5 ms·

We have openings we can't fill because we're specifically looking for "nerds" (those who actually do live, eat and breathe code). And I've got a similar CV wit

by smoyer 11y ago

We have openings we can't fill because we're specifically looking for "nerds" (those who actually do live, eat and breathe code). And I've got a similar CV with the exception that I never left writing software (I did give up on hardware development). Care to e-mail me a CV?

eitally 11y ago
It's funny you mention that. My hiring success (in terms of impact the new hires made) went way up when we stopped wording job postings using traditional enterprisy language & bullets and instead posted much simpler "hackers wanted" at the local universities. Note: this was in Mexico, not the US, though a handful of the folks I recruited there have gone on to work for SV startups. I feel obligated to note one special case because I still feel a little hurt by it and consider it poaching. (Gbox) http://www.gbox.com http://www.gbox.com has 5 of my former employees (3 devs, 1 SQA lead, 1 UI/UX) out of their total staff of about 20-25.
- fmsf 11y ago
  That is not poaching, that is you either not rewarding properly or having a sub par work environment
- umanwizard 11y ago
  What's wrong with poaching? You don't own your employees; this isn't 1850.
  - brightball 11y ago
    When you lose 5 people to the same place that's usually from insider recruiting. A lot of companies use No Raid clauses in both employee and client contracts specifically to prevent that type of thing. If you want to go work somewhere else, that is totally up to you but I'm more than allowed to have a policy stating that you're not allowed to recruit away my entire staff because that destabilizes the entire business, makes the business unable to meet it's contractual obligations and in a multitude of cases can jeopardize the jobs of everybody who is still there.
    - umanwizard 11y ago
      I still don't understand why that policy's fair. I recently left one company and joined another, and am trying to convince all my former coworkers to apply here as well because I genuinely think it's a way better place to work. If you can't compete on the labor market fairly, you deserve to lose employees. Policies like the one you describe are just a market inefficiency that doesn't have a real justification for existing (outside of your own interests).
      - brightball 11y ago
        If a company employs 20 people and 5 of them are programmers without which the company can't function, one leaves and recruits away the other 4 to go work at the same place that means the remaining 15 people are out of work. Business owners have a lot of people's livelihoods at stake. It's about a lot more than just how much more another company is willing to offer you. That might not matter to you, but that's also why you get to see the policy before agreeing to work at the company. If coming to work at my office and having the flexibility to recruit away all my staff is important to you...then you don't really have to sign the contract. If you do sign the contract then you're agreeing to the terms. It's not rocket science. Fair policy is that you get to decide whether or not to abide by it before I start paying you. You have the right to decide that policy isn't okay with you and not take the job. Nobody forced you to sign the contract and take the job. If it's a market problem, then I will eventually lose all of those employees because they will have plenty of other choices if they aren't happy working there anymore. Or to spin this around into the language that you used, policies like the one I describe exist because a lot of people only have their own self-interest in mind and part of my job is to have the interests of all of my employees in mind.
        logicfiction 11y ago
        Anti-raiding policies seem to stand on dubious legal grounds (that is there is no consensus with some places in the US prohibiting) and most often only include the solicitation from direct competitors to the business, not just other companies in general.
    - 11y ago

by smoyer 11y ago

eitally 11y ago

It's funny you mention that. My hiring success (in terms of impact the new hires made) went way up when we stopped wording job postings using traditional enterprisy language & bullets and instead posted much simpler "hackers wanted" at the local universities. Note: this was in Mexico, not the US, though a handful of the folks I recruited there have gone on to work for SV startups. I feel obligated to note one special case because I still feel a little hurt by it and consider it poaching. (Gbox) http://www.gbox.com http://www.gbox.com has 5 of my former employees (3 devs, 1 SQA lead, 1 UI/UX) out of their total staff of about 20-25.

fmsf 11y ago
That is not poaching, that is you either not rewarding properly or having a sub par work environment
umanwizard 11y ago
What's wrong with poaching? You don't own your employees; this isn't 1850.
- brightball 11y ago
  When you lose 5 people to the same place that's usually from insider recruiting. A lot of companies use No Raid clauses in both employee and client contracts specifically to prevent that type of thing. If you want to go work somewhere else, that is totally up to you but I'm more than allowed to have a policy stating that you're not allowed to recruit away my entire staff because that destabilizes the entire business, makes the business unable to meet it's contractual obligations and in a multitude of cases can jeopardize the jobs of everybody who is still there.
  - umanwizard 11y ago
    I still don't understand why that policy's fair. I recently left one company and joined another, and am trying to convince all my former coworkers to apply here as well because I genuinely think it's a way better place to work. If you can't compete on the labor market fairly, you deserve to lose employees. Policies like the one you describe are just a market inefficiency that doesn't have a real justification for existing (outside of your own interests).
    - brightball 11y ago
      If a company employs 20 people and 5 of them are programmers without which the company can't function, one leaves and recruits away the other 4 to go work at the same place that means the remaining 15 people are out of work. Business owners have a lot of people's livelihoods at stake. It's about a lot more than just how much more another company is willing to offer you. That might not matter to you, but that's also why you get to see the policy before agreeing to work at the company. If coming to work at my office and having the flexibility to recruit away all my staff is important to you...then you don't really have to sign the contract. If you do sign the contract then you're agreeing to the terms. It's not rocket science. Fair policy is that you get to decide whether or not to abide by it before I start paying you. You have the right to decide that policy isn't okay with you and not take the job. Nobody forced you to sign the contract and take the job. If it's a market problem, then I will eventually lose all of those employees because they will have plenty of other choices if they aren't happy working there anymore. Or to spin this around into the language that you used, policies like the one I describe exist because a lot of people only have their own self-interest in mind and part of my job is to have the interests of all of my employees in mind.
      - logicfiction 11y ago
        Anti-raiding policies seem to stand on dubious legal grounds (that is there is no consensus with some places in the US prohibiting) and most often only include the solicitation from direct competitors to the business, not just other companies in general.
  - 11y ago