Their honesty should be applauded. Imagine they hired you and then had to fire you in 6 months. Keep in touch with the PM if you liked them and see how they perform in the next 12 months.
I agree 100%. I feel sorry for OP of course, but this is highly commendable, even if the threat of major recession turns out to be overestimated. This employer is acting in a fashion that shows high levels of social responsibility and moral value. Hats off.
I agree. In a previous recession I had an offer rescinded over a weekend. I’m glad they did because most likely as they had to reduce headcount during the recession Id have been on the chopping block --my then employer having been conservative in hiring didn't have to cut as much. also sometimes in times of expansion some hires are "luxury hires", nice to haves, but not must haves and can be the first to go.
Usually it’s recent hires and people who’ve been there a long stretch who get cut first, of course with lots of exceptions.
I entered the job market during the 2008 recession. I definitely experienced the "hired... and..now you're laid off" ~ as the saying goes "when times get tough, last to hire = first to fire". As for laying off senior folks -- I've seen this too; I've seen people who are senior by virtue of just having been there the longest (20+ years) and have had the most pay raises... but don't necessarily contribute as much value as someone who's been there 10 years and costs less. If you're senior and your boss knows* that you're contributing more value add than is reflected by your paycheck -- you won't be let go.
* This is one reason why you should be sure to convey your wins to your boss; when you have 1-on-1 conversations, be sure to highlight obstacles that you've overcome. You don't have to brag, but it's okay to be realistic - humble, but proud.
> that you're contributing more value add than is reflected by your paycheck -- you won't be let go
That's a very optimistic take. What usually happens is that there's an obvious bottom line improvement to laying off a few very senior people, but the impact isn't so obvious, so from the business's perspective it looks like a win.
I remember the cognitive dissonance of being an employer's rep at a job fair in 2010 and telling everyone who came up to our booth that I could take resumes, but we weren't hiring! At least I got a free lunch out of it.
Businesses don't always do what makes sense from the outside.
This exception wise might be the case but, the cost to performance is probably just less for some senior folks compared to up and coming new people. For instance if i have 10+ year employee who has received 3% cost of living raises + additional performance raises they likely have a cost/performance ratio worse than the A player with 5 years experience who wants to move up. I can promote them for a bump in salary and have someone who hasn't accumulated as much cost overtime with a similar performance. I reduced capacity, improved moral for an A player and cut cost in one decision. There would also be minimal impact moral wise to the remaining organization by hiring within. That's just my take though and I am no authority in the topic.
Why do people think oldtimers at companies get paid better than new hires?
That is the case for traditional companies, but not for tech. I worked for one company (most of the time as a manager) for almost 27 years, and never made as much as new hires at most tech companies. My company got an insane bargain with me, and my whole team, and they knew it.
I don't think that cost is the reason that companies like firing older folks.
HR only understands years of service sometimes. I've seen business analysts doing entry level work with nearly no responsibilities and making ~$140k. It's insane. No matter how much the rest of the company complains, those people are safe until layoffs come.
Some people just barely do their work but are kept on because they are good for the team/team spirit. I've seen a lot of those people getting axed in 2008.
You are totally right, I really appreciated their honesty. As mc32 stated, if I was hired, in case of recession as a recent hire I would one of the first ones to go. The PM asked me if I would like to get contacted in the future to continue with the process in case things get better, to which I replied yes. I'll keep an eye on them.
How is that a good thing? You can earn good money in 6 months. One time I took a 2-week web development job to stand in for someone who left for a holiday while a project was overdue. It was an interesting experience. I wish the economy was more like this; more unpredictable and more focused on deliverables than hours worked.
> I wish the economy was more like this; more unpredictable and more focused on deliverables than hours worked.
That would be fine for single people or couples without children and enough savings to relocate or live on whilst job hunting, but absolutely devastating for everyone else.
As someone who has a dependent spouse and child, I disagree. You can't cancel the laws of nature. Everyone must participate in the free market on equal terms. When the system makes it artificially easier for one set of people, it artificially makes it harder for a different set of people behind the scenes. If someone can't handle the risk of sustaining themselves and their family in the real world, they shouldn't have children. But of course we need a fair monetary system in order to make it feasible.
I can speak from experience that in our pyramid scheme economy propped up by big government and big bank money printing it's extremely difficult to support a child if you're not part of the 'inside crowd' who has access to the easy money (cheap loans, investments and subsidies). It doesn't have to be that way though. But to expect total safety is immoral because it relies on some kind of financial scheme operating behind the scenes. You can't create any real value in this world without taking a risk. If you're not taking any risks, you're not creating any value. Nobody owes it to you to support your children; especially if it means that they themselves can't afford to support their own children by participating in the free market.
Most people would rather spend a little bit longer looking to avoid a job reset. First, the job market could be worse in 6 months. Secondly, any extra work that you put into onboard and ingratiate yourself with colleagues is wasted
In 6 months?? I can remember situations in the past where people were hired and then fired 2 weeks later because a contract was lost. Mostly in aerospace/defense industry.
Yep. A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away (when I was in college) I worked for a company that did a round of layoffs and they let one of their new AS400 engineers go on their first day of work. Totally unprofessional.
> Isn’t that pretty great? Get paid for 6 months of relatively light ramp up time and then a few months worth of severance for some time off once fired?
Not great at all.
For anyone reading your resume in the future, it's impossible to know if you were let go due to no fault of your own, or if you were let go for cause after a probationary period expired.
I personally don't hold a single short job against people, but the reality is that having a 6-month job followed by a couple months off on your resume will have a negative impact when some hiring managers read your resume.
It's also 6 months (+ time off) that you can't accomplish much of anything because you were ramping up and then had the rug pulled out from under you. Having a 6-12 month setback in your career isn't a huge deal when you've been working for 20 years, but it can be a huge setback for juniors.
Really? Especially in a market like this, I would have assumed more hiring managers would understand.
What do you think about new grads having to switch not long after because of bad work environment, bait-and-switch, etc? I hope such a negative outlook is not that prevalent.
> Really? Especially in a market like this, I would have assumed more hiring managers would understand.
Depends entirely on the job and company.
If someone is hiring average developers for average or below-average pay at a no-name company that gets 1 organic resume submission per week, they're going to overlook it and bring the person in.
If someone is hiring top developers at a hot tech company with high pay that attracts 1000s of impeccable resume submissions per week, they can't interview everyone. They might only screen 10% of resumes because that's all they can handle. At this level, competition is so fierce and the applicants are so strong that you have to look for any reason to drop someone from that 10% who get through. Having a short job followed by a resume gap could be enough of a signal to get you bumped in favor of any number of perfect resumes.
Adjust expectations accordingly for companies between the two extremes.
> What do you think about new grads having to switch not long after because of bad work environment, bait-and-switch, etc? I hope such a negative outlook is not that prevalent.
I think everybody gets a mulligan and I personally wouldn't hold it against a junior. A single data point isn't a trend.
However, I would still question the candidate thoroughly about it. Unfortunately, there are many people who leave otherwise decent jobs because their expectations are too far detached from reality. When someone's definition of a "bad work environment" is being expected to participate in code review (true story), the problem wasn't with their employer. Some basic questioning can usually get to the bottom of this, but it's more common than you might expect.
I've stayed at crappy companies for a couple of years to avoid this on resume.
With how racist and sexist many companies are now, it's getting harder to find a safe one to hire into where I can just do my job and not get involved in political stuff.
Sounds like an egoist perspective, which is fine if that's your ideology.
I think most people would see this as a loss for the small firm (note that the firms size matters). The cost of an employee is pretty high for small shops and salary is just one of the line items that come with OP's employment. Additionally, severance is rarely offered in positions less than 1 yr, even then it's optional.
No thanks. Spending 6 months getting ramped up and finally productive only to be let go and have to start the search all over again sounds like my nightmare.
Wait, you take it easy for six months when onboarding? That’s an interesting strategy but can’t say I’d recommend it to a junior to mid-level engineer.
>Isn’t that pretty great? Get paid for 6 months of relatively light ramp up time and then a few months worth of severance for some time off once fired?
Nah that'll torch your resume for years. Unless you're a total rockstar otherwise, I'd be terrified to explain a 6 month stint.
You only need to worry if you have a series of very short stints, especially if there's any gap between them.
But one six month stint is fine, especially if you can explain it away with something pithy about how the economy tanked and the company shed a significant percentage of its workforce.
Depends honestly. If you have a collective experience that affected the industry it’s easy to explain. It’s more of a red flag if it’s a constant even during good times IMO
