The root of this problem is that technically speaking, most people doing recruiting don't know their head from their ass when it comes to technology. I don't mean having actual programming experience, I just mean having enough basic high-level understanding to have a little intelligent conversation with somebody. This lack of knowledge means that the only method most recruiters have to try and rank people is asking the pointless "How many years of experience do you have with X technology?" questions that are easy to just totally bullshit your way through.
A good technical recruiter ought to be able to have a 5-10 minute conversation with a job-seeker about stuff they can't easily bullshit: going into depth on a past project or asking them a system design question in a particular domain and having enough sense to ask a good followup question or 2 and knowing if their answers are anywhere near reasonable.
> recently we dismissed developer after discovering he was working (also full time) at another company (we coordinated termination on both sides - I'm not even sure if it made him without work or just removed 2 out of N jobs)
Was the person doing their job or not? I can understand firing somebody if he was not performing, and I can almost understand firing somebody if they have more than one job and work with some sensitive/confidential information and might be a risk in some fashion with 2 jobs in a similar industry, but it seems pretty mean-spirited to go after both jobs.
Honestly, I'd be more inclined to fire a manager who couldn't tell their employee wasn't working 1 job than the employee who was industrious enough to perform at 2.
My contract states that I am expected to use my full work time with my employer and can't have another job. I think that this is a pretty common clause. It's not just about the hours but more the focus and energy.
> It's not just about the hours but more the focus and energy.
I understand the ostensible justification, but is that the real one?
Let's say that an employee does all of the work asked of them at a 100K salary and performs well, and still manages to hold down another n jobs.
What's the core issue here?
It feels like the real issue is that a boss is feeling a little butthurt that they didn't get to extract ($100K * n) production out of a $100K salary.
If somebody should be feeling wronged here, it's the person who is capable of doing ($100K * n) work getting paid $100K even though he's n times more productive than his peers who might be getting paid as much or even more than him.
A good technical recruiter ought to be able to have a 5-10 minute conversation with a job-seeker about stuff they can't easily bullshit: going into depth on a past project or asking them a system design question in a particular domain and having enough sense to ask a good followup question or 2 and knowing if their answers are anywhere near reasonable.
> recently we dismissed developer after discovering he was working (also full time) at another company (we coordinated termination on both sides - I'm not even sure if it made him without work or just removed 2 out of N jobs)
Was the person doing their job or not? I can understand firing somebody if he was not performing, and I can almost understand firing somebody if they have more than one job and work with some sensitive/confidential information and might be a risk in some fashion with 2 jobs in a similar industry, but it seems pretty mean-spirited to go after both jobs.
Honestly, I'd be more inclined to fire a manager who couldn't tell their employee wasn't working 1 job than the employee who was industrious enough to perform at 2.