3 ms·

I've posted a bit of a rant below but I figured I'd make another comment with actual tips to prevent this. First off, a lot of comments indeed recommend insist

I've posted a bit of a rant below but I figured I'd make another comment with actual tips to prevent this. First off, a lot of comments indeed recommend insisting on a functioning webcam. This might be uncomfortable for some (and shouldn't be a mandatory, long-term "webcam mandatory" policy), but explaining the reasons behind it should make the vast majority of people be fine with it at the start. Long-term, a culture where people feel comfortable having their cameras on regularly is also good so people turn it on voluntarily, even beyond deterring fraud (personally I prefer seeing someone's face rather than a profile picture). Second, this kind of behavior is only going to get more common; there's no way to deter it in advance. The best you can do is optimize your hiring pipeline for faster turnarounds so you can quickly react when you detect such behavior and it doesn't cost you as much. Maybe an initial, short "contract to hire" system is better, as it allows you to delay all the employment-related formalities (which are slow and costly) to after you've already confirmed the candidate isn't a fraudster. Finally, the reason people do this kind of fraud is because they won't get in if they stay honest. If you actually need development services, does it actually have to be an employee? Maybe you can just be open to contractors or outsourcing agencies, let them in "honestly" with appropriate contract terms that protect both sides, and then it reduces the incentive for the "fake" employees to lie to you if they can get in legitimately.

dilyevsky 4y ago
> Finally, the reason people do this kind of fraud is because they won't get in if they stay honest. If you actually need development services, does it actually have to be an employee? Maybe you can just be open to contractors or outsourcing agencies, let them in "honestly" with appropriate contract terms that protect both sides, and then it reduces the incentive for the "fake" employees to lie to you if they can get in legitimately. What kind of argument is that? These people aren’t trying to get on 1099 and sure as shit won’t be good, honest contractors either.
nradov 4y ago
Contract-to-hire positions only appeal to the most desperate, least qualified candidates. Those who are already employed elsewhere or have other offers aren't likely to accept an offer that leaves them in a precarious state.
- Falkon1313 4y ago
  I did a couple of contract-to-hire positions and found it a great way to get to know the company, the people I'd be working with, and the type of work I'd be doing. As well, it was a way for them to get to know me and my work without a convoluted 3 month long interview process full of useless whiteboard puzzles, personality tests, and silly questions like "If you were a sandwich, which type of sandwich would you be?" It can be precarious having nothing long-term lined up, but at least you're working and getting paid. More precarious would be having nothing long-term lined up and just sitting around hoping for a call back for yet another round of interviews. Of course if you have other immediate offers, that changes things a bit. But that doesn't mean someone who doesn't is somehow desperate or the least qualified. When so many companies take so long with their hiring process, even good candidates don't usually have immediate offers. The sweet spot is taking a contract-to-hire in your spare time while you're currently employed, so you can make the switch cleanly without months of downtime, uncertainty, and financial stress in between. And without most of the silly interview games. Gives you time to wind down, document, train somebody at the old job, and when you start the new one you're ready to go from day one.
foolfoolz 4y ago
if you aren’t using a webcam and working remotely i don’t want you on my team. this is a line i will not back down for “inclusive” reasons. i’ve been on teams where people don’t turn on video. it is horrible for team engagement. i understand things happen from time to time or you’re eating, no issue. but never or very rarely showing? no
- Victerius 4y ago
  As an IC, I've even gone the extra step of buying a small light ring off Amazon, at my own expense, to light my face better because my room is always a little dark on camera.
- throwaway743 4y ago
  Remote "butts in seats" policy/monitoring. If the work is getting done and is up to standards, then it shouldn't be an issue to work without being watched. Hopefully you're upfront about that. Personally, from a business perspective, wouldn't use this method. From an employee perspective, I wouldnt want to work for anyone who would require this. Comes off as voyeuristic, controlling, untrusting, and just weird.
  - baobabKoodaa 4y ago
    > Remote "butts in seats" policy/monitoring. I don't think your parent commenter meant that you have a camera on for the whole duration of the workday, I think they were talking about having a camera on in meetings.
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    I want the camera on during meetings, not 24h a day. I need to see your face if I'm talking to you. It's no more onerous than requiring audio in this day and age.
- ishjoh 4y ago
  Are you talking about using a webcam during meetings or are the people on your team required to have a webcam on for a large chunk of their working day?
LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
> If you actually need development services, does it actually have to be an employee? Maybe you can just be open to contractors or outsourcing agencies, let them in "honestly" ... No, they're dishonest people so we don't ever want them. There's no amount of desperation that makes hiring a scammer a good idea, they're willing to steal from and cheat you.

dilyevsky 4y ago

> Finally, the reason people do this kind of fraud is because they won't get in if they stay honest. If you actually need development services, does it actually have to be an employee? Maybe you can just be open to contractors or outsourcing agencies, let them in "honestly" with appropriate contract terms that protect both sides, and then it reduces the incentive for the "fake" employees to lie to you if they can get in legitimately. What kind of argument is that? These people aren’t trying to get on 1099 and sure as shit won’t be good, honest contractors either.

nradov 4y ago

Contract-to-hire positions only appeal to the most desperate, least qualified candidates. Those who are already employed elsewhere or have other offers aren't likely to accept an offer that leaves them in a precarious state.

Falkon1313 4y ago
I did a couple of contract-to-hire positions and found it a great way to get to know the company, the people I'd be working with, and the type of work I'd be doing. As well, it was a way for them to get to know me and my work without a convoluted 3 month long interview process full of useless whiteboard puzzles, personality tests, and silly questions like "If you were a sandwich, which type of sandwich would you be?" It can be precarious having nothing long-term lined up, but at least you're working and getting paid. More precarious would be having nothing long-term lined up and just sitting around hoping for a call back for yet another round of interviews. Of course if you have other immediate offers, that changes things a bit. But that doesn't mean someone who doesn't is somehow desperate or the least qualified. When so many companies take so long with their hiring process, even good candidates don't usually have immediate offers. The sweet spot is taking a contract-to-hire in your spare time while you're currently employed, so you can make the switch cleanly without months of downtime, uncertainty, and financial stress in between. And without most of the silly interview games. Gives you time to wind down, document, train somebody at the old job, and when you start the new one you're ready to go from day one.

foolfoolz 4y ago

if you aren’t using a webcam and working remotely i don’t want you on my team. this is a line i will not back down for “inclusive” reasons. i’ve been on teams where people don’t turn on video. it is horrible for team engagement. i understand things happen from time to time or you’re eating, no issue. but never or very rarely showing? no

Victerius 4y ago
As an IC, I've even gone the extra step of buying a small light ring off Amazon, at my own expense, to light my face better because my room is always a little dark on camera.
throwaway743 4y ago
Remote "butts in seats" policy/monitoring. If the work is getting done and is up to standards, then it shouldn't be an issue to work without being watched. Hopefully you're upfront about that. Personally, from a business perspective, wouldn't use this method. From an employee perspective, I wouldnt want to work for anyone who would require this. Comes off as voyeuristic, controlling, untrusting, and just weird.
- baobabKoodaa 4y ago
  > Remote "butts in seats" policy/monitoring. I don't think your parent commenter meant that you have a camera on for the whole duration of the workday, I think they were talking about having a camera on in meetings.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  I want the camera on during meetings, not 24h a day. I need to see your face if I'm talking to you. It's no more onerous than requiring audio in this day and age.
ishjoh 4y ago
Are you talking about using a webcam during meetings or are the people on your team required to have a webcam on for a large chunk of their working day?

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago

> If you actually need development services, does it actually have to be an employee? Maybe you can just be open to contractors or outsourcing agencies, let them in "honestly" ... No, they're dishonest people so we don't ever want them. There's no amount of desperation that makes hiring a scammer a good idea, they're willing to steal from and cheat you.