[oneshot908]

IMO Even if you love your current gig, you should interview elsewhere at least once or twice a year to estimate your market value. Do not let your HR department establish your value for you, they will always sell you short.

[DaveWalk]

I can't agree with this; does nobody in the software industry regularly just network? Networking correctly done is all the positives of a job interview without the immediacy of a vacant position being filled.

And yes, most of us are probably at-will employees. But I know if word got back that I was interviewing--like when incompetent HR called my current boss for a working reference--I'll be more than just "estimating my market value."

Much safer to ask recently promoted people in my network what they used to make; people often share this information easily, versus never sharing what they make now.

[ScottWhigham]

I can't understand why your comment would be downvoted. User group meetings, conferences, dev get-togethers are all ideal for talking to people about what OP suggests: "estimate your market value". Please job interviewing just sucks the life out of anyone - it is absolutely no fun for all parties. Why make 1-2 days of your life suck per year just to "estimate your market value" when there are more fun ways to do it?

[oneshot908]

For me, it's only "no fun" when HR sends an absolute fool with the right keywords on their resume to me (which is what they usually do). It's a lot like dating unfortunately.

In an age where variants of "FizzBuzz" are too hard for most interviewees to answer, it's an absolute joy to meet someone competent and make them an offer. YMMV.

Neither conferences nor meetups have ever worked that way for me. They're great for getting intel on the competition and catching up with friends, but we don't talk compensation much.

[xur17]

Serious question: It feels a little weird to interview somewhere with little intention of accepting the offer (unless it is a huge pay boost / much better position).

I've been at my job just over a year, and enjoy the job / believe I am paid fairly well, but I'd like to see what else is out there (as I'm very flexible on locations, etc). Do I just apply for a few jobs in different areas, and only accept if it's a huge pay boost? Is it wrong to go into the interview like that?

[oneshot908]

Are you an at-will employee? I'll bet that you are one.

From:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/employment-at-will-de...

"An at-will employee can be fired at any time, for any reason (except for a few illegal reasons, spelled out below). If the employer decides to let you go, that's the end of your job--and you have very limited legal rights to fight your termination."

Now after reading the above sentence, do you still feel weird about this?

[meowface]

There are still issues of regular human decency and courtesy.

How would you feel if a company interviewed you with absolutely no intention of hiring you, even if you did really well, and was just experimenting with their interview process or training interviewers?

[phillmv]

a) You are not a company. The incentives and the amount of relative power each entity has in this relationship is skewed.

A job to you is life changing. To a large enough company, you're just a conversion or churn metric.

b) That happens all the time. For instance, in order to get an H1B, a company has to document that they can't fill a given position in the local market. Which you accomplish by putting out hyper specific job ads.

If you want to be nice about it, don't pull that game on small startups but that's about it.

[oneshot908]

I'd feel I had learned something important about that company and why I should never work for them. And then I'd move on in life rather than dwell on it.

[seiji]

with little intention of accepting the offer

Protip: please only waste interview time at large companies.

I've been on the receiving end of having people interview just to "test the waters" at a small company and it's a big drain. We didn't have a formal hiring process or interview pipeline, so your interview process would get a lot of attention from at least 8 different people in a 50 person company. When we send you an offer and you say "lol, nope, just wanted to show an offer so I can negotiate a raise where I already work," it's a big let down for the small team who invested time having 5 people interview you and discussing you and sending all the paperwork through the system.

[oneshot908]

Counter pro-tip: don't expect someone to leave their current gig unless it's in their best interest to do.

IMO unless someone is absolutely miserable, they shouldn't take a chance on a new and unfamiliar team unless the benefits (at least seemingly) outweigh the risks. Remember, you can fire them at any time, with or without cause.

Also most recruiters suck (all IMO of course). To which I'll add one final tip: don't ask me my current compensation and don't ask me what it will take to make me move. Instead, just tell me the salary range of the position during the initial phone screen. Problem solved, no?

[seiji]

Remember, you can fire them at any time, with or without cause.

People keep saying that around here. It's technically true (the best kind of true?) but it's not exactly how the real world works.

In the real world (meaning: actual companies, not startups with 2 weeks runway), to fire an individual (mass layoffs are different), you first put them On Notice (a Personal Improvement Plan saying "we, the company, believe you are not a good employee. you have X amount of time to improve"). Next, you wait 6 months. Then you review their progress against their "plan," you find any excuse for them not meeting their plan (plans can be subjective), then you say "Sorry, you're fired, here's a severance package."

So, firing an individual involves interdepartmental paperwork, getting legal potentially involved, and a (hopefully not trivial) payout.

Mass layoffs are essentially the same except you don't give 3-6 months notice and just immediately unload lots of people at a company, but hopefully still give them a payout.

In either case, I think why people throw around "at any time" is they want to convey you should have zero-loyalty towards any employer since they can unilaterally act against you. That is quite true. Never trust your employer to be benevolent towards you and always lookout for yourself before sacrificing things for the benefit of only the company.

[greedo]

That sounds great, but most of the time I haven't seen it that way. I work for a large, mutual insurance company. We just fired a "manager" without doing a PIP etc. Just told him his job was gone in 30 days, do your best to transition responsibilities and you'll get a decent severance (9 months IIRC).

This was someone who IMHO should have been canned 5 years ago, but until 6 months ago had a powerful ally shielding him. Now that the ally has moved on to greener pastures, the ax has fallen.

Two years ago, we fired a VP in IT basically for not filling out his TPS reports. Someone who had worked for the company for over 30 years. Fired him for "cause," meaning he'd lose out on his pension. That lasted for about 45 minutes until his lawyer made it clear that he wasn't going to go quietly into the night without a pension valued at over $5M.

So sometimes the niceties of HR policies are enforced, but if they want to fire you, you're gone.

Prior to this I worked at a small startup that had been around for 2 years. Got cancer, was told that I'd be employed til my treatment was completed. I worked every day, made a point of not being a burden to my team members, and was fired the week of Christmas (with 4 months of chemo to go). The company was being acquired, and didn't want any dead weight on the payroll. (Get it?)

Didn't get severance, but luckily I didn't need COBRA due to my wife's coverage. Screw them. Look out for yourself or you'll find out how loyal they really are to employees.

[yrro]

> Prior to this I worked at a small startup that had been around for 2 years. Got cancer, was told that I'd be employed til my treatment was completed. I worked every day, made a point of not being a burden to my team members, and was fired the week of Christmas (with 4 months of chemo to go). The company was being acquired, and didn't want any dead weight on the payroll. (Get it?)

Jesus Christ. Do you mind sharing who they are?

[oneshot908]

I think we see eye to eye here? I personally believe a lot of my engineer friends do not realize that they need to manage their career as much as they manage their technical skills. And that's why I suggested getting an outside opinion about one's market value annually (and if turns out to be a compelling valuation, take it).

[wyclif]

You don't need to interview with a bunch of other teams to find out what your market value is, though. You can research average salaries for the job in a given region. The reason tech people interview without intention of taking the offer is to negotiate a raise with their present company (I agree that's not a good idea, and anyway, it's better to leave and get a new job if you want a raise).

[RexRollman]

I suspect most of this is about unemployment insurance and being able to deny a fired employee insured benefits.

[x0x0]

You're giving them a chance. There's nothing wrong with saying up front you want a pay boost and/or a better position. If you tell them this and they proceed, then they're inherently saying such a thing is on offer (or why are they wasting their time?) And if they can't close the deal, that's on them. I think a big chunk of "engineering shortage" (note: no such shortage exists) is companies pissy that they may actually have to exert a tiny bit of effort to hire rather than tossing out a job posting with a long list of desiderata and having qualified engineers flock to them.

[ConfuciusSay]

Companies frequently put out job postings with no intention of hiring anyone. Is that wrong?