• Fast Eddie (unregistered) in reply to SCB
    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 (unregistered) in reply to GalacticCowboy
    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"?

  • (cs) in reply to nonny nonny
    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 (unregistered)

    Adrian, you're fired.

  • exegete (unregistered)

    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 (unregistered)

    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...

  • (cs)

    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 (unregistered)

    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.

  • (cs) in reply to exegete
    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 (unregistered)

    @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 (unregistered)

    The second story is just a joke guys... prospect asked a question and someone gave a funny answer.

  • (cs)

    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 (unregistered) in reply to valetudo
    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 (unregistered) in reply to JohnB
    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 (unregistered) in reply to kayeff
    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 (unregistered)

    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 (unregistered)
    “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 (unregistered) in reply to Justice
    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 (unregistered) in reply to Jemmy
    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... (unregistered) in reply to SAMO (c)
    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! (unregistered) in reply to SR
    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!

  • (cs) in reply to Steve H
    Steve H:
    Wouldn't that be "intra-office"?
    "Enter-orifice".
  • Carl (unregistered) in reply to Herohtar

    No, John is correct. It is grammatically incorrect to use the superlative when comparing only two items.

  • (cs) in reply to SCB
    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 (unregistered) in reply to DWalker59
    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 (unregistered)

    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 (unregistered)

    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.

  • (cs) in reply to campkev

    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 (unregistered) in reply to American Citizen
    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 (unregistered) in reply to Joshua
    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.

  • (cs) in reply to Carl
    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 (unregistered) in reply to Herohtar
    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.

  • (cs) in reply to th30519
    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 (unregistered)

    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.

  • (cs)

    In relation to the "best suit" controversy, I'm assuming he only has one (if any) and he just wanted to impress us.

  • ChiefCrazyTalk (unregistered) in reply to th30519
    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

  • (cs) in reply to ChiefCrazyTalk
    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 (unregistered)

    GW Brian, you just ruined your companies reputation. Never working there. Ever.

  • (cs) in reply to Steve H
    Steve H:
    Wouldn't that be "intra-office"?

    I don't know why this reminds me of cDc's Back Orifice :-/

  • Loren Pechtel (unregistered) in reply to Dan
    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 (unregistered)
    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 (unregistered) in reply to Loren Pechtel
    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. (unregistered) in reply to Henning Makholm
    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.

  • (cs) in reply to kayeff
    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 (unregistered) in reply to Jemmy

    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 (unregistered)

    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 (unregistered) in reply to Code Dependent
    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

  • (cs)

    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 (unregistered)

    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 (unregistered)

    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.

Leave a comment on “The Easiest Interview Ever & More”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article