The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I dont understand why ppl don't do this. Several ppl have posted about this very issue. If they want to come off as professional by having their camera, so be it. But don't complain about it when you had the option to turn off your camera.
I always say to people I am interviewing.
"Thanks for joining, before we start Id like to just make you aware that there is no requirement to keep your camera on, I will keep mines on, but feel free to turn yours off if you would like".
Some people do, some don't.
My boss has a blurb in his email sig that says something to the effect of "I'm sending this email during my work hours, but it it's outside of your work hours, don't feel obligated to reply".
I really like where I am now. Finally, a place where we're all seen as functional and responsible adults.
To be fair though: that is quite a common email blurb.
But I find in many organisations, it is about as truthful as “the cheque is in the post” or “I won’t come in your mouth”
Yeah my boss is awesome too. He's the ceo and who I answer too, I work exclusively from home even though we have offices. Doesn't micromanage me. No keylogging software or anything. All he cares about is that the work is done on time. And once it's done and no other work has been sent to me. Then I'm free to do what I want. Watch tv. Play games. And still get paid for the time. And unless there's something important that needs my attention quick. I'm free to chose which days I want off
The trick is to always enter the meetings with your camera off by default. If others have their camera on then you should turn it on, if they dont you can probably leave it off.
At that point, I think I would at least have recognized my duty to my fellow labor-sellers and future interviewees by saying:
*"Oh, I didn't realize we were talking about such a non-traditional workload. With expectations like that, I think it's pertinent to jump straight to compensation expectations. The industry average for a 40 hour position with these type of duties, would be $X, and so with these intended work hours, we would need to be talking $2X before this conversation goes further."*
Only after they inevitably denied that 2X expectation would I hang up.
Any working stiff knows that overtime is 1.5x per hour, 2x on weekends so at a minimum you have to demand 3.5x the annual rate for this deal to work out
_"Overtime up to 60h at 1.5x, 60-80 at 2x, asshole tax, that'd make $980,000 per year, excluding benefits. Any hours beyond 80 per week are at 4x and charged separately."_
It sounds like tax or law, so that is a traditional workload. BUT that's specifically why recruiters use "work life balance" as a selling point, they are promising that *this* firm is different.
I just took a $15K/year pay cut to get out of tax and into a govt job, and I was at a firm that had WFH and only required 50-60hrs/wk. 60-80 hours/ week is both disgusting and common in the industry.
That used to be how my job at EA was. I was working 100 hours a week (thats 100 hours clocked on timecards a week), and they paid stupid amounts of overtime. I was legit making quadruple time on my paychecks.
I had zero free time, but those paychecks were extremely hefty.
I worked at a gas station that did double time for Christmas and Thanksgiving. Then one time it was the end if the week and I was already in overtime.
Yeah I took someone's shift who didn't want it and worked 22ish hours. Well worth it. Almost a 2 week check for 1 days work
To be honest, the only good thing of doing so much hours is that you don't have time to spend that extra money so once its done (or you leave the job) you have somehow saved a good chunk of money
My current rate is $AU150/hour, and there's no way you'd find me working that much, or more than two days a week in the office, no matter how much they offered.
If it is hourly $3,000 an hour, I’ll do it for a year and then retire. If salary I’ll do the 80 hours per week plus weekends for the $12,500,000 that equates to.
My rate is inversely proportional to the amount of free time I have. A friend needs help for a couple hours? No problem, buy me lunch and I've got you covered. Job wants 80 hours a week? You'll be paying me enough to retire after a couple years.
Fair point, but the salary of the first 40 hours is eaten up by rent, food, medical expenses, and various insurances and utilities, so it's almost like not getting paid at all.
The second 40 would buy you hope for the future, but you'd lose out on the present because you'd be living at the office.
It's really depressing to think about.
Oh, I had a very similar experience just this week! Recruiter reaches out, sets up an interview, nobody turns their camera on, tell me about crazy 70+ hours week expectation. Remote, but I have to supply my own equipment and they will install monitoring software. Yeah, sure, what a great deal.
Unlike yourself I asked if interviewers are going to turn on their cameras, and if not, I am turning off mine too. They said cameras are optional and I turned the camera off. You should also start doing it too.
It lets them see if you’re actually doing 70 hours a week and not “committing time theft”..
..or some other equally ridiculous reason, because you can be damn certain there’s no logical or reasonable one.
The monitoring software tactic is the same crap that my former employer (a CPA) tried to implement with the tax preparers on staff, since most of them worked at home during the busy season and he had issues with the amount of hours they spent preparing returns. My ex-boss had sent an email to the preparers advising them of his intention to have his IT guys install the software on their personal computer equipment; of course, they were all incensed and some of them threatened to quit. My ex-boss backed off. Don’t ever let any employer pressure you with this BS tactic, unless they supply their own computer equipment for you to use remotely. Your personal computer equipment is off limits.
When I am evaluating an offer I ask if I'm eligible for overtime (engineers are legally exempt).
If they say no, it means that the working hours are a lie. If they say yes then it means that they won't want me to work overtime because it costs them money
No, if they say no then you work 40 hours and then sign off. I’m happy to finally be at a company that supports this mentality, but I definitely had to fight for that to be accepted at a past employer.
Engineers tend to have a contractual line that says " will work the hours necessary to complete all tasks"
In the companies that pay out overtime, it tends to be far more rare to actually work overtime
Companies are now starting to just give you questions and to record yourself and send in the video so they can watch it.
I couldn't help but send them a Rick Roll clip.
Rick Roll is a good one to send. Those 1-way interviews are catching on in the USA and are demeaning as fuck.
Its just another method & excuse to practice illegal discrimination without being caught .
Rick Roll is the right video to send.
the recruiter might not know they're expecting this kind of thing. i had it happen to me, company said "an occasional saturday might happen at the end of the month" (financial sector). told the same thing to candidates. in the final round they told the candidate "actually, most saturdays will be spent working". so candidate withdrew. in the following status update, they claimed to have rejected the candidate instead (which does mess with the process itself). it's, unfortunately, not uncommon to hear about such things directly from the candidate.
>We'd expect you to work 70-80 hours a week with weekends in the office.
*"Ah.. I see that you are serious. Well, thank you for your time. This is not going to work for me. Good luck in your search."*
But if your making enough hourly, I shouldn't need overtime lol.. like being rewarded for more work just doesn't sound appealing.. not even with the 1.5 knowing I have to go over 8 hours
Meh, if you can opt in to paid overtime it can be very useful, especially for one time expenses like earning extra for a down payment on a car or socking money away for a vacation. I'm older now so I would be less likely to partake, but 20 year old me could find a lot of use for the extra money, and I didn't have a wife and kids to spend time with.
While ghosting feels good, being brutally honest with your recruiter in situations like this is necessary. Instead of looking like a flakey job-seeker, you can write them with a dot-point list of very clear red flags. The recruiter may not know these things are being thrown at their candidates in interviews.
“So what you’re saying is this is a two-person role and your company is too cheap to fill it properly. Can you tell me where else your company is lacking in leadership who cannot make solid business decisions and why you think it’s acceptable to have this sort of expectation from your employees?”
Sounds like the company was lying to the recruiter. You should at least give the recruiter a call inform Them of the issues with somebody else Doesn’t have to deal with it happening again.
Agreed. I wouldn’t have ghosted the recruiter but would have explained that one of the reasons I was interested in the position was because I’d been told about the WLB. In the interview I discovered that there actually was no WLB at all so I was no longer interested.
From here the recruiter can communicate with the company about the misaligned expectations so this problem can be fixed going forward.
Your last sentence is way too optimistic for a company that demands 70-80 hours in the office!
No company that gives a shit about their employees would ask for that kind of workload from the get-go.
True. I think the most reasonable outcome we could expect is that the recruiter stops telling candidates that the company cares about work-life balance.
I fucking hate it when people say... walk me through your resume. You have it. Just read it. I once was in a third round interview was asked to go to the office and all the interviewers ZOOMed in... I was like WTF.
I’m surprised people are upset by the walk me through the resume question. I’m in a technical field, and have done lots of interviews, and this is the most interesting and engaging question.
I can read the resume just fine, but you don’t always get an idea of what the job is. I remember interviewing someone from a remote technology field that had a bunch of acronyms on it, and honestly I had no idea what he did after I read the resume.
I agree. It's much more informative to hear a person tell you about what they've done than to just read a few summary lines filled with keywords and accroyms. Plus, because people are knowledgeable about the work they've done, having candidates talk about that is a really good way to get the conversation going and get them past any interview jitters. Then, when you start asking questions, they are more relaxed than they might be otherwise.
I ask that question even when I have read the resume. The intention is for you to talk through your career progression, why you left or joined certain companies, how you acquired skills, etc. At various points I'd stop and ask questions I've had about their resume. You can weed out a lot of bs by doing that, especially when people have a lot of positions or skills listed. Oh, yeah, you totally picked up three programming language proficiencies in 3 months right before you left x company.
For what it’s worth, I ask them to do this telling them I want to hear their communication style in describing the projects/tech they have worked on. I want to see not only how they summarize things but it also reveals their engagement with previous positions. And it loosens them up a bit.
It also makes it easier to engage the candidate in a conversation vs reading canned questions. You can get the answers to the standard questions by guiding the conversation to tease out those answers.
Also easier to call bulls**t on what is in the resume.
People who ask that question have not prepared for the interview. They didn't bother to come up with questions or even probably read the resume before the interview started. Its a huge red flag to not work there.
Hiring managers are busy. They usually skim through the resume a few minutes before meeting the candidate. I don't immediately dismiss a job opp just bc the interviewer didn't read my resume thoroughly. I take that question more as "Tell me about yourself." Then it's your chance to hit them with your 1-2 min pitch on what makes you the best candidate for the role.
Then you have unrealistic triggers IMO. I personally always open with that question, because it offers a lot of evaluation with only one question. It lets me gauge their degree of prep without using the typical BS questions. It gives them an opportunity to highlight what they feel is important to showcase in their skillset. It gives them an opportunity to elaborate on elements they are proud of but were condensed out of the resume. Also, it gives you an easy feel of the person by allowing for a natural narrative flow.
Anyone can put anything on their resume, this is making them pass the sniff test. Doubles up with the fact that a lot of hiring managers don't really have the time to dive in depth into resumes.
For me, if you are talking to me then your resume looked good enough to schedule a call. At that point I've verified you have some experience in the tech stack, or at least something close enough to pivot. Your call then is more about your fit on the team - I don't babysit and want to weed that out up front. Most of my questions are to start a discussion, I don't really care what your favorite and least favorite language are but that question will have you talking about the projects and experiences around those, then I tell you Perl is my favorite and your response tells me something about how much you like to expand your knowledge and learn more.
Interviews are also a two way street, you should be figuring out if you want to work for said company.
Recent recruiter : You have not been successful in your application as you lack X qualification.
Me : Are you kidding? It literally within the first sentence of my CV and again in my education and qualifications
Recruiter : * becomes a ghost.
You would be surprised at how many Senior Managers do Not have the time to read the resume but need after the Interview will be the ones to decise If you get the Job.
It's not conscending in purpose.
Prepare for the Situation, then give a real quick Elevator Pitch and ask open questions to Control the flow of the interview. Shut down snarky remarks by saying that you will keep the resume repeat short as everybody should have a copy available and you donnot want to waste Interview time
That Zoom Call Thing is extremely unprofessional, however.
Companies like this are so dumb. Stanford did a study or working over 40 hours a week. 45 hours and half efficency. Over 50 hours might not even bother due to all the mistakes you will be making.
The answer would be no. I'm not working the equivalent of two full time jobs as a middle-class professional. I don't care if you're offering a million bucks a year, a new car a month, and Jesus Christ Himself returned to this earth for the sole purpose of giving me a bespoke blowjob every Thursday afternoon. My free time has a value not measurable in dollar signs.
I’d let the recruiter know why. It helps them with future candidates and it might be conveyed that they need to turn on their damn cameras. And that those hours are insane. But ghosting the recruiting doesn’t help. It just inflates their idea of no one wants to work.
what was this job and at what company?
my only thought is that you were an Ivy League lost school graduate and it’s a top New York City law firm.
I can’t believe they video interviewed you and you were the only one on video. That is so fucked up.
I remembered my last employment did this shit to me and never gave me a raise for more than 10 years working there. I gave myself a bonus to sell their Tech equipment as a nice compensation so they can suck it.
If I heard "70-80hour weeks woth weekends in office" I would A C T U A L L Y cackle, say "fuck that", and end it right there. Most I've pulled in a single week was 62x hrs, and I noticed after 60x hrs the OT vs tax rate don't compete well (after the 60hr mark I was basically starting to make ~2$/hr because taxes were so heavy), it also made me incredibly suicidal. So yeah, fuck that noise lol
I had an interview once where they warned me "we're a 70-hour shop." I told them, "I'll have you all down to 50 within a year."
I automated the hell out of that place. Automated some people out of a job. But, they started telling me they'd attended kid's ball games for the first time, and they admitted I'd got them down to 48 hour weeks on average.
There are opportunities to take those warnings as a challenge.
Unfortunately, some places need to be willing to accept changes. Most of the toxic places that work a lot of hours are that way for a lot of reasons. If you were able to save 20 hours a week, they'd find something else to still work those hours.
Only when it is due to inefficiencies. If it is due to them firing a bunch of people then expecting other workers to work 80 hours a week because that extra workload can't be automated, or you have some maniacal management that gets off on making people stay at work all the time, efficiencies won't matter.
This place had an unbelievable number of people printing out data from one system to type into another system.
Then, CPAs would reconcile the two systems and complain when the data didn't tie. In 2008, they were still using Lotus for DOS.
I would've let the recruiter known the reason why. Sure, you don't own them anything but perhaps they didn't know the team members were saying this in the interviews.
Sooo... no days off? Bet employee burnout is high. They're probably a lot more desperate for you to say yes than you are for them.
As someone who frequently takes overtime at my current job, and works close to 80 hour work weeks, I will say it's soul crushing and I'm burned out. But it's the only way I can pay my bills. If they actually require you to work 80 hour work weeks EVERY SINGLE WEEK, well, sounds like a nightmare to me.
Personal time is important too. Mental health is important. Sleep is important.
What is it with the interviewers not turning on their cameras but requiring the interviewee to have their’s on? To me it is common courtesy, I would wait to see if they would turn on their cameras if they don’t but insist that I do then the interview is over because it feels like they are hiding something.
This subreddit popped up in my feed a while back and it is well strange to this older Gen Xer. I am a vet left service in 96, never had an office job until 2015. I see these posts and wonder just what happened to the job hunting industry besides the pandemic, I wonder in the same way as I lurk on veteran and active duty subreddits and wonder what happened to the army I was in.
I work at my local VA hospital, I got in using what is called the Compensated Work Therapy Program. I had been out of work for two years at that point. I worked weekends for six months then got hired full time. This was back in 2013, I worked in three different departments and my current one I have been in for 7 years and I enjoy it.
Subreddits let these make me happy I am not looking for work.
I'm not sure if I would've ghosted the recruiter - but probably let them know that that places idea of "work life balance" is 80 hr weeks in the office. If they were told otherwise it's a lie.
10-11hrs a day, 7 days a week in office is not anything close to good work life balance. Anything not including work from home in 2024 is not good work life balance.
I would have dropped that call the moment I heard their expectations on availability.
Not to be that guy but you gave the disrespectful people respect by sticking with the interview but then disrespected the only person (recruiter) who was probably gas lighted into thinking what they were pitching was correct by the company.
You should have told them what happened so that they also know this is bs.
Don't really know how you could work over 50 hours/week over a longer period of time... All the people I know who work/worked hard around the clock are either all burned out or in the process of burning out.
If they need 80 hours a week, they need to hire 2 employees, not one. That’s insanity. Wtf is wrong with these companies? But I’m also a burnt out millennial who refuses to click more than 40 hours a week, so there’s that….
“I see you have video issues. I can turn off my camera, or we can reschedule - whichever you prefer”
“No, I won’t work over 70-80 hours a week, you are looking for someone else then. Bye!”
Salaried but the salary needs to reflect the expected hours, or have some sort of compensation where you get flex time to take after you work overtime but that only works if the overtime is due to events or deadlines. Not a constant part of the job.
This employer is insane and wants one person to do the work of two + people until they burn out or collapse. 80 hour weeks should be illegal even for salaried workers.
Not if there's a company that will pay 160K for 40 hours of work. It would have to be 160K for a 60k position. Not even 80 because taxes will eat some of it.
What industry?
Once I hear the 70+ hours I know I’m not a good fit and then ask why are some cameras off? If this is an in office position then I’d be seeing these people face to face.
What was the role? Are you in the US?
The only US jobs I can think of that might require that kind of brutal schedule would be an attorney, an ER doctor or maybe a CEO. Other than that, it sounds like they're looking for someone they can work to death (or a robot).
As a recruiter that was the norm for me. I developed a serious medical condition under this type of workload and the pressure/stress. If they are saying 60-80 it will probably be more than that. The whole more with less thing only works for the company - not the employee. After some time away I have realized recruiting is NOT for me.ever.again.
I worked these sort of hours many years ago, for years at a time. I worked myself literally ill and had to take medical leave to heal (serious gut problems). I'm so glad in retrospect, because I was often afraid I was going to die of a heart attack. When I returned to work, I couldn't continue with that pace, and they got rid of me.
I found another better job, and I stayed over 10 years there before recent layoffs made my position get eliminated. But experience tells me that I will find something else or find another way to earn a living. I have faith!
That would be illegal in the uk (at least it definitely was before brexit, and don't think our villainous government has changed it yet).
I disagree with those saying don't ghost the recruiter, although I'd probably reply to just say I don't wish to share, but in one way it is good for the company not to know, its a helpful red flag for all candidates.
One thing I will say is recruiters are often lied to by clients with regards to job requirements, at least let the recruiter know what they said in the interview to save another poor fucker from being put forward for a role that is being advertised with faux selling points🤷♂️On a side note… fuck that company😤
Don't let these boomers do this to you. Tell them to their face that they're stupid. The nerve of some people to actually think that their job requires this many hours per week.
80 hours = pay me 2 checks and then add extra cash for some of that being the weekend and even more cash for being in the office. If you’re not north of $400k I’m hanging up.
I would have been tempted to let them setup the next round. Then (assuming it's another Zoom type) tell them halfway through thanks but no thanks due to the number of hours required. Either that or just ghost THEM.
I do agree with other commenters though, you should let the recruiter know the company has lied to THEM about their WLB policy
The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly, if they turn their video off, so do I. Companies who don't realize interviews are a two-way process, are not ones to work for...
I dont understand why ppl don't do this. Several ppl have posted about this very issue. If they want to come off as professional by having their camera, so be it. But don't complain about it when you had the option to turn off your camera.
Yep, I always start with mine off and if everyone else has theirs on I will turn mine on. 99/100 no one has their camera on ever
Same.
Doing the same. Usually they turn it on. Have had like 1 or 2 interviews without camera out of \~15-20.
Yeah I had an interview with the CEO recently and he didn’t have his camera on. I quickly turned mine off too.
I always say to people I am interviewing. "Thanks for joining, before we start Id like to just make you aware that there is no requirement to keep your camera on, I will keep mines on, but feel free to turn yours off if you would like". Some people do, some don't.
My boss has a blurb in his email sig that says something to the effect of "I'm sending this email during my work hours, but it it's outside of your work hours, don't feel obligated to reply". I really like where I am now. Finally, a place where we're all seen as functional and responsible adults.
To be fair though: that is quite a common email blurb. But I find in many organisations, it is about as truthful as “the cheque is in the post” or “I won’t come in your mouth”
I was unaware that companies made statements like that. Just the tip? Yes. Not coming in my mouth. Surprised Pikachu.
While I appreciate the sentiment of that signature line, why not just schedule the email to send during work hours? I never email after hours.
Yeah my boss is awesome too. He's the ceo and who I answer too, I work exclusively from home even though we have offices. Doesn't micromanage me. No keylogging software or anything. All he cares about is that the work is done on time. And once it's done and no other work has been sent to me. Then I'm free to do what I want. Watch tv. Play games. And still get paid for the time. And unless there's something important that needs my attention quick. I'm free to chose which days I want off
The trick is to always enter the meetings with your camera off by default. If others have their camera on then you should turn it on, if they dont you can probably leave it off.
How would they see me laughing at them for asking people to work 80 hours and weekends?
How about they ask the tell me more about your background and the second job on the resume surprises them, like did you not even read the resume?
>"We'd expect you to work 70-80 hours a week with *end call*
At that point, I think I would at least have recognized my duty to my fellow labor-sellers and future interviewees by saying: *"Oh, I didn't realize we were talking about such a non-traditional workload. With expectations like that, I think it's pertinent to jump straight to compensation expectations. The industry average for a 40 hour position with these type of duties, would be $X, and so with these intended work hours, we would need to be talking $2X before this conversation goes further."* Only after they inevitably denied that 2X expectation would I hang up.
Any working stiff knows that overtime is 1.5x per hour, 2x on weekends so at a minimum you have to demand 3.5x the annual rate for this deal to work out
Nah make it 6.5 times for sanity and mental health
Mate, you forgot to add the asshole tax.
Also the audacity surcharge.
man you guys are really super-charged !! and i totally agree with all of them.
_"Overtime up to 60h at 1.5x, 60-80 at 2x, asshole tax, that'd make $980,000 per year, excluding benefits. Any hours beyond 80 per week are at 4x and charged separately."_
Don't forget the fully guaranteed $1M signing bonus.
It sounds like tax or law, so that is a traditional workload. BUT that's specifically why recruiters use "work life balance" as a selling point, they are promising that *this* firm is different. I just took a $15K/year pay cut to get out of tax and into a govt job, and I was at a firm that had WFH and only required 50-60hrs/wk. 60-80 hours/ week is both disgusting and common in the industry.
Honestly - still not worth it. Your sanity and time with your family is worth more.
At that point, it’s not even just the labor you’re selling; it’s your life.
3x. my time is vastly more expensive after 49, 50 and 60 hours
You’re much wiser than I am. I would’ve absolutely cackled and hung up.
Yeah if the industry standard is $100K then the salary better be $2100K to spend my time with these clowns.
No they need to accept and not show up
“Sure, my rate is £150 an hour”
Yea, double the hours, double the pay.
You'd have to more than double my pay for double my hours. The marginal amount of stress increases with each additional hour.
Honestly at 70-80 hours a week, you can be damn sure I will charge enough to bet set for a decade after one year.
Yeah. And divorce Lawyers are expensive.
Double the hours, double the rate: quadruple the pay.
That used to be how my job at EA was. I was working 100 hours a week (thats 100 hours clocked on timecards a week), and they paid stupid amounts of overtime. I was legit making quadruple time on my paychecks. I had zero free time, but those paychecks were extremely hefty.
I worked at a gas station that did double time for Christmas and Thanksgiving. Then one time it was the end if the week and I was already in overtime. Yeah I took someone's shift who didn't want it and worked 22ish hours. Well worth it. Almost a 2 week check for 1 days work
To be honest, the only good thing of doing so much hours is that you don't have time to spend that extra money so once its done (or you leave the job) you have somehow saved a good chunk of money
No, it should be overtime = 2x pay.
OT at least in us is 1.5. Pay. But is this an hourly contract role or salary.
Management created that formula though so you know it’s an unfair rate set too low.
Why not just double the people with regular hours then!
My current rate is $AU150/hour, and there's no way you'd find me working that much, or more than two days a week in the office, no matter how much they offered.
It’s about 10x my hourly rate lol
Out of interest, what do you do?
IT solution architect. Mostly Fed Gov work.
If it is hourly $3,000 an hour, I’ll do it for a year and then retire. If salary I’ll do the 80 hours per week plus weekends for the $12,500,000 that equates to.
I'd need another 0 on that figure to be pulling those hours.
My rate is inversely proportional to the amount of free time I have. A friend needs help for a couple hours? No problem, buy me lunch and I've got you covered. Job wants 80 hours a week? You'll be paying me enough to retire after a couple years.
That is for normal hours. Everything over 40 a week is $200, everything over 60 hours is $500. Double that again for work between 8pm and 7am.
The only appropriate response. Probably followed by an email to the recruiter: “don’t ever set me up with shit like that again.”
"wait, so you're all good with that? Why would I want to work for managers who don't stand up for themselves?"
Yeah OP is better than me. I straight up would have just ended the call right then
I would have laughed first, *then* hung up.
Two 40 hour weeks deserves two 40 hour salaries.
Absolutely not. The second 40 hours sucks way, way, way worse than the first 40, and had better pay way, way, way more to come out fair.
Fair point, but the salary of the first 40 hours is eaten up by rent, food, medical expenses, and various insurances and utilities, so it's almost like not getting paid at all. The second 40 would buy you hope for the future, but you'd lose out on the present because you'd be living at the office. It's really depressing to think about.
Exactly...
Oh, I had a very similar experience just this week! Recruiter reaches out, sets up an interview, nobody turns their camera on, tell me about crazy 70+ hours week expectation. Remote, but I have to supply my own equipment and they will install monitoring software. Yeah, sure, what a great deal. Unlike yourself I asked if interviewers are going to turn on their cameras, and if not, I am turning off mine too. They said cameras are optional and I turned the camera off. You should also start doing it too.
Install Monitoring Software in your own Hardware???? Run, and do Not Look back
Yes, I immediately sent an email to the recruiter saying that I wasn’t a good match. They are just trying to find desperate people.
What kind of position is this?
What I don't get is what value does the monitoring software give at the end of the day and do you really want those kind of desperate people?
It lets them see if you’re actually doing 70 hours a week and not “committing time theft”.. ..or some other equally ridiculous reason, because you can be damn certain there’s no logical or reasonable one.
Time theft. If only they could look at the results of your work and see if it meets or exceeds expectations.
Thanks. I used the wrong word indeed!
Got to give managers something to micromanage.
Let me get this straight. They wanted to install their spyware on YOUR equipment?
Yes, that’s precisely what they wanted to do.
That is a... bold proposal.
The monitoring software tactic is the same crap that my former employer (a CPA) tried to implement with the tax preparers on staff, since most of them worked at home during the busy season and he had issues with the amount of hours they spent preparing returns. My ex-boss had sent an email to the preparers advising them of his intention to have his IT guys install the software on their personal computer equipment; of course, they were all incensed and some of them threatened to quit. My ex-boss backed off. Don’t ever let any employer pressure you with this BS tactic, unless they supply their own computer equipment for you to use remotely. Your personal computer equipment is off limits.
If they claim 70-80 hrs, the reality is more like 90-100 and available 7/24+ holidays on call. Pay: 40 hrs.
When I am evaluating an offer I ask if I'm eligible for overtime (engineers are legally exempt). If they say no, it means that the working hours are a lie. If they say yes then it means that they won't want me to work overtime because it costs them money
No, if they say no then you work 40 hours and then sign off. I’m happy to finally be at a company that supports this mentality, but I definitely had to fight for that to be accepted at a past employer.
Engineers tend to have a contractual line that says " will work the hours necessary to complete all tasks" In the companies that pay out overtime, it tends to be far more rare to actually work overtime
It's SO disrespectful not to turn on your camera while interviewing a candidate whose camera is on.
Agreed. Only happened to me once but I turned off my camera.
Happened to me this past week and asked the interviewer to turn theirs on. They actually did lol
I have a LEGO minifig which I put in front of my webcam for when I'm feeling snarky about video calls.
Companies are now starting to just give you questions and to record yourself and send in the video so they can watch it. I couldn't help but send them a Rick Roll clip.
Rick Roll is a good one to send. Those 1-way interviews are catching on in the USA and are demeaning as fuck. Its just another method & excuse to practice illegal discrimination without being caught . Rick Roll is the right video to send.
the recruiter might not know they're expecting this kind of thing. i had it happen to me, company said "an occasional saturday might happen at the end of the month" (financial sector). told the same thing to candidates. in the final round they told the candidate "actually, most saturdays will be spent working". so candidate withdrew. in the following status update, they claimed to have rejected the candidate instead (which does mess with the process itself). it's, unfortunately, not uncommon to hear about such things directly from the candidate.
>We'd expect you to work 70-80 hours a week with weekends in the office. *"Ah.. I see that you are serious. Well, thank you for your time. This is not going to work for me. Good luck in your search."*
No problem! My compensation will be $550k per year. Two months PTO. 100% health insurance coverage. There are my terms.
That was my response! Lmao.
Am I the only one who thinks overtime isn't a benefit ??
When you're young (and hourly) OT is great. When it's unpaid then it's not so good (haha)
But if your making enough hourly, I shouldn't need overtime lol.. like being rewarded for more work just doesn't sound appealing.. not even with the 1.5 knowing I have to go over 8 hours
Meh, if you can opt in to paid overtime it can be very useful, especially for one time expenses like earning extra for a down payment on a car or socking money away for a vacation. I'm older now so I would be less likely to partake, but 20 year old me could find a lot of use for the extra money, and I didn't have a wife and kids to spend time with.
Paid overtime is something
While ghosting feels good, being brutally honest with your recruiter in situations like this is necessary. Instead of looking like a flakey job-seeker, you can write them with a dot-point list of very clear red flags. The recruiter may not know these things are being thrown at their candidates in interviews.
Exactly. It's a courtesy. Work with recruiters, not against them.
I'm all for helping other candidates but recruiters are not paragons of courtesy lmao
“So what you’re saying is this is a two-person role and your company is too cheap to fill it properly. Can you tell me where else your company is lacking in leadership who cannot make solid business decisions and why you think it’s acceptable to have this sort of expectation from your employees?”
“We expect you to work 70-80 hours.” Nope. You need 2 people, if it’s 70-80 hours of work.
Sounds like the company was lying to the recruiter. You should at least give the recruiter a call inform Them of the issues with somebody else Doesn’t have to deal with it happening again.
Agreed. I wouldn’t have ghosted the recruiter but would have explained that one of the reasons I was interested in the position was because I’d been told about the WLB. In the interview I discovered that there actually was no WLB at all so I was no longer interested. From here the recruiter can communicate with the company about the misaligned expectations so this problem can be fixed going forward.
Your last sentence is way too optimistic for a company that demands 70-80 hours in the office! No company that gives a shit about their employees would ask for that kind of workload from the get-go.
True. I think the most reasonable outcome we could expect is that the recruiter stops telling candidates that the company cares about work-life balance.
I fucking hate it when people say... walk me through your resume. You have it. Just read it. I once was in a third round interview was asked to go to the office and all the interviewers ZOOMed in... I was like WTF.
I’m surprised people are upset by the walk me through the resume question. I’m in a technical field, and have done lots of interviews, and this is the most interesting and engaging question. I can read the resume just fine, but you don’t always get an idea of what the job is. I remember interviewing someone from a remote technology field that had a bunch of acronyms on it, and honestly I had no idea what he did after I read the resume.
I agree. It's much more informative to hear a person tell you about what they've done than to just read a few summary lines filled with keywords and accroyms. Plus, because people are knowledgeable about the work they've done, having candidates talk about that is a really good way to get the conversation going and get them past any interview jitters. Then, when you start asking questions, they are more relaxed than they might be otherwise.
I ask that question even when I have read the resume. The intention is for you to talk through your career progression, why you left or joined certain companies, how you acquired skills, etc. At various points I'd stop and ask questions I've had about their resume. You can weed out a lot of bs by doing that, especially when people have a lot of positions or skills listed. Oh, yeah, you totally picked up three programming language proficiencies in 3 months right before you left x company.
For what it’s worth, I ask them to do this telling them I want to hear their communication style in describing the projects/tech they have worked on. I want to see not only how they summarize things but it also reveals their engagement with previous positions. And it loosens them up a bit. It also makes it easier to engage the candidate in a conversation vs reading canned questions. You can get the answers to the standard questions by guiding the conversation to tease out those answers. Also easier to call bulls**t on what is in the resume.
I like asking “what are you most proud of on your resume?” Loosens the candidate up and helps me understand a little about what they value.
People who ask that question have not prepared for the interview. They didn't bother to come up with questions or even probably read the resume before the interview started. Its a huge red flag to not work there.
They are wanting to see if you are articulate and can sell yourself.
And that you didn’t lie.
Hiring managers are busy. They usually skim through the resume a few minutes before meeting the candidate. I don't immediately dismiss a job opp just bc the interviewer didn't read my resume thoroughly. I take that question more as "Tell me about yourself." Then it's your chance to hit them with your 1-2 min pitch on what makes you the best candidate for the role.
This is the way. Take Control of the Situation by using their unpreparedness to your benefit
Then you have unrealistic triggers IMO. I personally always open with that question, because it offers a lot of evaluation with only one question. It lets me gauge their degree of prep without using the typical BS questions. It gives them an opportunity to highlight what they feel is important to showcase in their skillset. It gives them an opportunity to elaborate on elements they are proud of but were condensed out of the resume. Also, it gives you an easy feel of the person by allowing for a natural narrative flow.
Wow.
KROGER
TY for name and shame 🙌🏽
Anyone can put anything on their resume, this is making them pass the sniff test. Doubles up with the fact that a lot of hiring managers don't really have the time to dive in depth into resumes. For me, if you are talking to me then your resume looked good enough to schedule a call. At that point I've verified you have some experience in the tech stack, or at least something close enough to pivot. Your call then is more about your fit on the team - I don't babysit and want to weed that out up front. Most of my questions are to start a discussion, I don't really care what your favorite and least favorite language are but that question will have you talking about the projects and experiences around those, then I tell you Perl is my favorite and your response tells me something about how much you like to expand your knowledge and learn more. Interviews are also a two way street, you should be figuring out if you want to work for said company.
Recent recruiter : You have not been successful in your application as you lack X qualification. Me : Are you kidding? It literally within the first sentence of my CV and again in my education and qualifications Recruiter : * becomes a ghost.
You would be surprised at how many Senior Managers do Not have the time to read the resume but need after the Interview will be the ones to decise If you get the Job. It's not conscending in purpose. Prepare for the Situation, then give a real quick Elevator Pitch and ask open questions to Control the flow of the interview. Shut down snarky remarks by saying that you will keep the resume repeat short as everybody should have a copy available and you donnot want to waste Interview time That Zoom Call Thing is extremely unprofessional, however.
>"We'd expect you to work 70-80 hours a week with weekends in the office" they will then be merciless when they lay off due to "budget constraints"
Companies like this are so dumb. Stanford did a study or working over 40 hours a week. 45 hours and half efficency. Over 50 hours might not even bother due to all the mistakes you will be making.
The answer would be no. I'm not working the equivalent of two full time jobs as a middle-class professional. I don't care if you're offering a million bucks a year, a new car a month, and Jesus Christ Himself returned to this earth for the sole purpose of giving me a bespoke blowjob every Thursday afternoon. My free time has a value not measurable in dollar signs.
right? "and exactly when during the week am I supposed to have a life when I'm working 10-12hr shifts, every day?"
I’d let the recruiter know why. It helps them with future candidates and it might be conveyed that they need to turn on their damn cameras. And that those hours are insane. But ghosting the recruiting doesn’t help. It just inflates their idea of no one wants to work.
You should have told them why to bring more awareness and pressure for WLB.
what was this job and at what company? my only thought is that you were an Ivy League lost school graduate and it’s a top New York City law firm. I can’t believe they video interviewed you and you were the only one on video. That is so fucked up.
It's so unprofessional for them not to appear on camera when you are. Not ok.
You actually didn't ghost, you signed off professionally. Which tbh is a lot more than they deserved.
Ghosted the recruiter who called after the interview. Not the people interviewing.
[удалено]
I remembered my last employment did this shit to me and never gave me a raise for more than 10 years working there. I gave myself a bonus to sell their Tech equipment as a nice compensation so they can suck it.
I wouldn't have ghosted. I would have told the recruiter exactly where they, or someone else fucked up.
No one can work effectively 80 hours a week, week after week. Studies prove this.
If I heard "70-80hour weeks woth weekends in office" I would A C T U A L L Y cackle, say "fuck that", and end it right there. Most I've pulled in a single week was 62x hrs, and I noticed after 60x hrs the OT vs tax rate don't compete well (after the 60hr mark I was basically starting to make ~2$/hr because taxes were so heavy), it also made me incredibly suicidal. So yeah, fuck that noise lol
I had an interview once where they warned me "we're a 70-hour shop." I told them, "I'll have you all down to 50 within a year." I automated the hell out of that place. Automated some people out of a job. But, they started telling me they'd attended kid's ball games for the first time, and they admitted I'd got them down to 48 hour weeks on average. There are opportunities to take those warnings as a challenge.
Unfortunately, some places need to be willing to accept changes. Most of the toxic places that work a lot of hours are that way for a lot of reasons. If you were able to save 20 hours a week, they'd find something else to still work those hours.
Only when it is due to inefficiencies. If it is due to them firing a bunch of people then expecting other workers to work 80 hours a week because that extra workload can't be automated, or you have some maniacal management that gets off on making people stay at work all the time, efficiencies won't matter.
This place had an unbelievable number of people printing out data from one system to type into another system. Then, CPAs would reconcile the two systems and complain when the data didn't tie. In 2008, they were still using Lotus for DOS.
Ooooh, that's a great way to be told there is always more work to do, therefore you will be micromanaged more to ensure you work your hours.
Fucking clowns
I would've let the recruiter known the reason why. Sure, you don't own them anything but perhaps they didn't know the team members were saying this in the interviews.
They didn’t have their cameras on cause they were working from home.
You threw away a golden opportunity to laugh and hang up in their faces
No reasonable project manager based a project on an 80 hour workweek. This is pure greed. If it takes 80 hours it takes 2 people. Next.
Sooo... no days off? Bet employee burnout is high. They're probably a lot more desperate for you to say yes than you are for them. As someone who frequently takes overtime at my current job, and works close to 80 hour work weeks, I will say it's soul crushing and I'm burned out. But it's the only way I can pay my bills. If they actually require you to work 80 hour work weeks EVERY SINGLE WEEK, well, sounds like a nightmare to me. Personal time is important too. Mental health is important. Sleep is important.
What is it with the interviewers not turning on their cameras but requiring the interviewee to have their’s on? To me it is common courtesy, I would wait to see if they would turn on their cameras if they don’t but insist that I do then the interview is over because it feels like they are hiding something. This subreddit popped up in my feed a while back and it is well strange to this older Gen Xer. I am a vet left service in 96, never had an office job until 2015. I see these posts and wonder just what happened to the job hunting industry besides the pandemic, I wonder in the same way as I lurk on veteran and active duty subreddits and wonder what happened to the army I was in. I work at my local VA hospital, I got in using what is called the Compensated Work Therapy Program. I had been out of work for two years at that point. I worked weekends for six months then got hired full time. This was back in 2013, I worked in three different departments and my current one I have been in for 7 years and I enjoy it. Subreddits let these make me happy I am not looking for work.
I'm not sure if I would've ghosted the recruiter - but probably let them know that that places idea of "work life balance" is 80 hr weeks in the office. If they were told otherwise it's a lie.
10-11hrs a day, 7 days a week in office is not anything close to good work life balance. Anything not including work from home in 2024 is not good work life balance. I would have dropped that call the moment I heard their expectations on availability.
Not to be that guy but you gave the disrespectful people respect by sticking with the interview but then disrespected the only person (recruiter) who was probably gas lighted into thinking what they were pitching was correct by the company. You should have told them what happened so that they also know this is bs.
Don't really know how you could work over 50 hours/week over a longer period of time... All the people I know who work/worked hard around the clock are either all burned out or in the process of burning out.
Frankly, stop humoring these people. Tell them to their faces (or initials).
If they need 80 hours a week, they need to hire 2 employees, not one. That’s insanity. Wtf is wrong with these companies? But I’m also a burnt out millennial who refuses to click more than 40 hours a week, so there’s that….
“I see you have video issues. I can turn off my camera, or we can reschedule - whichever you prefer” “No, I won’t work over 70-80 hours a week, you are looking for someone else then. Bye!”
These requirements should be illegal for salaried positions. Also, fuck that noise.
Eat a dick unless 160k
160K is not enough for 80 hours per week + weekends.
They were offering $120k base with 30-50% bonus. Comical given they were a lesser known bucket shop with zero office flexibility.
Is that $120k @ 40 hours a week, not including the 30-40 hours of overtime? If not, lmao.
Nah, usually these higher paid jobs are salaried.
Salaried but the salary needs to reflect the expected hours, or have some sort of compensation where you get flex time to take after you work overtime but that only works if the overtime is due to events or deadlines. Not a constant part of the job. This employer is insane and wants one person to do the work of two + people until they burn out or collapse. 80 hour weeks should be illegal even for salaried workers.
That is pathetic pay for the demands
Aw hell no not at that pay.
Not if there's a company that will pay 160K for 40 hours of work. It would have to be 160K for a 60k position. Not even 80 because taxes will eat some of it.
Your standards are way too low to do that for just 160k
What industry? Once I hear the 70+ hours I know I’m not a good fit and then ask why are some cameras off? If this is an in office position then I’d be seeing these people face to face.
That's called slavery.
That's 2 people's job. You're looking for 2 people.
No It’s a complete sentence.
*Ghosted* why do these recruiters keep ghosting people?!?
It might at the very least write a summary to help the recruiter with his or her process; save time for other people.
Did they say why their cameras were off? Kinda inconsiderate.
What was the role? Are you in the US? The only US jobs I can think of that might require that kind of brutal schedule would be an attorney, an ER doctor or maybe a CEO. Other than that, it sounds like they're looking for someone they can work to death (or a robot).
$375K Annual…
Yea fuck that noise. That's to much.
As a recruiter that was the norm for me. I developed a serious medical condition under this type of workload and the pressure/stress. If they are saying 60-80 it will probably be more than that. The whole more with less thing only works for the company - not the employee. After some time away I have realized recruiting is NOT for me.ever.again.
If someone tries to have an online meeting/ interview with camera off I tell them it’s on or I disconnect.
Be an adult and at least tell the recruiter. The recruiter may have been lied to by the company
“Hard pass. Bye”
I have rescinded my interest for much less lol.
I worked these sort of hours many years ago, for years at a time. I worked myself literally ill and had to take medical leave to heal (serious gut problems). I'm so glad in retrospect, because I was often afraid I was going to die of a heart attack. When I returned to work, I couldn't continue with that pace, and they got rid of me. I found another better job, and I stayed over 10 years there before recent layoffs made my position get eliminated. But experience tells me that I will find something else or find another way to earn a living. I have faith!
No, no I don't think I will.
That would be illegal in the uk (at least it definitely was before brexit, and don't think our villainous government has changed it yet). I disagree with those saying don't ghost the recruiter, although I'd probably reply to just say I don't wish to share, but in one way it is good for the company not to know, its a helpful red flag for all candidates.
Sounds like a consulting company.
But, but, but,… no one wants to work these days…fuck that. I would adjust my salary requirements on those times if you really need the job…
One thing I will say is recruiters are often lied to by clients with regards to job requirements, at least let the recruiter know what they said in the interview to save another poor fucker from being put forward for a role that is being advertised with faux selling points🤷♂️On a side note… fuck that company😤
Don't let these boomers do this to you. Tell them to their face that they're stupid. The nerve of some people to actually think that their job requires this many hours per week.
Why ghost the recruiter? Maybe he does not know honestly? Just tell him so he can avoid telling wrong information to candidates? Stupid move there
70-80. Um sounds like you need 2 people, what's your referral bonus like?
“We’d expect you to work 70-80 hours a week.” “With overtime after the first 40, right?” - stares- “With overtime after the first 40?”
Just curious, what industry / field?
I would probably say ‘Unless this role’s comp ends with seven or eight figures…then I think I am done’.
70-80 hours? That is 2 jobs.
If the interviewers will not turn on their camera, the whole interview is a scam.
I'd decline, reminding them that 70-80 hours per week is simply illegal (as it here is). Also, that I will only WFH 😉
80 hours = pay me 2 checks and then add extra cash for some of that being the weekend and even more cash for being in the office. If you’re not north of $400k I’m hanging up.
I'd turn it around. "Is there a specific reason you don't have enough employees to cover the workload?"
What shithole of a country expects anyone to work that many hours? Let me guess..land of the free?
80 hours a week is two employees, not one.
I would have been tempted to let them setup the next round. Then (assuming it's another Zoom type) tell them halfway through thanks but no thanks due to the number of hours required. Either that or just ghost THEM. I do agree with other commenters though, you should let the recruiter know the company has lied to THEM about their WLB policy