4 ms·
I checked out the open positions. There were more positions open than total employees. Are those real positions you are looking to fill or always open positio
by ipaddr 4y ago
I checked out the open positions. There were more positions open than total employees. Are those real positions you are looking to fill or always open positions that rarely result in an actual job?
I asked this because the interview process has this step where you ask the candidates to do a project and than go over it with someone. One of these little projects is design our api or build a github issue viewer frontend/backend. You still have 4 more rounds after someone invested all that time.
The amount of effort to work here seems high and the chances of the position existing and you filling it is so low. I feel bad for the many looking for work.. do you invest 10+ hours in a process where a job may not exist in the first place and the company brags about the goal of one person servicing a million
- glenngillen 4y agoI can’t speak for the Railway team, but I am hiring at an early stage startup myself. There is absolutely no way we’d extend offers for all of the roles we have open if a candidate arrived for all of them next week. Growing that much so quickly would be a disastrous onboarding experience for most of the new hires and potentially risk our ability to build a consistent culture with the team. So we’ll hire whichever candidate(s) successfully complete the process first and then pause the other roles until we’re ready to onboard more people. Then there’s also the reality at this stage you need people who can wear multiple hats. And there’s a bunch of roles where your ideal candidate doesn’t have a neat pre-established label. So sometimes we’ll post the exact same role with different titles to try and make sure it gets the attention of someone who most strongly aligns with one of those job titles. At a previous place we worked remotely, and so the same job would be posted as both remote and then also as a dozen different specific city locations too. But if we were hiring multiple of any roles you wouldn’t multiply that, you’d just post the one listing(s) and keep it open until all the positions were filled. A jobs page is a marketing artefact for potential hires, it’s not a financial reporting/forecasting tool. TLDR: don’t make any assumptions from a job board about how many roles a company is realistically hiring for.
- moomoo11 4y agoHow did you find your core/initial team? Thanks
- PragmaticPulp 4y agoListing multiple possible openings for a limited headcount is common, but not necessarily nefarious. A company may be open to a junior, mid, or senior developer but have different expectations, compensation, and requirements for each of those titles. Posting different job listings allows you to cast a wider net without having to dilute the job descriptions too much. > do you invest 10+ hours in a process where a job may not exist in the first place The company isn’t going to spend the time walking someone through the hiring process if they don’t have any intention of hiring someone. 10 hours of interviewing is barely more than a single workday. It wasn’t long ago that interview processes required several rounds of phone screenings, interviews, and maybe testing before you were expected to come on-site for an entire day of in-person interviews - or more! I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a company to expect candidates to invest some time into going through an interview process. The phenomenon of hiring people into high paying jobs after a couple hours of casual interviews was largely an artifact of the recent tech bubble. It’s also part of the reason we’re seeing mass layoffs, IMO, as a lot of these companies hired so fast that they couldn’t reasonable screen everyone. It turned it “hire now, fire later if it doesn’t work out” when cash was plentiful.
- throwaway5Am1k 4y agoThis is such a hack response. >not necessarily nefarious It might not be nefarious, but if companies are putting out "feelers", and I'm investing ~30 hours per company, and half the companies I'm applying to are like this, then there's a huge waste of time (mine and theirs). I've started calling out this bullshit: "is there a job here, or is this a position to gauge the market?" >10 hours of interviewing is barely more than a single workday. It's never 10 hours. It's 5+ interviews, plus a take-home test (that can take ~10-20 hours), plus scheduling, prep, etc. It's never 10 hours. Stop validating shitty behaviour. >I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a company to expect candidates to invest some time into going through an interview process. I wouldn't mind, if there was a job on the other end. I can't even list the number of times I've gone through the whole interview process (at big companies!) and have been ghosted at the very end. I wish they'd stop wasting my time. >The phenomenon of hiring people into high paying jobs after a couple hours of casual interviews was largely an artifact of the recent tech bubble. That's how it's been most of history. 10-30 hours of interviews for a single job is a relatively new phenomenon. >It’s also part of the reason we’re seeing mass layoffs This is so false. We're in layoffs because we overhired, not because the interview process is too easy.
- anothernewdude 4y agoI only do the projects when they're paid.
- password1 4y agoI've been job hunting for the last six months. I usually spend around 20hr on the test task they give me. On top of this there are at least 3/4 rounds of interview (spanning from half an hour to two hours). I tend to make sure that the job actually exists though and I'm wary of small companies. I'm particularly avoiding the ones where I would be the only developer working on my domain/stack.