Gopniks are now in foreign markets, or "Why is it so difficult to find a normal programmer?"
For many of us, it is no longer a secret that finding a customer for a short-term or long-term project on Internet resources is a very difficult task. Basically, because there is a lot of competition: they want maximum work from you for a minimum of money. And when you respond to a particular task - you simply become a long line of candidates. Of course, for the most part they are not very tasty, which is obvious from the posts of many employers / recruiters who write articles here on Habr. However, I am sure that each of us evaluates ourselves more or less objectively, and if he does not imagine himself a guru of everything and everything, then at least deserves respect, because everyone deserves respect - without exception. But the freelance market is oversaturated. Each hirer for one project has 10 candidates per day.
I wonder how exactly the recruiter thinks?
Some time ago there was an article here that a hired person considers only 2-3 people out of 100 candidates who were interviewed adequate, and that a good candidate is a person who believes in your product, believes in you, and in a pasta monster, and bitcoin for $ 300k. In other words, the ideal employee is simply an unconscious being who for some reason must believe in someone else’s business (and it’s in fact someone else’s, because this is not his property, but his employer, and he knows him only 2 hours), to believe in of you, and it’s sacred to believe in “Our” just cause, to perfectly code and build architecture, and money here plays far from the main role.
Very comfortable position, isn't it? I want to find a senior / team-lead developer who will write a project with zest at the mouth, giving all of himself, and not ask for good money for it. What you just read is a demonstration of the employer's complete disrespect for the future employee. Good quality and competent work should be paid in full.
“Money should not play a major role for the future candidate” (c)
I increasingly read such infantile nonsense in the articles of these same recruiters. And on my own experience and on the experience of my colleagues, I can declare with full responsibility: Everyone, absolutely every developer who has sufficient experience (3, 5, 10, or 15 years of development, no matter how much) knows perfectly how much his time and his skills are , or the minimum threshold. He could solve problems of such complexity that some did not even dream of. But in an interview you can ask him about some tricky term, and he will not answer you, because in his tasks it simply was not necessary. Over the years of development, he simply forgot that such a word exists in his language at all. This tool was not used because it was not necessary.
What conclusion does the hirer make? That's right: “Oh, he doesn’t know such elementary things, and after all I just entered in Google:“ The rarest and unused operator in an outdated framework “. Thus, the hirer, whether he is a developer himself or having no idea about the development at all, misses the most powerful shot that could strengthen the development team at times. But he didn’t do it, because to accept the idea that “the candidate is too stupid since he doesn’t know such obvious things” is much simpler than “what if he just forgot, because he didn’t need it in his tasks, and then it’s not“ obvious thing ", but just one of the thousands of tools in development, which does not make sense to memorize"?
Share live examples
Recently, one “PM” with upwork looking for a senior in the development team of his project during an interview asked me the question: “What is screening and boxing?”
Seriously, boxing? Who would have thought that typecasting could be called "boxing", I have never heard this word in 5 years of team development. Like screening, even though I know what it is.
Another hirer asked the question “what is check?”. Hmm ... I thought, probably a system word that checks a stack, but I did not answer. I did not need to use this tool. At this moment, I realized that I was talking to a person who wants to just have fun and drown the candidate, thereby humiliating him and assigning his labor a minimum price. Of course, in a soft form, I sent him to hell with such questions. Of course, I seasoned that this terminology, like this question in general, has nothing to do with full stack web development, and if I had the desire, I could also cover it with terms and abstruse names, and it would not come up in the same way . Of course, the interlocutor immediately turned on the back and decided to end the conversation.
As it turned out, later, such a systemic word in my language does not exist at all. But no man can know everything by heart. Especially in the field of development.
And what ridiculous questions did you ask during the interviews?
The whole point
From my own experience I will say that not all mercenaries are like that. Only half of those who conduct remote work interviews for developers are: louts who are struggling to sink the candidate, underestimating his importance as much as possible and saving money. He is not interested in how and with what you worked, he is not interested in the essence. He wonders if you will come up when he puts you to sleep with ridiculous and rare concepts, which are rarely sounded aloud in the development environment. Answered? Then yes, you are well done and "so we will think." Didn’t answer? “Well then, there’s nothing to talk to you, you won’t even know that.”
The second half - the most decent and loyal people, technically savvy, from whom I received sincere pleasure. Few people think about this (although maybe I'm wrong), but this whole story is exclusively a story about money and about amusing your “ego”. About how to pay as little as possible, and get as much as possible. Who wants to work for such a person? For me a riddle.
When you understand that you are not asked at all about what you are going to work in. When you are asked in a technical interview, “How many satellites does the planet Mercury have”, be aware that this is not your employer. This is just a rogue who decided to amuse his vanity and mock candidates. If at the same time he has arrogant speech, he constantly interrupts you or is rude, then at this moment you can turn around and leave with a clear conscience.
Such people do not deserve a second of your attention.
Please note that during interviews they are very rude and dishonest - these are potential employers. For some reason, they believe that it is they who “have the right” to be rude, haughtily speak, be late, and in every possible way mock the candidate.
But why? The answer is very simple: because the candidate is obviously in a vulnerable position: he came to your office, he prepared, spent time and resources. And what did HR spend on inviting the candidate? Nothing. Often, he simply invited a person for an interview from the general list of respondents to hh or another resource.
And this is more a psychological moment. Many people themselves are evil. Seeing that a person is in a condition obviously worse than you are in terms of resources, you can mock him in different ways and enjoy it, because it is so simple. It's like a free ride: Hami as much as you want, do what you want - no responsibility. After all, today you still have a queue of the same candidates of 20 people.
Some say that finding a normal developer is really difficult.
But it’s because it’s difficult that the candidates are deliberately drowned at interviews, giving absolutely no chance to justify their skills, asking him not technical competence, but how he can distinguish crucian carp from carp. The hired man amused pride, mocked the man, and did not bear absolutely no responsibility for this. A complete win, and no one is to blame for anything, simply "the candidate did not pass according to our criteria." Here is the current trouble in the labor market. Nobody wants to be loyal and sober to the candidates, to those who, in fact, also took the time to prepare \ way and wait. Of course, this does not negate the fact that you need to fully verify the candidate with tests or tasks. But you need to do it adequately, and not in the way "as I feel comfortable."
Okay, what's the conclusion?
All that is described above is my personal experience in communicating with employers and customers.
The post was written mainly for those who plan, or suddenly in the future, like me, will look for work in a remote format. Do not step on this rake, and remember that among the customers, just like in the Gypsy market, there are a lot of scammers, boors who are ready to get more and pay less.
Truth is as old as the world: always put yourself in the place of another person with whom you are in contact, and treat as you want to be treated. And then the smile will come back to you more than once :)