[rjzzleep]

Hire for it? Don't coerce your employees into doing something you you don't want to pay for?

What most people don't think of is that when you're on 24/7 duty your salary is less than half of what it should be.

Halfway decent enterprises will reimburse you for off-hour duty usually at multiple times your normal rate plus a minimum pay. Or just hire someone in a different timezone.

The reality is though, most people don't need panic calls from their CEO at midnight and the company would still do perfectly fine without it. There really is no excuse for this.

[varjag]

Isn't that what the company in question was trying to do, hiring the devs who are willing to do 24/7 too?

[danShumway]

Sure, but then the lesson to take away from this is that the company in question apparently isn't offering enough to make that job worthwhile, and that's not the fault of the people turning them down.

When the company phrases their rejection as "we don't think you're committed enough to do this", that's when things smell off to me. They're hiring for a specific role, they should act like it.

As an analogy, if you hire me to build software, and then slip in that you expect me to spend 10 extra hours a week doing cold sales calls, I might turn down your job because I don't want to do sales, I'm an engineer. And the problem at that point isn't my commitment to the company, the problem is that the company hasn't figured out it needs to make the sales tasks part of the job description.

How do interviews get to this point? How does a company get to the point where you're talking to the CEO, they're laying out their exit strategies, and the job requirements still haven't been made clear?

> "we feel like you are not willing to put enough skin in the game" or "everyone else sees the opportunity here is is willing to work their asses off, why are you different?"

Those quotes say to me that the owners are viewing this as a question of "loyalty" or moral obligation, not as a normal part of a job negotiation. A good test: if the CEO feels offended that you ask for more compensation in exchange for being online 24x7, then this isn't about trying to hire a specific role, it's about their ego/entitlement.

[varjag]

You could be right and it could well be the case, but we don't know really. We are only aware that the GP turned them down, but it's quite possible they had the position filled.

One person wearing many hats is rather typical in small companies and early stage startups. Being asked to do extra is not something insulting per se, as long as you compensated accordingly, either with more hard money or (a lot more) equity.

It is a non-starter proposition to many, which should be respected. But it's not something borderline criminal.

> How does a company get to the point where you're talking to the CEO, they're laying out their exit strategies, and the job requirements still haven't been made clear?

Look, if we're still talking about a startup it could well be the interviewer is the CEO, the guy who brought you coffee is CFO and you're interviewing for CTO/dev/ops/support in one :)

[sundaeofshock]

> CTO/dev/ops/support in one <

That one little phrase sums up the problem with most startups. Hire someone who doesn’t know any better and tell them they are the “CTO”.