4 ms·

Do you think that companies like G are going to be able to hire literally anyone if they start advertising all the mess that they are working around? Why would

by rsify 6y ago

Do you think that companies like G are going to be able to hire literally anyone if they start advertising all the mess that they are working around? Why would you write this article from an engineer's standpoint with arguments that will only benefit other engineer's but for some reason is directed at companies? Why not just call it "I'm upset with the dev experience" and be honest about your intentions?

saagarjha 6y ago
Because presumably Rachel would like companies to look at their policies and change them if the match the poor qualities mentioned here.
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  but she says > This way, if it sucks, people can see it as a warning and stay far away. which implies she thinks companies should tell potential hires you won't like working here and should run away, which I doubt many companies will listen to that advice and think "sounds good". That said what you said would be a good thing for companies who are afraid to tell what their dev experience is like to consider.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    Companies don't have to tell you whether you'd like it or not, because they really can't know. However, they should describe the environment they provide.
    - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
      I thought I had worked at some stupid companies over the years, but as a general rule all of them knew, at least in a broad overview, how the employees felt about the place. Often they even knew what things people disliked, but they didn't want to change these things or somehow found themselves incapable of changing them. So again, I don't think relying on companies to tell you the things they know their employees don't like about them when they are trying to get you on board will be seen as a winning strategy.
- battery_cowboy 6y ago
  I think there's someone who would accept working at each of those places just fine. Even the worst ones. Her point is probably more that if a company admitted their experience up front, people who thought that way was fine would accept jobs and those that hated the idea of that experience wouldn't. Sure, companies could lie, but then people would just quit as soon as possible if they really hated the experience. I'd work at any of those companies myself if the situation was right otherwise.
  - rsify 6y ago
    > I think there's someone who would accept working at each of those places just fine. Even the worst ones. Yes, people desparate enough to subject themselves to poorer working conditions. What's the single benefit for companies to cut themselves off from potentially good employees?
    - jaggederest 6y ago
      Honesty? People are going to know what is up within the first month, at minimum, so don't waste their time? This goes along with a broad category of attempted deception that fails because the person you're attempting to deceive has, typically as a part of their job, understanding the actual state of thing you're trying to lie about. Especially egregious when it creates a safety risk, for example, but bad enough when it simply wastes time. Good example: Lying to accountants about the contents of financial statements.
      - rsify 6y ago
        How many IT people do you know that have quit after a month because of poor conditions? And how many do you know that suck it up and just stick to complaining about their job? Engineers don't want their time wasted, but companies have no benefit in trying to prevent it as far as I can see. What kind of brand image would they portray if they started saying how bad their tech stack is?
        jaggederest 6y ago
- rsify 6y ago
  If you don't present valid arguments to benefit the company don't title it like advice. I clicked the article expecting some more hopeful arguments than "hurr durr I got baited into doing things I don't like", but I see none.
  - evilsetg 6y ago
    Consider that maximizing profit might not be the only possible goal for a company but minimizing human suffering and being truthful can be others.
    - rsify 6y ago
      To minimize human suffering you have to donate out all your earnings and be non-profit. I don't have anything against that, but those are irrelevant to this discussion.
rocqua 6y ago
If companies with decent process start doing this, and a company refuses to share their process, then everyone who listened to this is better off. Now of course, the companies with shitty process did not (and maybe should not) take this advice. However, the situation improved for everyone for whom it should.
- rsify 6y ago
  If a company already has good practices in place they're obviously advertising them already. What are you saying?

by rsify 6y ago

saagarjha 6y ago

Because presumably Rachel would like companies to look at their policies and change them if the match the poor qualities mentioned here.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago
but she says > This way, if it sucks, people can see it as a warning and stay far away. which implies she thinks companies should tell potential hires you won't like working here and should run away, which I doubt many companies will listen to that advice and think "sounds good". That said what you said would be a good thing for companies who are afraid to tell what their dev experience is like to consider.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Companies don't have to tell you whether you'd like it or not, because they really can't know. However, they should describe the environment they provide.
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    I thought I had worked at some stupid companies over the years, but as a general rule all of them knew, at least in a broad overview, how the employees felt about the place. Often they even knew what things people disliked, but they didn't want to change these things or somehow found themselves incapable of changing them. So again, I don't think relying on companies to tell you the things they know their employees don't like about them when they are trying to get you on board will be seen as a winning strategy.
battery_cowboy 6y ago
I think there's someone who would accept working at each of those places just fine. Even the worst ones. Her point is probably more that if a company admitted their experience up front, people who thought that way was fine would accept jobs and those that hated the idea of that experience wouldn't. Sure, companies could lie, but then people would just quit as soon as possible if they really hated the experience. I'd work at any of those companies myself if the situation was right otherwise.
- rsify 6y ago
  > I think there's someone who would accept working at each of those places just fine. Even the worst ones. Yes, people desparate enough to subject themselves to poorer working conditions. What's the single benefit for companies to cut themselves off from potentially good employees?
  - jaggederest 6y ago
    Honesty? People are going to know what is up within the first month, at minimum, so don't waste their time? This goes along with a broad category of attempted deception that fails because the person you're attempting to deceive has, typically as a part of their job, understanding the actual state of thing you're trying to lie about. Especially egregious when it creates a safety risk, for example, but bad enough when it simply wastes time. Good example: Lying to accountants about the contents of financial statements.
    - rsify 6y ago
      How many IT people do you know that have quit after a month because of poor conditions? And how many do you know that suck it up and just stick to complaining about their job? Engineers don't want their time wasted, but companies have no benefit in trying to prevent it as far as I can see. What kind of brand image would they portray if they started saying how bad their tech stack is?
      - jaggederest 6y ago
rsify 6y ago
If you don't present valid arguments to benefit the company don't title it like advice. I clicked the article expecting some more hopeful arguments than "hurr durr I got baited into doing things I don't like", but I see none.
- evilsetg 6y ago
  Consider that maximizing profit might not be the only possible goal for a company but minimizing human suffering and being truthful can be others.
  - rsify 6y ago
    To minimize human suffering you have to donate out all your earnings and be non-profit. I don't have anything against that, but those are irrelevant to this discussion.

rocqua 6y ago

If companies with decent process start doing this, and a company refuses to share their process, then everyone who listened to this is better off. Now of course, the companies with shitty process did not (and maybe should not) take this advice. However, the situation improved for everyone for whom it should.

rsify 6y ago
If a company already has good practices in place they're obviously advertising them already. What are you saying?