If you don't present valid arguments to benefit the company don't title it like advice. I clicked the article expecting some more hopeful arguments than "hurr durr I got baited into doing things I don't like", but I see none.
To minimize human suffering you have to donate out all your earnings and be non-profit. I don't have anything against that, but those are irrelevant to this discussion.
I think there's someone who would accept working at each of those places just fine. Even the worst ones. Her point is probably more that if a company admitted their experience up front, people who thought that way was fine would accept jobs and those that hated the idea of that experience wouldn't. Sure, companies could lie, but then people would just quit as soon as possible if they really hated the experience. I'd work at any of those companies myself if the situation was right otherwise.
> I think there's someone who would accept working at each of those places just fine. Even the worst ones.
Yes, people desparate enough to subject themselves to poorer working conditions. What's the single benefit for companies to cut themselves off from potentially good employees?
Honesty? People are going to know what is up within the first month, at minimum, so don't waste their time?
This goes along with a broad category of attempted deception that fails because the person you're attempting to deceive has, typically as a part of their job, understanding the actual state of thing you're trying to lie about. Especially egregious when it creates a safety risk, for example, but bad enough when it simply wastes time. Good example: Lying to accountants about the contents of financial statements.
How many IT people do you know that have quit after a month because of poor conditions? And how many do you know that suck it up and just stick to complaining about their job?
Engineers don't want their time wasted, but companies have no benefit in trying to prevent it as far as I can see. What kind of brand image would they portray if they started saying how bad their tech stack is?
Well, every person I know who excels at their career can say "Wait, no, this was a bait and switch" and bow out gracefully in the first couple weeks and take one of their backup offers.
I've also worked for extremely corporate companies, and a lot of the saner people backed away slowly during the interview process, but some people took a week or two at the company to register "yes it's really that bad" and bail.
Well senior engineers won't work at entry level positions, but medium skill ones might. Replace skill with working conditions and it'll be the same thing, people that have a lower tolerancy for working conditions will leave quickly, but some will stay and that's still a win for the company. Especially compared to advertising how corporate and annoying their processes are.
but she says
> This way, if it sucks, people can see it as a warning and stay far away.
which implies she thinks companies should tell potential hires you won't like working here and should run away, which I doubt many companies will listen to that advice and think "sounds good".
That said what you said would be a good thing for companies who are afraid to tell what their dev experience is like to consider.
Companies don't have to tell you whether you'd like it or not, because they really can't know. However, they should describe the environment they provide.
I thought I had worked at some stupid companies over the years, but as a general rule all of them knew, at least in a broad overview, how the employees felt about the place. Often they even knew what things people disliked, but they didn't want to change these things or somehow found themselves incapable of changing them.
So again, I don't think relying on companies to tell you the things they know their employees don't like about them when they are trying to get you on board will be seen as a winning strategy.