5 ms·

Interesting that they contacted me just last week about an open position. I thought it was odd that the inside recruiter included an obviously abbreviated versi

Interesting that they contacted me just last week about an open position. I thought it was odd that the inside recruiter included an obviously abbreviated version of the job posting in her email to me. When I looked up some of the key phrases, I found the posting, which was listed as hybrid while my profile clearly indicates I only work 100% remote. When I asked her about how many days per week hybrid means, she said "about three", which sounds an awful lot like four to me, which probably also means that one (possibly two) work from home days would soon go away. She didn't respond to my request for their location. If she wasn't an inside recruiter, I would have thought it was a scam attempt. Got to wonder if the caginess is due to them having problems with finding people to take over the obviously on-site jobs. Sure, the initial contact could have been a simple mistake on her part, but then the editing of the job posting to exclude anything about hybrid and days in the office and then a resistance to explaining the details when I emailed her back is suspicious. I decided to not pursuit it further and now seeing this news, makes me feel like I made the right choice.

walrus01 4y ago
The short way of addressing this, if you are sufficiently senior in your position or in-demand for your tech skills, is to ensure that any offer letter has extremely unambiguous language written into it that your position is 100% remote and will remain remote. Tell that to the recruiter. If they don't do it, proceed with a short "thank you for your time but I am not interested" and move on.
- operatingthetan 4y ago
  I think given at-will employment they can renege on that agreement whenever they want. Obviously it's best to have a meeting of minds, but can you really ever trust a corporation? Probably not.
  - Aeolun 4y ago
    They can terminate you instead of allowing you to work remote, but they cannot renege on the agreement to allow you to work remote.
    - operatingthetan 4y ago
      I don't think those represent differing options. A corporation's power over workers takes the forms of adjusting comp or termination.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        The worker's power over corporations is a willingness to say "no" and walk away. A person I know related that his employer said they were going to cut his salary. He said "do that and I quit". The cuts were rescinded.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        operatingthetan 4y ago
        Yeah nothing wrong with playing hardball, but if someone doesn't have retirement / 'f-you money' type savings then maybe they will be willing to take less risks.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        If you have good job skills, it isn't much of a risk.
      - vineyardmike 4y ago
        > adjusting comp or termination. These usually have legal strings attached. The contract saying "it has to be remote" should restrict comp adjustment without negotiating. Termination may mean a severance, depending on the locality and laws and the contract.
    - jrochkind1 4y ago
      Wait, what's the difference? "We will be terminating you instead of allowing you to work remote, but if you'd like to re-negotiate the terms to no longer be remote, then..."
  - Mountain_Skies 4y ago
    You might be able to include a compensation package requirement if they violate that part of the contract, but would have a difficult time forcing them to continue to employ you.
    - operatingthetan 4y ago
      Right, if you can get them into a contract it's a poison pill for your employment to enforce it with lawyers. Perhaps the math works out, but given we are seeing a turning tide in the tech labor market, I'd say it would be difficult to attain a contract like that now.
  - nordsieck 4y ago
    > I think given at-will employment they can renege on that agreement whenever they want. Obviously it's best to have a meeting of minds, but can you really ever trust a corporation? Probably not. Sure. But part of those precautions are so that you have a good story to tell your next company why you only worked somewhere for 4 months. Although I suppose it's not necessary to include such short jobs on your resume at all.
    - bradlys 4y ago
      It's not really a problem in today's market, IMO. I've yet to have my string of short tenures ever really hold me back. The biggest issue is that you will have to regrind the leetcode gauntlet and go through a dozen more onsites to get that reasonable job offer again. That is the true pain.
      - sleepybrett 4y ago
        might be a problem now that 10s of thousands of ex faang are back on the market.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > I think given at-will employment they can renege on that agreement whenever they want. “at-will” employment refers to the laws setting the baseline conditions that apply absent a specific contract to the contrary. An offer and acceptance of employment on specific terms, if it meets the requirements for contract formatiom trumps the default terms unless it is blocked by something in the law. That’s why important employees (e.g., top execs, 9f nothing else) in most firms have specific contracts with terms that are not at-will employment (and why union contracts exist, too.)
  - nradov 4y ago
    Depending on the exact facts of a particular case that would be considered constructive dismissal under the labor laws in most US states. Employers can terminate at-will employees at any time for any reason or no reason (with a few limited exceptions). But if an employer substantially changes the terms of your employment — like by forcing you to work in an office — and fires you for cause then you should still be able to obtain unemployment insurance. Of course, as a practical matter it's better to just avoid the whole mess if you have better options.
  - jrs235 4y ago
    But if/when you decline to work in an office you'll have documentation making it much more difficult for them to try and deny an unemployment insurance claim if you put one in.
jimbo9991 4y ago
I mean yeah that's exactly what the caginess was about.
Waterluvian 4y ago
Yeah I got contacted too. Weird.
skippyboxedhero 4y ago
"About three" - mathematicians reconsidering the real line with this statement.
HyperSane 4y ago
That kind of caginess is so unbelievably disrespectful.

walrus01 4y ago

The short way of addressing this, if you are sufficiently senior in your position or in-demand for your tech skills, is to ensure that any offer letter has extremely unambiguous language written into it that your position is 100% remote and will remain remote. Tell that to the recruiter. If they don't do it, proceed with a short "thank you for your time but I am not interested" and move on.

operatingthetan 4y ago
I think given at-will employment they can renege on that agreement whenever they want. Obviously it's best to have a meeting of minds, but can you really ever trust a corporation? Probably not.
- Aeolun 4y ago
  They can terminate you instead of allowing you to work remote, but they cannot renege on the agreement to allow you to work remote.
  - operatingthetan 4y ago
    I don't think those represent differing options. A corporation's power over workers takes the forms of adjusting comp or termination.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      The worker's power over corporations is a willingness to say "no" and walk away. A person I know related that his employer said they were going to cut his salary. He said "do that and I quit". The cuts were rescinded.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - operatingthetan 4y ago
        Yeah nothing wrong with playing hardball, but if someone doesn't have retirement / 'f-you money' type savings then maybe they will be willing to take less risks.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        If you have good job skills, it isn't much of a risk.
    - vineyardmike 4y ago
      > adjusting comp or termination. These usually have legal strings attached. The contract saying "it has to be remote" should restrict comp adjustment without negotiating. Termination may mean a severance, depending on the locality and laws and the contract.
  - jrochkind1 4y ago
    Wait, what's the difference? "We will be terminating you instead of allowing you to work remote, but if you'd like to re-negotiate the terms to no longer be remote, then..."
- Mountain_Skies 4y ago
  You might be able to include a compensation package requirement if they violate that part of the contract, but would have a difficult time forcing them to continue to employ you.
  - operatingthetan 4y ago
    Right, if you can get them into a contract it's a poison pill for your employment to enforce it with lawyers. Perhaps the math works out, but given we are seeing a turning tide in the tech labor market, I'd say it would be difficult to attain a contract like that now.
- nordsieck 4y ago
  > I think given at-will employment they can renege on that agreement whenever they want. Obviously it's best to have a meeting of minds, but can you really ever trust a corporation? Probably not. Sure. But part of those precautions are so that you have a good story to tell your next company why you only worked somewhere for 4 months. Although I suppose it's not necessary to include such short jobs on your resume at all.
  - bradlys 4y ago
    It's not really a problem in today's market, IMO. I've yet to have my string of short tenures ever really hold me back. The biggest issue is that you will have to regrind the leetcode gauntlet and go through a dozen more onsites to get that reasonable job offer again. That is the true pain.
    - sleepybrett 4y ago
      might be a problem now that 10s of thousands of ex faang are back on the market.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > I think given at-will employment they can renege on that agreement whenever they want. “at-will” employment refers to the laws setting the baseline conditions that apply absent a specific contract to the contrary. An offer and acceptance of employment on specific terms, if it meets the requirements for contract formatiom trumps the default terms unless it is blocked by something in the law. That’s why important employees (e.g., top execs, 9f nothing else) in most firms have specific contracts with terms that are not at-will employment (and why union contracts exist, too.)
- nradov 4y ago
  Depending on the exact facts of a particular case that would be considered constructive dismissal under the labor laws in most US states. Employers can terminate at-will employees at any time for any reason or no reason (with a few limited exceptions). But if an employer substantially changes the terms of your employment — like by forcing you to work in an office — and fires you for cause then you should still be able to obtain unemployment insurance. Of course, as a practical matter it's better to just avoid the whole mess if you have better options.
- jrs235 4y ago
  But if/when you decline to work in an office you'll have documentation making it much more difficult for them to try and deny an unemployment insurance claim if you put one in.

jimbo9991 4y ago

I mean yeah that's exactly what the caginess was about.

Waterluvian 4y ago

Yeah I got contacted too. Weird.

skippyboxedhero 4y ago

"About three" - mathematicians reconsidering the real line with this statement.

HyperSane 4y ago

That kind of caginess is so unbelievably disrespectful.