The Easiest Interview Ever & More

« Return to Article
  • deekay 2009-08-18 09:10
    Regarding the first story, I've been in a similar situation where I was offered the job based on the fact I was the only applicant that bothered to show up (lazy Gen Y'ers)

    Oh and I posted the first comment too :)
  • mcfly 2009-08-18 09:11
    Q: THIS WILL BE THE QUESTIONS FOR THE INTERVIEWER777777

  • Booboo 2009-08-18 09:12
    Does Brian Gould really want to advertise that about his company?
  • Anonymous 2009-08-18 09:12
    Chris needed bodies.

    Namely, yours.
  • Jemmy 2009-08-18 09:12
    The "Work Hours" story makes me cringe. It's not only that working grueling hours seems to be par in many companies nor that working from home, however immensely good it often is for the productivity and morale of knowledge workers, but it's especially that the story is apparently told by a C?O-type person who (equally apparently) thinks the joke/WTF is on the interviewee.

    Brian, please let us know what company you're the CTO for so we can avoid working there.
  • pjt33 2009-08-18 09:16
    Surely romance between people who work in the same building are intra-office relationships, and inter-office relationships would be those between people who work in different buildings?
  • Griphon 2009-08-18 09:18
    FTA:
    Whatever the case, when they called me back to extend an offer, I politely declined.


    Wise, very very wise.
  • Anon 2009-08-18 09:20
    The husband and wife one, that wasn't the same company as the nude interview a few weeks back, was it? If so, I can see what the problem might be.
  • Anon 2009-08-18 09:25
    Anon:
    The husband and wife one, that wasn't the same company as the nude interview a few weeks back, was it? If so, I can see what the problem might be.


    This one: http://thedailywtf.com/Comments/The-Winds-of-Recession,-A-Doomed-Interivew,-and-Oops!.aspx#270938
  • Steve H 2009-08-18 09:27
    Wouldn't that be "intra-office"?
  • amischiefr 2009-08-18 09:33
    "I still haven’t had the guts to tell Christopher what really happened. "

    I think you just did.
  • valetudo 2009-08-18 09:34
    Steve H:
    Wouldn't that be "intra-office"?

    Ye-es... That's right.
    Or is this some sort of policy issue that if people are "enjoying each other's company" they should at least stay inside a room?
  • Justice 2009-08-18 09:36
    I can't tell if Brian Gould's story is serious or a joke. I'd get a chuckle out of it, and could imagine pulling that one on a candidate, but if they're serious, that's the WTF.

    Also ,I wonder about turning down a job based on the warning about employee fraternization. They could have had a problem between two people who are no longer with the company, or there was an incident at one of their former workplaces that made an impression on them, or something. Though the fact that they weren't forthcoming with information suggests a larger problem with the company culture.
  • Dan 2009-08-18 09:36
    WTF is the WTF with the office hours? The fact that she asked the question or the answer that was given? From the write-up, it sounds like it's supposed to be the question. If that's the case, then I'm with Jemmy. Somebody post the company name so I'll be sure never to send a resume there way.
  • Dan 2009-08-18 09:39
    Also ,I wonder about turning down a job based on the warning about employee fraternization. They could have had a problem between two people who are no longer with the company, or there was an incident at one of their former workplaces that made an impression on them, or something. Though the fact that they weren't forthcoming with information suggests a larger problem with the company culture.

    The other employee besides the married couple was going on maternity leave. My guess would be that the father of the baby used to work there...
  • amischiefr 2009-08-18 09:40
    Justice:
    Though the fact that they weren't forthcoming with information suggests a larger problem with the company culture.

    No it doesn't. I am no lawyer but I am willing to bet that there are laws about divulging specific information about past employees to future employees. Some kind of privacy act or something. The fact that they didn't want to talk about it doesn't make them suspect.
  • Dan 2009-08-18 09:43
    Somebody post the company name so I'll be sure never to send a resume there way.


    Not sure if it's the same person or not, but this may be relevant:

    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/brian-gould/a/680/3a4
  • Anonymous Coward #53432538 2009-08-18 09:44
    The real wtfs:

    1) The CTO who thinks "This noob thinks we get BREAKS FROM WORK. What a noob, right guys?". Still not sure what the joke here was.

    2) The fact that everyone frowns on having relationships with co-workers, but sees nothing wrong with employing spouses/children/significant others, when there is already a relationship (of at least one sort) in those circumstances.
  • Adrian Brody 2009-08-18 09:48
    Thanks, jerk. I needed that job.
  • Kermos 2009-08-18 09:50
    amischiefr:
    Justice:
    Though the fact that they weren't forthcoming with information suggests a larger problem with the company culture.

    No it doesn't. I am no lawyer but I am willing to bet that there are laws about divulging specific information about past employees to future employees. Some kind of privacy act or something. The fact that they didn't want to talk about it doesn't make them suspect.


    Doesn't stop someone from giving a general explanation of what happened without mentioning specific (former) employee names.

  • Me 2009-08-18 09:52
    Met my wife at my first job. And her cousin was CEO of the company. Did not get rich, thought.
  • campkev 2009-08-18 09:55
    Kermos:
    amischiefr:
    Justice:
    Though the fact that they weren't forthcoming with information suggests a larger problem with the company culture.

    No it doesn't. I am no lawyer but I am willing to bet that there are laws about divulging specific information about past employees to future employees. Some kind of privacy act or something. The fact that they didn't want to talk about it doesn't make them suspect.


    Doesn't stop someone from giving a general explanation of what happened without mentioning specific (former) employee names.



    You're right, they could have said, "One of our previous employees got another employee pregnant and then disappeared." Interviewee would NEVER have figured out who was involved in that one.

    Obviously there was some sort of problem with it in the past and it is not allowed at this point. That's all he needs to know. Everything else is just gossiping.
  • SCB 2009-08-18 10:02
    Me:
    Met my wife at my first job. And her cousin was CEO of the company. Did not get rich, thought.


    "Met wife at first job.
    Her cousin was CEO.
    Did not get rich though."

    FTFY.
    Now it's a proper Haiku.
  • BBT 2009-08-18 10:07
    There will be NO office relationships allowed...except ours, of course.
  • Chris 2009-08-18 10:08
    Jemmy:
    The "Work Hours" story makes me cringe. It's not only that working grueling hours seems to be par in many companies nor that working from home, however immensely good it often is for the productivity and morale of knowledge workers, but it's especially that the story is apparently told by a C?O-type person who (equally apparently) thinks the joke/WTF is on the interviewee.

    Brian, please let us know what company you're the CTO for so we can avoid working there.


    wait? wha?
  • xnotabotx 2009-08-18 10:10
    The fact that everyone frowns on having relationships with co-workers


    In my experience this much less the case in the UK than the US. My current company always celebrates office marriages with gusto, for example.
  • Shinobu 2009-08-18 10:17
    I agree with A. Coward's note 2). A lot of romances start in the office and I know quite some people who would still be lonely were it not for a work relation that blossomed into something more.
  • SCB 2009-08-18 10:20
    xnotabotx:
    The fact that everyone frowns on having relationships with co-workers


    In my experience this much less the case in the UK than the US. My current company always celebrates office marriages with gusto, for example.

    At a bank that I worked at in the UK, if two co-workers got married then one of them would have to resign. It was part of the bank's "anti-fraud" policy or something.
  • Harrow 2009-08-18 10:24
    @Forbidden Inter-office Romance

    The founder is frustrated because he can't shtupp his wife as long as she works there.

    -Harrow.
  • SAMO (c) 2009-08-18 10:34
    I accidentally a female subordinate. Is this a problem?
  • HopelessIntern 2009-08-18 10:36
    I am currently working for an american IT company in the UK. A colleague of mine is dating another, one colleague is married and has two kids with a coworker, and one guy just got married to his coworker.

    So needless to say it is not frowned upon here in Blighty.
  • cfreak 2009-08-18 10:38
    The first one sounds similar to what happened with my current job. The "technical director" called me and discussed a few things on my resume for a few minutes and then asked me to come in the next day. I showed up and sat down and he offered me the job on the spot, then spent 2 hours telling me how great it was. (I didn't accept right away mostly because I was going to weigh the other options I had)

    I ended up taking the job and within two months they fired the "technical director" for having too little "technical" and far too much crazy. I ended up with his job, sans the title.

    Everyone agrees about the only thing the guy got right was hiring me.
  • campkev 2009-08-18 10:41
    xnotabotx:
    The fact that everyone frowns on having relationships with co-workers


    In my experience this much less the case in the UK than the US. My current company always celebrates office marriages with gusto, for example.


    Never been my experience that it is frowned on much here in the U.S. either. Other than when I was in the military, never had an employer make a big deal about it. And even though the military paid a lot of lip-service to fraternization being against the rules, it happened all the time and unless you were a complete dumbass about it, nothing ever happened to you.
  • Some Wonk 2009-08-18 10:42
    Bah. It's not an intra-office romance, if it is just sex.
  • DWalker59 2009-08-18 10:48
    Dan:
    Also ,I wonder about turning down a job based on the warning about employee fraternization. They could have had a problem between two people who are no longer with the company, or there was an incident at one of their former workplaces that made an impression on them, or something. Though the fact that they weren't forthcoming with information suggests a larger problem with the company culture.

    The other employee besides the married couple was going on maternity leave. My guess would be that the father of the baby used to work there...


    No, obviously, the father of the baby is the guy who is half of the married couple. Even though it's not his wife who is pregnant!
  • The Interviewee 2009-08-18 11:01
    Funny interviews:

    When I decided to leave my first company after 11 yrs, I did a lot of searching and lots of phone calls with companies.

    (As an aside: I wanted to get into real consulting, and many of the companies were merely body shops with no real career opportunities).

    Anyway, one of the companies I talked to on the phone flew my wife and myself out to North Carolina to talk with them as well as the customer where I'd be working. Mind you, aside from a few emails and a phone call with the "consulting" company, this is the first face-to-face interview. Meanwhile my wife was taken around town to see different places where we might want to move... they really seemed to be trying to sell me on the job opportunity.

    After the customer interview they brought us back into their offices and, essentially, made me a job offer. This took both my wife and me completely by surprise - typically this isn't done until after the 2nd interview. We really weren't prepared to make a decision that fast, particularly with 4 of them staring us down while we considered our options.

    When I basically rejected the offer, they were openly offended. We explained that we thought this was just a first interview and never expected an offer at this point. I also pushed a little harder to find out more about a "career path" for consultants within their company, and it was clear that none existed. They wouldn't even pay for training to keep my skills up-to-date (and thus marketable).

    Ah well, at least they did reimburse me for the travel expenses - we were kinda worried that they might not considering how the conversation went.
  • Mr. Romance 2009-08-18 11:06
    I worked for a consulting organization which went through an office "romance" issue once.

    It seems one of the consultants had a good time with one of the customer's female employees. And then the project ended. Not much later the consultant quit and moved his home.

    A couple of months later my manager gets a call from the female employee's boss asking for the forwarding address for our ex-consultant - which said manage respectfully declined to give (you know, legal regulations and all).

    The woman's boss complained that the consultant got his employee pregnant and got pretty indignant with my manager. He demanded "What are you going to do about that!"

    To which said manager replied: "Maybe get her a gift for the baby shower?"
  • Anonymous coward 2009-08-18 11:10
    Mr. Brian Gould,

    you are a dick
  • American Citizen 2009-08-18 11:12
    SCB:
    xnotabotx:
    The fact that everyone frowns on having relationships with co-workers


    In my experience this much less the case in the UK than the US. My current company always celebrates office marriages with gusto, for example.

    At a bank that I worked at in the UK, if two co-workers got married then one of them would have to resign. It was part of the bank's "anti-fraud" policy or something.


    At my company it's against the rules for two married people to be in the same department/division. So if you marry a coworker one of you has to move to another department/division or resign.

    Supposedly the thought process is the concept that one day one of you might become the other's supervisor/boss and there would then be a conflict of interest. I suppose they could just enforce the rule whenever that happens but it's just simpler to have a hard and fast rule and be done with it.
  • silver lining 2009-08-18 11:12
    We tell all of our potential hires that it is company policy to work half days EVERY day of the week...a mere 12 hours a day (do the math). We don't have any good people just the desperate ones.
  • Art Metz 2009-08-18 11:35
    When the day finally came, I wore my best suit

    I'm surprised no one has caught the WTFs here:

    1. The guy wore a suit to the interview.
    2. The guy has more than one suit.
  • Yep 2009-08-18 11:37
    cfreak:
    I ended up taking the job and within two months they fired the "technical director" for having too little "technical" and far too much crazy. I ended up with his job, sans the title.

    Everyone agrees about the only thing the guy got right was hiring me.


    Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
  • irish pedant 2009-08-18 11:43
    Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

    Not if it's an LED one.

    Anyway, your use of 'even' implies that you think that a working clock is correct at least twice a day. Which is clearly false.
  • JohnB 2009-08-18 11:48
    Art Metz:
    When the day finally came, I wore my best suit

    I'm surprised no one has caught the WTFs here:

    1. The guy wore a suit to the interview.
    2. The guy has more than one suit.
    Technically, at least 3 suits. If he had only 1 suit, he would have said he wore his suit; if he had 2 suits, he would have said he wore his better suit.
  • Justice 2009-08-18 11:48
    campkev:
    Kermos:
    amischiefr:
    Justice:
    Though the fact that they weren't forthcoming with information suggests a larger problem with the company culture.

    No it doesn't. I am no lawyer but I am willing to bet that there are laws about divulging specific information about past employees to future employees. Some kind of privacy act or something. The fact that they didn't want to talk about it doesn't make them suspect.


    Doesn't stop someone from giving a general explanation of what happened without mentioning specific (former) employee names.



    You're right, they could have said, "One of our previous employees got another employee pregnant and then disappeared." Interviewee would NEVER have figured out who was involved in that one.

    Obviously there was some sort of problem with it in the past and it is not allowed at this point. That's all he needs to know. Everything else is just gossiping.


    Of course they'd need to use discretion, but the interviewer really should have been prepared to field any questions. He could have said "we had an ugly incident in the past that we don't want to repeat" or even just "I've seen it turn ugly at other companies and don't want that here." The response he gave raises the sorts of questions that our hero Joe Barnum thought of, and if you're serious about bringing someone on as an employee, it's not a good idea to leave them with a bunch of ambiguous discomfort.

    The main issue for me is that he mentioned it specifically (which I've never had happen in an interview) and then clammed up when asked about it further. I don't think I'd turn down a job based on that one factor, but I can see how it might raise concerns about openness of communication.
  • A Nonny Mouse 2009-08-18 11:54
    The Interviewee:
    I also pushed a little harder to find out more about a "career path" for consultants within their company, and it was clear that none existed. They wouldn't even pay for training to keep my skills up-to-date (and thus marketable).

    so, you wanted a career path (as a consultant??) AND you wanted them to pay to keep you marketable? sounds like they dodged a bullet there
  • The Interviewee 2009-08-18 11:58
    [quote user="A Nonny Mouse"][/quote]
    so, you wanted a career path (as a consultant??) AND you wanted them to pay to keep you marketable? sounds like they dodged a bullet there[/quote]

    Maybe there's a communication problem, but typically, if they want to keep your skills marketable, then yes, they do pay for your education. It demonstrates how much they value you as an employee and are less likely to treat you as a simple "resource" that they can discard when they no longer find you useful.

    It would make no sense whatsoever for them to have a consulting career ladder, but not provide you the means of achieving that growth.
  • SR 2009-08-18 12:02
    valetudo:
    Ye-es... That's right.
    Or is this some sort of policy issue that if people are "enjoying each other's company" they should at least stay inside a room?


    GET A ROOM!
  • SR 2009-08-18 12:03
    SCB:
    At a bank that I worked at in the UK, if two co-workers got married then one of them would have to resign. It was part of the bank's "anti-fraud" policy or something.


    This is similar thinking that made UK banks require IE for online banking. No wonder this country's screwed!
  • GalacticCowboy 2009-08-18 12:07
    cfreak:
    The first one sounds similar to what happened with my current job. The "technical director" called me and discussed a few things on my resume for a few minutes and then asked me to come in the next day. I showed up and sat down and he offered me the job on the spot, then spent 2 hours telling me how great it was. (I didn't accept right away mostly because I was going to weigh the other options I had)

    I ended up taking the job and within two months they fired the "technical director" for having too little "technical" and far too much crazy. I ended up with his job, sans the title.

    Everyone agrees about the only thing the guy got right was hiring me.


    Huh... I worked for a company recently where the exact same thing happened. Do I know you?
  • Fast Eddie 2009-08-18 12:10
    SCB:
    Me:
    Met my wife at my first job. And her cousin was CEO of the company. Did not get rich, thought.


    "Met wife at first job.
    Her cousin was CEO.
    Did not get rich though."

    FTFY.
    Now it's a proper Haiku.

    Hero.
  • nonny nonny 2009-08-18 12:13
    GalacticCowboy:

    Huh... I worked for a company recently where the exact same thing happened. Do I know you?


    Were you fired for having too little "technical" and too much "crazy"?
  • GalacticCowboy 2009-08-18 12:16
    nonny nonny:
    GalacticCowboy:

    Huh... I worked for a company recently where the exact same thing happened. Do I know you?


    Were you fired for having too little "technical" and too much "crazy"?


    No, I was one of the other people hired during the "crazy"... I was on contract, so I was mostly just a semi-interested onlooker to all the political stuff.
  • Christopher 2009-08-18 12:29
    Adrian, you're fired.
  • exegete 2009-08-18 12:47
    Maybe I didn't read the CTO story properly, but here's what I took from it.

    Programmer told prospect that, in essence, they put in full days at the office & then go home to do even more office work. CTO finds out & think "WTF? Why are they doing work at home after putting in a full day's work?" The implication being that this CTO - obviously enlightened since he/she is a DailyWTF reader - realizes that everyone needs down time.

    Everyone else seems to interpret the CTO's reaction as "WTF? Why would you tell a prospect about our super-extended work days? You're supposed to spring that on them after it's too late for them to change their minds."

    For those who work at that business, I hope my reading is the proper one....
  • mwb 2009-08-18 12:51
    I once showed up for a 10am interview, and then sat around for 90+ minutes waiting for the interviewer to show up. Eventually someone popped in to let me know that the interviewer had been up until past 2am dealing with production issues, and so he wasn't in the office yet.

    That _should_ have been a clue, but I was young... :-/

    Finally they found someone else to interview me, it went pretty well, and eventually the guy who was supposed to interview me showed up. That interview went well too.

    So... They offered me the job, I foolishly took it, and I'm still here 13 years later. It's been a great job, but looking back I wonder what in he** I was thinking...
  • DaveK 2009-08-18 12:52
    Why on earth not? He was right there, he already knows; he knows he was supposed to interview you, he knows he got called away, he knows that when HR asked him how the interview went he told them "I didn't have time to interview him but just hire him anyway, we need someone like yesterday", and he knows you turned up for work the next Monday.

    What exactly were you worried about telling him?
  • Jeremy 2009-08-18 12:55
    Is Brian Gould's story really a WTF? Maybe WTF is it doing here. I think most know what it's like to work for these types of companies and I think the woman's question was legitimate. So neither was a big shock.

    Too bad as a CTO he isn't going more to promote alternative work environments. I've had work at home for the last 2 years and even with only a day a week it makes a huge difference. On top of that I usually work an extra few hours just because I'm relaxed.
  • DaveK 2009-08-18 12:59
    exegete:
    Programmer told prospect that, in essence, they put in full days at the office & then go home to do even more office work. CTO finds out & think "WTF? Why are they doing work at home after putting in a full day's work?" The implication being that this CTO - obviously enlightened since he/she is a DailyWTF reader - realizes that everyone needs down time.
    If the CTO doesn't know how badly things are going and that everyone's having to go home and pull all-nighters, then isn't that TRWTF? Has this guy been asleep in his office all day or out on the golf course when he should have been doing things like, oh I dunno, project planning and progress reporting and all those management-y kinds of stuff?
  • Jason 2009-08-18 12:59
    @exegete
    There is a 3rd interpretation:
    That the CTO was amused a candidate would think to ask that type of question in that the idea of working at home is so absurd. That's how I took it.

    The last time I interviewed for a job the lead doing the interview laughed when I asked the same question. As if the absurdity of even asking was worth a chuckle.
  • kayeff 2009-08-18 13:04
    The second story is just a joke guys... prospect asked a question and someone gave a funny answer.
  • matthewr81 2009-08-18 13:15
    Brian just summed up what is wrong with most work environments today and why forward looking companies that treat the employees like adults are leaving them behind.

    Ever seen a statistic on people with flexible work-hours and telecommuting for sick-time vs. companies that refuse it. Here's a hint... you are on the losing side.
  • Soft Drink Empire 2009-08-18 13:27
    valetudo:
    Or is this some sort of policy issue that if people are "enjoying each other's company" they should at least stay inside a room?
    They frown upon glory-hole lovin' at work.
  • Herohtar 2009-08-18 13:41
    JohnB:
    Art Metz:
    When the day finally came, I wore my best suit

    I'm surprised no one has caught the WTFs here:

    1. The guy wore a suit to the interview.
    2. The guy has more than one suit.
    Technically, at least 3 suits. If he had only 1 suit, he would have said he wore his suit; if he had 2 suits, he would have said he wore his better suit.


    No. You have two suits, one is better than the other, that makes it your best suit.
  • Lithp 2009-08-18 13:41
    kayeff:
    The second story is just a joke guys... prospect asked a question and someone gave a funny answer.
    Finally, someone parsed it correctly.
  • Joshua 2009-08-18 13:49
    I once interviewed with a company that told me:

    1. "Most of our devs work 50-60 hour weeks" It was a salaried jobs, but there were quarterly "performance bonuses." I have a family. 50-60 hour weeks were not going to work.
    2. You can't have any other outside jobs or projects. This might not be a big deal for some, but I do help out other people for pay, and do take side-projects here and there.

    This was for a telecommute position, by the way.

    I was a little hesitant about agreeing to those terms. Thankfully, they never called back.
  • Bri 2009-08-18 13:56

    “you must be Adrian. I’m so sorry for being late, we’ve had a crisis and I’m trying to put out fires.”

    “It’s okay,” I responded, “I know exactly how that—”

    Before I could even finish my sentence, Christopher’s phone rang

    At this point in the story, I was half-expecting the punchline to be that the fires were literal fires.
  • will 2009-08-18 14:04
    Justice:
    Though the fact that they weren't forthcoming with information suggests a larger problem with the company culture.


    Alot of business will not give info on past employees, besides that they worked there. The reason according the business manuals is because of the worry of law suits.
    Give a good impression of the person and he sucks the business could sue you. Give a bad impression of the person and that person could sue you. Better to just keep quiet.
  • lmgtfy 2009-08-18 14:09
    Jemmy:
    The "Work Hours" story makes me cringe. It's not only that working grueling hours seems to be par in many companies nor that working from home, however immensely good it often is for the productivity and morale of knowledge workers, but it's especially that the story is apparently told by a C?O-type person who (equally apparently) thinks the joke/WTF is on the interviewee.

    Brian, please let us know what company you're the CTO for so we can avoid working there.
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/brian-gould/a/680/3a4, perhaps?
  • Training Days... 2009-08-18 14:16
    SAMO (c):
    I accidentally a female subordinate. Is this a problem?


    The whole female subordinate!?

    CAPTCHA: persto - Not quite as extravagant as Presto!
  • of course! 2009-08-18 14:25
    SR:
    valetudo:
    Ye-es... That's right.
    Or is this some sort of policy issue that if people are "enjoying each other's company" they should at least stay inside a room?


    GET A ROOM!
    Aah, i get it now! it's GLORYHOLES that are taboo! -> inter-office "romance"!!!

    They just didn't want anyone punching more holes in the drywall!

    Thanks, SR!
  • Code Dependent 2009-08-18 15:16
    Steve H:
    Wouldn't that be "intra-office"?
    "Enter-orifice".
  • Carl 2009-08-18 15:25
    No, John is correct. It is grammatically incorrect to use the superlative when comparing only two items.
  • Code Dependent 2009-08-18 15:30
    SCB:
    "Met wife at first job.
    Her cousin was CEO.
    Did not get rich though."

    FTFY.
    Now it's a proper Haiku.
    No romance at work.
    Keep your hands off of my wife.
    My employee, too.
  • Programming Praxis 2009-08-18 15:32
    DWalker59:
    Dan:
    Also ,I wonder about turning down a job based on the warning about employee fraternization. They could have had a problem between two people who are no longer with the company, or there was an incident at one of their former workplaces that made an impression on them, or something. Though the fact that they weren't forthcoming with information suggests a larger problem with the company culture.

    The other employee besides the married couple was going on maternity leave. My guess would be that the father of the baby used to work there...


    No, obviously, the father of the baby is the guy who is half of the married couple. Even though it's not his wife who is pregnant!
    I thought the whole thing was a new take on the farmer's daughter/traveling salesman joke.
  • Addison 2009-08-18 15:38
    I'd just like to say the interview-type posts are the best. I look forward to them, and they're always hilarious.

    Regarding the last one. . . yeah it was totally the dude who got her pregnant.
  • Hobbes 2009-08-18 15:39
    Ya, the no dating thing. While I agree with the spirit of that, it's not their place to tell me what I can and can't do outside of work.

    Their business, so they can hire/fire at their whim. But for me? I'd never work in a place that expects to control your life outside of the 8 hours you already give them.
  • ogilmor 2009-08-18 15:45
    depends on the working relationship. two coworkers, or from different departments, no biggie. If it's boss-subordinate, they need to watch it because there would be an appearance of favoritism, that is frowned upon in govt agencies and public companies. so usually the policy is full disclosure and they'll try to re-assign one person or the other.
  • anon 2009-08-18 16:11
    American Citizen:
    SCB:
    xnotabotx:
    The fact that everyone frowns on having relationships with co-workers


    In my experience this much less the case in the UK than the US. My current company always celebrates office marriages with gusto, for example.

    At a bank that I worked at in the UK, if two co-workers got married then one of them would have to resign. It was part of the bank's "anti-fraud" policy or something.


    At my company it's against the rules for two married people to be in the same department/division. So if you marry a coworker one of you has to move to another department/division or resign.

    Supposedly the thought process is the concept that one day one of you might become the other's supervisor/boss and there would then be a conflict of interest. I suppose they could just enforce the rule whenever that happens but it's just simpler to have a hard and fast rule and be done with it.


    And, of course, no-one's EVER in a relationship without being married...
  • Schnapple 2009-08-18 16:27
    Joshua:
    I once interviewed with a company that told me:

    1. "Most of our devs work 50-60 hour weeks" It was a salaried jobs, but there were quarterly "performance bonuses." I have a family. 50-60 hour weeks were not going to work.
    2. You can't have any other outside jobs or projects. This might not be a big deal for some, but I do help out other people for pay, and do take side-projects here and there.

    This was for a telecommute position, by the way.

    I was a little hesitant about agreeing to those terms. Thankfully, they never called back.


    A few years ago when I was looking to change jobs, one recruiter called me up and pitched me a gig with a company that sounded fun (that's another thing - every job is pitched to you as a "fun place to work". Every single one) until it came out that they required a 50-hour work week. Thanks but no thanks, all other things being equal, I'll take the job that only requires 40 hours per week.

    But they weren't done yet - you got paid in some sort of sliding scale overtime sort of deal. So like, if your salary was $X that was what you got paid for your typical 40-hour work week. Divide the salary by the number of weeks/hours in a year and that was the amount per-hour you'd be paid for those extra 10 hours a week.

    So... why not just pay me 125% of $X? As in, if the job paid $10,000 a year for a 40-hour week (an unrealistic but simple number) why not just say "oh the job pays $12,500 per year but you have to work 50 hours a week". Why in the hell are you making me do the math on this one? Is it because the 50-hour-a-week thing is such a turnoff for everyone that you're trying to make it sound like I get a bonus for it? Or are you trying to trick me into thinking I'll get paid more than I will?

    I think they were targeting the desperate-to-get-a-job types. That or they were just handed a shitty job to pitch. Like the one local firm I kept getting pitched that had a suit-and-tie policy. Sorry, all other things being equal I'm taking the job that lets me wear something normal to work.
  • th30519 2009-08-18 16:33
    Carl:
    No, John is correct. It is grammatically incorrect to use the superlative when comparing only two items.


    But without revealing the number of suits in his possession, it is correct to use superlative. "Of all the suits he owned, he wore his best one". This is more general than revealing the number of suits in question.
  • Dave's Not Here 2009-08-18 16:43
    Herohtar:
    JohnB:
    Art Metz:
    When the day finally came, I wore my best suit

    I'm surprised no one has caught the WTFs here:

    1. The guy wore a suit to the interview.
    2. The guy has more than one suit.
    Technically, at least 3 suits. If he had only 1 suit, he would have said he wore his suit; if he had 2 suits, he would have said he wore his better suit.


    No. You have two suits, one is better than the other, that makes it your best suit.

    No. You have one suit, and it's your best. "Best" and "only" aren't mutually exclusive.
  • merpius 2009-08-18 17:12
    th30519:
    Carl:
    No, John is correct. It is grammatically incorrect to use the superlative when comparing only two items.


    But without revealing the number of suits in his possession, it is correct to use superlative. "Of all the suits he owned, he wore his best one". This is more general than revealing the number of suits in question.


    Beyond that, even, here is the definition of best (as an adjective):

    best/bɛst/
    –adjective, superl. of good with better as compar.
    1. of the highest quality, excellence, or standing: the best work; the best students.
    2. most advantageous, suitable, or desirable: the best way.
    3. largest; most: the best part of a day.

    (cited from Dictionary.com Unabridged, Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.)

    Please note, none of these definitions requires or specifies a specific number. Thus if you have only one, it is your best. If you have 2, then the better of them is the best (unless they are equal, in which case they are both the best).

    The following note is also provided (from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
    Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.) regarding the grammatical usage:

    Usage Note: According to a traditional rule of grammar, better, not best, should be used in comparisons between two things: Which house of Congress has the better attendance record? This rule is often ignored in practice, but it still has many devoted adherents. In certain fixed expressions, however, best is used idiomatically for comparisons between two: Put your best foot forward. May the best team win! See Usage Notes at have, rather.

    Clearly the only limitation is on the word "better", and even that is considered somewhat outmoded.

    If you (the reader, whomever you may be) disagree with this assessment, please cite sources, or feel free to be disregarded.
  • Kalirion 2009-08-18 17:16
    Some three years back I interviewed for a job at a startup. Their senior architect/developer had recently packed up and left, taking too much monopolized knowledge with him, so they were scrambling to reverse engineer/rewrite the codebase for their flagship application.

    I was basically told that if I were hired, I'd be working 70-80 hour weeks for the standard market rate. But hey, salary was not really important because their business plan was to be bought out by Google, making everyone filthy rich.

    They were insulted that I was not ecstatic at this prospect...


    Anyway, just googled them. They were not bought out by Google, but they did have a name change and are apparently doing well for themselves (just won some award.) But I still don't regret not getting the job.
  • Moss 2009-08-18 17:41
    In relation to the "best suit" controversy, I'm assuming he only has one (if any) and he just wanted to impress us.
  • ChiefCrazyTalk 2009-08-18 17:54
    th30519:
    Carl:
    No, John is correct. It is grammatically incorrect to use the superlative when comparing only two items.


    But without revealing the number of suits in his possession, it is correct to use superlative. "Of all the suits he owned, he wore his best one". This is more general than revealing the number of suits in question.

    I'm confused - you turnedd down a job that only required 50 hours per week??? Most IT jobs require substantially more. 40 hour work week? Never heard of it
  • Code Dependent 2009-08-18 18:10
    ChiefCrazyTalk:
    I'm confused - you turnedd down a job that only required 50 hours per week??? Most IT jobs require substantially more. 40 hour work week? Never heard of it
    That was 10 years ago, before the dotcom bust. Time to shop around.
  • viPeople 2009-08-18 18:29
    GW Brian, you just ruined your companies reputation. Never working there. Ever.
  • luis.espinal 2009-08-18 18:38
    Steve H:
    Wouldn't that be "intra-office"?


    I don't know why this reminds me of cDc's Back Orifice :-/
  • Loren Pechtel 2009-08-18 18:43
    Dan:
    Also ,I wonder about turning down a job based on the warning about employee fraternization. They could have had a problem between two people who are no longer with the company, or there was an incident at one of their former workplaces that made an impression on them, or something. Though the fact that they weren't forthcoming with information suggests a larger problem with the company culture.

    The other employee besides the married couple was going on maternity leave. My guess would be that the father of the baby used to work there...


    Yeah, that's my thought, also. I don't see what his problem was with the instruction, just because there was only one other person besides the couple doesn't mean a romance wasn't possible.
  • skippy 2009-08-18 20:41
    The response was very clear: "Of course! You will be expected to work from home — after a full day at the office."


    Note to self - if ever offered a job at Brian's company then decline it - he is a tool
  • Henning Makholm 2009-08-18 21:27
    Loren Pechtel:
    I don't see what his problem was with the instruction, just because there was only one other person besides the couple doesn't mean a romance wasn't possible.

    It doesn't strike you as a little hypocritical that 66% of the existing population were already in an internal romantic relationship, yet they refused to let their employees do the same thing? I think that would indicate that they are also unreasonably authoritative in other matters. Usually small companies tend to be more egalitarian, not less.
  • Richard W. 2009-08-18 22:59
    Henning Makholm:
    It doesn't strike you as a little hypocritical that 66% of the existing population were already in an internal romantic relationship, yet they refused to let their employees do the same thing? I think that would indicate that they are also unreasonably authoritative in other matters. Usually small companies tend to be more egalitarian, not less.

    Well, the applicant was male. 50% (and soon to be 100%) of the female population of the workplace consists of the wife. In light of this, a slightly different interpretation of the husband's thought processes is thusly yielded:

    "I am unable to prevent my hornbag wife from fucking the employees, so I am imposing this rule on you in hopes of preventing it."

    You're welcome, TheDailyWTF.

    As for "Work Hours" and what the programmer said to the applicant, I found it funny. If it was a joke, it was "ha ha" funny. If it was a serious jab at the company, it was "OMGWTF I bet the CTO didn't want the applicant knowing that!" funny. Either way, hilarity hath ensued, and tickled mine wit appropriately.
  • hobbified 2009-08-18 23:14
    kayeff:
    The second story is just a joke guys... prospect asked a question and someone gave a funny answer.


    I'll let you know when I find the "funny".
  • mmj 2009-08-19 00:08
    Yep, the real WTF seems to be that the CTO in that story did not appear to feel ashamed about his company having that reputation (almost as if he finds it funny).

    You can count me in for not ever wanting to work there, please.
  • whistleblower 2009-08-19 00:20
    I Googled Brian Gould and CTO and appear to have found a company. Whether it's the same CTO Brian Gould I dunno, so I'll protect the innocent by not mentioning the company name, except to suggest Googling for "brian gould cto connections"
  • k1 2009-08-19 02:58
    Code Dependent:
    SCB:
    "Met wife at first job.
    Her cousin was CEO.
    Did not get rich though."

    FTFY.
    Now it's a proper Haiku.
    No romance at work.
    Keep your hands off of my wife.
    My employee, too.

    she got pregnant
    so they coined new rule
    A fetus rulez
  • Kiss me I'm Polish 2009-08-19 03:34
    About the second story: looks like knives here aren't as sharp as they think.
    It's a joke. Either you get it, or you call Brian a jerk.
  • SaikatC 2009-08-19 03:44
    Pre-Y2K notice (alleged) in one of the major outsourcer company in India :

    Trespassers will be recruited and send to Y2K projects to USA.

    My first post!
  • pizzaguy 2009-08-19 04:11
    I guess everyone's a humorless pedant today. Missing the joke in #2? Using the word "best" to deduce the number of suits, à la Encyclopedia Brown? I mean, I know what site I'm on, but come on.
  • Kevin 2009-08-19 04:45
    Just an observation. There are many people called Brian, and many people with the surname Gould. Some may even be the CTOs of a company. Not all may be on Linkedin.

    Before going on a witch hunt, I would suggest checking your "facts".
  • sandra_nz 2009-08-19 07:01
    SCB:
    At a bank that I worked at in the UK, if two co-workers got married then one of them would have to resign. It was part of the bank's "anti-fraud" policy or something.

    Ouch! I worked in a bank in New Zealand, where the policy was that you got moved to a different branch/department.
  • It Girl 2009-08-19 10:59
    Dan:
    Also ,I wonder about turning down a job based on the warning about employee fraternization. They could have had a problem between two people who are no longer with the company, or there was an incident at one of their former workplaces that made an impression on them, or something. Though the fact that they weren't forthcoming with information suggests a larger problem with the company culture.

    The other employee besides the married couple was going on maternity leave. My guess would be that the father of the baby used to work there...


    and had to get a better paying job when he realized he had a family to support.
  • It Girl 2009-08-19 11:37
    Carl:
    No, John is correct. It is grammatically incorrect to use the superlative when comparing only two items.


    Well then, how am I supposed to make the best of a bad thing? That just sucks.
  • Random832 2009-08-19 13:24
    DaveK:
    Why on earth not? He was right there, he already knows; he knows he was supposed to interview you, he knows he got called away, he knows that when HR asked him how the interview went he told them "I didn't have time to interview him but just hire him anyway, we need someone like yesterday", and he knows you turned up for work the next Monday.

    What exactly were you worried about telling him?


    Adrian somehow came to the conclusion that Chris had interviewed someone else, and had intended to hire this other person, and the HR person called Adrian instead.
  • Franz Kafka 2009-08-19 14:44
    Henning Makholm:
    Loren Pechtel:
    I don't see what his problem was with the instruction, just because there was only one other person besides the couple doesn't mean a romance wasn't possible.

    It doesn't strike you as a little hypocritical that 66% of the existing population were already in an internal romantic relationship, yet they refused to let their employees do the same thing? I think that would indicate that they are also unreasonably authoritative in other matters. Usually small companies tend to be more egalitarian, not less.


    There's only three of them - not nearly enough for a population.
  • Iago 2009-08-19 16:16
    Carl:
    No, John is correct. It is grammatically incorrect to use the superlative when comparing only two items.
    Only in the strange, sad world of bullshit artists who make up arbitrary rules with no basis in real-world usage, so they can feel all superior to people who simply speak natural English.

    SR:
    This is similar thinking that made UK banks require IE for online banking. No wonder this country's screwed!
    My UK bank's online banking has always worked perfectly in Firefox. Maybe you just have a crap bank.
  • Bob 2009-08-19 21:34
    In a large company, there will be an HR department - so when your boss turns psychotic, you can maybe do something about it. In a mom-and-pop outfit, the boss is the HR department, and if one of the spouses is a dumbass, they'll still win any argument with you.

    If they've been a small company for a long time, they're having trouble growing. If they're a new company they're a risky employer.

    Therefore the best job in the world might be a mom-and-pop outfit because they're genuinely brilliant people, but you still want to be careful when you're looking for a job.

    Therefore, oddness at the interview plus options for jobs elsewhere means that the small company with the strange interview is the one you don't take. If you're desperate, you take it but are prepared to run.
  • cplusplusweirdo 2009-08-20 09:16
    cfreak:
    Everyone agrees about the only thing the guy got right was hiring me.

    Maybe they're just afraid tell the truth.
  • habasco 2009-08-20 09:21
    American Citizen:
    At my company it's against the rules for two married people to be in the same department/division. So if you marry a coworker one of you has to move to another department/division or resign.

    Supposedly the thought process is the concept that one day one of you might become the other's supervisor/boss and there would then be a conflict of interest. I suppose they could just enforce the rule whenever that happens but it's just simpler to have a hard and fast rule and be done with it.

    I would think the point is to avoid people bringing whatever issues they may be having at home to the workplace.
  • Lenny 2009-08-20 09:27
    th30519:
    Carl:
    No, John is correct. It is grammatically incorrect to use the superlative when comparing only two items.


    But without revealing the number of suits in his possession, it is correct to use superlative. "Of all the suits he owned, he wore his best one". This is more general than revealing the number of suits in question.

    He wore his best suit and came in naked.
    => He had no suits.
  • Argus 2009-08-20 12:08
    k1:
    Code Dependent:
    SCB:
    "Met wife at first job.
    Her cousin was CEO.
    Did not get rich though."

    FTFY.
    Now it's a proper Haiku.
    No romance at work.
    Keep your hands off of my wife.
    My employee, too.

    she got pregnant
    so they coined new rule
    A fetus rulez


    If wife gets pregnant
    thats sexual harassment
    pack your stuff and leave!
  • zippy 2009-08-20 13:25
    kayeff:
    The second story is just a joke guys... prospect asked a question and someone gave a funny answer.

    Glad I'm not the only one who got that...
    Seriously, what the crap is up with the rest of you people? 4chan down?
  • Brian 2009-08-20 13:29
    Kevin:
    Just an observation. There are many people called Brian, and many people with the surname Gould. Some may even be the CTOs of a company. Not all may be on Linkedin.

    Before going on a witch hunt, I would suggest checking your "facts".


    Well said. I'm Brian Gould and so's my wife.
  • Kiss me I'm Polish 2009-08-20 17:31
    That's weird. It's my wife's name too.
  • blaha 2009-08-21 19:10
    There is only one Brian Gould. I know, because I asked them both.
  • Eternal Density 2009-08-23 21:34
    "I still haven’t had the guts to tell Christopher what really happened. "
    You mean how you gained illegal access to the servers the previous night and installed a worm which caused 'really bad things' to happen? Yeah, best not to 'fess up to that.

    Also, Brian Goa'uld!!!
  • Columbus web design 2009-08-25 04:21
    No it doesn't. I am no lawyer but I am willing to bet that there are laws about divulging specific information about past employees to future employees. Some kind of privacy act or something.

    http://www.topdogmarketinggroup.com
  • Baltimore tenant placement services 2009-08-25 04:24
    "I still haven’t had the guts to tell Christopher what really happened. "

    http://www.weplacetenants.com
  • horble 2009-08-26 16:43
    blaha:
    There is only one Brian Gould. I know, because I asked them both.


    Should've asked the best Brian Gould.
  • Ruprecht 2009-09-28 14:44
    Kevin:
    Just an observation. There are many people called Brian, and many people with the surname Gould. Some may even be the CTOs of a company. Not all may be on Linkedin.

    Before going on a witch hunt, I would suggest checking your "facts".


    Sure thing, "Kevin". How's that company of yours doing?
  • Anyone 2009-11-16 21:36
    what is this CAPTCHA stuff? what are you talking about? I know what a Captcha is, but I don't understand why it's sprinkled all over this website. Please explain.
  • LED display 2010-02-09 04:04
    <A HREF="http://www.ledtv.asia">LED Signs</A>
    <A HREF="http://www.ledtv.asia">LED Message display</A>
    <A HREF="http://www.ledtv.asia">LED Message Signs</A>
    <A HREF="http://www.ledtv.asia">LED board</A>
    <A HREF="http://www.ledtv.asia">LED curtain display</A>
    <A HREF="http://www.ledtv.asia">LED Soft curtain</A>
    <A HREF="http://www.ledtv.asia">LED soft display</A>
    <A HREF="http://www.ledsigns.cn">LED display</A>
    <A HREF="http://www.ledsigns.cn">LED Signs</A>
    <A HREF="http://www.ledsigns.cn">LED message display</A>
    <A HREF="http://www.ledsigns.cn">LED outdoor display</A>
    <A HREF="http://www.ledsigns.cn">LED fullcolor display</A>
    <A HREF="http://www.ledsigns.cn">LED board</A>
    <A HREF="http://www.ledsigns.cn">LED message signs</A>
    <A HREF="http://www.ledsigns.cn">LED panel</A>
  • E Commerce store 2010-02-15 06:29
    It is at a triangular site where Broadway and Fifth Avenue—the two most important streets of New York—meet at Madison Square, and because of the juxtaposition of the streets and the park across the street, there was a wind-tunnel effect here. In the early twentieth century, men would hang out on the corner here on Twenty-third Street and watch the wind blowing women's dresses up so that they could catch a little bit of ankle.

    http://www.ecompanyformation.com
  • ALL SMS 2010-07-09 12:44
    "I still haven’t had the guts to tell Christopher what really happened. "

    http://www.ad-postings.com
  • dgghua 2010-09-04 04:41
    Thank You for the post. I love to read interesting post that has knowledge to impart. Keep up the good work!Rosetta stone learning software worthy of trust,rosetta stone english Cheap Rosetta Stone software the effect is very obvious, guarantee our product, progress quickly!
  • D&G Ladies Leather Watches 2010-09-27 23:12
    unless you should concerning lAmid A smeach particular, certain equally discount Womens Watches though anyhow having the status of Jaquet Droz Watches Les Lunes, you surround come on the road on the road that the apposite stance. Cartier Watches Montres 21/Chronoscaph offers a deep get hold of of brin addition-name Audemars Piguet Watches Ladies Collection - Danaé at bizarre regards.we hope the so as topgreatest timbre of watch replicas friendly, in force type by the adjoining of side as well as the manufacturers to infer the most straight middling to repeat each one tyle, prepared of towering appraise equipment, afterward also species consideration. we retain crowd very inflexible quality stas well asards & material rudder to all suppliers.
    our Jaquet Droz Watches Les Lunes and Womens Watches are in effect the awfully as the primary ones having the status of including the welcoming price, high quality materials and imposing workmanship. sell Breitling Watches Aeromarine Collection - Colt Automatic is also publicized.
    our aim is to reserve you with first sort services as well as preeminent impressions watches, and issue your online shopping skill a wonderful one.9088232343002
  • jockbenny 2012-02-13 07:29
    The site is very attractive. Although many candidates dread them, job interview questions are wonderful things! They are the greatest opportunity to prove the interviewer that you are the best for the job. Could you please provide some more attachments regarding the topic?



    concierge services
    property management services




  • sod 2012-05-31 15:28
    It's sad when the comments from spammers are better than 75% of the comments from real people ...