← Back to context

Comment by mystraline

4 days ago

I applied to a job in the 'Who's Hiring' thread this month.

Had an interview. I'm a professional good at my craft, with tenure at hard positions.

I get hit with "we don't just want someone who checks in does work and leaves, 9 to 5". Like, are you wanting 60h/week and pay 40h/week? Or is this you're not wanting a slacker?

Or better yet, since you want skin in the game on my side, what's my equity as a partner?

My understanding is that I shop up and work well, and you pay me. And I'm in an at-will employment state, so it really is 1 day at a time.

Loyalty is bought at 1 day increments, since that is all the loyalty is afforded to me.

However, I will definitely lie, since no recruiter or HR wants to admit that their candidate is here because you pay. Its the verboten secret everyone dances around.

> "we don't just want someone who checks in does work and leaves, 9 to 5"

I do. I want people to work a normal day. The alternative is they run into a wall of fatigue at the worst times, and call out sick.

I can plan a project around five 8 hour days a week. I can't plan around 60+ hours one week, and (unknown) hours some future week.

That sounds disgusting. Thank you for sharing that. Why don't they just advertise "Over-time expected and over-time compensation provided"?

  • Most likely because they expect overtime but won't compensate overtime

    So they are hoping to hire someone who will do it for free

    • I couldn't get an exact good gauge on what their aim was.

      They made a point at 'work-life balance', decent but not great PTO. Pay was from 150-300, but glassdoor shows around 175.

      It did have on call, but my profession does.

      But the conversation was weird - what were they REALLY asking for that they couldn't outright say? Were they trying to ask if I have a family and obligations? Pregnant wife? Willingness to slave away hours above my negotiated pay?

      It definitely felt strange. This is a job, not a calling. And they would 'transact' (read: fire) me just as fast if the economics didn't pan out.