was that he would do the interview and get the job, and then hire someone else to actually do the work, which he submitted under his own name. He wasn't honest with the companies that the work product was not his.

mlevental 7y ago
lol how about with the offshore devs that rightfully should've gotten the entire fee for the work? why is it always that the company is the loser and not the labor that's being arbitraged against
- anbop 7y ago
  Presumably the offshore developers could have applied to these jobs, but the company's own blindness / rigidity prevent them from hiring that person.
  - organsnyder 7y ago
    Or the company had contracts that stipulated that work be done within the United States (or whatever locality it was). In that case, assuming the company had the applicant sign something certifying that the applicant was local to their country, OP's friend was committing fraud.
SkyBelow 7y ago
>He wasn't honest with the companies that the work product was not his. When dealing with companies, so many of them strongly specialize in methods of dishonestly that aren't quite illegal and in using information differences to their advantage, purposefully choosing to avoid any chance of disclosure. To that extent, I have a hard time as seeing the morals as questionable and instead seeing it as someone beating companies at their own game, assuming he never directly lied that it was his own work. Companies almost never tell you what they view the real value of your work to be, which is also hiding a form of information that the other party would have found relevant in negotiation the trade of money for work.

mwfunk 7y ago

Because if they wanted offshore developers that they never met to do the work, they would have paid offshore developers that they never met to do the work. They wouldn't have spent their own time and money seeking out job candidates and interviewing them and attempting to vet them so they could pick the best candidate to do the job. Has nothing to do with whether or not anyone is capable of doing the work. I can see how someone who was doing this might excuse it to themselves as simply exploiting a perceived inefficiency in the system, but nobody other than the person actually doing it would buy that excuse. Even the phrase itself (I was just taking advantage of an inefficiency in the system!) is tainted by associations with white collar crime. That's a phrase that makes people sound like they think they've done something wrong and are trying to spin it, even when they've done nothing wrong.