> 1. Have elaborate excuses for why they can't update their LinkedIn profile to show the new job. Obviously they can't tip the old company off that they have a new job.

Why is this being stated as if a person is required to update LinkedIn with their current employer? What employer is pressuring new hires for an explanation on why they haven’t publicly claimed their new relationship status?

I don’t often update LI, but your phrasing of someone having “elaborate excuses” means there’s pressure from an employer (or coworkers?) for an LI update before anyone could even receive such “elaborate excuses” … and that’s just plain weird.

> What employer is pressuring new hires for an explanation on why they haven’t publicly claimed their new relationship status?

I honestly don't care for in-person employees, but it's something I ask remote employees to do for this exact reason.

If a remote employee makes vague excuses for why they must keep their old employer on their LinkedIn, it's worth investigating further.

Fortunately it's usually easy to call up the old company and confirm the person's start and end dates. Companies love to learn that one of their employees has started a new job but hasn't actually quit yet.

> I honestly don't care for in-person employees, but it's something I ask remote employees to do for this exact reason.

It sounds like you're just nosy, then. The content of my LinkedIn profile is no more your business than the content of my Tinder profile, and just as relevant to my work.

> The content of my LinkedIn profile is no more your business than the content of my Tinder profile, and just as relevant to my work.

What? LinkedIn profiles are literally about your work.

It's not about being nosy. It's about noticing inconsistencies. If someone is going through the trouble of maintaining a LinkedIn profile but they're also listing a different company as their current employer, it's time to start investigating.

LinkedIn isn't the final say, obviously. However, it can act as a canary in the coalmine for further investigation.

No, my work is about my work. If you're happy with my work, you, as my current manager at a company I already work for, have no business checking up on my LinkedIn profile. If you're not happy with my work, checking up on my LinkedIn profile isn't going to make you any happier.

I wouldn't be looking if I was happy with the person's work.

Empathetic managers trust their employees when they say a task is difficult and will take longer than expected.

Double job workers (and slackers in general) thrive on taking advantage of this empathy by lying and manipulating their way into perceptions that they are doing more work than they really are. Not fair to the manager, company, or team mates.

It's basic due diligence of any manager to check these things.

No, it's a waste of time and you being nosy. If you're not happy with my work, your responsibility is to come to me and tell me that, then see if we can work together to get to a point where you are happy.

Tell me honestly for a second: if you weren't happy with someone's work, would anything on (or not on) their LinkedIn profile make any difference to that situation whatsoever?

> Tell me honestly for a second: if you weren't happy with someone's work, would anything on (or not on) their LinkedIn profile make any difference to that situation whatsoever?

The LinkedIn point was about looking for clues that you might need to investigate further. I think you're trying to twist my statement into something else entirely.

Is that an admission? Being evasive about the question is not a good look. It's precisely what you're accusing the employee of here.

You've been breaking the site guidelines badly in this thread, particularly these:

"Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine."

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

And some of these cases have been egregious:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29668822

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29668427

Those kinds of comment are bannable offences on HN. I don't want to ban you, but this has been a problem many times before, and we need it to stop. Can you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules in the future?

Prisoner's dilemma, I guess?

Can you tell me what company do you hire for, so I don't apply? People's LinkedIn profile are private to them, none of your business. I wonder if you just hire in 3rd world countries, or focus on hiring people in need with no leverage, coz, if you ask me about my LI profile, I will tell you to take a hike.

Maybe "private" was the wrong word, maybe personal fits better. But anyway, in your style, so you understand: Imagine being so oblivious as to think your employer have the right to dictate what you post or not on your social profiles.

If you post it on a public social network, it’s fair for employer to ask. You can plead the 5th but that’s effectively an elaborate excuse.

I ask contractors if they’re vaccinated before entering my home and they can refuse the job if it bothers them.

No, it isn't. What I post on HN or Reddit is almost never none of my employer's business, either.

I work 3 jobs for 1 year, had 2 only for maybe 5. Most of your observations are correct but I can tell you that I do not have it that hard to synch the meetings to make them not overlap. And I make an conscious effort of being really prompt when answering queries. I am perhaps more prompt than many that do not do what I do, since eI would not like people to suspect what I am doing.

LinkedIn has proven a fucking pain indeed, and that is why I am not active on it anymore.

> LinkedIn has proven a fucking pain indeed, and that is why I am not active on it anymore.

Yep. There's another person in this thread trying to argue it away, but I've found LinkedIn to be a huge canary in the coalmine in these situations.

Someone who insists on maintaining an active LinkedIn profile but also isn't updating it with a new job isn't a red flag by itself (people just forget, obviously). It is, however, another piece of the puzzle.

If someone updates their LinkedIn and broadcasts their new job to all of their peers then I'm much less concerned.

It's interesting that you actually spotted them. In my experience it's really hard for people to tell what I'm doing, but I guess the expectations at the companies I contracted for were much lower and by comparison, I actually did my job. Most people seemed pretty happy with what I delivered. I was the most unsatisfied with it, to be honest.

Regarding #1, why do I need to make any excuse to anybody about the content of my LinkedIn profile?

You don't have to have a LinkedIn profile at all. I really don't care.

But if someone has clearly gone through the trouble of setting up a LinkedIn, listing all of their jobs and details on it, and collecting a lot of connections, but for some reason they must continue listing their previous employer as their current employer, it's worth further investigation.

Why?

If someone joins your company as a remote employee but publicly advertises themselves as working for someone else, you investigate further.

The "why" is in the linked article: It's in the playbook of people trying to manipulate you into letting them work half as much as their coworkers (thereby screwing over coworkers, who are forced to pick up the slack).

If you care about your team, you don't sit idle while one of the employees is slacking off, putting in half the effort as their peers, or manipulating their way into doing less than others.

> If you care about your team, you don't sit idle while one of the employees is slacking off.

There we go! "Slacking off" is not relevant. What's relevant is that you, as my manager at a company I already work for, are happy with my work, or not. It shouldn't matter whether it takes 100%, 80%, 50%, or 20% of my capacity to make you happy. This would be completely non-controversial in the vast majority of jobs.

In the real world, managers don't look at a task and schedule out exactly 40 hours of work each week. We trust our employees to give us feedback and healthy estimates.

Truth is, double job workers are usually caught because they're underperforming. But smart managers give employees the benefit of the doubt and don't go firing people at first signs of underperformance. If someone has a legitimate reason for falling behind for a while (maybe overleveled during hiring, maybe struggling with real life issues, etc.) then we work with them. If they have a manipulative/deceptive reason (working two jobs, avoiding work) then it's better off that we replace them with someone who cares.

If you think that a job is a simple matter of "do fixed pile of work every week", that's not how 95% of software jobs work. We rely on a 2-way communication with employees to establish what's reasonable, and if someone is manipulating us into lowering expectations (literally the title of this article) then they must go and be replaced with someone who cares.

Not to put too fine a point on it, people like the parent are just scum who make life difficult for everyone else. Having a tough period for whatever reason? Oh, they probably have another job because that's what the cool kids do.

If, as an employee, your philosophy is to grift what you can, expect companies to do the same. And good employers actually don't.

> If, as an employee, your philosophy is to grift what you can, expect companies to do the same. And good employers actually don't.

Well said.

If the entire relationship is built on lies and deception, it begins to show over time. Employees who build their relationship based on manipulating their employer (setting low expectations, as the article suggests) aren't the same employees helping their teammates, working together to get things done, and shipping good work. They're the ones that need constant manager attention and slowly siphon the energy out of their peers and managers. Removing them from the team is a win for everyone.

Allowable small side gigs (which I've always been very open about) are totally cool. And often even positive for my employer. But this idea that so long as you can slip under the radar with working at 50% and beg off of tasks?

But pretending that working two full-time salaried jobs are OK because no one has actually caught you? Wow.

And you're basically providing a template for manager who don't believe in more flexible working arrangements to deny them. I'd love for people for that to be kicked hard to the curb.

It's also why employers are tempted to install monitoring software.

Companies do precisely what capitalism gives them incentives to do. "Grift" is not a meaningful concept. A company can and will do anything the people managing it believe they can get away with that will increase their bottom line, yet, somehow, this behavior becomes unacceptable when it's a lowly worker doing it?

Honorable people are honorable in spite of what other people do.

Do you think it's honor that's keeping the peace? It's fear! Fear and blood!

Yes, and that is a non sequitor.

Well, let me put it bluntly to you, too, then: I don't give a fuck what you or people like you think. No company is entitled to own me body, soul, and spirit. I work the job I work solely because I have to in order to survive. If I did not, I would still be working, just not on the shit I'm working on now.

And, yes, most companies are. That's been my experience, and that's how they have to be if they want to compete in the market.

Then you should probably work for yourself. Though of course you're still working for someone who writes you checks.

You seemed to miss the part where I don't give a fuck about what you think, so, let me underscore that.

You have made that perfectly clear.

It's not "do fixed pile of work every week." It's "provide a multiple of N worth of your salary value to the company." The amount of work necessary to do so is (should be) irrelevant. Effort is not relevant, and you don't get to demand I commit body and soul to please you if I'm providing a reasonable amount of value.

No, it's about "Is this employee occupying headcount and payroll that would be better used on someone more deserving".

And you've still misunderstand the 2-way feedback loop about effort estimation.

You have this misconception that a job is an isolated 1:1 relationship with an employer where units of work are passed in isolation back and forth. In the real world, something like this does huge damage to the team by forcing everyone else to compensate for the deliberate underperformance.

Oh, wait, now I need to deserve a job in addition to being able to perform all aspects of it adequately with respect to the offered compensation? You really are something if that's what you believe.

> Oh, wait, now I need to deserve a job

I didn't say a job. I said the job I'm hiring for.

If you're going to come in and deliberately do as little work as possible to extract as much as possible from the team, why should I give the job to you instead of someone who is actually honest and cares?

You're not entitled to any job you want, obviously. I usually have 10-100 applicants who would honestly do the job and not sandbag their work onto peers. Obviously we would all rather have the honest employees working on the team.

In what moral system do you deserve the job more than literally any other honest employee if you're dead set on doing less than them and lying your way through the job?

If nothing else, having two jobs becomes a conflict of interest with a huge monetary incentive to continue lying. There's also the matter of trade secrets as people often come from related companies.

Well, okay. If I can do the job, and I am doing the job adequately relative to the compensation offered, why do I need to deserve your job?

Would stealing from your employer be ok as long as he doesn't notice?

Who's stealing? Why the red herring?

Working half of the agreed upon hours is, what?

You've already implied you'd do whatever you could get away with:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29668597

Again, I told you, I never agreed to work X amount of hours for any tech company I've ever worked at. In fact, it's always been made clear to me by my managers that time and effort spent is irrelevant, and only results count. Deliver on your sprint commitments, and you're gold, regardless of how long it takes.

Oh, and let's not pretend companies won't do "whatever they can get away with," either. Read the news if you need examples.

Then you're doing piecework? I thought you said you weren't a contractor. I've done piecework, too, which is deliver a product to a specification. But that's not as an employee.

Employees get W2s, contractors get 1099s.

No, I'm not a contractor. I work as an employee.

And, no, I've never signed anything stating I'd work "40 hours" for a tech company. I edited this into a previous comment, but this is literally the applicable phrase from my last offer letter:

> As an exempt salaried employee, you will be expected to work the hours, including evenings and weekends, required to perform your job duties.

It goes both way, you see. I accomplish my duties in less than 40 hours, I get to be done. If my manager is happy with my work, quite frankly, why does it matter how long it takes?

You said you worked as an IC. I presume that meant Independent Contractor.

Individual contributor, as distinct from, say, an executive, who is someone who actually might get an employment contract in the US. I apologize for the confusion.

Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it. Apology accepted!

BTW, it does appear that, despite you being technically an employee, you're doing piecework like a contractor would. Piecework work is, indeed, paid for the piece, not the hours. If that is the agreement with your employer, then there is nothing dishonorable about it, and I withdraw my criticism.

You're quite welcome, and, BTW, I also edited out the rude phrase I used in my frustration trying to communicate my status here.

I don't know if you want to call it "piecework" per se or not, but, every tech job I've ever had has required me to make an estimate of what I think I can accomplish during a given period (generally a 2 week sprint). As long as there's no push back on whether that's sufficient or not from my manager, if I accomplish those things, it doesn't matter how long it takes. I can take 50 hours, or I can take 20, and I still get paid the same. I don't get paid additional money if I finish my original commitment in 20 hours, then take on more work, which, as you may understand, doesn't give me a great incentive to do so.

Recent years have seen a flurry of expensive lawsuits over the difference between a contractor and employee, most recently at Uber, so my views on that are likely outdated. I shouldn't be surprised that employers these days err on the side of caution and reclassified many traditionally contractor jobs as employee jobs.

Salaried jobs I've had all expected me to work 40 hrs. I'd moonlight on my own business, but was always careful to get a signed agreement in advance from my employer allowing me to do so. Some people moonlight and then live in terror of their employer finding out and claiming ownership over the moonlight business, but getting the agreement in advance forestalls that problem.

You're misunderstanding me again. I do the job of an employee. I simply have never had any expectation of "40 hours," or any other fixed amount of hours placed upon me as a salaried tech employee.

> as their coworkers (thereby screwing over coworkers, who are forced to pick up the slack)

Why is it their coworkers responsibility to make sure enough total labor is present? According to you, anyone not giving 100% is slacking and doing something wrong, so I assume their coworkers are already giving 100%. Why should they have to work harder than 100% because management is bad at getting workers?