Comment by eastbound

Comment by eastbound a day ago

6 replies

I’ve hired remote employees, made them come, offered stimulating work, 5% above their requested pay with mentions that I could double it in one year, but I could never get them to the smartness and clarity of analysis they had during the interview. After 6 months they were clearly winging it in <1hr a day and exhausting my team lead, who didn’t think they were moonlighting for several companies. I did: Their progress had entirely stalled and their performance was negative.

I fired both the employees and the manager. This “remote employees don’t moonlight” is a union trope.

jlokier a day ago

> 5% above their requested pay with

Not enough to move the needle. 25% would move the needle.

> with mentions that I could double it in one year

They didn't believe you, or didn't after a short time working there. So it didn't move the needle.

More so if they're experienced. Similar mentions of prospects are common in interviews, and rarely followed through. You eventually learn to be skeptical of them, while rolling with it, just in case.

Also, if you might be willing to pay double their requested salary, they start realising their value on the open market is much higher than they'd previously thought, or could be with a little presentation and experience.

On the other hand, if you'd put it in the contract that their salary will double after 1 year, subject to well-defined criteria and a history of actually doing it with existing employees, then they'd believe you, and that would move the needle a lot.

From your story I speculate you were right to fire them, but you never figured our how to get the best out of them. In recent years it's possible you were subject to employment fraud, as clarity of analysis can disappear if it's a different person doing the work than the person answering interview questions.

Progress that's entirely stalled or negative can happen for many other reasons than moonlighting, and many other reasons than not putting enough time.

Yoric 16 hours ago

I've been fully remote for 5 years, partially remote for 15. Being remote removes many sources of stress for me. I don't moonlight.

The one thing that decreases my productivity, in some positions, is bad management. Of course, that was already the case when I was fully office-based.

saagarjha a day ago

You do know there are several productive companies that are entirely remote, right?

  • eastbound a day ago

    Instagram ragequits remote working.

    Atlassian is a dumpster fire, they run shit engineering since about 3 years.

    Give me the secret sauce to being productive with remote employees. Maybe some have found it, but apparently paying above the employee ask, offering to double the salary in case of success, sending them to conferences and spending a lot of human time with them gives me the “evil employer” category on most forums.

    Yeah, I know “Treat them even better!” is, again, the word of the union guy, but in most cases, the employer has to eat a shit sandwich.

    • duskdozer 7 hours ago

      >offering to double the salary in case of success

      have you doubled anyone's salary? if not, it can come across as an empty promise you won't fulfill

      >sending them to conferences and spending a lot of human time with them

      do they want and benefit from these things? or do they distract them from their productive work?

      >in most cases, the employer has to eat a shit sandwich.

      not really, you were able to fire who you wanted to fire easily. it also seems that you didn't consider other factors for why the employee didn't work out. does your interview process poorly select for people who will do well in the role? are there other possible explanations for low productivity than the employee having a second job?

    • wredcoll a day ago

      I don't know you and you aren't my current employer anyways but a good first step to requiring me to go back to the office would be actually giving me an office!!