5 ms·

Right. If the application is easy enough to define that someone completely new can code it up in a day, they can just send it to India and be done with it. Th

Right. If the application is easy enough to define that someone completely new can code it up in a day, they can just send it to India and be done with it. This isn't like a comic book company asking job candidates to submit a page of a script, where they can just use it as is. Software is a very living product and you need live people maintaining it. I do think that companies should consider paying a candidate a few hundred bucks to spend his whole day with you. This doesn't change whether he's working on "open source stuff" or the company's product they are selling for money. EDIT tldr: they should have paid him for his time not for his product

peteretep 13y ago
Perhaps, but that's not what he's complaining about. He's complaining that he's providing them business value for free. He's not, he's tying up one of their Senior Devs for a day, which is a pretty good sign that they really want to hire the best people. He fully accepts at the beginning that he knew they wanted a day of his time, and he was willing to give it - he just wanted to work on some open-source work instead of their product.
- danielweber 13y ago
  I think he fundamentally misunderstands the employer-employee relationship. If someone hires me for a day's work and he uses it to make a million dollars, I have not been cheated. If someone hires me for a day's work and he can't extract any value from it, he has not been cheated. He seems hung up on the fact that he thought the company was benefiting from his work. 1) They probably weren't, as you said, and 2) it doesn't matter if they do or not. He should be compensated for giving them a full day of his time regardless of whether he gives them useful work-product.
  - Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
    But this isn't an employer-employee relationship. It's a prospective employer-employee relationship. During the first interview would you consider paying for the time of the person interviewing you? My day rate to customers is £1000 and while I'm interviewing you I can't be doing that work so let's call it £125 an hour to read your CV, answer any questions you may have about the role and so on. Yes they potentially want you to work there, but you presumably also are interested in working there. If that's the case why is your time valuable but theirs not? And if you're not interested then why are you interviewing at all? Quick edit: I think I've been slightly misunderstood. I'm not suggesting that the candidate should pay anyone anything, just drawing a (possibly bad) parallel. A good interview is a chance for a candidate to see if it's a good job - that's worth investing time in. The organisation get to see if the candidate might be a good employee - that's worth investing time in. But both are making an investment and both are getting something out of it. To me it already looks like an equitable deal, I don't see why introducing money is helpful, particularly in a lopsided way. As to why the actual code base and an actual problem - because it's the best test for both sides. What does a candidate learn more from, the actual code base and a real world change or a OSS project? I'd suggest that he's at least as likely to learn something material about the company and the product as they are to get usable code out of the candidate.
    - jwarkentin 13y ago
      A first interview should never be sitting down with code. That's a waste of everyone's time. The first interview should probably happen over the phone, though it could be in person. There are too many people out there looking for programming jobs that can't pass the idiot test. In the last interview I went on the first thing they had me do was write a for loop. They explained that, while it may sound stupid, too many of the people that came in couldn't even do that. Where I work right now, we have been trying to hire for a PHP job, but most of the people they've brought in don't know basic things like what an associative array is. Assuming you've at least weeded out the many people that are a waste of time and money, then I think it's fair to pay anyone you bring in a reasonable rate for a couple hours of work. Also, with most companies that contact me, I don't really know if I'm interested at all until I go in and talk to them. Don't presume that all candidates are interested in working there. It's hard to know until you know more about what they do, their processes, the culture, the type of people you will be working with and what the management is like.
      - Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
        I agree about the first interview, though I'd also say that you should agree in advance what's covered and if both parties want to code while it's not what I'd do then who am I to say they can't. But you're missing the bigger picture. As a employer, interviews are massively disruptive and time consuming. For us over two interviews you'll speak to at least one manager, two or three developers and probably someone from the test team and or an analyst. All those people will read your CV, prepare questions, spend time interviewing you and then get together to discuss and make sure we've given you proper consideration and provide feedback. These are people who are generally relatively well paid and have other things they could be doing. We'll read 3 (pre-screened) CVs for each first interview, 2 short first interviews for every second interview and probably 3 long (several hours) second interviews for each offer. So to get to one offer we'll have read 12 CVs, done 6 first interviews and 3 second interviews. I don't think we're abnormal - that's about typical for places I've worked (though I've heard of places who are far more demanding). Much of that is done based on little evidence (usually a CV which may or may not be totally factual) and it's certainly not an indication that we want a candidate to work for us, merely that it might be something that could work out. Understanding whether it's more than that is why we're doing the interview. My point is that we put a lot of time and effort (which has an associated cost) into seeing whether someone is a good candidate for us (and if we think this is a good job for them). We don't ask for compensation for that time so why is it reasonable for a candidate to do so? A candidate absolutely has the right to say that they aren't willing to submit to a particular interview process but I think asking for money to interview requires a very lopsided view of the process and, as a hiring manager, would have me pull the plug instantly.
  - stavrianos 13y ago
    Monetary compensation for something like that is hard, though. There's no societal standard on the value of a person's day, and it opens the possibility of abuse on the other end (professional interview-taker). In practice, there is an intangible compensation, in the form of a reasonable expectation of being hired.
- surreal 13y ago
  If the company sees hiring as "tying up one of their Senior Devs for a day" rather than something so important that it warrants investing serious time/resources/Devs on it, then I don't think they "really want to hire the best people" at all. I've been asked to work on a company's live code as part of an interview process, and they paid me pro rata based on the salary for which I was applying. Asking someone to do so unpaid for more than an hour or two just isn't reasonable.
fat0wl 13y ago
this is what i don't get though... why a few hundred why $450? Why not just a stipend? $100, maybe 200. Basically just to be polite, not because they actually owe you anything. Companies simply shouldn't have to pay per candidate they interview. It's not the way the job market has ever worked really. I guess a stipend for pair programming may make it clearer that they're serious so people don't whine, but it seems silly since you should be in the market for a job not a day's work. As others have pointed out, a pair programming interview costs them money. If you want the job you should be comfortable with an extended interview... lot's of companies do a series of interviews, should candidates be paid for that? As long as you're not naive this stuff isn't too big a deal. If I didn't like it I'd leave -- and I have during a pair programming session once, but it's because it helped me to quickly get a really clear view of the situation. It's as valuable for the candidate as it is for the company, since you get to make a life decision based on actual information. This is a rare gift in a way. That said, I think half a day max makes more sense.
normalocity 13y ago
On what planet is there a tradition of paying for the time spent in an interview? The writer of the article knew it was an interview, and presumably knew approximately how long the interview would be.
- jwarkentin 13y ago
  It is common practice when hiring a developer to pay them for time spent programming if it's any significant amount. I've never heard of paying for all the time spent in the interview, or for time spent if it's just something small and simple to get a quick feel for skill. But if they're asking for more than an hour or two or if they're asking for new features added to their existing code base, it's completely fair to ask for compensation.
- nakovet 13y ago
  He knew he was in an interview for sure, however the terms have changes as soon as the lead developer asked him to code in the current application in order to test his skills. Lets put this way, you are interviewing for a Car Sales position, you get to the my store and I ask you: Hey, today you gonna spend the day selling cars, it will be our test, and then you sell as many cars as you can for free. Do you still consider this, part of the interview? Keep in mind that you are bringing profit to my store.
- bane 13y ago
  When you call it an interview, but are in fact using it as a bit of free temp day labor without paying for the work accomplished.
Tactic 13y ago
It is called an opportunity cost. The employee/employer relationship is a business relationship. As such, think of yourself like a business. Sometimes you have to spend money (time/effort) to make money (paycheck). To view it any other way seems entitled to me.

peteretep 13y ago

Perhaps, but that's not what he's complaining about. He's complaining that he's providing them business value for free. He's not, he's tying up one of their Senior Devs for a day, which is a pretty good sign that they really want to hire the best people. He fully accepts at the beginning that he knew they wanted a day of his time, and he was willing to give it - he just wanted to work on some open-source work instead of their product.

danielweber 13y ago
I think he fundamentally misunderstands the employer-employee relationship. If someone hires me for a day's work and he uses it to make a million dollars, I have not been cheated. If someone hires me for a day's work and he can't extract any value from it, he has not been cheated. He seems hung up on the fact that he thought the company was benefiting from his work. 1) They probably weren't, as you said, and 2) it doesn't matter if they do or not. He should be compensated for giving them a full day of his time regardless of whether he gives them useful work-product.
- Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
  But this isn't an employer-employee relationship. It's a prospective employer-employee relationship. During the first interview would you consider paying for the time of the person interviewing you? My day rate to customers is £1000 and while I'm interviewing you I can't be doing that work so let's call it £125 an hour to read your CV, answer any questions you may have about the role and so on. Yes they potentially want you to work there, but you presumably also are interested in working there. If that's the case why is your time valuable but theirs not? And if you're not interested then why are you interviewing at all? Quick edit: I think I've been slightly misunderstood. I'm not suggesting that the candidate should pay anyone anything, just drawing a (possibly bad) parallel. A good interview is a chance for a candidate to see if it's a good job - that's worth investing time in. The organisation get to see if the candidate might be a good employee - that's worth investing time in. But both are making an investment and both are getting something out of it. To me it already looks like an equitable deal, I don't see why introducing money is helpful, particularly in a lopsided way. As to why the actual code base and an actual problem - because it's the best test for both sides. What does a candidate learn more from, the actual code base and a real world change or a OSS project? I'd suggest that he's at least as likely to learn something material about the company and the product as they are to get usable code out of the candidate.
  - jwarkentin 13y ago
    A first interview should never be sitting down with code. That's a waste of everyone's time. The first interview should probably happen over the phone, though it could be in person. There are too many people out there looking for programming jobs that can't pass the idiot test. In the last interview I went on the first thing they had me do was write a for loop. They explained that, while it may sound stupid, too many of the people that came in couldn't even do that. Where I work right now, we have been trying to hire for a PHP job, but most of the people they've brought in don't know basic things like what an associative array is. Assuming you've at least weeded out the many people that are a waste of time and money, then I think it's fair to pay anyone you bring in a reasonable rate for a couple hours of work. Also, with most companies that contact me, I don't really know if I'm interested at all until I go in and talk to them. Don't presume that all candidates are interested in working there. It's hard to know until you know more about what they do, their processes, the culture, the type of people you will be working with and what the management is like.
    - Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
      I agree about the first interview, though I'd also say that you should agree in advance what's covered and if both parties want to code while it's not what I'd do then who am I to say they can't. But you're missing the bigger picture. As a employer, interviews are massively disruptive and time consuming. For us over two interviews you'll speak to at least one manager, two or three developers and probably someone from the test team and or an analyst. All those people will read your CV, prepare questions, spend time interviewing you and then get together to discuss and make sure we've given you proper consideration and provide feedback. These are people who are generally relatively well paid and have other things they could be doing. We'll read 3 (pre-screened) CVs for each first interview, 2 short first interviews for every second interview and probably 3 long (several hours) second interviews for each offer. So to get to one offer we'll have read 12 CVs, done 6 first interviews and 3 second interviews. I don't think we're abnormal - that's about typical for places I've worked (though I've heard of places who are far more demanding). Much of that is done based on little evidence (usually a CV which may or may not be totally factual) and it's certainly not an indication that we want a candidate to work for us, merely that it might be something that could work out. Understanding whether it's more than that is why we're doing the interview. My point is that we put a lot of time and effort (which has an associated cost) into seeing whether someone is a good candidate for us (and if we think this is a good job for them). We don't ask for compensation for that time so why is it reasonable for a candidate to do so? A candidate absolutely has the right to say that they aren't willing to submit to a particular interview process but I think asking for money to interview requires a very lopsided view of the process and, as a hiring manager, would have me pull the plug instantly.
- stavrianos 13y ago
  Monetary compensation for something like that is hard, though. There's no societal standard on the value of a person's day, and it opens the possibility of abuse on the other end (professional interview-taker). In practice, there is an intangible compensation, in the form of a reasonable expectation of being hired.
surreal 13y ago
If the company sees hiring as "tying up one of their Senior Devs for a day" rather than something so important that it warrants investing serious time/resources/Devs on it, then I don't think they "really want to hire the best people" at all. I've been asked to work on a company's live code as part of an interview process, and they paid me pro rata based on the salary for which I was applying. Asking someone to do so unpaid for more than an hour or two just isn't reasonable.

fat0wl 13y ago

this is what i don't get though... why a few hundred why $450? Why not just a stipend? $100, maybe 200. Basically just to be polite, not because they actually owe you anything. Companies simply shouldn't have to pay per candidate they interview. It's not the way the job market has ever worked really. I guess a stipend for pair programming may make it clearer that they're serious so people don't whine, but it seems silly since you should be in the market for a job not a day's work. As others have pointed out, a pair programming interview costs them money. If you want the job you should be comfortable with an extended interview... lot's of companies do a series of interviews, should candidates be paid for that? As long as you're not naive this stuff isn't too big a deal. If I didn't like it I'd leave -- and I have during a pair programming session once, but it's because it helped me to quickly get a really clear view of the situation. It's as valuable for the candidate as it is for the company, since you get to make a life decision based on actual information. This is a rare gift in a way. That said, I think half a day max makes more sense.

normalocity 13y ago

On what planet is there a tradition of paying for the time spent in an interview? The writer of the article knew it was an interview, and presumably knew approximately how long the interview would be.

jwarkentin 13y ago
It is common practice when hiring a developer to pay them for time spent programming if it's any significant amount. I've never heard of paying for all the time spent in the interview, or for time spent if it's just something small and simple to get a quick feel for skill. But if they're asking for more than an hour or two or if they're asking for new features added to their existing code base, it's completely fair to ask for compensation.
nakovet 13y ago
He knew he was in an interview for sure, however the terms have changes as soon as the lead developer asked him to code in the current application in order to test his skills. Lets put this way, you are interviewing for a Car Sales position, you get to the my store and I ask you: Hey, today you gonna spend the day selling cars, it will be our test, and then you sell as many cars as you can for free. Do you still consider this, part of the interview? Keep in mind that you are bringing profit to my store.
bane 13y ago
When you call it an interview, but are in fact using it as a bit of free temp day labor without paying for the work accomplished.

Tactic 13y ago

It is called an opportunity cost. The employee/employer relationship is a business relationship. As such, think of yourself like a business. Sometimes you have to spend money (time/effort) to make money (paycheck). To view it any other way seems entitled to me.