4 ms·

Try looking at it a different way - assume, you will have a full time job at either of these prospective employers. Do you want the one that makes FT offers im

Try looking at it a different way - assume, you will have a full time job at either of these prospective employers. Do you want the one that makes FT offers immediately, or the one that makes them only after testing new people out for 3 months?

tptacek 16y ago
I want the one that makes FT offers, because I don't believe that the best programmers, who can write their own ticket in this business climate, would put up with this contracting bullshit. This approach to hiring is a cop-out. It says, "we don't know how to hire properly, so we're going to push the risk onto the candidates".
- swampthing 16y ago
  I've seen the contracts with my own eyes. But I guess I can't prove that the developers in question were good without divulging names. Anyways, I don't see why this is a cop-out any more than any other hiring procedure. No company has anywhere near a 100% success rate - this procedure acknowledges the shortcomings of a traditional interview process (namely that succeeding on an interview and succeeding as a developer are two very different animals) and tries to address them.
  - mavelikara 16y ago
    > Anyways, I don't see why this is a cop-out any more than any other hiring procedure. No company has anywhere near a 100% success rate - this procedure acknowledges the shortcomings of a traditional interview process (namely that succeeding on an interview and succeeding as a developer are two very different animals) and tries to address them. Agreed. But tptacek's point seem to be that this new process addresses the perceived weaknesses of traditional processes by moving all the downsides/risks to the potential employee. I think the hiring firm can signal their honorable intentions more clearly if they would pay a significantly higher salary during "probation" - something that compensates for lost benefits etc. Edit: staunch mentions elsewhere on this thread that he is offering higher rates during probation.
ootachi 16y ago
I'd take the one that makes full-time offers immediately in a heartbeat, because I wouldn't trust the company that does the 3-month, no-benefits contracting "test". Going to work for a company with employees of varying skill is no big deal; every company above a certain size has people who probably shouldn't have been hired. Going to work for a company with shady management, however, is a deal-breaker.
- hackinthebochs 16y ago
  Exactly. I don't get what the big deal is about working with lower skilled programmers. At my job there are some fairly "bad" programmers, but even they are a pleasure to work with. The trick is simply to make sure you hire nice people. I've spent plenty of time getting them up to speed with various languages and techniques, and they're all very receptive. The trick is, you yourself have to leave ego at the door. I think this is the hard part for a lot of people.
arghnoname 16y ago
My first programming job started with a two week contract which then ultimately became a FT position. So I accepted a position like that and it worked out fine, but honestly, I will never do it again. I only accepted it in the first place because I was a desperate, inexperienced hire without any alternatives. Now I'm more skilled and have experience that demonstrates at least some ability. Accordingly, I don't need to take those kinds of risks. Just because I'm good, maybe the boss's wife decides she doesn't like me or I lose some political blame-the-new-guy game, or they decide on entirely different qualities in a hire, or whatever. In this climate that sort of risk is their problem. I also won't do 10 hour programming 'tests' and I'm pretty reluctant to do several full-day programming interview marathon sessions. It sucks, I don't want to take the time off for that crap, and most importantly... I don't have to. This means there are places I can't work at, but there are plenty that would be glad to have me, and that suits me fine.

tptacek 16y ago

I want the one that makes FT offers, because I don't believe that the best programmers, who can write their own ticket in this business climate, would put up with this contracting bullshit. This approach to hiring is a cop-out. It says, "we don't know how to hire properly, so we're going to push the risk onto the candidates".

swampthing 16y ago
I've seen the contracts with my own eyes. But I guess I can't prove that the developers in question were good without divulging names. Anyways, I don't see why this is a cop-out any more than any other hiring procedure. No company has anywhere near a 100% success rate - this procedure acknowledges the shortcomings of a traditional interview process (namely that succeeding on an interview and succeeding as a developer are two very different animals) and tries to address them.
- mavelikara 16y ago
  > Anyways, I don't see why this is a cop-out any more than any other hiring procedure. No company has anywhere near a 100% success rate - this procedure acknowledges the shortcomings of a traditional interview process (namely that succeeding on an interview and succeeding as a developer are two very different animals) and tries to address them. Agreed. But tptacek's point seem to be that this new process addresses the perceived weaknesses of traditional processes by moving all the downsides/risks to the potential employee. I think the hiring firm can signal their honorable intentions more clearly if they would pay a significantly higher salary during "probation" - something that compensates for lost benefits etc. Edit: staunch mentions elsewhere on this thread that he is offering higher rates during probation.

ootachi 16y ago

I'd take the one that makes full-time offers immediately in a heartbeat, because I wouldn't trust the company that does the 3-month, no-benefits contracting "test". Going to work for a company with employees of varying skill is no big deal; every company above a certain size has people who probably shouldn't have been hired. Going to work for a company with shady management, however, is a deal-breaker.

hackinthebochs 16y ago
Exactly. I don't get what the big deal is about working with lower skilled programmers. At my job there are some fairly "bad" programmers, but even they are a pleasure to work with. The trick is simply to make sure you hire nice people. I've spent plenty of time getting them up to speed with various languages and techniques, and they're all very receptive. The trick is, you yourself have to leave ego at the door. I think this is the hard part for a lot of people.

arghnoname 16y ago

My first programming job started with a two week contract which then ultimately became a FT position. So I accepted a position like that and it worked out fine, but honestly, I will never do it again. I only accepted it in the first place because I was a desperate, inexperienced hire without any alternatives. Now I'm more skilled and have experience that demonstrates at least some ability. Accordingly, I don't need to take those kinds of risks. Just because I'm good, maybe the boss's wife decides she doesn't like me or I lose some political blame-the-new-guy game, or they decide on entirely different qualities in a hire, or whatever. In this climate that sort of risk is their problem. I also won't do 10 hour programming 'tests' and I'm pretty reluctant to do several full-day programming interview marathon sessions. It sucks, I don't want to take the time off for that crap, and most importantly... I don't have to. This means there are places I can't work at, but there are plenty that would be glad to have me, and that suits me fine.