4 ms·

The ad is pretty good but could be improved if they find they are not getting enough qualified candidates. Maybe they are getting plenty and there is no need fo

The ad is pretty good but could be improved if they find they are not getting enough qualified candidates. Maybe they are getting plenty and there is no need for changes. But if so I recommend the following. I would change "software developer" to "site administrator" given that the first example in a typical day's work deals with resolving web site issues. With the F# syntax highlighter code required to apply, I'd feel more comfortable if I knew they already had one and this isn't an issue of trying to get free work out of people. Also, requiring it to be implemented a certain way is out of scope and unnecessarily narrows the field by rejecting qualified candidates who aren't going to learn their special tool. The salary offered should be clearly listed. And finally, the no health care provided is unacceptable, which seriously will restrict the caliber of candidates interested. If this was a contractor position, which would be reasonable given that it is remote and the contractor is expected to own, use and maintain all their own tools, then that would be perfectly fine, however the rate would of course reflect that of hiring a contractor/consultant. But as an employee, in 2011, there are plenty of software employee jobs that provide benefits and very few serious ones that don't. Because the rate is not quoted I am highly skeptical that the claim that the rate is higher to compensate for lack of benefits is correct.

mey 15y ago
Code samples are something not enough places look at when reviewing people. Asking for this particular task doesn't bother me, it reduces the noise from people blasting resumes. Conversely a quick google search isn't far from finding a solution to that problem.... Agreed, on the health insurance angle, it'd be interesting to see what the compensation is, and if it increases at the rate of health care premiums. Lastly, until 2014 in the US, people with pre-existing conditions may simply not be able to obtain health insurance (one of the only advantages to work pooled health plans). Conversely I think it's pretty progressive to not have health insurance, and allowing me to choose, but also as a result I can not apply for this position simply because I cannot insure my family outside a work plan until 2014.
- droithomme 15y ago
  Thanks for mentioning family - I hadn't considered the issue that it's not just the developer, but spouse and dependents that could have preexisting conditions that make them uninsurable. So the number of qualified persons who could not take this job because of the insurance situation is even larger than it might seem at first. I suppose for employers this seems like a great way of saving money. I don't really see not offering basic benefits that are standard in the field as progressive though, but perhaps you were saying so as a sort of joke in which case I agree it's a funny thing to be doing.
  - mey 15y ago
    To understand why I was calling it progressive, I need to give some context to how I see health insurance in the US as broken. The current health care insurance market is a lot of information asymmetry. I personally can not comparison shop for insurance. My employer is generally paying a portion or all of the insurance, so there is heavy incentive to take the insurance to get your best compensation. If I don't take it, my employer will not give me the difference that they are contributing. Using my employer to pay for insurance, it can be done pre-tax (generally, recent legislation may change that). The lack of choice and information asymmetry is what bothers me, and I applaud and expect this companies model to start becoming more common (hence progressive), but in the short term it would make sense to let the employee decide between a company plan and taking the money. Lastly, since this is a publishing shop, they may be used to dealing with more freelance employees/contractors which does typically include such a benefit.
orangecat 15y ago
And finally, the no health care provided is unacceptable If the salary really is higher to compensate, I'd count that as a plus. Having an individual policy not tied to your job is much better.
- gensym 15y ago
  Rarely. If you're young, single, have never been sick, and need just a catastrophic plan, perhaps. Otherwise, without the benefit of an employer to negotiate a group rate, you get screwed, rate-wise.
  - rhizome 15y ago
    Maybe that is just a legalistic way for them to filter for youth. Ha ha only serious.
    - rhizome 15y ago
      Apparently gensym changed their comment.
  - spudlyo 15y ago
    Perhaps you already have health insurance through your spouse?
    - ceejayoz 15y ago
      Perhaps you don't?
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  Assuming you can even get coverage, which is all but impossible for individual plans.
- donw 15y ago
  Getting an individual policy in the US is almost impossible, and amazingly expensive otherwise. I currently have a US healthcare plan that covers emergency care only (I live in Japan, so this isn't a big deal). This means it doesn't cover things like 'seeing a doctor' or 'getting antibiotics for a lung infection', which is why I need to cut a check to the urgent care center I visited a few months ago when I was in-country. Fortunately, the total bill was only about $150. For this amazing service, I -- pardon the pun -- cough up $120 a month to Blue Cross. For a health care plan that, by and large, does not cover health care. This is more than the cost of full coverage through the national healthcare system in Japan. Should I desire a comprable plan, I'm looking at somewhere between $500 and $1000 per month. I'm healthy, thirty years old, don't smoke, am not overweight, and exercise regularly. If I wasn't any of those things, the numbers would be worse. So, no, healthcare is mandatory for any company I work for in the US.

mey 15y ago

Code samples are something not enough places look at when reviewing people. Asking for this particular task doesn't bother me, it reduces the noise from people blasting resumes. Conversely a quick google search isn't far from finding a solution to that problem.... Agreed, on the health insurance angle, it'd be interesting to see what the compensation is, and if it increases at the rate of health care premiums. Lastly, until 2014 in the US, people with pre-existing conditions may simply not be able to obtain health insurance (one of the only advantages to work pooled health plans). Conversely I think it's pretty progressive to not have health insurance, and allowing me to choose, but also as a result I can not apply for this position simply because I cannot insure my family outside a work plan until 2014.

droithomme 15y ago
Thanks for mentioning family - I hadn't considered the issue that it's not just the developer, but spouse and dependents that could have preexisting conditions that make them uninsurable. So the number of qualified persons who could not take this job because of the insurance situation is even larger than it might seem at first. I suppose for employers this seems like a great way of saving money. I don't really see not offering basic benefits that are standard in the field as progressive though, but perhaps you were saying so as a sort of joke in which case I agree it's a funny thing to be doing.
- mey 15y ago
  To understand why I was calling it progressive, I need to give some context to how I see health insurance in the US as broken. The current health care insurance market is a lot of information asymmetry. I personally can not comparison shop for insurance. My employer is generally paying a portion or all of the insurance, so there is heavy incentive to take the insurance to get your best compensation. If I don't take it, my employer will not give me the difference that they are contributing. Using my employer to pay for insurance, it can be done pre-tax (generally, recent legislation may change that). The lack of choice and information asymmetry is what bothers me, and I applaud and expect this companies model to start becoming more common (hence progressive), but in the short term it would make sense to let the employee decide between a company plan and taking the money. Lastly, since this is a publishing shop, they may be used to dealing with more freelance employees/contractors which does typically include such a benefit.

orangecat 15y ago

And finally, the no health care provided is unacceptable If the salary really is higher to compensate, I'd count that as a plus. Having an individual policy not tied to your job is much better.

gensym 15y ago
Rarely. If you're young, single, have never been sick, and need just a catastrophic plan, perhaps. Otherwise, without the benefit of an employer to negotiate a group rate, you get screwed, rate-wise.
- rhizome 15y ago
  Maybe that is just a legalistic way for them to filter for youth. Ha ha only serious.
  - rhizome 15y ago
    Apparently gensym changed their comment.
- spudlyo 15y ago
  Perhaps you already have health insurance through your spouse?
  - ceejayoz 15y ago
    Perhaps you don't?
SoftwareMaven 15y ago
Assuming you can even get coverage, which is all but impossible for individual plans.
donw 15y ago
Getting an individual policy in the US is almost impossible, and amazingly expensive otherwise. I currently have a US healthcare plan that covers emergency care only (I live in Japan, so this isn't a big deal). This means it doesn't cover things like 'seeing a doctor' or 'getting antibiotics for a lung infection', which is why I need to cut a check to the urgent care center I visited a few months ago when I was in-country. Fortunately, the total bill was only about $150. For this amazing service, I -- pardon the pun -- cough up $120 a month to Blue Cross. For a health care plan that, by and large, does not cover health care. This is more than the cost of full coverage through the national healthcare system in Japan. Should I desire a comprable plan, I'm looking at somewhere between $500 and $1000 per month. I'm healthy, thirty years old, don't smoke, am not overweight, and exercise regularly. If I wasn't any of those things, the numbers would be worse. So, no, healthcare is mandatory for any company I work for in the US.