[aflukasz]

I will share one data point that just popped to my mind, maybe it will be useful to someone.

About 10 years ago, my colleague and I were interviewing a guy for SWE role. He wanted to learn about presence of pressure, difficult deadlines and overtime. But for that he didn't ask about company culture, values, how our day to day looked like etc. He just clearly stated, that he does not want to work long hours, just 9-5, that it would make him unhappy otherwise and asked can we give him that. While also emphasizing that he understands this may not be possible and he does not feel entitled, it's just that he knows himself well and it's very important to him.

We confirmed that he could get what he wished for (we were in a position to do it), and thanked him for being open about it. He landed the job, and when I've seen him some time later, he looked satisfied, so I believe that the organization delivered on its promise.

I wish all of us such fruitful interviews.

[brianpan]

Being open worked in your case because, as an interviewer, you answered in an open, honest way. The article is about uncovering the truth when the interviewers are being cagey.

If there isn't reason to suspect that the truth is being glossed over, being direct is a simpler, clearer path. But if things sound too good to be true, you may need to figure out how to get more information, like open-ended questions. I'd follow that up with probing questions to dig deeper towards anything that sets off your spider-senses (but ask in a nice way and continue to present a friendly vibe).

I think this is very similar to being on the interviewing side. People talk about impressive projects they worked on, but that could mean they contributed to a small part of the project or they had real responsibility for the project and its execution. Everyone is putting their best foot forward so you have to ask follow-up questions and dig to uncover the truth.

[beefnugs]

The problem is how hard this version of capitalism pushes toward pure exploitation.

If there were REAL open markets with plenty of information for both sides, then it would be common place for employees to be very honest about taking less money for their preferences like no overtime, less deadline pressure, not being under the thumb of nonsense managers whims and bad estimates.

But this will never exist, because its all about tricking someone into taking as little as possible, for being as overworked as possible, hiding all the negatives until after they have moved halfway across the country, not telling them the company is going under in 6 months, and you just need some temp sucker to fulfill existing orders. Don't even hide the fact you wont hire anyone with union aspirations, because there are no reprecussions

[andoando]

This is what Ive been doing with comp as well. I am making x, I wouldn't be happy with less than x, or I like my role and I wouldnt move unless I get y. Recruiters will usually be pretty open back and it saves a lot of time on both sides.

[abid786]

Except that if you’re an exceptional candidate you might get uplevelled or they might find money in the budget for you that didn’t previously exist for the role (more so if it’s a small company)

By asking these questions up front you might weed yourself out even though the role might have been a good match.

[oblio]

In my experience those are unlikely events and you save a ton of time by asking directly.

Especially if you make X and they reply with X - 20% (or worse).

[pdimitar]

Meh, that happens super rarely. Most people are never the perfect match, and the people who land on their supposed perfect role and not care about money are way too young to be that valuable for the company anyway.

Plus we don't work for glory and smiles. A while ago I always made it clear during interviews that I don't enjoy the money negotiations -- of course, that has been used against me so I learned to keep my wits about myself, and nowadays I am like "sure we like each other but I still would not work if I had my needs covered so what are you paying?" (obviously not asked in that form, of course).

[wslh]

Just based on your comment, I would have asked the candidate if he/she would be available outside 9-5 hours in case of an emergency, understanding that the organization will do as much as possible to stay 9-5. I have seen several employees not caring about that detail which can harm the organization.

[nrki]

Symptom of an organization that doesn't plan and instead of budgeting for 1.3x employees for outside hours support, budgets for ~0.9x and extracts the rest with "expectation".

[wslh]

What size of organization are you talking about? There is a huge spectrum between startups and established corporations. Also, organizations of all sizes have planning errors.

[nrki]

Well, this thread was about setting a boundary of 9-5...would people go to a startup expecting that?

So...definitely for larger orgs, where "emergency availability" would be a big red flag, unless one explicitly opted into a (compensated) on call rota.

I guess one can make an exception for very early career, but again this was about setting a 9-5 boundary

[theendisney4]

Im always surprised these things are not calculated into the salary. For a startup, if you can get a very competent dev willing to take a salary cut it seems worth considering. They would bring sanity to the crap one writes when awake for 30 hours+

[stavros]

"Sure, I'm available. How often do emergencies happen, and do you have a retro for every one afterwards?"

[oblio]

Nah, not retro. How/when did you implement the actions observed during retros? What was the average delay in terms of number of sprints?

[radlad]

Some roles don't require this.

[wslh]

Sure, obviously I was referring to roles where it could happen and/or include help others in your team when an emergency situation arises.