5 ms·

> You are the candidate and hold equal power. I frequently see comments like this on HN and I don't really buy it. When every job opening has several qualifie

> You are the candidate and hold equal power. I frequently see comments like this on HN and I don't really buy it. When every job opening has several qualified candidates, and it can take several applications to land a new job, I still think the employer has more power.

yboris 5y ago
My team at my company has been interviewing people this last half year: we've extended offers to a few and so far each has chosen to work elsewhere because they found better pay. At the very least for the last half year, I think developers may have an "upper hand".
- drewcoo 5y ago
  > each has chosen to work elsewhere because they found better pay The candidates don't control the comp you offer. Claiming that those darned candidates have the upper hand because everyone else pays better is a bad faith argument. Not that you can tell your boss that, I'm sure.
- bradlys 5y ago
  I see this as a bad market though too. Many companies paying bad comps and making people jump through a lot of hoops to get a decent offer. I had to get no less than 6 offers before I got one that was reasonable in my last search. 6. I had done about a dozen onsites and dozens of phone screens at that point. This was just a year ago. I expect the same this year - if not worse because of the market doing so poorly.
- adra 5y ago
  Supply and demand, in net terms it depends on externalities, but when you're sitting down in an interview with a candidate, you're setting the tone/pace for them to bow to. If it becomes super acceptable for candidates to walk out whenever they don't "feel" like it in the interview, if you can ask the employer intrusive questions about their professional lives to dig into the culture of the company, if the candidate has the resumes of their interviewers, maybe then there's more of a tit for tat in the interview.
- Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
  > they found better pay. ... Then...up your pay? It doesn't take an Einstein-level IQ to figure that one out. Developers might have an upper hand at salary negotiation, but actually landing an offer? Nah. Employers still have the power.
- uoaei 5y ago
  The advantage is not with the developer but with those (capable of) making the better offer.
- bjourne 5y ago
  But how many have you interviewed and not extended offers to? If that number is larger than the number you have extended offers to then that would indicate that developers does not have the upper hand.
itsoktocry 5y ago
>I still think the employer has more power. This is the mentality that gets you bullied. There are more openings than qualified people, and businesses can't make money without employees. No one is doing you a favour by giving you a job, they are literally making off your back.
- maerF0x0 5y ago
  What happens if the interview goes poorly? The interviewer gets paid, goes home with a shrug. The interviewee loses a day of PTO, or continues to be unemployed (and usually in a financially precarious situation). Imbalanced outcomes means imbalanced power.
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    You can always put yourself in a weak position. That doesn't mean the natural balance of power is that you are weak. At the end of the day, the company wants to hire you and you probably want to be hired. I generally urge people to think of this as a cooperation exercise and not a power struggle. Interviewers should treat interviewees with dignity and kindness, even when the interviewee is doing poorly. Interviewees should be gracious to the interviewer, even when they have decided to work elsewhere. The first side to stop being cooperative loses. The above does not however apply to salary negotiation.
    - rpastuszak 5y ago
      > I generally urge people to think of this as a cooperation exercise and not a power struggle. Any "adversarial interview" techniques are a big red flag, imo. They also make it easy to quickly recognise places with a toxic culture, so there's not need to beat yourself up if you fail. You dodged a bullet, plus now have an excuse to rant with your friends over a pint! Hence, my favourite interviews (regardless of the side I was on) were the one when we had a chance to spend a day working with the candidate.
    - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
      > At the end of the day, the company wants to hire you and you probably want to be hired No, at the end of the day, the company wants to hire SOMEBODY. That somebody is not necessarily you, hence the interview. You're being compared to all the other candidates. Maybe this is different late in your career when you've got 10+ years experience under your belt, but there are a LOT of candidates in that "3-5 year" experience point.
ddingus 5y ago
They do hold more power, but in terms of the basic interview session, it's equal in that either party can end it for their reasons. Overall, people seeking work have less overall power and a generally poor position, unless they have saved or earned enough to not require the work.
- bonestamp2 5y ago
  Yes, I have politely ended a couple of interviews and the interviewer is always shocked, because I think most people think the interviewer is in the power position. They may be a gatekeeper for the job, but you are the gatekeeper for your time. Hiring a person is a mutual decision. Since job descriptions are usually quite vague on some important details about the team and company, applying for the job is simply expressing interest in the job, not a confirmation that you would take it if offered.
  - ddingus 5y ago
    My experiences are similar. And I always end nicely regardless of what transpired. I like to find and maintain high ground in these kinds of interactions. You just never know who you may find on the other side of the table!
pmoriarty 5y ago
It really depends on your reputation and specialized skills. It's easy to name a bunch of names that everyone on HN has heard of, and you can bet anything that in job negotiations they are the ones who have the power. Companies have to come courting them, not the other way around.
- weatherlite 5y ago
  That is quite rare though
at-fates-hands 5y ago
>> When every job opening has several qualified candidates, and it can take several applications to land a new job, I still think the employer has more power. Depends on what role you're interviewing for. C# dev? Probably. What about full-stack Javascript dev? Totally lopsided in favor of the developers. I have, on average, a dozen emails from recruiters looking for full-stack JS devs. I barely do JS work any more, but the everything is so scarce, if companies can just find someone who's mildly fluent in JS, they'll hire and train you - its that bad in the Midwest where I live. The entry level roles are pretty competitive, but anything mid to senior level there aren't enough people to go around right now. You just have to know your market and when you have leverage. When you have leverage, you can really take advantage. Don't like the people interviewing you? Wait a day or so. You like a company? Use your leverage to get more vacation, higher salary, play companies against each other to get more for yourself. Knowledge is power, simple as that.
- weatherlite 5y ago
  What? JS is a rare skill?
  - projectazorian 5y ago
    Not rare at all. The missing link is that FE roles are frequently lower paid and kind of boring, so there's a lot of turnover.
hatware 5y ago
The employer has more _risk_.
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  How so?
  - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
    Think about how much a bad hire costs a company. Not only does 6-figures of cash get burned, but you're back at square one needing to find a new hire, not to mention your project now being behind schedule because you expected work from someone, and now the existing team has to go through another interviewing spree.
    - denton-scratch 5y ago
      And if you used an agent, you might be on the hook for several months' salary too.
    - projectazorian 5y ago
      Any hiring decision is a major risk for both parties. In many cases it's the employee who takes on the most risk, unless it's a very senior role or an early stage startup where every hire is business critical. The employee may have left a job where they were relatively secure - maybe they even relocated for the role. Now they're back on the job market and their employability has taken a major hit. Not to mention that being fired is often a very traumatic experience with all the health consequences that entails. Seems a lot more serious than a project being pushed back a couple months. (btw, "bad" according to which criteria? a lot of the time when I hear this phrase thrown around it's a smokescreen for unrealistic expectations or an exclusionary team culture)
    - b20000 5y ago
      think about the 6 figures it costs you when recruiters damage your brand due to them alienating qualified candidates with stupid coding interviews and treating them like idiots who will work hard for shitty compensation.
kadoban 5y ago
> When every job opening has several qualified candidates Every applicant also has several qualified companies they can work for. It's not totally equal, but if your mindset is not peers meeting to see if there's a good fit, your interviewing experience is going to be worse than it could be.
tetsuhamu 5y ago
Hiring cycles are more like a clearinghouse than a company choosing the best candidate for a position. N number of candidates enter that month's job market, companies are able to offer N number of positions. At the end of the hiring cycle, they make the N-to-N matches and execute the cycle. A candidate can (and must) have several offers from different companies, just as companies have several candidates for each position.

yboris 5y ago

My team at my company has been interviewing people this last half year: we've extended offers to a few and so far each has chosen to work elsewhere because they found better pay. At the very least for the last half year, I think developers may have an "upper hand".

drewcoo 5y ago
> each has chosen to work elsewhere because they found better pay The candidates don't control the comp you offer. Claiming that those darned candidates have the upper hand because everyone else pays better is a bad faith argument. Not that you can tell your boss that, I'm sure.
bradlys 5y ago
I see this as a bad market though too. Many companies paying bad comps and making people jump through a lot of hoops to get a decent offer. I had to get no less than 6 offers before I got one that was reasonable in my last search. 6. I had done about a dozen onsites and dozens of phone screens at that point. This was just a year ago. I expect the same this year - if not worse because of the market doing so poorly.
adra 5y ago
Supply and demand, in net terms it depends on externalities, but when you're sitting down in an interview with a candidate, you're setting the tone/pace for them to bow to. If it becomes super acceptable for candidates to walk out whenever they don't "feel" like it in the interview, if you can ask the employer intrusive questions about their professional lives to dig into the culture of the company, if the candidate has the resumes of their interviewers, maybe then there's more of a tit for tat in the interview.
Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
> they found better pay. ... Then...up your pay? It doesn't take an Einstein-level IQ to figure that one out. Developers might have an upper hand at salary negotiation, but actually landing an offer? Nah. Employers still have the power.
uoaei 5y ago
The advantage is not with the developer but with those (capable of) making the better offer.
bjourne 5y ago
But how many have you interviewed and not extended offers to? If that number is larger than the number you have extended offers to then that would indicate that developers does not have the upper hand.

itsoktocry 5y ago

>I still think the employer has more power. This is the mentality that gets you bullied. There are more openings than qualified people, and businesses can't make money without employees. No one is doing you a favour by giving you a job, they are literally making off your back.

maerF0x0 5y ago
What happens if the interview goes poorly? The interviewer gets paid, goes home with a shrug. The interviewee loses a day of PTO, or continues to be unemployed (and usually in a financially precarious situation). Imbalanced outcomes means imbalanced power.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  You can always put yourself in a weak position. That doesn't mean the natural balance of power is that you are weak. At the end of the day, the company wants to hire you and you probably want to be hired. I generally urge people to think of this as a cooperation exercise and not a power struggle. Interviewers should treat interviewees with dignity and kindness, even when the interviewee is doing poorly. Interviewees should be gracious to the interviewer, even when they have decided to work elsewhere. The first side to stop being cooperative loses. The above does not however apply to salary negotiation.
  - rpastuszak 5y ago
    > I generally urge people to think of this as a cooperation exercise and not a power struggle. Any "adversarial interview" techniques are a big red flag, imo. They also make it easy to quickly recognise places with a toxic culture, so there's not need to beat yourself up if you fail. You dodged a bullet, plus now have an excuse to rant with your friends over a pint! Hence, my favourite interviews (regardless of the side I was on) were the one when we had a chance to spend a day working with the candidate.
  - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
    > At the end of the day, the company wants to hire you and you probably want to be hired No, at the end of the day, the company wants to hire SOMEBODY. That somebody is not necessarily you, hence the interview. You're being compared to all the other candidates. Maybe this is different late in your career when you've got 10+ years experience under your belt, but there are a LOT of candidates in that "3-5 year" experience point.

ddingus 5y ago

They do hold more power, but in terms of the basic interview session, it's equal in that either party can end it for their reasons. Overall, people seeking work have less overall power and a generally poor position, unless they have saved or earned enough to not require the work.

bonestamp2 5y ago
Yes, I have politely ended a couple of interviews and the interviewer is always shocked, because I think most people think the interviewer is in the power position. They may be a gatekeeper for the job, but you are the gatekeeper for your time. Hiring a person is a mutual decision. Since job descriptions are usually quite vague on some important details about the team and company, applying for the job is simply expressing interest in the job, not a confirmation that you would take it if offered.
- ddingus 5y ago
  My experiences are similar. And I always end nicely regardless of what transpired. I like to find and maintain high ground in these kinds of interactions. You just never know who you may find on the other side of the table!

pmoriarty 5y ago

It really depends on your reputation and specialized skills. It's easy to name a bunch of names that everyone on HN has heard of, and you can bet anything that in job negotiations they are the ones who have the power. Companies have to come courting them, not the other way around.

weatherlite 5y ago
That is quite rare though

at-fates-hands 5y ago

>> When every job opening has several qualified candidates, and it can take several applications to land a new job, I still think the employer has more power. Depends on what role you're interviewing for. C# dev? Probably. What about full-stack Javascript dev? Totally lopsided in favor of the developers. I have, on average, a dozen emails from recruiters looking for full-stack JS devs. I barely do JS work any more, but the everything is so scarce, if companies can just find someone who's mildly fluent in JS, they'll hire and train you - its that bad in the Midwest where I live. The entry level roles are pretty competitive, but anything mid to senior level there aren't enough people to go around right now. You just have to know your market and when you have leverage. When you have leverage, you can really take advantage. Don't like the people interviewing you? Wait a day or so. You like a company? Use your leverage to get more vacation, higher salary, play companies against each other to get more for yourself. Knowledge is power, simple as that.

weatherlite 5y ago
What? JS is a rare skill?
- projectazorian 5y ago
  Not rare at all. The missing link is that FE roles are frequently lower paid and kind of boring, so there's a lot of turnover.

hatware 5y ago

The employer has more _risk_.

pmoriarty 5y ago
How so?
- Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
  Think about how much a bad hire costs a company. Not only does 6-figures of cash get burned, but you're back at square one needing to find a new hire, not to mention your project now being behind schedule because you expected work from someone, and now the existing team has to go through another interviewing spree.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    And if you used an agent, you might be on the hook for several months' salary too.
  - projectazorian 5y ago
    Any hiring decision is a major risk for both parties. In many cases it's the employee who takes on the most risk, unless it's a very senior role or an early stage startup where every hire is business critical. The employee may have left a job where they were relatively secure - maybe they even relocated for the role. Now they're back on the job market and their employability has taken a major hit. Not to mention that being fired is often a very traumatic experience with all the health consequences that entails. Seems a lot more serious than a project being pushed back a couple months. (btw, "bad" according to which criteria? a lot of the time when I hear this phrase thrown around it's a smokescreen for unrealistic expectations or an exclusionary team culture)
  - b20000 5y ago
    think about the 6 figures it costs you when recruiters damage your brand due to them alienating qualified candidates with stupid coding interviews and treating them like idiots who will work hard for shitty compensation.

kadoban 5y ago

> When every job opening has several qualified candidates Every applicant also has several qualified companies they can work for. It's not totally equal, but if your mindset is not peers meeting to see if there's a good fit, your interviewing experience is going to be worse than it could be.

tetsuhamu 5y ago

Hiring cycles are more like a clearinghouse than a company choosing the best candidate for a position. N number of candidates enter that month's job market, companies are able to offer N number of positions. At the end of the hiring cycle, they make the N-to-N matches and execute the cycle. A candidate can (and must) have several offers from different companies, just as companies have several candidates for each position.