Beware: NET-A-PORTER
Good morning, Perl Mongers, This is a followup to my post to the Perl jobs-discuss mailing list. Terrence picked it up here: http://livingcosmos.posterous.com/beware-of-net-a-porter-perl-jobs and the original can be found here: http://www.mail-archive.com/jobs-discuss@perl.org/msg01469.html About six weeks ago, I was contacted by a recruiter and asked if I was interested in a team lead position in New Jersey, and so begins my story. I was wanting to get back into the community after a limiting contract, but this wasn't really the sort of splash I hoped to make. I've never been moved to do something like this in the 10+ years I've been programming professionally. I've experienced some less than honest recruiting techniques and companies that had no issue jerking people around, but I was made aware this morning that there were at least two other Perl programmers affected, including junior candidates that probably had more hanging on this than I did. I sent the following list of events to both NET-A-PORTER and the recruiting agency 7 Dec. Earlier today (8 Dec.), the recruiter called me and confirmed this, point by point. NET-A-PORTER has, as of yet, not replied. 1) That NET-A-PORTER was fully aware of the contract rate during the interview process. 2) That NET-A-PORTER selected me to lead their US team and I was asked to wait for final sign off. 3) That NET-A-PORTER was aware that I let another opportunity go based on my understanding that my employment was pending a 'final signature'. 4) That as a condition of final sign off NET-A-PORTER asked that, at the end of the 6 month contract period, I would be willing to accept $30K less than the original budgeted salary with the proviso that the salary would be open to renegotiation based on the market conditions at that time. Furthermore that I agreed to this. 5) That NET-A-PORTER decided to withdraw the position at this point and no longer build out a US-based Perl development team. The reason given is that it would cost 1/2 as much to build out a team in the UK. For a company that espouses their programming culture and community support, I can't understand how they could think this was even remotely acceptable. If anyone has any questions, please feel free to contact me. The recruiter gave permission to share contact information with any interested parties regarding this situation. I know I'm not in the UK but, short of trying for slashdot, I thought this was the most appropriate venue for informing those who should be most aware of their actions. -r
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
I suspect this is a symptom of the GFC rather than anything more sinister. I'm sorry you and your not-to-be colleagues appear to be friendly fire in this circumstance. I can tell that GFC][ has people twitched. Although I live in the best functioning developed economy in the world (fsvo), the bank I've recently been going through the motions with were asking some weirder-than-the-last-time questions about my situation. (disclaimer, I barely know who net a porter are as they don't offer telecommute positions). -- Sent from my phone, so apologies for any spelling errors, top-posting, brevity, etc. On 09/12/2011, at 14:13, Rudolf Lippan wrote: > Good morning, Perl Mongers, > > This is a followup to my post to the Perl jobs-discuss mailing list. > Terrence picked it up here: > http://livingcosmos.posterous.com/beware-of-net-a-porter-perl-jobs and the > original can be found here: > http://www.mail-archive.com/jobs-discuss@perl.org/msg01469.html > > > About six weeks ago, I was contacted by a recruiter and asked if I was > interested in a team lead position in New Jersey, and so begins my story. > > I was wanting to get back into the community after a limiting contract, but > this wasn't really the sort of splash I hoped to make. I've never been moved > to do something like this in the 10+ years I've been programming > professionally. I've experienced some less than honest recruiting techniques > and companies that had no issue jerking people around, but I was made aware > this morning that there were at least two other Perl programmers affected, > including junior candidates that probably had more hanging on this than I did. > > I sent the following list of events to both NET-A-PORTER and the recruiting > agency 7 Dec. Earlier today (8 Dec.), the recruiter called me and confirmed > this, point by point. NET-A-PORTER has, as of yet, not replied. > > 1) That NET-A-PORTER was fully aware of the contract rate during the interview > process. > > 2) That NET-A-PORTER selected me to lead their US team and I was asked to > wait > for final sign off. > > 3) That NET-A-PORTER was aware that I let another opportunity go based on my > understanding that my employment was pending a 'final signature'. > > 4) That as a condition of final sign off NET-A-PORTER asked that, at the end > of the 6 month contract period, I would be willing to accept $30K less than > the original budgeted salary with the proviso that the salary would be open > to renegotiation based on the market conditions at that time. Furthermore > that I agreed to this. > > 5) That NET-A-PORTER decided to withdraw the position at this point and no > longer build out a US-based Perl development team. The reason given is that > it would cost 1/2 as much to build out a team in the UK. > > For a company that espouses their programming culture and community support, > I can't understand how they could think this was even remotely acceptable. > If anyone has any questions, please feel free to contact me. The recruiter > gave permission to share contact information with any interested parties > regarding this situation. > > I know I'm not in the UK but, short of trying for slashdot, I thought this > was the most appropriate venue for informing those who should be most aware > of their actions. > > -r
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
Hi Rudolf, There a couple of NaP people on this list. I don't know if they can comment though. That said, I agree with Kieren. The simplest answer is usually correct. I know it doesn't make a difference to you as you feel jerked around, but NaP likely spent a lot of time and money interviewing people, working out logistics, planning. This wouldn't have been free for them to do. It feels pretty crappy to be in your position - believe me I've been there more than once. I quickly learned that if you're unemployed, the right thing to do is take the first offer you get (or, the first good one if you can get a few in around the same time). Deal with the consequences of that later - at least you'll be eating and sleeping soundly. That said, if you're looking for work in the US, and you know PHP (sorry perl guys :) ), we're hiring at Etsy. Drop me a mail off-list if you're interested. And we're definitely up front about things! On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Rudolf Lippan wrote: > Good morning, Perl Mongers, > > This is a followup to my post to the Perl jobs-discuss mailing list. > Terrence picked it up here: > http://livingcosmos.posterous.com/beware-of-net-a-porter-perl-jobs and > the original can be found here: > http://www.mail-archive.com/jobs-discuss@perl.org/msg01469.html > > > About six weeks ago, I was contacted by a recruiter and asked if I was > interested in a team lead position in New Jersey, and so begins my story. > > I was wanting to get back into the community after a limiting contract, > but this wasn't really the sort of splash I hoped to make. I've never been > moved to do something like this in the 10+ years I've been programming > professionally. I've experienced some less than honest recruiting > techniques and companies that had no issue jerking people around, but I was > made aware this morning that there were at least two other Perl programmers > affected, including junior candidates that probably had more hanging on > this than I did. > > I sent the following list of events to both NET-A-PORTER and the > recruiting agency 7 Dec. Earlier today (8 Dec.), the recruiter called me > and confirmed this, point by point. NET-A-PORTER has, as of yet, not > replied. > > 1) That NET-A-PORTER was fully aware of the contract rate during the > interview > process. > > 2) That NET-A-PORTER selected me to lead their US team and I was asked to > wait > for final sign off. > > 3) That NET-A-PORTER was aware that I let another opportunity go based on > my > understanding that my employment was pending a 'final signature'. > > 4) That as a condition of final sign off NET-A-PORTER asked that, at the > end > of the 6 month contract period, I would be willing to accept $30K less > than > the original budgeted salary with the proviso that the salary would be > open > to renegotiation based on the market conditions at that time. > Furthermore > that I agreed to this. > > 5) That NET-A-PORTER decided to withdraw the position at this point and no > longer build out a US-based Perl development team. The reason given is > that > it would cost 1/2 as much to build out a team in the UK. > > For a company that espouses their programming culture and community > support, I can't understand how they could think this was even remotely > acceptable. If anyone has any questions, please feel free to contact me. > The recruiter gave permission to share contact information with any > interested parties regarding this situation. > > I know I'm not in the UK but, short of trying for slashdot, I thought this > was the most appropriate venue for informing those who should be most aware > of their actions. > > -r >
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On Thursday, December 08, 2011 at 11:23:35 PM, Kieren Diment wrote: > I suspect this is a symptom of the GFC rather than anything more sinister. > I'm sorry you and your not-to-be colleagues appear to be friendly fire in > this circumstance. I don't know if I buy that: 6 December 2011: "...Net-a-porte[sic] has decided not to build a team here in the US. Apparently it's half the cost for them to build a team in the UK vs. here in the US..." 7 December 2011: http://jobs.perl.org/job/14442 Posted: December 7, 2011 Company name: Net-a-porter Internal ID:Junior Perl Developer - New Jersey Location: New York, NY, USA -r
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On 9 December 2011 06:54, Rudolf Lippan wrote: > > On Thursday, December 08, 2011 at 11:23:35 PM, Kieren Diment wrote: >> I suspect this is a symptom of the GFC rather than anything more sinister. >> I'm sorry you and your not-to-be colleagues appear to be friendly fire in >> this circumstance. > > > I don't know if I buy that: > > > 6 December 2011: > > "...Net-a-porte[sic] has decided not to build a team here > in the US. Apparently it's half the cost for them to build a team in the > UK vs. here in the US..." > > > > 7 December 2011: > http://jobs.perl.org/job/14442 > > Posted: December 7, 2011 > Company name: Net-a-porter > Internal ID: Junior Perl Developer - New Jersey > Location: New York, NY, USA Your recruitment agent could well be telling porky pies NaP, are a pretty reputable outfit - anything you didnt hear directly from them I'd take with a pinch of salt, and I'd never turn down another offer without a written offer or signed contract, certainly not on the word of a recruiter. Could be worth re-applying directly to that ad, if you haven't just marked your own card by your posts about them to perl lists cheers, A -- Aaron J Trevena, BSc Hons http://www.aarontrevena.co.uk LAMP System Integration, Development and Consulting
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On 09/12/2011, at 5:54 PM, Rudolf Lippan wrote: > > On Thursday, December 08, 2011 at 11:23:35 PM, Kieren Diment wrote: >> I suspect this is a symptom of the GFC rather than anything more sinister. >> I'm sorry you and your not-to-be colleagues appear to be friendly fire in >> this circumstance. > > > I don't know if I buy that: > > > 6 December 2011: > > "...Net-a-porte[sic] has decided not to build a team here > in the US. Apparently it's half the cost for them to build a team in the > UK vs. here in the US..." > > > > 7 December 2011: >http://jobs.perl.org/job/14442 > > Posted: December 7, 2011 > Company name: Net-a-porter > Internal ID: Junior Perl Developer - New Jersey > Location: New York, NY, USA > Despite that information, I still buy it. Business entities that no longer fit the "small" definition can hit the wall of stupidity/psychopathy (whereby the becoming one of the two become interchangeably unidentifiable, despite prior good work) pretty fast. So I'm still reading this as *symptom* of the GFC rather than caused by NAP being a bunch of bleeps. However, it still sucks. I'm just reluctant to point fingers etc.
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 2:10 AM, Aaron Trevena wrote: > On 9 December 2011 06:54, Rudolf Lippan wrote: > > > > On Thursday, December 08, 2011 at 11:23:35 PM, Kieren Diment wrote: > >> I suspect this is a symptom of the GFC rather than anything more > sinister. I'm sorry you and your not-to-be colleagues appear to be friendly > fire in this circumstance. > > > > > > I don't know if I buy that: > > > > > > 6 December 2011: > > > > "...Net-a-porte[sic] has decided not to build a team here > > in the US. Apparently it's half the cost for them to build a team in the > > UK vs. here in the US..." > > > > > > > > 7 December 2011: > >http://jobs.perl.org/job/14442 > > > > Posted: December 7, 2011 > > Company name: Net-a-porter > > Internal ID:Junior Perl Developer - New Jersey > > Location: New York, NY, USA > > Your recruitment agent could well be telling porky pies NaP, are a > pretty reputable outfit - anything you didnt hear directly from them > I'd take with a pinch of salt, and I'd never turn down another offer > without a written offer or signed contract, certainly not on the word > of a recruiter. > > Could be worth re-applying directly to that ad, if you haven't just > marked your own card by your posts about them to perl lists Indeed. My impression of NaP was also that they're very good. Given that I know people there and have only heard good things (you know a company is good when people don't want to leave). So if you're a) good, and b) lucky and c) NaP understands the recruiter might have screwed you both, talk to them directly. At least here in the US, bypassing recruiters is the much preferred method. I don't know why they're still so heavily relied on in the UK.
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
UK programmers are half the cost of US programmer? Wow, and I thought all the IT jobs were moving to India! Maybe it's time to move back to the UK, where the beer is warm and the girls are... -- Ciao Richard Foley http://www.rfi.net/books.html On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 01:54:58AM -0500, Rudolf Lippan wrote: > > On Thursday, December 08, 2011 at 11:23:35 PM, Kieren Diment wrote: > > I suspect this is a symptom of the GFC rather than anything more sinister. > > I'm sorry you and your not-to-be colleagues appear to be friendly fire in > > this circumstance. > > > I don't know if I buy that: > > > 6 December 2011: > > "...Net-a-porte[sic] has decided not to build a team here > in the US. Apparently it's half the cost for them to build a team in the > UK vs. here in the US..." > > > > 7 December 2011: > http://jobs.perl.org/job/14442 > > Posted: December 7, 2011 > Company name: Net-a-porter > Internal ID: Junior Perl Developer - New Jersey > Location: New York, NY, USA > > > -r
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On Friday, December 09, 2011 at 02:23:22 AM, Avleen Vig wrote: > > Indeed. My impression of NaP was also that they're very good. Given that I > know people there and have only heard good things (you know a company is > good when people don't want to leave). > So if you're a) good, and b) lucky and c) NaP understands the recruiter > might have screwed you both, talk to them directly. > I emailed both NaP and Eliassen. Eliassen called me to confirm my understanding. I have not heard anything from NaP. I have contact information for Eliassen. Email me off list if you would like it. My understanding is that NAP had a very hard time finding people in the US---I know I passed their posts by before. I had serious concerns after talking to them, and the recruiter kept me from jumping 3 or 4 times during the process explaining, "They don't understand the US market". I estimate that commission for my position alone would have probably be around 54K, but I think it was probably worth it from what I saw of NAP recruitment. > At least here in the US, bypassing recruiters is the much preferred method. > I don't know why they're still so heavily relied on in the UK. > I suspect that is because it adds about 30% to the cost of hiring someone; however, if you can't attract people -r
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On Friday, December 09, 2011 at 02:10:22 AM, Aaron Trevena wrote: > On 9 December 2011 06:54, Rudolf Lippan wrote: > > > > On Thursday, December 08, 2011 at 11:23:35 PM, Kieren Diment wrote: > >> I suspect this is a symptom of the GFC rather than anything more sinister. > >> I'm sorry you and your not-to-be colleagues appear to be friendly fire in > >> this circumstance. > > > > > > I don't know if I buy that: > > > > > > 6 December 2011: > > > > "...Net-a-porte[sic] has decided not to build a team here > > in the US. Apparently it's half the cost for them to build a team in the > > UK vs. here in the US..." > > > > > > > > 7 December 2011: > >http://jobs.perl.org/job/14442 > > > > Posted: December 7, 2011 > > Company name: Net-a-porter > > Internal ID:Junior Perl Developer - New Jersey > > Location: New York, NY, USA > > Your recruitment agent could well be telling porky pies NaP, are a Perhaps, but she seemed pretty willing to back it up... > pretty reputable outfit - anything you didnt hear directly from them > I'd take with a pinch of salt, and I'd never turn down another offer > without a written offer or signed contract, certainly not on the word > of a recruiter. > I think it is all about fit. NaP looked to be a perfect fit in terms in terms of community and environment for me, so I think it was worth the risk, but I did not expect a reputable company to pull something like this... > Could be worth re-applying directly to that ad, if you haven't just > marked your own card by your posts about them to perl lists Are you serious? -r
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On 12/09/2011 02:58 AM, Rudolf Lippan wrote: On Friday, December 09, 2011 at 02:23:22 AM, Avleen Vig wrote: My understanding is that NAP had a very hard time finding people in the US---I know I passed their posts by before. I had serious concerns after talking to them, and the recruiter kept me from jumping 3 or 4 times during the process explaining, "They don't understand the US market". I estimate that commission for my position alone would have probably be around 54K, but I think it was probably worth it from what I saw of NAP recruitment. where did you get that figure? given the standard rate of 20% (and i know since i recruit) or even less, that would mean a salary of over 250k which is ridiculous but for a handful of perl hackers i know about (merlyn!). i don't have a deal with NaP so i can't say anything about this blowup. but i wouldn't ever keep someone from taking the bird in the hand. it is unprofessional and #^#^@&ed up. > At least here in the US, bypassing recruiters is the much preferred > method. I don't know why they're still so heavily relied on in the > UK. preferred by some but not all. again, depends on the agent. I suspect that is because it adds about 30% to the cost of hiring someone; however, if you can't attract people it is usually less cost than that. no one pays 30% or charges it. and if 30% is your figure then the 54k commission above means a $180k salary which is still on the high side. and using an agency can mean more work for the employer. if an agency just blasts you with dozens of resumes found by buzzword matching, the employer has to screen the resumes, then do a large number of phone screen, then more interviews, etc. so the time spent doing all that must be factored in to the total cost. on the other side if you find the right hacker in a reasonable time, you can use them to get the project done in a reasonable time frame and earn revenue from that. even advertising on the perl jobs list will get you a pile of resumes and all the work needed to filter/screen them. it is 'free' advertising but costly recruiting. this is why picking your agency is just as important as picking your employer. call this a shameless plug for perlhunter.com. uri
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On Fri, 2011-12-09 at 02:23 -0500, Avleen Vig wrote: > On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 2:10 AM, Aaron Trevena wrote: [snip] > > At least here in the US, bypassing recruiters is the much preferred method. > I don't know why they're still so heavily relied on in the UK. The agency does the legwork, saving both the company time in going through lots of CVs, and the contractor in having to trawl through hundreds of company web sites looking for jobs. The agency centralises the billing so that the company has to deal with fewer invoices at the end of the month. The agency smooths out the cash flow to the contractor. Large companies can take a very long time to pay an invoice. The agency insulates the company from many of the restrictions of employment law. As a contractor of 40+ years, I don't grudge them their 10%. When I started they used to take 37%+. Some things have improved.
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
Hi Raphael, I am very sorry to hear of your situation. That said, please could you give NaP a bit more time to get back to you before this discussion goes any further on a public list. Many thanks Leo (London.pm leader)
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On 9 December 2011 08:10, Rudolf Lippan wrote: >> Your recruitment agent could well be telling porky pies NaP, are a > > Perhaps, but she seemed pretty willing to back it up... Hmm.. When at LOVEFiLM we had lots of recruiters telling fibs - we had an exclusive partnership with BlueGlue, and it was made clear on the website and where the job was advertised, yet recruiters were telling candidates all sorts of things about why we weren't hiring them and it was very fraustrating when meeting people who apparently got turned down when nobody had even seen their CV. I wouldn't put much faith in anything I didn't hear directly from a N-a-P employee on this matter. >> pretty reputable outfit - anything you didnt hear directly from them >> I'd take with a pinch of salt, and I'd never turn down another offer >> without a written offer or signed contract, certainly not on the word >> of a recruiter. >> > > I think it is all about fit. NaP looked to be a perfect fit in terms in > terms of community and environment for me, so I think it was worth the > risk, but I did not expect a reputable company to pull something like this... > >> Could be worth re-applying directly to that ad, if you haven't just >> marked your own card by your posts about them to perl lists > > Are you serious? Did you get an offer from NaP themselves, from a NaP email or verbally from an actual NaP employee? That's the key thing, if so then you're right to feel let down. I noticed at the end of that new post they explicityly state no recruiters, there's probably a good reason for that. A. -- Aaron J Trevena, BSc Hons http://www.aarontrevena.co.uk LAMP System Integration, Development and Consulting
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On 9 Dec 2011, at 07:49, Richard Foley wrote: > UK programmers are half the cost of US programmer? Wow, and I thought all the > IT jobs were moving to India! Cost of the developers is not the sole cost in building a team in another country ;-) Adrian -- http://quietstars.com adri...@quietstars.com twitter.com/adrianh t. +44 (0)7752 419080 skype adrianjohnhoward del.icio.us/adrianh
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
> > I wouldn't put much faith in anything I didn't hear directly from a > N-a-P employee on this matter. > > Hah. After chatting to NAP's HR person at YAPC::EU about a job, and then sending an email asking, and then a follow-up email checking why I hadn't heard anything, I gave up trying to do anything with NAP directly. They seemed very disorganised on the management side and I presume recruiters hide that chaos away from potential recruits. It's possible in this case Rudolf is seeing a reflection of that US-side. Shame really, after they hosted an excellent London.pm tech event at their secret lair atop Westfield Shepherds Bush some months ago. YMMV Regards, Peter
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
Morning. I should prefix my response that I am currently an employee of NAP and have been for over 4.5 years. I'm sorry that your experience with NAP has been far from ideal. I haven't personally been involved with the hiring over the US but I have forwarded the details to the people involved so they can clarify situation. Jason On 9 December 2011 03:13, Rudolf Lippan wrote: > Good morning, Perl Mongers, > > This is a followup to my post to the Perl jobs-discuss mailing list. > Terrence picked it up here: > http://livingcosmos.posterous.com/beware-of-net-a-porter-perl-jobs and > the original can be found here: > http://www.mail-archive.com/jobs-discuss@perl.org/msg01469.html > > > About six weeks ago, I was contacted by a recruiter and asked if I was > interested in a team lead position in New Jersey, and so begins my story. > > I was wanting to get back into the community after a limiting contract, > but this wasn't really the sort of splash I hoped to make. I've never been > moved to do something like this in the 10+ years I've been programming > professionally. I've experienced some less than honest recruiting > techniques and companies that had no issue jerking people around, but I was > made aware this morning that there were at least two other Perl programmers > affected, including junior candidates that probably had more hanging on > this than I did. > > I sent the following list of events to both NET-A-PORTER and the > recruiting agency 7 Dec. Earlier today (8 Dec.), the recruiter called me > and confirmed this, point by point. NET-A-PORTER has, as of yet, not > replied. > > 1) That NET-A-PORTER was fully aware of the contract rate during the > interview > process. > > 2) That NET-A-PORTER selected me to lead their US team and I was asked to > wait > for final sign off. > > 3) That NET-A-PORTER was aware that I let another opportunity go based on > my > understanding that my employment was pending a 'final signature'. > > 4) That as a condition of final sign off NET-A-PORTER asked that, at the > end > of the 6 month contract period, I would be willing to accept $30K less > than > the original budgeted salary with the proviso that the salary would be > open > to renegotiation based on the market conditions at that time. > Furthermore > that I agreed to this. > > 5) That NET-A-PORTER decided to withdraw the position at this point and no > longer build out a US-based Perl development team. The reason given is > that > it would cost 1/2 as much to build out a team in the UK. > > For a company that espouses their programming culture and community > support, I can't understand how they could think this was even remotely > acceptable. If anyone has any questions, please feel free to contact me. > The recruiter gave permission to share contact information with any > interested parties regarding this situation. > > I know I'm not in the UK but, short of trying for slashdot, I thought this > was the most appropriate venue for informing those who should be most aware > of their actions. > > -r >
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
Quoting Raphael Mankin : The agency does the legwork, saving both the company time in going through lots of CVs, and the contractor in having to trawl through hundreds of company web sites looking for jobs. The agency centralises the billing so that the company has to deal with fewer invoices at the end of the month. The agency smooths out the cash flow to the contractor. Large companies can take a very long time to pay an invoice. The agency insulates the company from many of the restrictions of employment law. As a contractor of 40+ years, I don't grudge them their 10%. When I started they used to take 37%+. Some things have improved. We're talking about permie recruitment here, not contractors. Dave...
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 10:13:49PM -0500, Rudolf Lippan typed: > About six weeks ago, I was contacted by a recruiter and asked if I was > interested in a team lead position in New Jersey, and so begins my story. I've no particular reason to defend NAP or doubt your story but publically publishing complaints about recruitment doesn't strike me as professional. Shit happens. Deal with it. We have all been messed around. Save the venting for the pub or IRC. -- Steve Mynott
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On 9 December 2011 10:57, Steve Mynott wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 10:13:49PM -0500, Rudolf Lippan typed: > > I've no particular reason to defend NAP or doubt your story but publically > publishing complaints about recruitment doesn't strike me as professional. Well, to be fair, privately putting you in the shit is not very professional neither .. -- Jerome Eteve. http://sigstp.blogspot.com/ http://twitter.com/jeteve
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
Actually, I'm finding this quite informative. >From what I've seen Net a Porter does quite a bit to maintain good relationships with the Perl community and I've heard a lot of good things about them in the past from friends working there. It sounds like the recruitment agency could be the real source of problems here. Maybe that's who we should really be talking about. Ian Knopke BBC On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Steve Mynott wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 10:13:49PM -0500, Rudolf Lippan typed: > >> About six weeks ago, I was contacted by a recruiter and asked if I was >> interested in a team lead position in New Jersey, and so begins my story. > > I've no particular reason to defend NAP or doubt your story but publically > publishing complaints about recruitment doesn't strike me as professional. > > Shit happens. Deal with it. We have all been messed around. > > Save the venting for the pub or IRC. > > -- > Steve Mynott
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On 9 Dec 2011, at 10:57, Steve Mynott wrote: > I've no particular reason to defend NAP or doubt your story but publically > publishing complaints about recruitment doesn't strike me as professional. > > Shit happens. Deal with it. We have all been messed around. > > Save the venting for the pub or IRC. Your name is gellyfish and I claim my five pounds. More poignantly, a whole bunch of perl employers in London have probably added the OP to their "caveat emptor" list. /j
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
Rudolf Lippan writes: > Good morning, Perl Mongers, Hi Rudolf. Thanks for the warning, and sorry to hear that you're out of a job you'd been expecting. > This is a followup to my post to the Perl jobs-discuss mailing list. > Terrence picked it up here: > http://livingcosmos.posterous.com/beware-of-net-a-porter-perl-jobs and > the original can be found here: > http://www.mail-archive.com/jobs-discuss@perl.org/msg01469.html Hmmm, I thought one of the features of the job discuss list was that it isn't archived, but apparently it is. > 1) That NET-A-PORTER was fully aware of the contract rate during the >interview process. > > 2) That NET-A-PORTER selected me to lead their US team and I was asked >to wait for final sign off. Waiting for something to be signed off obviously means that it isn't currently signed off, and therefore there's a risk that it won't be signed off, surely? (Because if everything that might be signed off does eventually get signed off, there's really no point in having a sign-off process.) It also means there's more than one person involved here: as a minimum a person who wants to employ you (and is seeking the sign-off) and at least one person to do the signing-off. It seems natural that the person who wants to employ you would wish for you to wait for sign-off, because if you don't wait then he/she doesn't get to employ you. But at that point you have no contract with them -- if a better opportunity arose during that time, you're entirely within your rights to withdraw. If you do wait, that's your choice. > 3) That NET-A-PORTER was aware that I let another opportunity go based >on my understanding that my employment was pending a 'final >signature'. It's always tricky when you have a choice like that -- whether you choose to take a job being offered now or hold out in the hope of a better one, you can end up later wishing you'd chosen t'other option. However, it doesn't really make sense for a potential employer to employ somebody simply because he's turned down work elsewhere. If, to those with final sign-off power, it isn't right to employ somebody then that's the case regardless of what other opportunities the job-seeker has had or turned down. > 4) That as a condition of final sign off NET-A-PORTER asked that, at >the end of the 6 month contract period, I would be willing to >accept $30K less than the original budgeted salary with the proviso >that the salary would be open to renegotiation based on the market >conditions at that time. Furthermore that I agreed to this. So you negotiated a salary with a potential employer. It turned out less than you might've liked, but that seems fairly likely. > 5) That NET-A-PORTER decided to withdraw the position at this point That's really unfortunate for you, especially since you'd turned down other work. It certainly sucks from your side. But I'm struggling to extrapolate from that into behaviour by Net-a-Porter that I need to beware of. It sounds like they said they hoped to do something but it hadn't been approved yet, then later turned out that approval wasn't granted. That's unfortunate, and frustrating, certainly, but it doesn't seem immoral. (It quite possibly also sucks for the person there who had been keen to employ you and was seeking sign-off.) > For a company that espouses their programming culture and community > support, I can't understand how they could think this was even > remotely acceptable. It seems quite acceptable to me, so I can understand how others would also think that. (For what it's worth, I have no connections with Net-a-Porter.) Best wishes Smylers -- Watch fiendish TV quiz 'Only Connect' (some questions by me) Mondays at 20:30 on BBC4, or iPlayer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/onlyconnect
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On 09/12/2011, at 22:25, Ian Knopke wrote: > Actually, I'm finding this quite informative. > The whole corporate behaviour thing is pretty interesting. When I do research on the topic, me and my ethics committee are generally pretty careful about the who and how we mention sensitive stuff. My worst recruitment experience resulted in me getting a small cheque at the end for my expenses after I had a whine at them (and their overly elaborate recruitment process). Things were fairly bad for me work-wise at the time, and I ended up having to pawn my wetsuit not long afterwards. Which in turn closed the door on a career change to illegal abalone fisherman for me. >> From what I've seen Net a Porter does quite a bit to maintain good > relationships with the Perl community and I've heard a lot of good > things about them in the past from friends working there. > > It sounds like the recruitment agency could be the real source of > problems here. Maybe that's who we should really be talking about. > > > Ian Knopke > BBC > > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Steve Mynott wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 10:13:49PM -0500, Rudolf Lippan typed: >> >>> About six weeks ago, I was contacted by a recruiter and asked if I was >>> interested in a team lead position in New Jersey, and so begins my story. >> >> I've no particular reason to defend NAP or doubt your story but publically >> publishing complaints about recruitment doesn't strike me as professional. >> >> Shit happens. Deal with it. We have all been messed around. >> >> Save the venting for the pub or IRC. >> >> -- >> Steve Mynott >
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Steve Mynott wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 10:13:49PM -0500, Rudolf Lippan typed: > >> About six weeks ago, I was contacted by a recruiter and asked if I was >> interested in a team lead position in New Jersey, and so begins my story. > > I've no particular reason to defend NAP or doubt your story but publically > publishing complaints about recruitment doesn't strike me as professional. > > Shit happens. Deal with it. We have all been messed around. > > Save the venting for the pub or IRC. He is providing a useful service for us all at his own expense (by risking being marked by other potential employers) - why complain? Zbigniew
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On 9 Dec 2011, at 12:12, Zbigniew Łukasiak wrote: > He is providing a useful service for us all at his own expense (by > risking being marked by other potential employers) - why complain? Because while he may think he is, he isn't. Net-a-porter were pretty on the ball when I interviewed for a contract position there and while the OP's story is a bit depressing, it's basic economics. NAP have a gigantic dev team in london and all the management structure is in place to deal with it. They'd want to recreate this in the states which mean doubling up of a lot of managerial jobs, plus there'd inevitably be costs involved in harmonising with the UK team. When the structure is already in place and can be easily scaled to more people, why bother spending all of that cash in a way that wouldn't benefit them as much when they could just deal with it in London? I don't necessarily think it's a nice fact that economics works this way but it's a fact and we have to work within the constraints we have in life. I've been screwed much harder than the OP in the past for economic reasons and it does at least help focus the mind. Disclaimer: I formerly consulted for net-a-porter. /j
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On 9 December 2011 11:42, Smylers wrote: > Rudolf Lippan writes: [...] >> 3) That NET-A-PORTER was aware that I let another opportunity go based >> on my understanding that my employment was pending a 'final >> signature'. [...] >> 4) That as a condition of final sign off [...] I agreed to this. [...] >> 5) That NET-A-PORTER decided to withdraw the position at this point > That's really unfortunate for you, especially since you'd turned down > other work. It certainly sucks from your side. > > But I'm struggling to extrapolate from that into behaviour by > Net-a-Porter that I need to beware of. He may well have had the choice of whether to wait for this "sign off" instead of taking another role. But if they were aware of his having another offer, took their time, let him think the role was "in the bag" and then yanked it after it was too late for the other position, and knew this to be the case, they've very much left him in the lurch. > It sounds like they said they > hoped to do something but it hadn't been approved yet, then later turned > out that approval wasn't granted. That's unfortunate, and frustrating, > certainly, but it doesn't seem immoral. It's basically a sort of "bait and switch". You may not consider it "immoral", he does, and at the end of the day it's a betrayal of a trust which - apparently - they knowingly asked for and accepted. Hence the warning to the rest of us that this might happen. It's a salutory lesson, even if you think it's perfectly "moral", that we should all watch out for the possible effects of "economics", and to censure him for providing that warning to all of us is like telling the green cross code guy "hey, people get run over if they mess with cars".
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Steve Mynott wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 10:13:49PM -0500, Rudolf Lippan typed: > >> About six weeks ago, I was contacted by a recruiter and asked if I was >> interested in a team lead position in New Jersey, and so begins my story. > > I've no particular reason to defend NAP or doubt your story but publically > publishing complaints about recruitment doesn't strike me as professional. > > Shit happens. Deal with it. We have all been messed around. > > Save the venting for the pub or IRC. Why shouldn't we publicly discuss recruitment issues like this? NAP can (and hopefully will) respond to explain themselves - its very rare for any discussion on this forum be one-sided and I doubt this will be one of them. Regardless of who is to blame for this situation, its good for people like myself (who within a few months will be looking for a job) to know the kinds of issues they might face. Discussions like this wouldn't put me off applying for a job, but might help me to be careful about how I deal with the potential employer in the process. And anyway if NAP don't like this being made public, they should get their shit together and call the disgruntled parties to explain themselves. Alternatively, they equally have to accept that "Shit happens. Deal with it." Chris
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
Quite right, careless phrasing, I shall re-work it: Building a team in the apparently UK costs half what it does in the US? Wow, and I thought all the IT projects were moving to India, (or Ireland...)! Seriously, if some of these managers could get their heads around leveraging the power of telecommuting project teams, they'd not have to worry too much about the respective costs of having a team in any one country. There are certainly management issues with having a distributed team, but then, that's what managers are there for, to "manage the project", regardless of location, surely? Making everyone come to school so you can see them doing their homework, is a barse-ackwards project micro-management technique. Just IMHO ;-) -- Ciao Richard Foley http://www.rfi.net/books.html On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 10:30:37AM +, Adrian Howard wrote: > > On 9 Dec 2011, at 07:49, Richard Foley wrote: > > > UK programmers are half the cost of US programmer? Wow, and I thought all > > the > > IT jobs were moving to India! > > Cost of the developers is not the sole cost in building a team in another > country ;-) > > Adrian > > -- > http://quietstars.com adri...@quietstars.com twitter.com/adrianh > t. +44 (0)7752 419080 skype adrianjohnhoward del.icio.us/adrianh > > >
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On 9 Dec 2011, at 12:51, "Jones, Christopher" wrote: > And anyway if NAP don't like this being made public, they should get their > shit together and call the disgruntled parties to explain themselves. > Alternatively, they equally have to accept that "Shit happens. Deal with it." You've never dealt with a vulturous recruiter, have you? /j
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 01:57:56PM +0100, Richard Foley wrote: > Seriously, if some of these managers could get their heads around leveraging > the power of telecommuting project teams, they'd not have to worry too much > about the respective costs of having a team in any one country. This idea that with the right magic pixie dust teleworking can be made to work regardless of the company, the colleagues, and the employee is a nice idea, but I have seen no evidence whatsoever that it is true. Teleworking erects barriers to communication both between customer (internal or external doesn't matter) and geek, and indeed between you and the rest of the people you're working with. And communication is *important*. WAY more important than most geeks seem to think. -- David Cantrell | Hero of the Information Age Your call is important to me. To see if it's important to you I'm going to make you wait on hold for five minutes. All calls are recorded for blackmail and amusement purposes.
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On 9 Dec 2011, at 13:10, James Laver wrote: On 9 Dec 2011, at 12:51, "Jones, Christopher" wrote: And anyway if NAP don't like this being made public, they should get their shit together and call the disgruntled parties to explain themselves. Alternatively, they equally have to accept that "Shit happens. Deal with it." You've never dealt with a vulturous recruiter, have you? Well spotted Sherlock! But soon I might have to. Which is why I'm finding this discussion so interesting. Chris
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Uri Guttman wrote: > On 12/09/2011 02:58 AM, Rudolf Lippan wrote: > >> On Friday, December 09, 2011 at 02:23:22 AM, Avleen Vig wrote: >> > > My understanding is that NAP had a very hard time finding people in the >> US---I know I passed their posts by before. I had serious concerns after >> talking to them, and the recruiter kept me from jumping 3 or 4 times >> during the process explaining, "They don't understand the US market". >> >> I estimate that commission for my position alone would have probably >> be around 54K, but I think it was probably worth it from what I saw of >> NAP recruitment. >> > > where did you get that figure? given the standard rate of 20% (and i > know since i recruit) or even less, that would mean a salary of over > 250k which is ridiculous but for a handful of perl hackers i know about > (merlyn!). > Not hardly. Google regularly pays around this number for good programmers (read: good, not exceptional) in New York. This does include things like stock options etc, not just base pay. And I don't know if merlyn is on this list (hi randal! long time no speak!), but he's out in Portland last I heard, and wages there are a lot lot lower than new york - but quality of life is arguably much, much higher too :-)
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Richard Foley wrote: > UK programmers are half the cost of US programmer? Wow, and I thought all > the > IT jobs were moving to India! > > Maybe it's time to move back to the UK, where the beer is warm and the > girls > are... The true answer, of course, depends on your definition of "half". US salaries (use payroll expense) is much higher than in the UK. Where in London I would pay a programmer or sysadmin about £45k - £55k, in New York I would pay at least $125k - $150k (about £78k - £93k). This sounds really great! Until you realise that it's pretty much a wash. You'll pay far less for some things in the UK than in the US (eg, food seems to generally be a lot cheaper in the UK), and vice versa (petrol in the US is cheaper than pissing in your own toilet). Having grown up in London (and lived there recently) and lived in quite a few ma
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Richard Foley wrote: > UK programmers are half the cost of US programmer? Wow, and I thought all > the > IT jobs were moving to India! > > Maybe it's time to move back to the UK, where the beer is warm and the > girls > are... The true answer, of course, depends on your definition of "half". US salaries (use payroll expense) is much higher than in the UK. Where in London I would pay a programmer or sysadmin about £45k - £55k, in New York I would pay at least $125k - $150k (about £78k - £93k). This sounds really great! Until you realise that it's pretty much a wash. You'll pay far less for some things in the UK than in the US (eg, food seems to generally be a lot cheaper in the UK), and vice versa (petrol in the US is cheaper than pissing in your own toilet). Having grown up in London (and lived there recently) and lived in quite a few major metro areas in the US, I can quite confidently say that both pay levels result in similar quality of life. No-one is getting rich. Then there are taxes that both you and the employer have to pay (generally UK employers pay less than US employers or a similar amount I believe, whereas UK employees pay much more). US employers have to pay large healthcare costs for their employees, and other benefits like "commuter benefits" where they get you cheaper travel on public transport, etc. There are many more things too. So yes, the UK does cost "less" but in the end it doesn't for anyone.
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On 09/12/2011 13:10, James Laver wrote: You've never dealt with a vulturous recruiter, have you? Is there any other kind of recruiter?
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On Dec 9, 2011 8:22 AM, "David Cantrell" wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 01:57:56PM +0100, Richard Foley wrote: > > > Seriously, if some of these managers could get their heads around leveraging > > the power of telecommuting project teams, they'd not have to worry too much > > about the respective costs of having a team in any one country. > > This idea that with the right magic pixie dust teleworking can be made > to work regardless of the company, the colleagues, and the employee is a > nice idea, but I have seen no evidence whatsoever that it is true. > > Teleworking erects barriers to communication both between customer > (internal or external doesn't matter) and geek, and indeed between you > and the rest of the people you're working with. And communication is > *important*. WAY more important than most geeks seem to think. Not entirely true. Telecommuting doesnt erect barriers, it results in different barriers which need ti be handled differently. I worked for a distributed company for almost to years. Since then I've worked from home for almost 18 months. It's not more barriers, it's different ones. Eg in the office I sometimes hated having to find people, figure out where they are, maybe having to deal with them face to face when they're having a bad day. These things get better with telecommuting ime :)
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On 9 December 2011 14:24, Jason Clifford wrote: > On 09/12/2011 13:10, James Laver wrote: >> >> You've never dealt with a vulturous recruiter, have you? > > > Is there any other kind of recruiter? If had some dealings with a company I consider a good recruiter. Although in fairness, last I heard one of their key staff relatively recently (I haven't spoken to him in a year or so) left to start his own firm, so normal service is resumed -- Nonnullus unus commodo reddo is mihi. ABC*D1EFGHIJK2.LMNO3*4PQRST*ITUBE-STANDARD-ANTI-BULLSHEIT-EMAIL*U.56X
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
Hi there, I'm an employee at NET-A-PORTER. I've been asked to forward the response from our head of recruitment, which I've pasted in full below. I've also posted this to the Perl Jobs discussion list. (I was unable to continue the thread there as I wasn't a member of that list until earlier today.) Regards, Chisel cut here Hi Rudolf, I’m James and I head up the recruitment team for the NET-A-PORTER Group of businesses; I’d like to start by apologizing for this situation. I truly understand how frustrating and isolating the interview process can be: we try to stay in close contact with all candidates interviewing for roles within our organization, wherever possible we try to avoid using third party recruiters, as so often our message becomes occluded and things inevitably get ‘lost in translation’. I am very disappointed that much of what the recruiter has told you is incorrect; I would welcome the opportunity to speak with you directly to try to resolve this situation. I will also be speaking to the Recruitment Agency separately about this. For everyone else that has contributed to the discussion please understand that whilst we do partner with third party recruiters from time to time we have little or no control over what individual agents might purportedly say on our behalf, which is why we always encourage you to speak to members of our team directly – many of our developers are active within the community. We are deeply committed to the on-going development of Perl; both internally and within the wider community. You can find out more, or reach our recruitment team directly, via www.net-a-porter.com/careers Many thanks, James James Hudson Global Recruitment Manager NET-A-PORTER LTD 1 The Village Offices Westfield London Shopping Centre Ariel Way London W12 7GF (T) +44 0203 471 4589 (M) +44 7884 250 784 cut here
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On 12/09/2011 09:08 AM, Avleen Vig wrote: On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Uri Guttman wrote: On 12/09/2011 02:58 AM, Rudolf Lippan wrote: On Friday, December 09, 2011 at 02:23:22 AM, Avleen Vig wrote: My understanding is that NAP had a very hard time finding people in the US---I know I passed their posts by before. I had serious concerns after talking to them, and the recruiter kept me from jumping 3 or 4 times during the process explaining, "They don't understand the US market". I estimate that commission for my position alone would have probably be around 54K, but I think it was probably worth it from what I saw of NAP recruitment. where did you get that figure? given the standard rate of 20% (and i know since i recruit) or even less, that would mean a salary of over 250k which is ridiculous but for a handful of perl hackers i know about (merlyn!). Not hardly. Google regularly pays around this number for good programmers (read: good, not exceptional) in New York. This does include things like stock options etc, not just base pay. i know that number but stock options are about 50% of that. it is a risk and not guaranteed. base pay is about $140k or so plus bonus. i know someone (whom i placed 6 years ago) was getting about $200k including bonus. he got much less when he first started. as i said, i know salary numbers because it is my business to know them. almost no one gets $250k base and i mean salaried, not consulting. $120/hr is already $240k a year and very achieveable as a consultant. And I don't know if merlyn is on this list (hi randal! long time no speak!), but he's out in Portland last I heard, and wages there are a lot lot lower than new york - but quality of life is arguably much, much higher too :-) i know what merlyn asks and gets as i represented him to a ny place. it was more likely consulting than salary but he delivers the goods. regardless, the $54k commission is the figure that sticks out. i would love to get actual facts on that and not third hand information. uri
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On 12/09/2011 09:32 AM, Avleen Vig wrote: Not entirely true. Telecommuting doesnt erect barriers, it results in different barriers which need ti be handled differently. I worked for a distributed company for almost to years. Since then I've worked from home for almost 18 months. It's not more barriers, it's different ones. Eg in the office I sometimes hated having to find people, figure out where they are, maybe having to deal with them face to face when they're having a bad day. These things get better with telecommuting ime :) i totally agree. i tell my clients that all the time when they are not into allowing telecommuting. it is a management style issue, not a technical one. i placed many in a pure virtual company in the US. they are fully set up for telecommute and have the management experience to do so. another client is 100% onsite. no exceptions. BUT someone i know left there and was allowed to telecommute since he had knowledge and experience they needed. and this was a very large powerhouse place paying top salaries. it is all over the map with rules on allowing telecommuting. some love it as it opens up to more qualified employees. others hate it since they don't have the management set up for it. some do both, onsite if you can move or already live near their offices, telecommute if you have the experience to do so. it is also on the employee's head to be able to telecommute. some just don't have the discipline to deal with kids, spouse and other household distractions. one placement i made recently explicitly wanted to work onsite because he was telecommuting for a while and wanted a solid reason to get out of the house!! there are no fixed rules for this on either side. i have seen all sorts of variations. uri
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On 9 December 2011 15:14, Uri Guttman wrote: > On 12/09/2011 09:32 AM, Avleen Vig wrote: > > Not entirely true. Telecommuting doesnt erect barriers, it results in >> different barriers which need ti be handled differently. >> >> I worked for a distributed company for almost to years. Since then I've >> worked from home for almost 18 months. It's not more barriers, it's >> different ones. >> >> Eg in the office I sometimes hated having to find people, figure out where >> they are, maybe having to deal with them face to face when they're having >> a >> bad day. These things get better with telecommuting ime :) >> > > i totally agree. i tell my clients that all the time when they are not > into allowing telecommuting. it is a management style issue, not a > technical one. i placed many in a pure virtual company in the US. they are > fully set up for telecommute and have the management experience to do so. > another client is 100% onsite. no exceptions. BUT someone i know left there > and was allowed to telecommute since he had knowledge and experience they > needed. and this was a very large powerhouse place paying top salaries. > > it is all over the map with rules on allowing telecommuting. some love it > as it opens up to more qualified employees. others hate it since they don't > have the management set up for it. some do both, onsite if you can move or > already live near their offices, telecommute if you have the experience to > do so. it is also on the employee's head to be able to telecommute. some > just don't have the discipline to deal with kids, spouse and other > household distractions. > > one placement i made recently explicitly wanted to work onsite because he > was telecommuting for a while and wanted a solid reason to get out of the > house!! there are no fixed rules for this on either side. i have seen all > sorts of variations. > I guess when an employer and employee come together to see if there can be a professional working relationship they set out their own criteria. Clearly telecommuting high as a priority for you. Great that you know what you want! The flip side this isn't necessarily the 'norm' in the market place, so you maybe rather restrictive on your employment opportunities. This is of course your choice. Personally I appreciate communication methods that are not intrusive (someone coming over and interrupting you when you're in your zone is frustrating at the best of times). But with everything there's a balance to be struck to aid the social dynamics and progress of the project. Some things work well over IRC, and some things over email. However there are definiltely situations I would say getting off your chair and getting yourself sat with the person and talking about something is the more effective way to communicate something. What ever your style of communication it has to work with the peers you're working with. Jason
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 04:09:00 -0500, Uri Guttman wrote: > where did you get that figure? given the standard rate of 20% (and i > know since i recruit) or even less, that would mean a salary of over > 250k which is ridiculous but for a handful of perl hackers i know about > (merlyn!). CTH. Your figure is in the ballpark for the contract portion. > > i don't have a deal with NaP so i can't say anything about this > blowup. but i wouldn't ever keep someone from taking the bird in the > hand. it is unprofessional and #^#^@&ed up. > What would you have done (other than manage your client appropriately)? See below for an expanded timeline for the last week of the process... >> > At least here in the US, bypassing recruiters is the much preferred >> > method. I don't know why they're still so heavily relied on in the >> > UK. > > preferred by some but not all. again, depends on the agent. > >> I suspect that is because it adds about 30% to the cost of hiring >> someone; however, if you can't attract people > > it is usually less cost than that. no one pays 30% or charges it. and if I know its a bit high. Even at 20%, it is still a tidy commission. And they may have lowered it to get me in (I have seen that before) knowing that I had contacts and would recommend people to fill out the rest of the vacancies. > 30% is your figure then the 54k commission above means a $180k salary > which is still on the high side. and using an agency can mean more work I have not a worked a "Perm" position in a long time. I asked up-front for salary range and was told that they were, "truly flexible to find the right candidate", and after giving my contract rate she informed me that they had budged $150K, but again that there was flexibility for the right candidate. The whole interview dance was done as a contract. At the end, I was told that I was, "The one NaP wanted to lead their US team". Then came the call: Before NAP can sign off they would like to know what you want as a final salary for the hire. I took a off a % > 20 < 30 from the contract rate, and came up with $180K. This looked reasonable because I'd like to be able to offer good Sr. programmers $150K to be competitive in this market. I also said that I was willing to take the $150K, but $180 was my happy point (based on having to relocate, the cost of housing, &c). Tuesday: Final interview at NaP in Mahwah, NJ. Wednesday: Current contract ends. Thursday: NAP needs one more signature because of cost. Friday: The person at NaP is out sick, will be back Monday. I clarified that I was about loose out on another offer. Call Scheduled with NAP for 11 EST Monday. Monday: There are actually two people that need to sign off but they want to get everyone in a room tomorrow at 11:30 EST. NaP asks that you hold off one more day. Call at 12:30 EST Tuesday". Tuesday: Hi, pffefh, um, a, yeah, a. I don't quite know what to say, ah, um. NaP wants to know if you would agree to be flexible to $120K for for the final salary for sign off, but they are willing to discuss it again at the end of the contract period. Later in the day: "My apologies for the delay, I'm home dealing with a sick child. I just caught up with Matt and Net-a-porte has decided not to build a team here in the US. Apparently it's half the cost for them to build a team in the UK vs. here in the US. I'm so sorry Rudolf. I hope you're able to resurrect the offer from last week..." Wednesday: Emailed NAP and Eliassen regarding my understanding of how things fell out. Yesterday: I saw the post to the Perl Jobs mailing list from NaP and Elliassen called to confirm my understanding. Emailed jobs-discuss and followed that up with the OP. -r
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 10:02:12 +, Leo Lapworth wrote: > Hi Raphael, > > I am very sorry to hear of your situation. > > That said, please could you give NaP a bit more time to get back to you > before this discussion goes any further on a public list. > I just saw your email, and I am fine with that. I await their response. I will say that my contact was aware that I planned to make NaP's behavior known when she confirmed item-by-item my understanding how how things fell out, so I felt justified in posting. Now, if Eliassen is the one that was jerking me around then they have just as much to loose as NaP. I say that because NaP will come out looking good and Eliassen will be known in more than just the Perl community. -r
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On 12/09/2011 10:36 AM, Jason Tang wrote: On 9 December 2011 15:14, Uri Guttman wrote: On 12/09/2011 09:32 AM, Avleen Vig wrote: Not entirely true. Telecommuting doesnt erect barriers, it results in different barriers which need ti be handled differently. I worked for a distributed company for almost to years. Since then I've worked from home for almost 18 months. It's not more barriers, it's different ones. Eg in the office I sometimes hated having to find people, figure out where they are, maybe having to deal with them face to face when they're having a bad day. These things get better with telecommuting ime :) i totally agree. i tell my clients that all the time when they are not into allowing telecommuting. it is a management style issue, not a technical one. i placed many in a pure virtual company in the US. they are fully set up for telecommute and have the management experience to do so. another client is 100% onsite. no exceptions. BUT someone i know left there and was allowed to telecommute since he had knowledge and experience they needed. and this was a very large powerhouse place paying top salaries. it is all over the map with rules on allowing telecommuting. some love it as it opens up to more qualified employees. others hate it since they don't have the management set up for it. some do both, onsite if you can move or already live near their offices, telecommute if you have the experience to do so. it is also on the employee's head to be able to telecommute. some just don't have the discipline to deal with kids, spouse and other household distractions. one placement i made recently explicitly wanted to work onsite because he was telecommuting for a while and wanted a solid reason to get out of the house!! there are no fixed rules for this on either side. i have seen all sorts of variations. I guess when an employer and employee come together to see if there can be a professional working relationship they set out their own criteria. Clearly telecommuting high as a priority for you. Great that you know what you want! The flip side this isn't necessarily the 'norm' in the market place, so you maybe rather restrictive on your employment opportunities. This is of course your choice. i am confused by your saying telecommuting is a priority for me. i place people in perl jobs. the choice of telecommuting or onsite is in the hands of the employers and candidates. i can try to influence those choices but i am happy to place onsite as well. i have had candidates move across the pond, and across large sections of the states for onsite work. it is not in my hands so there is no priority there. when i do direct work myself, yes, i will not be onsite permanently but i can be for short periods like a week at a time. this is something i also promote, a mix of onsite for that p2p communications which can be very valuable and remote for access to a broader range of candidates. smart companies will choose that path and figure out the mix best for them. Personally I appreciate communication methods that are not intrusive (someone coming over and interrupting you when you're in your zone is frustrating at the best of times). But with everything there's a balance to be struck to aid the social dynamics and progress of the project. Some things work well over IRC, and some things over email. However there are definiltely situations I would say getting off your chair and getting yourself sat with the person and talking about something is the more effective way to communicate something. What ever your style of communication it has to work with the peers you're working with. and that is more up to management than the set of peers. you missed the telephone (or skype) which is still closer to classic communications than text only. video conferencing can be even closer. audio/video is much more efficient for some forms of teamwork, brainstorming, etc. email is better for detailed technical threads. each form has its wins/fails and should be used accordingly. telecommuting can work if done well. it can also easily fail if the shop is not accommodating to it. uri
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On 12/09/2011 10:48 AM, Rudy Lippan wrote: On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 04:09:00 -0500, Uri Guttman wrote: i don't have a deal with NaP so i can't say anything about this blowup. but i wouldn't ever keep someone from taking the bird in the hand. it is unprofessional and #^#^@&ed up. What would you have done (other than manage your client appropriately)? See below for an expanded timeline for the last week of the process... hard to say as i don't know all the facts. i won't even speculate with more facts as i am biased now given what little i know. here is a small tip i use during a placement. i request (really require but it doesn't always happen) that all emails between the candidate and employer are cc'ed to me. i have fixed little things like time zone differences for calls and lost out on big problems when they blew up and i wasn't cc'ed. my job is to make the placement work as smoothly as possible besides actually doing the best match i can. if i know of a problem, i communicate with both parties in an honest and timely manner. i have yet to have a situation similar to what i have read here. again, it is hard to answer given a story without both the agency's and employer's version. and even then, the facts won't always be evident. it is usually less cost than that. no one pays 30% or charges it. and if I know its a bit high. Even at 20%, it is still a tidy commission. And they may have lowered it to get me in (I have seen that before) knowing that I had contacts and would recommend people to fill out the rest of the vacancies. agencies earn commissions by saving time, effort and costs of recruitment in a shop. i have been dropped as an agent when there are too many candidates coming in directly and desperately needed when the market gets tight. middlemen of all sorts are in all industries. agencies are just another species of middleman. some like to use them for value added, others like to keep it in house and deal directly. to each their own. i know i personally provide a major value added as i screen carefully and have a very high placement rate. many times i have submitted no more than 2 candidates for each lead and one will get hired. that is a massive savings of time and effort in screening and interviews by the employer. that is worth the commission to them. i can't say the same for many other agencies (having dealt with buzzword matching ones many times myself). The whole interview dance was done as a contract. At the end, I was told that I was, "The one NaP wanted to lead their US team". Then came the call: Before NAP can sign off they would like to know what you want as a final salary for the hire. I took a off a %> 20< 30 from the contract rate, and came up with $180K. This looked reasonable because I'd like to be able to offer good Sr. programmers $150K to be competitive in this market. I also said that I was willing to take the $150K, but $180 was my happy point (based on having to relocate, the cost of housing,&c). Tuesday: Final interview at NaP in Mahwah, NJ. Wednesday: Current contract ends. Thursday: NAP needs one more signature because of cost. Friday: The person at NaP is out sick, will be back Monday. I clarified that I was about loose out on another offer. Call Scheduled with NAP for 11 EST Monday. Monday: There are actually two people that need to sign off but they want to get everyone in a room tomorrow at 11:30 EST. NaP asks that you hold off one more day. Call at 12:30 EST Tuesday". Tuesday: Hi, pffefh, um, a, yeah, a. I don't quite know what to say, ah, um. NaP wants to know if you would agree to be flexible to $120K for for the final salary for sign off, but they are willing to discuss it again at the end of the contract period. that lowering of the 'accepted' pay range is nasty. if what you say is true (not doubting you), this is on NaP's head and not the agency. but also NaP might have been having problems staffing the whole group (possibly using the wrong agencies :) and suddenly realized their costs were too high. poor planning and decision making. also it seems they didn't own up to this mess either which is something they could have done. not something i would tolerate or condone. Later in the day: "My apologies for the delay, I'm home dealing with a sick child. I just caught up with Matt and Net-a-porte has decided not to build a team here in the US. Apparently it's half the cost for them to build a team in the UK vs. here in the US. I'm so sorry Rudolf. I hope you're able to resurrect the offer from last week..." that is from the agency. wow. half the cost is absurd as others have said. also remember the commission is a one time thing for salaried employees and so can be written off differently than ongoing costs like actual salaries. also real estate costs could be involved as ny/nj can be expensive. man
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
Exactly. I have been lucky in that I have been able to pick and choose among positions. I may have damaged my reputation with some companies by posting, and I may have harder time finding work now. -r On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 12:46:41 +, Will Crawford wrote: > On 9 December 2011 11:42, Smylers wrote: >> Rudolf Lippan writes: > [...] >>> 3) That NET-A-PORTER was aware that I let another opportunity go based >>> on my understanding that my employment was pending a 'final >>> signature'. > [...] >>> 4) That as a condition of final sign off [...] I agreed to this. > [...] >>> 5) That NET-A-PORTER decided to withdraw the position at this point > >> That's really unfortunate for you, especially since you'd turned down >> other work. It certainly sucks from your side. >> >> But I'm struggling to extrapolate from that into behaviour by >> Net-a-Porter that I need to beware of. > > He may well have had the choice of whether to wait for this "sign off" > instead of taking another role. But if they were aware of his having > another offer, took their time, let him think the role was "in the > bag" and then yanked it after it was too late for the other position, > and knew this to be the case, they've very much left him in the lurch. > >> It sounds like they said they >> hoped to do something but it hadn't been approved yet, then later turned >> out that approval wasn't granted. That's unfortunate, and frustrating, >> certainly, but it doesn't seem immoral. > > It's basically a sort of "bait and switch". You may not consider it > "immoral", he does, and at the end of the day it's a betrayal of a > trust which - apparently - they knowingly asked for and accepted. > Hence the warning to the rest of us that this might happen. It's a > salutory lesson, even if you think it's perfectly "moral", that we > should all watch out for the possible effects of "economics", and to > censure him for providing that warning to all of us is like telling > the green cross code guy "hey, people get run over if they mess with > cars".
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Rudy Lippan wrote: > I just saw your email, and I am fine with that. I await their response. I've shared NAPs response in this thread and on the Perl Jobs discussion list. [ http://london.pm.org/pipermail/london.pm/Week-of-Mon-20111205/021773.html ] [ Nothing showing in http://www.mail-archive.com/jobs-discuss@perl.org/maillist.html yet ] If you have any problems getting hold of James please let me know. Chisel -- Chisel e: chi...@chizography.net w: http://chizography.net
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
I couldn't agree with you more, Uri. When anyone mentions Telecommuting, hackles seem to rise, it's like the religious wars between vi and emacs, perl and java, mac + windoze, linux + the rest of the world, etc. I've worked in many places both onsite and offsite, and both situations have pros and cons. Telecommuting is absolutely a solution only when it works for *both* the client and for the contractor, and communication is clearly essential. Thank goodness we work in a world with such amazing network connectivity, and openssh, eh ?-) -- Ciao Richard Foley http://www.rfi.net/books.html ps. I'd add that telecommuting might sometimes work for a permie, but this variant is much less common because permies usually want a career path, and for a career path you need to be *seen* by the boss carrying your clipboard around the office, or play golf, or take an apple in, or whatever it takes, to get that promotion over your competition who ARE IN THE OFFICE. On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 10:14:45AM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote: > On 12/09/2011 09:32 AM, Avleen Vig wrote: > > >Not entirely true. Telecommuting doesnt erect barriers, it results in > >different barriers which need ti be handled differently. > > > >I worked for a distributed company for almost to years. Since then I've > >worked from home for almost 18 months. It's not more barriers, it's > >different ones. > > > >Eg in the office I sometimes hated having to find people, figure out where > >they are, maybe having to deal with them face to face when they're having a > >bad day. These things get better with telecommuting ime :) > > i totally agree. i tell my clients that all the time when they are > not into allowing telecommuting. it is a management style issue, not > a technical one. i placed many in a pure virtual company in the US. > they are fully set up for telecommute and have the management > experience to do so. another client is 100% onsite. no exceptions. > BUT someone i know left there and was allowed to telecommute since > he had knowledge and experience they needed. and this was a very > large powerhouse place paying top salaries. > > it is all over the map with rules on allowing telecommuting. some > love it as it opens up to more qualified employees. others hate it > since they don't have the management set up for it. some do both, > onsite if you can move or already live near their offices, > telecommute if you have the experience to do so. it is also on the > employee's head to be able to telecommute. some just don't have the > discipline to deal with kids, spouse and other household > distractions. > > one placement i made recently explicitly wanted to work onsite > because he was telecommuting for a while and wanted a solid reason > to get out of the house!! there are no fixed rules for this on > either side. i have seen all sorts of variations. > > uri
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On 9 Dec 2011, at 13:16, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 01:57:56PM +0100, Richard Foley wrote:
>
>> Seriously, if some of these managers could get their heads around leveraging
>> the power of telecommuting project teams, they'd not have to worry too much
>> about the respective costs of having a team in any one country.
>
> This idea that with the right magic pixie dust teleworking can be made
> to work regardless of the company, the colleagues, and the employee is a
> nice idea, but I have seen no evidence whatsoever that it is true.
>
> Teleworking erects barriers to communication both between customer
> (internal or external doesn't matter) and geek, and indeed between you
> and the rest of the people you're working with. And communication is
> *important*. WAY more important than most geeks seem to think.
Indeed. There's even (gasp!) evidence ;-)
A whole bunch of CSCW and social science folk have looked at how teams produce
work, and distributed teams come out worse and so called "radically colocated"
teams come out best ("war room" type setups where everybody on a project in in
the same room).
See delicious.com/adrianh/colocation for a selection of references... assuming
delicious has decided to keep the links live today :-/
That isn't to say that you can't do good work on distributed teams, or that
it's evil, or that you shouldn't want to telecommute. I do a lot of remote work
myself since I decided to pick quality of life in lovely Dorset over the big
city.
Just that there's a fairly large amount of evidence that distributed work has a
pretty large productivity hit (if anybody has any actual research that shows
otherwise I'd love to see it - I've actively looked and not found any in the
past).
Cheers,
Adrian
--
http://quietstars.com adri...@quietstars.com twitter.com/adrianh
t. +44 (0)7752 419080 skype adrianjohnhoward del.icio.us/adrianh
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On 12/09/2011 12:03 PM, Richard Foley wrote: I couldn't agree with you more, Uri. When anyone mentions Telecommuting, hackles seem to rise, it's like the religious wars between vi and emacs, perl and java, mac + windoze, linux + the rest of the world, etc. I've worked in many places both onsite and offsite, and both situations have pros and cons. Telecommuting is absolutely a solution only when it works for *both* the client and for the contractor, and communication is clearly essential. Thank goodness we work in a world with such amazing network connectivity, and openssh, eh ?-) yeah, it would be tricky to telecommute in the days of punch cards! you can play chess by mail but coding by snail mail? and as i said, some shops are pure virtual with no physical offices. telecommuting doesn't raise hackles there and in mixed shops. i deal with this more than anyone on this list so i know the issues, views and needs of telecommuting. and even in that world there are many variations (technologies used, management/mentoring styles, remote meetings, etc.). uri
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 14:11, Avleen Vig wrote: > The true answer, of course, depends on your definition of "half". > > US salaries (use payroll expense) is much higher than in the UK. > Where in London I would pay a programmer or sysadmin about £45k - £55k, in > New York I would pay at least $125k - $150k (about £78k - £93k). > This sounds really great! > Until you realise that it's pretty much a wash. > > You'll pay far less for some things in the UK than in the US (eg, food > seems to generally be a lot cheaper in the UK), and vice versa (petrol in > the US is cheaper than pissing in your own toilet). Having grown up in > London (and lived there recently) and lived in quite a few major metro > areas in the US, I can quite confidently say that both pay levels result in > similar quality of life. No-one is getting rich. > > Then there are taxes that both you and the employer have to pay (generally > UK employers pay less than US employers or a similar amount I believe, > whereas UK employees pay much more). > > US employers have to pay large healthcare costs for their employees, and > other benefits like "commuter benefits" where they get you cheaper travel > on public transport, etc. There are many more things too. I'm surprised you think food cheaper is cheaper in UK, unless you're comparing LIDL with Trader Joe's. Finding somewhere decent to eat requires some thought in London; requires no thought at all anywhere I've been in California (OR seems pretty good too) Your other points seem to show US is cheaper/ends up more $ in your pocket, which I'd agree with and come to the conclusion I'd come to is as a developer you're massively better off financially in the US. (Of course, irrelevant if you don't want to live there.) Add in the fact that the US has a track record of phenomenal success in the tech sector there's a non-infinitisimal chance of a monster payout if you're in there early/are good at negotiating. The UK/Europe is hamstrung by its rather depressing attitude of "gosh, if we're REALLY lucky, we'll get bought by a US company!" Says it all, really. Paul
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 09:11:14AM -0500, Avleen Vig typed: > US salaries (use payroll expense) is much higher than in the UK. > Where in London I would pay a programmer or sysadmin about £45k - £55k, in > New York I would pay at least $125k - $150k (about £78k - £93k). > This sounds really great! > Until you realise that it's pretty much a wash. What does the final line mean? -- Steve Mynott
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 12:46, Steve Mynott wrote: >> Until you realise that it's pretty much a wash. > > What does the final line mean? Six of one, half a dozen of the other. http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/english-idioms-sayings/25582-call-wash.html Paul
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Steve Mynott wrote: > On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 09:11:14AM -0500, Avleen Vig typed: > > > US salaries (use payroll expense) is much higher than in the UK. > > Where in London I would pay a programmer or sysadmin about £45k - £55k, > in > > New York I would pay at least $125k - $150k (about £78k - £93k). > > This sounds really great! > > Until you realise that it's pretty much a wash. > > What does the final line mean? It means that in the end being paid more in the US or less in the UK doesn't make a huge difference. Which isn't *entirely* true, but generally it is. If you're the kind of person who doesn't go out much, cooks at home a lot and is otherwise a low-spender, it can make a HUGE difference. But if you're young, single/a couple with no kids, like to buy big shiny things for you nice downtime residence, then it's about the same in both countries.
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 07:11:58PM +, Paul Makepeace typed: > I'm surprised you think food cheaper is cheaper in UK, unless you're > comparing LIDL with Trader Joe's. Finding somewhere decent to eat > requires some thought in London; requires no thought at all anywhere > I've been in California (OR seems pretty good too) I thought Trader Joe's was quite cheap! Although this is relative to Whole Foods. UK Whole Foods has to have the silliest prices I've ever seen and any street market anywhere in the world is going to be cheaper than a supermarket for most things. As for finding places to eat doesn't everyone just pull up reviews from rating sites on their smartphones? I've usually found eating well in any country or city easy now and usually the reviews are spot on. > Your other points seem to show US is cheaper/ends up more $ in your > pocket, which I'd agree with and come to the conclusion I'd come to is > as a developer you're massively better off financially in the US. (Of > course, irrelevant if you don't want to live there.) That's the conclusion I'd draw from this thread. Most people's money goes on housing not food anyway. -- Steve Mynott
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 05:23:40PM +, Adrian Howard wrote:
> On 9 Dec 2011, at 13:16, David Cantrell wrote:
> > This idea that with the right magic pixie dust teleworking can be made
> > to work regardless of the company, the colleagues, and the employee is a
> > nice idea, but I have seen no evidence whatsoever that it is true.
> A whole bunch of CSCW and social science folk have looked at how teams
> produce work, and distributed teams come out worse and so called "radically
> colocated" teams come out best ("war room" type setups where everybody on a
> project in in the same room).
Of course, if your people are made of pure Awesomium then you might be OK
with taking that performance hit because you're still coming out ahead
despite your people being in Narsarsuaq and Tataouine compared to if
you'd employed less awesome people happy to work with you in a damp
basement in Preston.
--
David Cantrell | Minister for Arbitrary Justice
The voices said it's a good day to clean my weapons
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On 11 Dec 2011, at 20:46, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 05:23:40PM +, Adrian Howard wrote:
>> On 9 Dec 2011, at 13:16, David Cantrell wrote:
>>> This idea that with the right magic pixie dust teleworking can be made
>>> to work regardless of the company, the colleagues, and the employee is a
>>> nice idea, but I have seen no evidence whatsoever that it is true.
>> A whole bunch of CSCW and social science folk have looked at how teams
>> produce work, and distributed teams come out worse and so called "radically
>> colocated" teams come out best ("war room" type setups where everybody on a
>> project in in the same room).
>
> Of course, if your people are made of pure Awesomium then you might be OK
> with taking that performance hit because you're still coming out ahead
> despite your people being in Narsarsuaq and Tataouine compared to if
> you'd employed less awesome people happy to work with you in a damp
> basement in Preston.
Of course ;)
Although it might be worth considering how much _more_ productive you might be
if they were all in the same room (I've know a couple of orgs who fly folk
together for a month - paying hotel, etc. - because it's _worth_ it).
Telecommuting also wins against folk who have terrible work environments (the
stereotypical noisy half-cube farm for example).
Cheers,
Adrian
--
http://quietstars.com adri...@quietstars.com twitter.com/adrianh
t. +44 (0)7752 419080 skype adrianjohnhoward del.icio.us/adrianh
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 08:46:57PM +, David Cantrell wrote: [...] > Of course, if your people are made of pure Awesomium then you might be OK > with taking that performance hit because you're still coming out ahead > despite your people being in Narsarsuaq and Tataouine compared to if you'd > employed less awesome people happy to work with you in a damp basement in > Preston. And there's another perspective: I'm prepared to offer a 20-40% discount on my usual daily rate if I don't have to waste several hours a day dragging my carcass over to an office in the arse end of nowhere. Sure, there's a performance hit with telecommuting, but 20-40%?
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On 09/12/2011 10:04, Aaron Trevena wrote: recruiters were telling candidates all sorts of things about why we weren't hiring them and it was very fraustrating when meeting people who apparently got turned down when nobody had even seen their CV. Hmm this explains a lot! Jacqui
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On 12 Dec 2011, at 11:49, Peter Corlett wrote: > On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 08:46:57PM +, David Cantrell wrote: > [...] >> Of course, if your people are made of pure Awesomium then you might be OK >> with taking that performance hit because you're still coming out ahead >> despite your people being in Narsarsuaq and Tataouine compared to if you'd >> employed less awesome people happy to work with you in a damp basement in >> Preston. > > And there's another perspective: I'm prepared to offer a 20-40% discount on > my usual daily rate if I don't have to waste several hours a day dragging my > carcass over to an office in the arse end of nowhere. > > Sure, there's a performance hit with telecommuting, but 20-40%? The "problem" is that it's not an individual's productivity that's dropping - it's the team's as a whole (assuming that it's a team project). Adrian -- http://quietstars.com adri...@quietstars.com twitter.com/adrianh t. +44 (0)7752 419080 skype adrianjohnhoward del.icio.us/adrianh
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
Let's also not forget the positive environmental, (and economic and health), effects from not having to sit in a car for an hour at both ends of the day. -- Ciao Richard Foley The WNBR Book Project http://www.naktiv.net/wnbr On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:49:11AM +, Peter Corlett wrote: > On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 08:46:57PM +, David Cantrell wrote: > [...] > > Of course, if your people are made of pure Awesomium then you might be OK > > with taking that performance hit because you're still coming out ahead > > despite your people being in Narsarsuaq and Tataouine compared to if you'd > > employed less awesome people happy to work with you in a damp basement in > > Preston. > > And there's another perspective: I'm prepared to offer a 20-40% discount on > my usual daily rate if I don't have to waste several hours a day dragging my > carcass over to an office in the arse end of nowhere. > > Sure, there's a performance hit with telecommuting, but 20-40%?
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 11:42:14AM +, Smylers wrote: > > This is a followup to my post to the Perl jobs-discuss mailing list. > > Terrence picked it up here: > > http://livingcosmos.posterous.com/beware-of-net-a-porter-perl-jobs and > > the original can be found here: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/jobs-discuss@perl.org/msg01469.html > > Hmmm, I thought one of the features of the job discuss list was that it > isn't archived, but apparently it is. That URL is for the perl.org jobs list. The london.pm jobs discuss list is not archived. That's the one you're thinking of. Nicholas Clark
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On 12 Dec 2011, at 15:04, Adrian Howard wrote: > On 12 Dec 2011, at 11:49, Peter Corlett wrote: [...] >> And there's another perspective: I'm prepared to offer a 20-40% discount on >> my usual daily rate if I don't have to waste several hours a day dragging my >> carcass over to an office in the arse end of nowhere. >> Sure, there's a performance hit with telecommuting, but 20-40%? > The "problem" is that it's not an individual's productivity that's dropping - > it's the team's as a whole (assuming that it's a team project). In the case of an office in the arse end of nowhere, there's a pretty good chance that it's not just one individual who would rather work from home.
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 08:49:16AM +0100, Richard Foley said: > UK programmers are half the cost of US programmer? Wow, and I thought all the > IT jobs were moving to India! > > Maybe it's time to move back to the UK, where the beer is warm and the girls > are... That's not implausible. A good but junior programmer in San Francisco is generally looking at a 100K USD salary which equates to about 65K UKP. Unless things have changed since I left London that would be high for a junior. Senior developers are looking at between 120K-150K USD if not more.
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On 12 Dec 2011, at 22:16, Simon Wistow wrote: > That's not implausible. > > A good but junior programmer in San Francisco is generally looking at a > 100K USD salary which equates to about 65K UKP. > > Unless things have changed since I left London that would be high for a > junior. Minus health insurance premiums (and you'd want good cover, wouldn't you) for a start. And all of the other things you don't get included over there. /j
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On 13/12/2011, at 9:30 AM, James Laver wrote: > On 12 Dec 2011, at 22:16, Simon Wistow wrote: > >> That's not implausible. >> >> A good but junior programmer in San Francisco is generally looking at a >> 100K USD salary which equates to about 65K UKP. >> >> Unless things have changed since I left London that would be high for a >> junior. > > Minus health insurance premiums (and you'd want good cover, wouldn't you) for > a start. And all of the other things you don't get included over there. > Health insurance, and saving for your kids future, as well as paying down all that debt you've accumulated over the years take a big dent out of US pay rates. It's difficult to comprehend how broken and expensive the US health system is (although hopefully for them ObamaCare will partly fix that for them).
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:30:28PM +, James Laver said: > Minus health insurance premiums (and you'd want good cover, wouldn't > you) for a start. And all of the other things you don't get included > over there. My health insurance premiums aren't much more than what I paid in NI back in the UK - about $100 a month I think. OTOH, and back to the original point, my employer has to pay far more. Thus potentially making me even more expensive. This isn't meant to be a debate on where it's better or cheaper to live (especially since Leo has asked us to rename this thread) more the fact that I can imagine that it *is* more expensive to have a US based dev team.
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On 12/12/2011 22:58, Simon Wistow wrote: This isn't meant to be a debate on where it's better or cheaper to live (especially since Leo has asked us to rename this thread) more the fact that I can imagine that it *is* more expensive to have a US based dev team. I blame evil, faceless beancounters. :-) Cray shut down its UK SWD effort due to wild exchange rate fluctuations. The beancounters used figures from a specific date and on that date the exchange rate was simply insane - almost 2 dollars to the UKP! Our costs projected for the next few years were based upon that unrealistic rate and we sunddenly became very,very expensive instead of quite cheap. Jacqui p.s. There were other reasons - including a much larger lay-off from US staff etc. but the exchange rate was used as the legal explanation for our dissolution. The actual process was handled very well and I still think well of the Crayons I used to work with. Irene Qualters (VP) came over and told us personally and apologised for letting us down.
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:41, Jacqui Caren wrote: > p.s. There were other reasons - including a much larger lay-off from US > staff etc. > but the exchange rate was used as the legal explanation for our > dissolution. > A company that big should be hedging with currency futures to smooth out the ride. That crazy period of pound/euro overvaluation only lasted a few months in any case. Paul
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:58:29 -, Simon Wistow wrote: My health insurance premiums aren't much more than what I paid in NI back in the UK - about $100 a month I think. But in the US you have no cover once you stop paying so you need to factor in additional money to cover premiums when you are between jobs and consider the cost of premiums as part of your retirement planning.
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER
On 12/13/2011 10:33 AM, Jason Clifford wrote: On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:58:29 -, Simon Wistow wrote: My health insurance premiums aren't much more than what I paid in NI back in the UK - about $100 a month I think. But in the US you have no cover once you stop paying so you need to factor in additional money to cover premiums when you are between jobs and consider the cost of premiums as part of your retirement planning. if you retire after age 65 you do get medicare which is a national health insurance plan. so you don't need to factor that in so much. you do need to buy some extra plans to cover some gaps but they aren't that expensive. this is the screwed up mentality here. we have a decent national plan for over 65 and for military vets all run by our government. but a full plan for all is anethema. the pee tarty (sic :) cry "keep the government out of my medicare" which shows their ignorance and worse. blecch. uri
Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER - END OF THREAD
Hi All, Do continue discussing general recruiters, processes, remote working etc, but please start a new thread. Everyone has had a chance to comment on the specifics of this, including NaP. I think Rudy and NaP can now take this into a private discussion, we don't need a he said/she said back and forth on list. It sounds like Rudy would be happy to get private emails at a later date if you wish to find out what his final opinons is. Many thanks Leo (London.pm leader)
Healtcare costs (Was: Re: Beware: NET-A-PORTER)
On Tuesday, December 13, 2011 at 11:04:34 AM, Uri Guttman wrote: > On 12/13/2011 10:33 AM, Jason Clifford wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:58:29 -, Simon Wistow > > wrote: > > But in the US you have no cover once you stop paying so you need to > > factor in additional money to cover premiums when you are between jobs > > and consider the cost of premiums as part of your retirement planning. Don't forget that the $100/mo that you were spending jumps to $600/mo on COBRA. It costs ~800/mo month for one employee and myself + $2500 deductible for 100% coverage (including prescription). > > if you retire after age 65 you do get medicare which is a national > health insurance plan. so you don't need to factor that in so much. you > do need to buy some extra plans to cover some gaps but they aren't that > expensive. About $300/mo for a decent one. $1,177/mo is the average for a person on Social Security. In NY property taxes on a modest residence can exceed $1000/mo. My mortgage, taxes, and homeowners combined comes to less than this in Georgia. > > this is the screwed up mentality here. we have a decent national plan > for over 65 and for military vets all run by our government. but a full I doubt you'd want to be treated by the VA. > plan for all is anethema. the pee tarty (sic :) cry "keep the government > out of my medicare" which shows their ignorance and worse. I know some smart people that agree with the tea party, so I don't think it is that simple. There are legitimate complaints on both sides. -r
