Reputation is a fragile thing. I've got no horse in this, it's not my industry and I'm just a spectator. But two days ago I thought of Stripe as a top notch company, with top notch leadership. Since I'm well aware that PR is a thing, that reputation also tends to be brittle, but while nobody had said anything bad about Stripe, I thought they were tops. This is not so much about Stripe as about the PR world we've created: we know that everything we're told is polished to make it look as nice as possible, so when the facade cracks, we should adjust heavily.
So now I'm going to have to shift my priors, and it may well be unfair to the firm. For one, I don't know if the allegations are true. I also don't know whether this is a one-off, or whether this happens all the time and this is the tip of the iceberg. I do know that whatever I hear is going to be deeply invested one way or the other.
Specifically about the rescinded offers, the only acceptable reason to do that is when the person has gotten the offer in bad faith, eg they lied about their CV or claimed to have done something they provably hadn't. Other than that, someone who's gotten an offer may well have started moving house, taking their kids out of school, gotten their spouse to quit their job, and all sorts of hard-to-reverse decisions. It's an utterly crappy thing to have happen, and any company that does it should be outed for it.
Stripe's recruitment pipeline is well known (at least in most ruby dev circles) to be fucked. I've experienced this first hand and even gotten lip service from exec leadership (see my HN comment history). Stripe is very good at PR, aren't they?
The thing is, there are lots and lots of companies who don't have these types of problems; that don't treat candidates poorly, follow thru with the offers they make (I can't believe I'm typing that!).
Hiring is already a power dynamic slanted for the employer... this shit just seem excessive and like 0 fucks are given.
As a job seeker, don't waste your time interviewing at companies that have these fundamental problems just getting in the door. The odds will never be in your favor, but these types of problems make for a much larger mountain to climb.
Knowing these things, and how good Stripe is at PR, I wouldn't be surprised if things on the inside are actually a dysfunctional mess. I hope not.
Some people are getting side-tracked asking if this is a common problem. I think that's a distraction: the right number of rescinded offers to engineers and other individual contributors is 0.[0]
If the actual number of candidates affected is small, then it would be cheap to make it right for them. You could find a team that can take the engineer (we're not interchangeable parts, but Stripe is a big company), and/or offer monetary compensation for the opportunity cost.
[0] I'll reserve judgment about higher level management. I don't know if the norms and circumstances are different. Obviously this also excludes failed background checks, candidates being dishonest, etc, etc.
In the case of failed background checks, the solution is actually quite simple - tell the candidate it's an offer contingent upon the background check.
But you're right - rescinding job offers is an absolutely vile business practice. Imagine resigning from your job after accepting an offer from Stripe, and then they just change their minds. Gross.
In most companies with apparently functioning HR, you don't get a written offer until after the reference/bg check clears. Your verbal is what gets you to provide those reference/bg check authorizations.
I like the google approach for more senior roles - you interview for 2+ months, get approved, and only then do you actually start to look for an actual role at the company. They invert the job/approval process.
This 100%. If I was spending days of my time on a company only to be treated poorly, I should not be a statistic.
This is also why honest feedback for rejections should be required (by law? probably not. maybe by social pressure) so candidates know that the decision wasn't just a fluke
This is a media outlet reporting on an HN thread. The thread is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29387264. Note my pinned comment at the top there - I actually think some of the later comments make for interesting reading but for obvious reasons [1] we couldn't downweight the drama the way we usually would.
When media outlets report on HN threads we normally downweight those pretty heavily since they're just recycling content/discussion that already appeared here. In this case I'm downweighting it less than we normally would, in keeping with the core principle that we moderate HN less, not more, when YC or YC startups are part of the story [1].
This isn't just about the HN comment, the reporter spoke to multiple people inside and outside of Stripe. In my experience, stories like this tend to be in the works for weeks and it's likely the HN comment popped up close to publication so it was quickly folded in, it's not the main thrust of the story.
It looks like the title of this thread was changed since the first time I saw it to something that doesn't match the title of the article. This new headline doesn't seem very clear at all. "Losing an offer" conveys something very different from "rescinded an offer".
Another data point: earlier this year I interviewed at Stripe for a manager position. After the interview loop, I was told by email and on the phone that I got the job and that they would follow up within days. Never heard back after that and got no further replies from them. So I didn’t get or signed a written offer. I found another job quickly. But I was very surprised by the ghosting tbh.
This is the experience I reported in my original post. Surprise. You get a business class ticket, you go to the gate, have your boarding passes checked out, then the plane leaves without you. :)
The worst, most abusive, exploitative job I've ever had was with a company that was a startup/tech darling (not Stripe).
I thought I was landing my dream job at the time. Every conversation on tech websites had nothing but praise for the company and everyone applauded me when I got the job. But secretly, it was terrible. Organizational chaos, constant verbal abuse from executives (while they put on a friendly face for public PR), the most exploitative management practices I've ever seen.
The weirdest part was that the company was full of good people. We all joined thinking we were going to do great things, but we all mutually understood that it was a mess and that the management situation was not good at all.
But the catch is that it's really hard to say anything negative about a beloved tech company. The few times I tried, people scoffed at my complaints because they had only heard great things about the company. When everyone is bombarded with positive news and conversation about a company, they assume that anyone diverging from this narrative must be wrong, lying, or deserved whatever treatment they got. It's a bizarre phenomenon.
It gets even worse, though, because I quickly realized that my own resume and professional reputation now depended on the positive reputation of this company. I felt like I also had to say good things about the company in public, or else risk damaging my own professional reputation in the process. Would anyone want to hire me if they knew I was part of such a poorly-run company?
So, most of us quietly put up with the company for long enough to cash out our signing bonuses and vesting schedules (all of which were weighted for retention) and to avoid having too short of a stay listed on our resumes. Then we got out and moved on, relying on the positive reputation of the company to help others assume we were coming from a great company.
Whenever I see universally beloved companies like this with scattered anecdotes of chaotic or terrible behavior behind the scenes, I wonder if it's the same story: Beautiful company on the outside (due to PR) with built-in protection against the negative stories leaking because nobody on the inside wants to ruin the good reputation of the employer that is currently boosting their own personal reputation.
Or maybe Stripe is really a great company inside and these are isolated anecdotes from a few incompetent middle managers. The thing is - It's impossible to know due to all of the mixed incentives shaping the public narrative.
IMO, this is 100% typical. I counsel people getting started in the industry all the time that public reputation of a company is actually inversely correlated with practical working conditions there.
If there are 500+ more great engineers itching to get every open position, what incentive does the company have to pay well, have a smooth and respectful hiring process, treat employees well and respect their personal time, etc? Incentives guide outcomes far more often than any principles of niceness and fairness. They're often actually incentivized to do the opposite, especially in hiring. So what if we jerk people around and ghost them randomly in the hiring process? The only result for them is a slightly less unmanageably huge pile of applicants. If anything, it improves the applicant quality from their perspective - they're filtering out people who have standards and self-respect, who would probably just leave later anyways when you start treating them badly, and keeping the people who will stick around for any kind of abuse you dream up.
If you want to be happy, get a job at a boring-sounding company that nobody has ever heard of. Far more likely to have good hiring practices, pay, and working conditions. People being impressed by the name of your employer only really lasts a few seconds anyways.
>[T]he situation in which the sufferer looks completely calm on a superficial level while in reality, they are frantically trying to keep up with the demands of their life.
It's pretty common in places like the one you described. Pristine external presence makes constructive feedback ungrateful or contrarian, leading to everyone struggling in silence. I think the terminology is most associated with Stanford, since students work for several years to get entry, only to realize that it can be a harsh environment.
We've a SaaS business that processes through Stripe around $200k per month.
Dealing with their sales team has been frustrating. We've been trying to switch to interchange fees or reduced fess for a couple of years already. At first, we've been told to reach first $80k per month, then $100k per month, then having more than 3 months above $100k per month, then having less international cards.
It feels the goalpost keeps moving. Meanwhile we've been charged with an extra 1% fee on subscriptions, something we never agreed to and we would have made different architecture decision if we knew subscription mechanisms would be extra.
All of this is fine as it's just business. However lack of transparency and misleading statements are super not okay. And it seems just the way Stripe does business across their organization.
Wow thanks for the new nightmare scenario. I have always treated everything up until the actual document signing process as transitory but after signing it as final, and never imagined it would be rescinded after. I'm not even sure how to manage that nightmare, where you have already told competing offers no and given notice at your current job, and now have to just hope you can restart the process with those other offers from a ridiculously weaker position.
In the thread yesterday, having a named journalist serve as an intermediary for fact checking between complainants and the people/companies they are complaining about was suggested [1].
This seems to be one implementation of that, which seems to have worked out a little better than anonymous comments? It also does a better job of distilling the major issues at play here, in my opinion:
> The technical manager who signed the offer before it was rescinded feels more frustrated about the lack of recourse than the actual loss of the job.
This is the crux of the issue. It's not about whether it's legal or moral to rescind offers or how the job market looks, but the emotional distress caused by having quit your job, or having informed family and friends of a new job, and then having to tell them that it's actually not happening.
As humans we should always strive to minimize this kind of terrible experience, or at least make amends in spades if we subject someone else to it. A company that goes above and beyond would give a candidate, say, six months of standard severance pay for this situation if it was absolutely unavoidable that they had to rescind someone's offer. Of course, the best course of action would be to give them an immediate appointment to a similar job in another division, or at least a fast-track interview for the same.
It sounds like there are between two and three examples referred to in the story. That includes the HN post, which the reporter "reviewed" but did not investigate. I am assuming this is a separate example from the other two.
Of the two remaining examples, only one person received a written offer. The other received a verbal offer, but it was rescinded before a written offer was made.
The former recruiter for Stripe said that Stripe had a "hire and fire mentality", but they appeared to be referring to their own firing, not to the topic of the story.
The former recruiter also said that Stripe's recruiting process was disorganized, and shifted priorities a lot. Changing priorities or directions is the exact reason given for both rescinded offers mentioned in this story.
Given the above, is there any reason to believe there is anything more to this story than that Stripe's hiring arm is really disorganized, and some people got offers who should not have, and those offers had to be rescinded? That is to say, what is the basis (at this time) for concluding they have a policy of making offers and then rescinding them?
I may as well throw in my anecdote. Interviewed at Stripe. It actually went reasonably well until one interview. Dude said he had attended one of my talks, then proceeded to take contrary positions on anything I had asserted in that talk. I'm a pragmatic person, so I didn't really put up much argument with him. Perhaps this was the wrong course of action? Or perhaps it was doomed from the start? Either way, no job. Hearing all this coming out, I guess I got lucky.
A couple years ago I went through their hiring process and cycled through 3 different job titles / roles during the process. The final role wasn't something we even talked about, the HM came up with it on their own. It felt like a downgrade from my then current role. All were for IC's.
I had a "we want to make you an offer" call with recruiting, with no mention of comp, and they asked for references. That was the first mention of reference checks in the process. I got cold feet because of the churn with the actual role they wanted me to perform, the lack of communication on pay, and the extra time and effort to line up references some of whom were still working at the same company as me. There were enough red flags for my comfort level to end the process at that point without involving other people in my network.
Back to the article, maybe the offers are being rescinded after reference checks? I understood that reference checks were falling out of favor because of liability for the person or company giving the feedback, but yet they seem to be coming back.
I had a unique experience speaking with someone at Stripe recently. My only conversation was very jarring. The person was rude. Based off other comments, it looks like others are out there with similar experiences. This was unexpected to me from a company that I admire. That being said, I would have still enjoyed the opportunity to continue the interview process which is maybe telling. I recognize challenges in the space, yet this was the worst process I had gone through so far.
I didn't have an offer rescinded, but did have a pretty bad experience interviewing at Stripe last year. I interviewed in March, and didn't hear back until I PMed a hiring manager on Blind nine months later. Then I was told something like "the role isn't available any more but you can interview again for a new role". I re-interviewed, and was finally rejected.
I blamed covid at the time, but in retrospect none of the other places I interviewed had similar issues. If a candidate doesn't pass the interview, just reject the candidate!
I decided to do not to move on with Stripe after my first call. For having such a good product, it's unbelievable how much they suck in the regard of respecting applicants. There are so many good companies to work with.... perhaps they are "too big to fail". Good luck to them.
I have no idea if this is true or not. If it is, we should all know about it. This is one of the most shady things a company can do. Think about it, you're accepting an offer and telling your employer you're leaving, maybe rejecting other good offers you got, making plans etc. Then the company rescinds the offer... There might be some rare situations where this can happen and would be understandable, but Stripe is definitely not in that situation.
Reminds me a shady startup company I interviewed with 10 years ago. They kept lying about their financials and kept hiring people, knowing they gonna run out of money within 2-3 months. Their plan was getting these people on board, pay them salary for a couple of months, then announcing they company needs to raise more money, asking everyone to work without a salary for the time being. Everyone left 2 months after that.
I haven’t heard of rescinded offers so much but I’ve seen this happen in a different form: employees being hired into departments which were promptly shut down.
I saw this happen as an intern at Microsoft when BlackBerry was shut down.
I also saw it happen to some friends in the games industry. In one case the department shut down on a friends first day of work and they were promptly out of the job after moving across the country.
Assume all companies behave this badly or worse unless frequently and rigorously proven otherwise, and you surely will be much closer to correct on average than someone who puts trust in these companies' public reputations
I've known a number of director and VP level people who negotiate severence on their way in. This is common practice in many industries, and very common in fee for service contracts, where the buyer pays a kill fee of a certain percentage of the total contract value to end it up early.
A problem in the dynamc described in hire-to-fire is that people are waiting to be unemployed before looking for new jobs, so they have no leverage on the hiring discussion. From a reputation perspective, if you are in a role now, I think it's pretty reasonable to assert that for you to move, firing you before 18 months is going to cost them at least a year's salary in severence. If you think this is just an exec level strategy, a company can make its roadmap and quarterly commitments or numbers without a director or VP, but it can't make them without a key engineer to deliver on it.
It depends on what you do, but if you can make a company money or shorten the time between an investment and return on it, learn to be more strategic on the way in.
> so they have no leverage on the hiring discussion.
assuming this is false. The leverage is 1) They do not get to begin to enjoy the value you bring (ie, they push that value generation of some employee out into the future) and 2) You will continue to hunt for a best offer
It is a trick of human psychology to think that future value has no present value.
[+] [-] lordnacho|4 years ago|reply
So now I'm going to have to shift my priors, and it may well be unfair to the firm. For one, I don't know if the allegations are true. I also don't know whether this is a one-off, or whether this happens all the time and this is the tip of the iceberg. I do know that whatever I hear is going to be deeply invested one way or the other.
Specifically about the rescinded offers, the only acceptable reason to do that is when the person has gotten the offer in bad faith, eg they lied about their CV or claimed to have done something they provably hadn't. Other than that, someone who's gotten an offer may well have started moving house, taking their kids out of school, gotten their spouse to quit their job, and all sorts of hard-to-reverse decisions. It's an utterly crappy thing to have happen, and any company that does it should be outed for it.
[+] [-] deedubaya|4 years ago|reply
The thing is, there are lots and lots of companies who don't have these types of problems; that don't treat candidates poorly, follow thru with the offers they make (I can't believe I'm typing that!).
Hiring is already a power dynamic slanted for the employer... this shit just seem excessive and like 0 fucks are given.
As a job seeker, don't waste your time interviewing at companies that have these fundamental problems just getting in the door. The odds will never be in your favor, but these types of problems make for a much larger mountain to climb.
Knowing these things, and how good Stripe is at PR, I wouldn't be surprised if things on the inside are actually a dysfunctional mess. I hope not.
[+] [-] whimsicalism|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hyperpape|4 years ago|reply
If the actual number of candidates affected is small, then it would be cheap to make it right for them. You could find a team that can take the engineer (we're not interchangeable parts, but Stripe is a big company), and/or offer monetary compensation for the opportunity cost.
[0] I'll reserve judgment about higher level management. I don't know if the norms and circumstances are different. Obviously this also excludes failed background checks, candidates being dishonest, etc, etc.
[+] [-] valar_m|4 years ago|reply
But you're right - rescinding job offers is an absolutely vile business practice. Imagine resigning from your job after accepting an offer from Stripe, and then they just change their minds. Gross.
[+] [-] htrp|4 years ago|reply
This is like HR 101
[+] [-] ghshephard|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] newfonewhodis|4 years ago|reply
This is also why honest feedback for rejections should be required (by law? probably not. maybe by social pressure) so candidates know that the decision wasn't just a fluke
[+] [-] dang|4 years ago|reply
When media outlets report on HN threads we normally downweight those pretty heavily since they're just recycling content/discussion that already appeared here. In this case I'm downweighting it less than we normally would, in keeping with the core principle that we moderate HN less, not more, when YC or YC startups are part of the story [1].
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
[+] [-] shalmanese|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shkkmo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gip|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danrocks|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PragmaticPulp|4 years ago|reply
I thought I was landing my dream job at the time. Every conversation on tech websites had nothing but praise for the company and everyone applauded me when I got the job. But secretly, it was terrible. Organizational chaos, constant verbal abuse from executives (while they put on a friendly face for public PR), the most exploitative management practices I've ever seen.
The weirdest part was that the company was full of good people. We all joined thinking we were going to do great things, but we all mutually understood that it was a mess and that the management situation was not good at all.
But the catch is that it's really hard to say anything negative about a beloved tech company. The few times I tried, people scoffed at my complaints because they had only heard great things about the company. When everyone is bombarded with positive news and conversation about a company, they assume that anyone diverging from this narrative must be wrong, lying, or deserved whatever treatment they got. It's a bizarre phenomenon.
It gets even worse, though, because I quickly realized that my own resume and professional reputation now depended on the positive reputation of this company. I felt like I also had to say good things about the company in public, or else risk damaging my own professional reputation in the process. Would anyone want to hire me if they knew I was part of such a poorly-run company?
So, most of us quietly put up with the company for long enough to cash out our signing bonuses and vesting schedules (all of which were weighted for retention) and to avoid having too short of a stay listed on our resumes. Then we got out and moved on, relying on the positive reputation of the company to help others assume we were coming from a great company.
Whenever I see universally beloved companies like this with scattered anecdotes of chaotic or terrible behavior behind the scenes, I wonder if it's the same story: Beautiful company on the outside (due to PR) with built-in protection against the negative stories leaking because nobody on the inside wants to ruin the good reputation of the employer that is currently boosting their own personal reputation.
Or maybe Stripe is really a great company inside and these are isolated anecdotes from a few incompetent middle managers. The thing is - It's impossible to know due to all of the mixed incentives shaping the public narrative.
[+] [-] ufmace|4 years ago|reply
If there are 500+ more great engineers itching to get every open position, what incentive does the company have to pay well, have a smooth and respectful hiring process, treat employees well and respect their personal time, etc? Incentives guide outcomes far more often than any principles of niceness and fairness. They're often actually incentivized to do the opposite, especially in hiring. So what if we jerk people around and ghost them randomly in the hiring process? The only result for them is a slightly less unmanageably huge pile of applicants. If anything, it improves the applicant quality from their perspective - they're filtering out people who have standards and self-respect, who would probably just leave later anyways when you start treating them badly, and keeping the people who will stick around for any kind of abuse you dream up.
If you want to be happy, get a job at a boring-sounding company that nobody has ever heard of. Far more likely to have good hiring practices, pay, and working conditions. People being impressed by the name of your employer only really lasts a few seconds anyways.
[+] [-] whymauri|4 years ago|reply
>[T]he situation in which the sufferer looks completely calm on a superficial level while in reality, they are frantically trying to keep up with the demands of their life.
It's pretty common in places like the one you described. Pristine external presence makes constructive feedback ungrateful or contrarian, leading to everyone struggling in silence. I think the terminology is most associated with Stanford, since students work for several years to get entry, only to realize that it can be a harsh environment.
[+] [-] _moof|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aliswe|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] low_common|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway24378|4 years ago|reply
We've a SaaS business that processes through Stripe around $200k per month.
Dealing with their sales team has been frustrating. We've been trying to switch to interchange fees or reduced fess for a couple of years already. At first, we've been told to reach first $80k per month, then $100k per month, then having more than 3 months above $100k per month, then having less international cards.
It feels the goalpost keeps moving. Meanwhile we've been charged with an extra 1% fee on subscriptions, something we never agreed to and we would have made different architecture decision if we knew subscription mechanisms would be extra.
All of this is fine as it's just business. However lack of transparency and misleading statements are super not okay. And it seems just the way Stripe does business across their organization.
/end of rant
[+] [-] mattnewton|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] quadrifoliate|4 years ago|reply
This seems to be one implementation of that, which seems to have worked out a little better than anonymous comments? It also does a better job of distilling the major issues at play here, in my opinion:
> The technical manager who signed the offer before it was rescinded feels more frustrated about the lack of recourse than the actual loss of the job.
This is the crux of the issue. It's not about whether it's legal or moral to rescind offers or how the job market looks, but the emotional distress caused by having quit your job, or having informed family and friends of a new job, and then having to tell them that it's actually not happening.
As humans we should always strive to minimize this kind of terrible experience, or at least make amends in spades if we subject someone else to it. A company that goes above and beyond would give a candidate, say, six months of standard severance pay for this situation if it was absolutely unavoidable that they had to rescind someone's offer. Of course, the best course of action would be to give them an immediate appointment to a similar job in another division, or at least a fast-track interview for the same.
----------------------------------------
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29388832
[+] [-] pkrotich|4 years ago|reply
Scaling HR must be less of a priority & nightmare when the entire company is engineering focused. Human touch get lost with such growth.
[+] [-] karaterobot|4 years ago|reply
Of the two remaining examples, only one person received a written offer. The other received a verbal offer, but it was rescinded before a written offer was made.
The former recruiter for Stripe said that Stripe had a "hire and fire mentality", but they appeared to be referring to their own firing, not to the topic of the story.
The former recruiter also said that Stripe's recruiting process was disorganized, and shifted priorities a lot. Changing priorities or directions is the exact reason given for both rescinded offers mentioned in this story.
Given the above, is there any reason to believe there is anything more to this story than that Stripe's hiring arm is really disorganized, and some people got offers who should not have, and those offers had to be rescinded? That is to say, what is the basis (at this time) for concluding they have a policy of making offers and then rescinding them?
[+] [-] philovivero|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stadium|4 years ago|reply
I had a "we want to make you an offer" call with recruiting, with no mention of comp, and they asked for references. That was the first mention of reference checks in the process. I got cold feet because of the churn with the actual role they wanted me to perform, the lack of communication on pay, and the extra time and effort to line up references some of whom were still working at the same company as me. There were enough red flags for my comfort level to end the process at that point without involving other people in my network.
Back to the article, maybe the offers are being rescinded after reference checks? I understood that reference checks were falling out of favor because of liability for the person or company giving the feedback, but yet they seem to be coming back.
[+] [-] wallygone|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mgraczyk|4 years ago|reply
I blamed covid at the time, but in retrospect none of the other places I interviewed had similar issues. If a candidate doesn't pass the interview, just reject the candidate!
[+] [-] edpichler|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] edpichler|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tinyhouse|4 years ago|reply
Reminds me a shady startup company I interviewed with 10 years ago. They kept lying about their financials and kept hiring people, knowing they gonna run out of money within 2-3 months. Their plan was getting these people on board, pay them salary for a couple of months, then announcing they company needs to raise more money, asking everyone to work without a salary for the time being. Everyone left 2 months after that.
[+] [-] tyleo|4 years ago|reply
I saw this happen as an intern at Microsoft when BlackBerry was shut down.
I also saw it happen to some friends in the games industry. In one case the department shut down on a friends first day of work and they were promptly out of the job after moving across the country.
It’s still a shitty thing to do though.
[+] [-] wly_cdgr|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] motohagiography|4 years ago|reply
A problem in the dynamc described in hire-to-fire is that people are waiting to be unemployed before looking for new jobs, so they have no leverage on the hiring discussion. From a reputation perspective, if you are in a role now, I think it's pretty reasonable to assert that for you to move, firing you before 18 months is going to cost them at least a year's salary in severence. If you think this is just an exec level strategy, a company can make its roadmap and quarterly commitments or numbers without a director or VP, but it can't make them without a key engineer to deliver on it.
It depends on what you do, but if you can make a company money or shorten the time between an investment and return on it, learn to be more strategic on the way in.
[+] [-] maerF0x0|4 years ago|reply
assuming this is false. The leverage is 1) They do not get to begin to enjoy the value you bring (ie, they push that value generation of some employee out into the future) and 2) You will continue to hunt for a best offer
It is a trick of human psychology to think that future value has no present value.