4 ms·

If you hide it you risk being discharged a month, a year, or five years from now when your employer finds out Long-term job security no longer exists. When you

If you hide it you risk being discharged a month, a year, or five years from now when your employer finds out Long-term job security no longer exists. When you take a job, you are always at risk that it ends. For sure, this risk is real. He might get fired for hiding that detail. On the other hand, that likely means he wouldn't have gotten the job in the first place. Which is worse: getting a job for a couple years, building up savings, and then getting fired... or not getting any jobs and being long-term unemployed? There are no easy answers here. We're comparing bads here. There are risks either way. and then they aren't referenceable. At 1 month, you just omit it. At a year or 5 years, there are two cases. One is where the boss likes you but has (or feels he has) no choice. He probably didn't find you out or make the decision and he may want to help you out. You can discuss the reference issue and he'll probably be your ally. If he's genuinely mad and won't give a good reference, then make him retreat to name and dates. Have lawyers on it if needed. In the very-rare case that you need an affirmative good reference (default name-and-dates won't be enough) and he won't give it, then you have to go to extortion. That's an uncommon and ugly topic that I don't want to get into, but at 1-5 years, you have enough important knowledge to make that happen, unless he really hates you.

acjohnson55 14y ago
Extortion? You're just full of great advice, now aren't you? Lying on your application and extorting people risks torching an already damaged reputation, not to mention potentially huge civil and even criminal liabilities. To the OP, I recommend ditching the Machiavellian stuff. The best bet in my opinion is to network and contribute to projects where possible (such as through OSS, freelance, etc.). If people actually know you and your story and you have a track record with them, the chances of them putting enough trust in you are much greater. I don't think you should leave the CS world. You're going to find the same issues in any line of work, so you might as well stay in the field where your skills lie.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  We're talking about what to do in rare but extremely bad situations where there are literally no good avenues... not what people should do in normal circumstances. "Extortion" was too strong a word. I meant it in the sense of "aggressive negotiation". Demanding a positive reference not to blow something humiliating is not extortion. If you demand money not to blow something, you're breaking the law, because there's no connection between the payoff and the threat (exposure). However, with a reference, it's "we're going to part ways, but it's best for both of us that we tell the same story, so let's get straight about what just happened". That's how you present it. Not really extortion. Your advice to OP has a lot of value and on the whole I agree with what you are telling him to do. OSS contributions are a really good idea for him. However, I still contend that an "odds and evens" mixed strategy will perform better than full disclosure.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Demanding, using "strong negotiation", a positive reference from somebody to whom you lied about your criminal status seems like a good way to get a billboard erected with your face and a URL to your LinkedIn profile on 101. This isn't the first HN comment you've left where you suggested playing hardball to get positive references from employers. You have an idiosyncratic view of the dynamics of employee references. I find it disquieting, but that obviously doesn't make it intrinsically wrong. I do feel safe saying that it is out of step with the way most employers view the same dynamics. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5007550 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5007550 - "For me, it's really about references. I don't need a severance, but if you don't agree on a good reference I will do everything in my power to fuck up your reputation.")
    - michaelochurch 14y ago
      If there's no severance, then I'd expect a solid-gold reference, yes. With appropriate severance, the neutral name-and-dates is fine. A bad reference is an existential battle. You do everything you can to fight that. However, pushing neutral to good is generally a waste of time. Dust yourself off, get clean, and move on.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        I am no kind of authority, so please don't take this comment any further than the actual words in the comment box. In particular, I have never worked with you, or anyone who has worked with you; I don't even know what you do (I'm sure it's something interesting and challenging). You're an abstraction to me. I cannot possibly have any opinion about the advisability of employing you and am only sharing my opinion about the ideas you are expressing. What I have to say about your perspective on references is that I will never, under any circumstances, work with, for, or over someone who believes what I think you're saying you believe about references. "Bad reference => war", to me, is essentially an endorsement of professional dishonesty. Negotiating over the quality of your reference is to me a bit squicky, but it's on the right side of the line, just a couple steps past coaching your references (which is also white-lie dishonest]). Using aggressive negotiation tactics to ensure good references from people who don't believe your work merits a good reference is on the wrong side of the line. You think it's a concession you're extracting from your former employer, but it is really a concession you are surreptitiously taking from your future employer.
tptacek 14y ago
You seem to be working under the delusion that the worst thing that can happen if you lie to your employer is that you might lose your job. No.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  For reasons of self-interest, most employers are not going to fuck with their exes' reputations after parting ways. There are exceptions-- sometimes you have to hire legal professionals and very occasionally one might have to hire illegal professionals to make someone do the right thing-- but those are way outside of the norm. If he does good work and still gets fired, it's probably by a boss who had little choice in the decision and doesn't want to fuck him over, not someone who's going to be vengeful and make a bigger mess than what already exists.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    You seem very certain about this. I don't know if I'm as certain as you are about this issue, but my thoughts about this issue have opposite valence.
    - michaelochurch 14y ago
      Unfortunately, we're talking about situations of depravity over which there are practical and ethical reasons why data collection is not possible. One falls into them very rarely, and hopefully never. I've never done most of this extremely chaotic shit that I endorse, but I think it's important to have the ethical conversations to shine some light on to things that actually go on. Societies like to see themselves as existential struggles between lawful good and chaotic evil, but neither of those are major players. (Lawful good is too restrained; chaotic evil is too maladjusted to have a chance unless the world's already fucked.) The real battle is between chaotic good and lawful evil. So excuse my chaos. :)
      - tptacek 14y ago
        Then add to the problems I have with the very bad advice you're giving on this thread that this is a game or an intellectual exercise for you, and a lasting painful career-threatening injury to anyone who takes that advice. Don't deliberately lie to employers who ask about your criminal record. The only ones who won't go absolutely apeshit on you when they find out are the ones who would hire you anyways if you just told them in the first place. Like you, I have a lot of sympathy for people stuck with criminal convictions. We agree there. We'd both like to find advice to help people get excellent jobs despite stupid criminal convictions. My problem with your advice isn't with its intentions, but rather that I'm pretty sure it's dumb.

acjohnson55 14y ago

Extortion? You're just full of great advice, now aren't you? Lying on your application and extorting people risks torching an already damaged reputation, not to mention potentially huge civil and even criminal liabilities. To the OP, I recommend ditching the Machiavellian stuff. The best bet in my opinion is to network and contribute to projects where possible (such as through OSS, freelance, etc.). If people actually know you and your story and you have a track record with them, the chances of them putting enough trust in you are much greater. I don't think you should leave the CS world. You're going to find the same issues in any line of work, so you might as well stay in the field where your skills lie.

michaelochurch 14y ago
We're talking about what to do in rare but extremely bad situations where there are literally no good avenues... not what people should do in normal circumstances. "Extortion" was too strong a word. I meant it in the sense of "aggressive negotiation". Demanding a positive reference not to blow something humiliating is not extortion. If you demand money not to blow something, you're breaking the law, because there's no connection between the payoff and the threat (exposure). However, with a reference, it's "we're going to part ways, but it's best for both of us that we tell the same story, so let's get straight about what just happened". That's how you present it. Not really extortion. Your advice to OP has a lot of value and on the whole I agree with what you are telling him to do. OSS contributions are a really good idea for him. However, I still contend that an "odds and evens" mixed strategy will perform better than full disclosure.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Demanding, using "strong negotiation", a positive reference from somebody to whom you lied about your criminal status seems like a good way to get a billboard erected with your face and a URL to your LinkedIn profile on 101. This isn't the first HN comment you've left where you suggested playing hardball to get positive references from employers. You have an idiosyncratic view of the dynamics of employee references. I find it disquieting, but that obviously doesn't make it intrinsically wrong. I do feel safe saying that it is out of step with the way most employers view the same dynamics. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5007550 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5007550 - "For me, it's really about references. I don't need a severance, but if you don't agree on a good reference I will do everything in my power to fuck up your reputation.")
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    If there's no severance, then I'd expect a solid-gold reference, yes. With appropriate severance, the neutral name-and-dates is fine. A bad reference is an existential battle. You do everything you can to fight that. However, pushing neutral to good is generally a waste of time. Dust yourself off, get clean, and move on.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      I am no kind of authority, so please don't take this comment any further than the actual words in the comment box. In particular, I have never worked with you, or anyone who has worked with you; I don't even know what you do (I'm sure it's something interesting and challenging). You're an abstraction to me. I cannot possibly have any opinion about the advisability of employing you and am only sharing my opinion about the ideas you are expressing. What I have to say about your perspective on references is that I will never, under any circumstances, work with, for, or over someone who believes what I think you're saying you believe about references. "Bad reference => war", to me, is essentially an endorsement of professional dishonesty. Negotiating over the quality of your reference is to me a bit squicky, but it's on the right side of the line, just a couple steps past coaching your references (which is also white-lie dishonest]). Using aggressive negotiation tactics to ensure good references from people who don't believe your work merits a good reference is on the wrong side of the line. You think it's a concession you're extracting from your former employer, but it is really a concession you are surreptitiously taking from your future employer.

tptacek 14y ago

You seem to be working under the delusion that the worst thing that can happen if you lie to your employer is that you might lose your job. No.

michaelochurch 14y ago
For reasons of self-interest, most employers are not going to fuck with their exes' reputations after parting ways. There are exceptions-- sometimes you have to hire legal professionals and very occasionally one might have to hire illegal professionals to make someone do the right thing-- but those are way outside of the norm. If he does good work and still gets fired, it's probably by a boss who had little choice in the decision and doesn't want to fuck him over, not someone who's going to be vengeful and make a bigger mess than what already exists.
- tptacek 14y ago
  You seem very certain about this. I don't know if I'm as certain as you are about this issue, but my thoughts about this issue have opposite valence.
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    Unfortunately, we're talking about situations of depravity over which there are practical and ethical reasons why data collection is not possible. One falls into them very rarely, and hopefully never. I've never done most of this extremely chaotic shit that I endorse, but I think it's important to have the ethical conversations to shine some light on to things that actually go on. Societies like to see themselves as existential struggles between lawful good and chaotic evil, but neither of those are major players. (Lawful good is too restrained; chaotic evil is too maladjusted to have a chance unless the world's already fucked.) The real battle is between chaotic good and lawful evil. So excuse my chaos. :)
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Then add to the problems I have with the very bad advice you're giving on this thread that this is a game or an intellectual exercise for you, and a lasting painful career-threatening injury to anyone who takes that advice. Don't deliberately lie to employers who ask about your criminal record. The only ones who won't go absolutely apeshit on you when they find out are the ones who would hire you anyways if you just told them in the first place. Like you, I have a lot of sympathy for people stuck with criminal convictions. We agree there. We'd both like to find advice to help people get excellent jobs despite stupid criminal convictions. My problem with your advice isn't with its intentions, but rather that I'm pretty sure it's dumb.