|
wwb posted:( increasing to 15 at 5 years and 20 at 10) lol
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 20:52 |
|
|
15 seems standard to me. For everywhere I've been, it's either started at 15 with tenure increases, or stayed at 15 regardless of tenure. For example the current place ups that to 20 after 3 years, then 25 after 5 years. Plus 12-13 holidays. The only place I've heard of that does 21 days off the bat is Facebook, though I haven't heavily researched this across companies. I think they stay flat regardless of tenure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
I had 20 when I worked for Time Inc., and man, do I miss it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
My employer just switched to those stupid "unlimited" vacation systems for exempt employees. I'm rather glad that I'm non-exempt. I currently get 20 vacation, 6 sick, plus whatever holidays.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
A past job did 22/year plus 1 bankable sick day accrued per month. Job before that, I had 20 days of catchall PTO. Considering I worked remote from home at that job, if I was sick I'd phone it in from bed and not burn a sick day. One thing that really sucked was a company I was poking around at last year. 10 days, with 20 beginning the calendar year following your 2nd hire anniversary. They were prorated based on hire date otherwise. So if you hypothetically hired on tomorrow, you'd get 5 days in 2015, 10 days in 2016/2017, and you wouldn't see 20 until 2018. I didn't want to pursue the company further for other reasons, but if I had actually wanted to go forward with them I would have aggressively negotiated to get grandfathered into the 20-day tier from day 1 and told them to gently caress off otherwise. The company I'm leaving does "unlimited" vacation and it is a goddamned scam because you aren't "entitled" to anything. Any time you ask for a day off it's the businesses' requirements over yours. Screw those policies, which are intended just to make the books good (due to California labor law) at the expense of the employees.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
kitten smoothie posted:The company I'm leaving does "unlimited" vacation and it is a goddamned scam because you aren't "entitled" to anything. Any time you ask for a day off it's the businesses' requirements over yours. Screw those policies, which are intended just to make the books good (due to California labor law) at the expense of the employees. I always say that companies that offer unlimited vacation are the ones least likely to let you actually take a vacation. So far it holds up. Benefit of working for a small company: I get (I think) 15 vacation days and however many sick/personal days, but I don't think anyone actually checks or cares. I don't actually know how much vacation I'm supposed to have, I forgot after it became clear 3 years ago that no one pays attention. New Yorp New Yorp fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Jul 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
I can't find a link now but I read a great blog post recently that discussed unlimited vacation. The author put forth a thought experiment where you had an "unlimited" salary -- need money for rent or groceries or whatever, just send in the receipt and expense it. Of course every charge you run up has to be approved by your boss. If you're using "too much" salary (by some metric that varies from manager to manager within your company), you might wind up in hot water. Sounds like lunacy, but that's exactly how unlimited vacation works. Vacation is part of your comp package, and you should get what's coming to you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
That's a really good way of describing it. Gonna use that someday.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
kitten smoothie's post pretty much echos my own feelings on it, and that's as a manager who works at a company with an unlimited vacation policy. We've had the policy for something like five years and I've been a manager for three of those. In three years I've never told my engineers "no" when asked if they can take a day, nor do I track everyone's time and tell them they're taking a bit much don't they think?, but I know I've got peers who do exactly that. It's really not standardized and the weird thing is that seems to be intentional. The one time I brought it up at a manager training course I got swiftly and utterly shut down by HR. It's like they want the policy to be ill-defined and make everyone not want to take vaca...oh wait.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
Xamarin has "Unlimited Vacation" as well, but from what I can guess (Probably wrong on this, just my thoughts. I'm not in management.) it's because they didn't want to deal with how vacation laws work around the world. Since they vary from country to country, and we have employees in quite a few different ones, it was easier to just say "Hey! It's Unlimited now!" then figure out the logistics. At least that's what I think  . PTO and sick days are also included in that. Basically it boils down to "Tell your boss you're not coming in for X reason, just let someone know."Before that, it was I think three or four weeks of vacation time? So I continue to use that as for how much time I should use.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Travis CI has an interesting take on unlimited vacation, where they enforce a mandatory minimum vacation policy to make it clear this policy isn't about peer pressure to use less vacation time. http://www.paperplanes.de/2014/12/10/from-open-to-minimum-vacation-policy.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
At a previous job where we had 'unlimited' vacation, I repeatedly deferred my travels for half a year because we were in perpetual crunch on account of deadlines. Deadlines which were so aggressive absolutely everyone involved agreed the deadline wouldn't be met. I was never *not* pressured to take vacation, especially after a coworker got dinged for (extenuating factors, but still). When I left that company, they of course didn't owe any liability for vacation, because "unlimited" means "zero except when we're feeling generous". I'd probably consider making 'unlimited vacation' an explicitly disqualifying factor when deciding whether to accept an tech industry job. Seems like yellow or red flag.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
I realize that this goes both ways but, man, american labor laws are weird. You can pry the 10 public holidays and 25 vacation days mandated by law from my cold, dead, socialist nanny-state hands.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
I know people regularly hit their PTO cap and they simply lose the PTO they continue to accrue. Time off, just vaporizing into thin air. The only explanation I can think of is that their home life is miserable and they would rather work than be around their spouse/children.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Xerophyte posted:I realize that this goes both ways but, man, american labor laws are weird. You can pry the 10 public holidays and 25 vacation days mandated by law from my cold, dead, socialist nanny-state hands. Funny thing is that it's really an unfortunate and unintended side-effect from a labor law that favors workers. In the state of California (and about half the remaining states too) your accrued but unused vacation time is a liability on the books. It's earned compensation that just hasn't been paid out to you. And they have to cash you out if you quit. If they give you a raise, now that liability just goes up because so did the value of a day's pay. In other states, accrued vacation is not earned compensation, it's just treated as an agreement between you and the company that they'll still pay you for N days if you don't come into work. So in the last 5 years there's been this flood of companies starting with open vacation, or moving to open vacation policies, where they basically just declare a cutoff day, cash people out, and go to open vacation. It's a loophole into making vacation an "agreement." And I especially imagine if you're a venture backed startup your board is going to force you into running such a policy, because losing an employee could otherwise impact your cash position. It pissed a lot of people off at my company because the non-CA offices were all in states where vacation is imaginary. So on conversion day those employees accordingly got imaginary payments for their accruals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Losing a single well-paid employee will cost you under $10k in accrued vacation time, so the money is a non-issue. Startups like "unlimited" vacation because that means they don't have to worry about accurately tracking employees' time off (and they already weren't doing it anyway).
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
sarehu posted:Losing a single well-paid employee will cost you under $10k in accrued vacation time, so the money is a non-issue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
StateOwned posted:The only explanation I can think of is that their home life is miserable and they would rather work than be around their spouse/children. That's one explanation, another is that people think they're so vital that if they took any time off everything would melt down and the company would die (they're always wrong). Or, in a related fashion, they think they're the only one who can perform certain tasks and if they take time off, they'll just have twice the work to do to catch up. Even if that last is true, my take on that situation is that I'm taking time off to relax and get away from work; the last thing I'm going to do after I get back is punish myself for taking a vacation by working twice as many hours and destroying any benefit to my stress level and mental health I may have acquired during the vacation. It's the management's responsibility to keep the company staffed in such a way that it won't collapse if one person takes a vacation or falls behind or there are otherwise circumstances that result in someone being unable to work for a period of time. I'm going to operate under the assumption that this is the case, and if it isn't that's not my problem. As for unlimited vacation: I haven't ever worked in a place where that's the case, but I could imagine myself taking a lot of three-day weekends instead of a big chunk. I tend to prefer lots of little breaks, and just being able to call in whenever without having to worry about accrued time or whatever would be very nice. Che Delilas fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Jul 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Che Delilas posted:As for unlimited vacation: I haven't ever worked in a place where that's the case, but I could imagine myself taking a lot of three-day weekends instead of a big chunk. I tend to prefer lots of little breaks, and just being able to call in whenever without having to worry about accrued time or whatever would be very nice. This is basically what I do now even though we don't have unlimited vacation. I do take a week and a half some years but mostly I just bleed off my "use or lose" balance extending 3-day weekends into 4 or 5 day weekends.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
sarehu posted:lol I'm a relative short-timer and I've been here 15 years. We just had someone retire after 50.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Good Will Hrunting posted:Has anyone used those hiring websites like Hired and poo poo? Before I start an aggressive search I kinda want to exhaust my options there since it's the summer and I'm lazy. I got to my current job through Hired. Had to go through a second "marketplace" in order to not get crappy companies reaching out. But the experience was pretty easy as they're in desperate need of competent engineers going onto the platform. I'm in NYC and have 4 years of professional experience FWIW.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Doh004 posted:I got to my current job through Hired. Had to go through a second "marketplace" in order to not get crappy companies reaching out. But the experience was pretty easy as they're in desperate need of competent engineers going onto the platform. Thanks for the reply. I'm in NYC and I've got 2 years. Not looking to leave yet but my company isn't progressing like I imagined it would (and they're really bad at hiring so I've been splitting time between 2 projects) so I may be looking soon. I was worried that sites like Hired aren't the best for people with not a lot of experience but I'll give it a shot anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
A couple google recruiters have been trying to get me to come in for what seems over a year and I recently took them up on an offer for coffee/lunch and an office tour. I've heard that interviews for specific teams/projects are a little different than off the street Engineer interviews at GOOG. Anyone have any experience or insight? I don't know if I want it enough to cram career cup stuff just to refresh my algo knowledge. I know it would be a trade up in money but my current gig is just barely over a year in tenure and super laid back. (mostly a household name, rarely over 40hr weeks, I'm near 100% remote) I feel like I might be wasting peoples time going into a google interview cold. However if they focus on real work questions (I'm an iOS developer with several years experience) I know I would do well, but asking me to write a method that balances a red black tree would leave me stumped.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
Kallikrates posted:A couple google recruiters have been trying to get me to come in for what seems over a year and I recently took them up on an offer for coffee/lunch and an office tour. I've heard that interviews for specific teams/projects are a little different than off the street Engineer interviews at GOOG. If you are interviewing at GOOG they will hand you a link to a page describing everything they expect you to know - which is mostly just a list of fundamental undergrad CS concepts. You might be expected to know what a red black tree is and what some of its properties are but I doubt an interviewer would ask you to implement one. An actual technical task would more likely be a FizzBuzz that then mutates with more and more requirements like concurrency and scale. The interviewers are not trying to trick, or intimidate you - they are just trying to find answers to questions like: are you actually an engineer? do you know what you are talking about? do you have an understanding of the types of problems big G faces? how well do you collaborate and deal with changing requirements? Puzzles and memory-checks on obscure concepts answer none of these questions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Paolomania posted:If you are interviewing at GOOG they will hand you a link to a page describing everything they expect you to know - which is mostly just a list of fundamental undergrad CS concepts. You might be expected to know what a red black tree is and what some of its properties are but I doubt an interviewer would ask you to implement one. An actual technical task would more likely be a FizzBuzz that then mutates with more and more requirements like concurrency and scale. The interviewers are not trying to trick, or intimidate you - they are just trying to find answers to questions like: are you actually an engineer? do you know what you are talking about? do you have an understanding of the types of problems big G faces? how well do you collaborate and deal with changing requirements? Puzzles and memory-checks on obscure concepts answer none of these questions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Vulture Culture posted:Also, they only hire people who have the patience to get jerked around by their recruiting process for five months before being given an actual yes/no answer. Never seen this happen to people I know.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
sarehu posted:Never seen this happen to people I know.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Google doesn't hire unlucky people. http://braythwayt.com/posterous/2014/10/04/i-dont-hire-unlucky-people.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
It will always amaze me that a large number of programmers cannot do FizzBuzz-y type poo poo and I probably won't believe it until I'm a manager.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Paolomania posted:If you are interviewing at GOOG they will hand you a link to a page describing everything they expect you to know - which is mostly just a list of fundamental undergrad CS concepts. You might be expected to know what a red black tree is and what some of its properties are but I doubt an interviewer would ask you to implement one. An actual technical task would more likely be a FizzBuzz that then mutates with more and more requirements like concurrency and scale. The interviewers are not trying to trick, or intimidate you - they are just trying to find answers to questions like: are you actually an engineer? do you know what you are talking about? do you have an understanding of the types of problems big G faces? how well do you collaborate and deal with changing requirements? Puzzles and memory-checks on obscure concepts answer none of these questions. That's the phone screen, the in-person interviews get significantly more involved for a senior engineer and will involve design questions as well as whiteboarding.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Good Will Hrunting posted:It will always amaze me that a large number of programmers cannot do FizzBuzz-y type poo poo and I probably won't believe it until I'm a manager. I'm sure the visible pool is tainted by people who know how to do those problems cold but just freeze up but I can confirm, from experience, that there are a lot of candidates that just can't do any of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Good Will Hrunting posted:It will always amaze me that a large number of programmers cannot do FizzBuzz-y type poo poo and I probably won't believe it until I'm a manager. There's a big difference between "a large number of programmers" and "a large number of people applying for programming jobs".
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
What are salaries like nowadays at Google (Mountain View or elsewhere)? Like for someone with 5-7 years of experience, knows Java pretty well, and can get through their interview without too many bumps but otherwise isn't spectacular in any specific way? 150-180k?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
baquerd posted:That's the phone screen, the in-person interviews get significantly more involved for a senior engineer and will involve design questions as well as whiteboarding.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Cryolite posted:What are salaries like nowadays at Google (Mountain View or elsewhere)? Like for someone with 5-7 years of experience, knows Java pretty well, and can get through their interview without too many bumps but otherwise isn't spectacular in any specific way? 150-180k? Including all RSU's, assuming they will be fully vested? More like $250k, and that's not on the high end. That said, there's some pretty big COL stuff going on, and people who just "get through" the interviews don't typically get hired anyways. Paolomania posted:The in-person interviews still must be tasks that, even if more involved, can be reasonably completed in an hour by someone who knows what they are doing - which fundamentally limits how deep it can get. For instance, on a design interview I'd still expect some side question "what kind of data structure would you use for that?" to which someone who payed attention in undergrad and reviewed a few notes would say "why a red-black tree would be perfect for this application because of properties X, Y and Z" and so ends the tangent without a digression to show a bug-free implementation of red-black tree on whiteboard. Design questions tend to be much less about data structure usage (unless it's someone right out of school) and more about scalable architectural solutions, e.g. "Design a system to allow users to subscribe to a newsletter and be sent updates" for which the users are effectively unlimited in quantity. A whiteboard question might look like: "re-implement basic insert/contains/delete for ConcurrentHashMap as written in the standard JDK". Recent graduates get a significantly different set of questions than senior personnel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
I'm evaluating an offer from a company that's included a non-dispargement clause in their employment agreement (to 1 year after termination). I've seen these as a condition of a severance package before, but never as part of signing on. Is this as big a red flag as I think it is?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
brosmike posted:I'm evaluating an offer from a company that's included a non-dispargement clause in their employment agreement (to 1 year after termination). I've seen these as a condition of a severance package before, but never as part of signing on. Is this as big a red flag as I think it is? I mean, it'd be dumb to publicly ridicule your employer whether you're under a non-disparagement clause or not, if you're in the U.S. and therefore under at-will employment in most states. As for it extending to one year after employment, that seems kind of pointless; if they have grounds to sue you for defamation, they'd do it with or without an agreement, and if they don't, the first amendment should protect you. Some quick googling tells me that these clauses have been common boilerplate for a lot of companies, but also that the NLRB has been striking down non-disparagement clauses in recent years. If nothing else, treat it like you would a non-compete you don't like; cross out the provision (personally I'd just cross out the part about the 1 year after termination - I'm going to be fired for badmouthing my employer in a public, identifiable way with or without that agreement), sign it, and return it, see what they say. You know, if you otherwise want to accept the offer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
I find myself regretting signing my non-disparagement clause recently – I don't want to trash talk, but my fear of retribution for saying anything is weighing really heavily on me right now to the point I'm troubled even talking to my friends about it. I imagine not everyone has the same priorities, but I would probably drop that offer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Doctor w-rw-rw- posted:I find myself regretting signing my non-disparagement clause recently – I don't want to trash talk, but my fear of retribution for saying anything is weighing really heavily on me right now to the point I'm troubled even talking to my friends about it. If it's that hard to bite your tongue for a year then yeah I guess it'd be worth passing. I've had been subject to one and whenever it came up you just say "I can't talk about it". If you're particularly snarky you can make implications that get the point across because nobody's going to sue over that unless you're doing it to the head of legal of the company you're not supposed to disparage. I think one of the main ideas is that after a year you'll be over it enough that you won't say anything. I did anyway (tactfully of course).
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 20:52 |
|
|
What does disparagement even mean? Do both of these statements, at either end of the spectrum of extremity, fall under that? A) "I left my job because the engineering team had frustrating communication issues" B) "The team was hostile, their product is expensive trash, their customers are stupid for buying it, and their CEO cruises mens' rooms in the park late at night*." *Assuming that the CEO actually does do that, or else it's libel/slander and you're legally liable anyway for that, disparagement clause or not. I would feel like B would, A seems like simply a statement of neutral fact. But I don't think I'd sign off on such a clause because I'm sure that the company's general counsel would not agree on that. kitten smoothie fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Jul 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 16:10
|
|