5 ms·

If the 3 month contract is paid the normal wage then I'd rather go to a company that does this because it means that there's an higher probability of having com

by gommm 16y ago

If the 3 month contract is paid the normal wage then I'd rather go to a company that does this because it means that there's an higher probability of having competent coworkers there. That's the reason why I do the same in my own company now. This is of course because he said he didn't care about location, so there's no moving costs and so on...

tptacek 16y ago
Why would the competent developers migrate to the company that is more hostile, in a purely objective sense, than the alternatives?
- patio11 16y ago
  It's like they're almost trying to winnow the pool down to developers whose programming ability outperforms their career experience and business sense. They certainly exist: I had the business sense of wet paint as recently as two years ago (which might explain why I willingly worked as a salaryman despite having perfect knowledge of the hours and salary).
  - staunch 16y ago
    Or winnowing it to people who have experienced the results of conventional hiring practices and want a place that is more rigorous about it. I spent many years hiring and working for companies that did it the way most people do it. The results speak for themselves: most companies suck to work for and most of them suck because of a few (or not so few) bozos and the environment they create.
- ericd 16y ago
  That's kind of like asking why students choose to go to harder/more hostile universities.
  - Turing_Machine 16y ago
    You go to a challenging university because you want to take advantage of their knowledge, to the extent that you're willing to pay them for it. An employer wants to take advantage of your knowledge, to the extent that they're willing to pay you for it. The situations aren't comparable. I agree that three month contracts should be compensated at contractor wages rather than employee wages, unless the company is also paying for health benefits, some sort of portable retirement plan, etc. Otherwise you're giving up those items in return for zero commitment from the company. Not a good deal.
    - ericd 16y ago
      I would say it's comparable, at least in the way I treat a job. If you work at an excellent company, you can learn much, much more than you do at an average job, and you'll likely make connections with better people. Working with excellent people at a job has many of the same benefits as studying with many excellent people at a university. It's one of the biggest reasons to go to an elite school, and one of the biggest reasons to work at a very selective job. If it's a great company, I think it's worth giving up some of those things for the chance to work there. If you can show them that you're much better than average, they'd be stupid not to bring you on full time. It's mainly risky if you don't think you can demonstrate that.

by gommm 16y ago

tptacek 16y ago

Why would the competent developers migrate to the company that is more hostile, in a purely objective sense, than the alternatives?

patio11 16y ago
It's like they're almost trying to winnow the pool down to developers whose programming ability outperforms their career experience and business sense. They certainly exist: I had the business sense of wet paint as recently as two years ago (which might explain why I willingly worked as a salaryman despite having perfect knowledge of the hours and salary).
- staunch 16y ago
  Or winnowing it to people who have experienced the results of conventional hiring practices and want a place that is more rigorous about it. I spent many years hiring and working for companies that did it the way most people do it. The results speak for themselves: most companies suck to work for and most of them suck because of a few (or not so few) bozos and the environment they create.
ericd 16y ago
That's kind of like asking why students choose to go to harder/more hostile universities.
- Turing_Machine 16y ago
  You go to a challenging university because you want to take advantage of their knowledge, to the extent that you're willing to pay them for it. An employer wants to take advantage of your knowledge, to the extent that they're willing to pay you for it. The situations aren't comparable. I agree that three month contracts should be compensated at contractor wages rather than employee wages, unless the company is also paying for health benefits, some sort of portable retirement plan, etc. Otherwise you're giving up those items in return for zero commitment from the company. Not a good deal.
  - ericd 16y ago
    I would say it's comparable, at least in the way I treat a job. If you work at an excellent company, you can learn much, much more than you do at an average job, and you'll likely make connections with better people. Working with excellent people at a job has many of the same benefits as studying with many excellent people at a university. It's one of the biggest reasons to go to an elite school, and one of the biggest reasons to work at a very selective job. If it's a great company, I think it's worth giving up some of those things for the chance to work there. If you can show them that you're much better than average, they'd be stupid not to bring you on full time. It's mainly risky if you don't think you can demonstrate that.