3 ms·

> however in the many companies I've worked in the last 25 years that has almost never been the case The question shouldn't be about what is desired but what d

> however in the many companies I've worked in the last 25 years that has almost never been the case The question shouldn't be about what is desired but what does the compensation warrant? If employers truly want something done they are welcome to put it in the job responsibilities and prospective employees can decide whether the offered comp is worth it; essentially the market will sort things out. Employers would ideally desire someone that does everything and takes no salary at all but the market thankfully prevents that from being viable. The next best thing is to burn employee goodwill by expecting them to do more "in the spirit" which is what's currently happening, and this goodwill is now starting to run out considering threads like this are appearing. > As a hiring manager I would likely feel you had betrayed my trust, and had taken the place of someone who could have contributed more. If you want something done why not just put it all in the job description? This is in jest, as we obviously both know why. I'm not faulting you from playing the game to your advantage, but I also can't fault the other side from playing the same game to their advantage.

captaincaveman 5y ago
> If you want something done why not just put it all in the job description? This is in jest, as we obviously both know why. I'm not faulting you from playing the game to your advantage, but I also can't fault the other side from playing the same game to their advantage. Because that's entirely unrealistic (like you said, we both know that), and normally there are broad descriptions about 'enabling', 'supporting', 'growing', 'innovating' etc. If I could exactly specify what the every task was, then I'd program a computer to do it (half joking). Like I said I don't hire code machines, I hire people and typically if I just wanted Jira robots I'd outsource the project. As a senior or above (all that I hire) the bulk of the job isn't about writing code. > The question shouldn't be about what is desired but what does the compensation warrant? It sounds like he is getting well compensated, however, I see your point, and in my case its not about trying to squeeze more out of people for a lower cost, typically its more about developing people and growing skills and leadership. I don't entirely disagree with the OP, my point is be careful with whom you do this with, in some places this is totally fine, in others its morally dishonest (less bothered personally about the contract stuff, as that is typically cookie cutter guff).

captaincaveman 5y ago

> If you want something done why not just put it all in the job description? This is in jest, as we obviously both know why. I'm not faulting you from playing the game to your advantage, but I also can't fault the other side from playing the same game to their advantage. Because that's entirely unrealistic (like you said, we both know that), and normally there are broad descriptions about 'enabling', 'supporting', 'growing', 'innovating' etc. If I could exactly specify what the every task was, then I'd program a computer to do it (half joking). Like I said I don't hire code machines, I hire people and typically if I just wanted Jira robots I'd outsource the project. As a senior or above (all that I hire) the bulk of the job isn't about writing code. > The question shouldn't be about what is desired but what does the compensation warrant? It sounds like he is getting well compensated, however, I see your point, and in my case its not about trying to squeeze more out of people for a lower cost, typically its more about developing people and growing skills and leadership. I don't entirely disagree with the OP, my point is be careful with whom you do this with, in some places this is totally fine, in others its morally dishonest (less bothered personally about the contract stuff, as that is typically cookie cutter guff).