Is it me or are developer jobs a total lottery?

dubdev

Hi there

Software developer here with about 8 years experience. I started a new job during the summer on the basis that I would be leading a couple of external development projects, getting good project management experience. I was trying to think long-term in case I ever wanted to move out of development, so I reluctantly took a 15% pay cut on the understanding that I'd be getting good experience and probably earning more than ever in a year or two.

As it turns out, there isn't a lot of managing to be done. The management above me basically want to still make all the decisions, with me simply acting as a go-between, relaying what they want over email and phone. Secondly, there have been lots of delays in the projects due to unanticipated hiccups or so we're told, so I'm spending a lot of time waiting for those to be addressed.

In the mean time, I've been unofficially appointed the company IT guy. People are coming to me asking how to install software, fix their monitors and peripherals, and take a look at their PC's when something isn't working. This is really disappointing, as I am neither the most qualified nor the least bit interested in doing this. I've been able to wing it most of the time, but they seem to treat "IT" as this big black box encompassing tech support, development and whatever random issues crop up. It doesn't seem to be the most professionally run company, as they're always asking about how to get out of paying this or paying that, and they're always trying to lowball new hires and vendors.

It got me thinking about the state of the software jobs market, and it seems that there are so many companies out there chancing their arm, hiring highly qualified candidates and then turfing them into doing whatever boring dirty work they don't want to do themselves. When I interviewed at the current place, I was careful to sound out what exactly I'd be doing on a day to day basis, but literally from day one or two, I was doing the crappy IT support stuff, without having a chance to familiarise myself with the IT setup in the company.

Fortunately this story has a happy ending as I got headhunted by a company a friend of mine works for, and it's been great so far. They're paying me up front what I was promised in two years by the other place, and they're a proper software company rather than a business with IT tacked on the end.

I would be interested to know if anyone else has had this experience.

L.Jenkins

In my own experience, when I left College, the local Software House had in place an employment embargo, even for interns. So when I wasn't able to gain adequate experience, when I needed it, I had to make a few tough decisions. I began working in a shop selling Computers and offering repairs here in Athlone.

I then found myself in more of a support and IT maintenance role down in Tuam, before moving to IBM in Mulhuddart and into L2 Software Support. When I had to leave that role, finding work again was tough, so I then went to Yahoo on contract, simply imaging machines for 2 months, before I eventually got a Development role in Longford.

Then when that contract dried up, I was back in re-imaging and support for another 2 months, before taking a 15 month contract in HP. I'm now back on the job hunt, unfortunately.

My problem, 6 years after leaving College, I got caught in the Contracting trap and it's damn near impossible to get out of, as I now have an interview for an initial 11 month contract with Google of all places.

I think that the message is to do your due diligence. Ask lots of questions in the interview (which is a two way process) and if you smell bs then don't go for it.

syklops

dubdev wrote: »

Hi there

Software developer here with about 8 years experience. I started a new job during the summer on the basis that I would be leading a couple of external development projects, getting good project management experience. I was trying to think long-term in case I ever wanted to move out of development, so I reluctantly took a 15% pay cut on the understanding that I'd be getting good experience and probably earning more than ever in a year or two.

As it turns out, there isn't a lot of managing to be done. The management above me basically want to still make all the decisions, with me simply acting as a go-between, relaying what they want over email and phone. Secondly, there have been lots of delays in the projects due to unanticipated hiccups or so we're told, so I'm spending a lot of time waiting for those to be addressed.

In the mean time, I've been unofficially appointed the company IT guy. People are coming to me asking how to install software, fix their monitors and peripherals, and take a look at their PC's when something isn't working. This is really disappointing, as I am neither the most qualified nor the least bit interested in doing this. I've been able to wing it most of the time, but they seem to treat "IT" as this big black box encompassing tech support, development and whatever random issues crop up. It doesn't seem to be the most professionally run company, as they're always asking about how to get out of paying this or paying that, and they're always trying to lowball new hires and vendors.

It got me thinking about the state of the software jobs market, and it seems that there are so many companies out there chancing their arm, hiring highly qualified candidates and then turfing them into doing whatever boring dirty work they don't want to do themselves. When I interviewed at the current place, I was careful to sound out what exactly I'd be doing on a day to day basis, but literally from day one or two, I was doing the crappy IT support stuff, without having a chance to familiarise myself with the IT setup in the company.

Fortunately this story has a happy ending as I got headhunted by a company a friend of mine works for, and it's been great so far. They're paying me up front what I was promised in two years by the other place, and they're a proper software company rather than a business with IT tacked on the end.

I would be interested to know if anyone else has had this experience.

Its not just development, its all areas of IT.

A manager gets budget. He has to spend the budget or he wont get more next year. He tells HR he wants a new analyst/developer/engineer/whatever. Its now HR's job to find someone suitable, HR interviews people, sets up interviews with the manager and they make their selection. Promises are made, lies are told and the candidate agrees and starts.

And then reality kicks in. The state of the art laptop that was promised doesnt materialise. The work from home policy has been amended and no longer applies to you, the generous education assistance has recently been pruned back, and worst of all, the bulk of your work which you were looking forward to has been "reconfigured", and either you are working on something far less interesting, or you are benched, waiting for a new project to start.

Graham

Itzy wrote: »

I got caught in the Contracting trap

Contracting trap?

L.Jenkins

Most Companies pass me over and recruiters try to pigeon hole into the area of Contracting, all because my previous roles have been Contracts. All the while, I'm aiming for a permanent role. Getting pissed off with the uncertainty and jumping around from Company to Company.

Graham

Itzy wrote: »

Most Companies pass me over and recruiters try to pigeon hole into the area of Contracting, all because my previous roles have been Contracts. All the while, I'm aiming for a permanent role. Getting pissed off with the uncertainty and jumping around from Company to Company.

I suspect your CV is sending out mixed messages Itzy, you might want to de-emphasise the support/roll-out/PC build elements if you're trying to concentrate on the dev side.

Berserker

glasso wrote: »

I think that the message is to do your due diligence. Ask lots of questions in the interview (which is a two way process) and if you smell bs then don't go for it.

I agree with this but it really is so difficult to find a decent company to work for these days. Companies seem to think that they have the right to lie through their teeth about the work they do and the technologies they use. Lots interview people looking for the 'latest and greatest' in terms of skillset and they promise people the sun, moon and stars but people end up working on some legacy application. The thoughts of re-engineering the application sends shivers down the spin of management. I know some seriously good developers, with over ten years experience, who have re-trained in other areas and jacked in software development. There are far too many companies in the sector who look at IT as a mechanism to make a quick buck too.

Graham

Berserker wrote: »

There are far too many companies in the sector who look at IT as a mechanism to make a quick buck too.

There are many more developers who look at IT as a mechanism to make a quick buck than there are companies.

All too often, freshly compiled developers start off with the notion they're always going to be working on greenfield projects using the latest and greatest technology. It doesn't occur to them that at any given point in time there's a lot more existing applications than there are new ones being started.

beauf

I think its quite common to be asked to double job. Especially in smaller IT depts/companies. However unless theres nothing else in the location and you want to be in that location, or the hours suit or something. Its a bad idea. If you are not developing, your not a developer. That will come back to hurt you when going for jobs and also your CV. Also your skill set will suffer if it happens too much. Which is a catch 22 when applying for jobs.

c_man

Graham wrote: »

All too often, freshly compiled developers..

Bravo sir. I'm stealing that.

moycullen14

One simple(ish) rule of thumb when looking at companies is to ask 'Where does the money come from?' Generally, if it is IT product or service-based, chances are the development environment will be good. Extreme examples would be Google/Facebook but not Apple.

If the core business is not IT (say Insurance, Retail, etc) then IT will be seen as a cost with all the heartache that implies - everything becomes about saving 'money'.

In my experience the best companies - in terms of development - I've worked for have been small, product focused ones and the worst have been large, non IT companies (Insurance, shudder). The problem is that the latter tend to offer more in terms of security whilst being boring as hell.

dazberry

moycullen14 wrote: »

One simple(ish) rule of thumb when looking at companies is to ask 'Where does the money come from?'

I would have formed similar opinions over the years - including for instance never work for a company who's founder/CEO has named the company after themselves - including in acronym (e.g. Dazberry Software Systems = DSS etc).

Between 1994 and 2011, of the 6 companies I worked for, regardless of how good or not the jobs actually where, only 1 of the 6 blatantly lied at the interview stage.

Between 2011 and 2016, of the 6 companies I've since worked for, 4 lied at the interview stage (hence changed jobs so many times). I don't know if I've been either unlucky or naive - definitely I need a new set of rules to go by because the current set isn't working.

(Insurance, shudder)

Ironically the 2 of the 6 that in my case didn't lie, where Insurance companies.

But just to quantify this, when I say lied at the interview stage, these would be examples:

• Interviewed for C++/MFC - 90% x86 assembly language
• Interviewed for C# - got put in QA - WTF???
• Interviewed for "leading edge" C# - 90% 1.1 era VB.Net
• Interviewed for C# / WCF / WebApi - 50% objective C, 50% doing the crap no one else wanted to do - mostly not C#
• Interviewed for C# / WCF / WebApi - ended up in production support - mix VB.Net and C#

The frustrating thing is that as someone said - you try do your due diligence as part of the interview process, weight up the options and eventually take the job predicated on that experience - and that experience turns out to be bull!!.

And at the same time interviews are getting progressively picker, yes I'll answer all your tech questions ~correctly~ and then you can then bother reading my CV and turn me down because I don't have the ~right~ ~experience~ ~profile~ or maybe changed jobs too much in the last 5 years - time wasting c**ts.

Anyway, that's my rant - no wonder people get sick of the BS, if I had another "calling" I'd definitely be looking at it at this stage...

D.

beauf

The irony is if you take the job that's not as described, it will bite you when it comes to the next interview.

moycullen14

dazberry wrote: »

I would have formed similar opinions over the years - including for instance never work for a company who's founder/CEO has named the company after themselves - including in acronym (e.g. Dazberry Software Systems = DSS etc).

Between 1994 and 2011, of the 6 companies I worked for, regardless of how good or not the jobs actually where, only 1 of the 6 blatantly lied at the interview stage.

Between 2011 and 2016, of the 6 companies I've since worked for, 4 lied at the interview stage (hence changed jobs so many times). I don't know if I've been either unlucky or naive - definitely I need a new set of rules to go by because the current set isn't working.


Ironically the 2 of the 6 that in my case didn't lie, where Insurance companies.

But just to quantify this, when I say lied at the interview stage, these would be examples:

• Interviewed for C++/MFC - 90% x86 assembly language
• Interviewed for C# - got put in QA - WTF???
• Interviewed for "leading edge" C# - 90% 1.1 era VB.Net
• Interviewed for C# / WCF / WebApi - 50% objective C, 50% doing the crap no one else wanted to do - mostly not C#
• Interviewed for C# / WCF / WebApi - ended up in production support - mix VB.Net and C#

The frustrating thing is that as someone said - you try do your due diligence as part of the interview process, weight up the options and eventually take the job predicated on that experience - and that experience turns out to be bull!!.

And at the same time interviews are getting progressively picker, yes I'll answer all your tech questions ~correctly~ and then you can then bother reading my CV and turn me down because I don't have the ~right~ ~experience~ ~profile~ or maybe changed jobs too much in the last 5 years - time wasting c**ts.

Anyway, that's my rant - no wonder people get sick of the BS, if I had another "calling" I'd definitely be looking at it at this stage...

D.

That gave me a chuckle.

It's so true. There is a book to be written on interviews. It would have to be true because you couldn't make it up.

You shouldn't take them too personally. You can fail at interviews for all sorts of reasons - most of which have nothing to do with your competence or suitability.

The one that cracks me up is when you get rejected for something that wasn't even talked about at the interview or the interviewer knows nothing about.

What about getting dragged in for a days worth of interviews and then rejecting you because your CV was unsuitable (hint: read the bl**dy CV BEFORE the interview).

As someone said, it's a two-way street. Try and talk about stuff that you are interested in. A good interviewer will listen and learn a lot more about you than by asking stock questions or some crappy test about brain-dead code.

Also, it's very instructive to ask seemingly innocent questions that can be very revealing ('Tell me about your continuous integration process?' Oh, you don't have one? 'You copy the live website onto a USB key and install it directly on the clients server?' 'I see, I'll just get my coat'

That said, some of the best contracts I've had have had the worst interviews and vice versa.

Don't let them grind you down.

14ned

dubdev wrote: »

Software developer here with about 8 years experience. I started a new job during the summer on the basis that I would be leading a couple of external development projects, getting good project management experience. I was trying to think long-term in case I ever wanted to move out of development, so I reluctantly took a 15% pay cut on the understanding that I'd be getting good experience and probably earning more than ever in a year or two.

There was your first mistake - always move upwards in pay when accepting a job different to your history. You are after all taking on more risk here unless you have a qualification in Management, so your pay should reflect the extra risk. The only time I'd take a pay cut is to build some CV experience if you had a degree in Management and you wanted to keep that fresh.

dubdev wrote: »

As it turns out, there isn't a lot of managing to be done. The management above me basically want to still make all the decisions, with me simply acting as a go-between, relaying what they want over email and phone. Secondly, there have been lots of delays in the projects due to unanticipated hiccups or so we're told, so I'm spending a lot of time waiting for those to be addressed.

Sounds like standard software dev work. Most companies try to isolate the bottom rung of developers from this stuff, but someone has to liaise with IT services to get VPNs routing and the SCM not crapping out four times a day. This is the first rung of management for a developer.

Next rung up as a product owner means being in meetings or email all day long and somehow trying to keep track of what the dev teams under you are actually doing. You will spend most of your time telling lies of one form or another, and you get to decimate your people whenever some A suite idiot blew your org's spare cash on a party with hookers. That's middle management, and I've not seen it be different in any of the tech multinationals I've worked with yet. It just is the way it is.

dubdev wrote: »

It got me thinking about the state of the software jobs market, and it seems that there are so many companies out there chancing their arm, hiring highly qualified candidates and then turfing them into doing whatever boring dirty work they don't want to do themselves. When I interviewed at the current place, I was careful to sound out what exactly I'd be doing on a day to day basis, but literally from day one or two, I was doing the crappy IT support stuff, without having a chance to familiarise myself with the IT setup in the company.

When hiring you are always trying to build capacity, so of course you try to hire better people than you need. You're trying to up your bit of the org's ability to do stuff in the future. That will never, ever change, because you'd do the same if you had a team to manage and keep from getting decimated next time the axe falls. You are competing with all the other middle managers and their teams.

For you personally though, I'd really forget about your job having any personal development in it. If you happen to get that, then great, but in countries like Ireland where there is a lack of culture of investing in staff your personal development really is all on you. The day job is there for paying your bills, the rest is up to you and your family to make happen. This is why I recommend you find a job with the least possible demands on you, that leaves you fresher to wake early each morning to do stuff which is actually fun. Time at work could even be considered the dead time you do in order to get all other time outside of work which is where any true value in life is.

I appreciate all the above is quite cynical, but then I am a contractor by choice and I've never cared for any permanent role I ever had. I earn to live, not live to earn.

Niall

yqtwqxqm

The truth is that if you end up in the wrong job in development and dont get out the minute you see it, you will end up ending your career before you know it.

Tar.Aldarion

AS you can see yourself there is a difference in being the IT department and being in a company where software is a core of the product.

the-island-man

These steps I would follow in the future after being burned:

• Due-Diligence on the company product/technologies
• Buy the company accounts through the Company Registration Office (CRO) to see how well the company is financed
• Contact former employees of the company through Linkedin (This is an extreme thing to do and could back fire if they are still connected to people in the company)
• Look up GlassDoor reviews (https://www.glassdoor.ie/)

matrim

the-island-man wrote: »

These steps I would follow in the future after being burned:

• Look up GlassDoor reviews (https://www.glassdoor.ie/)

I've never found glassdoor good from an Irish perspective. Either the company isn't there or if it's a multinational the reviews are for offices in other countries

PixelTrawler

I've worked in the same job for 15 years now. I've often wondered what another company would be like, reading some of these posts, I'll stick where I am!

Its a major american multinational (IT) , and Im in a software engineering team in an overall software division, so its a pretty good job. Theres actually quite a few in the team that are there 10 to 20 years... Probably a good sign.

Colonel Panic

I don't think a long tenure alone is a good sign in a developer.

TrueDub

Colonel Panic wrote: »

I don't think a long tenure alone is a good sign in a developer.

It's a good sign for a company, though, if people are content to stay there for that length of time, which I think is what the previous poster meant.

moycullen14

PixelTrawler wrote: »

I've worked in the same job for 15 years now. I've often wondered what another company would be like, reading some of these posts, I'll stick where I am!

Its a major american multinational (IT) , and Im in a software engineering team in an overall software division, so its a pretty good job. Theres actually quite a few in the team that are there 10 to 20 years... Probably a good sign.

God, no. A lot of long serving developers could just as easily be a sign of a pretty static environment. All it really says is that the long-servers are completely in sync. with the company. That can either be good or very, very bad.

Raging_Ninja

As long as you're not being taken advantage of in terms of wage (earning similar or more than your contemporaries) and are being exposed to new technologies (providing career security should your comany go under or division be axed), then is there really a problem with staying long term in a company?

matrim

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

As long as you're not being taken advantage of in terms of wage (earning similar or more than your contemporaries) and are being exposed to new technologies (providing career security should your comany go under or division be axed), then is there really a problem with staying long term in a company?

Once you are not letting your skills and knowledge become stale and out of date it would mostly be fine. I also think it depends on the type of company. If it's 15 years of working on one project I could see things going stale. If it's 15 years of being on project work where your focus changes fairly regurarly then you've a better chance of keeping up to date

Graham

I think it would be a mistake to think the only route to career success is riding the wave of latest and greatest.

I know plenty of people who are quite happy working with legacy systems in what would be considered outdated technologies. Most of them get paid rather well for it too.

Raging_Ninja

Graham wrote: »

I think it would be a mistake to think the only route to career success is riding the wave of latest and greatest.

I know plenty of people who are quite happy working with legacy systems in what would be considered outdated technologies. Most of them get paid rather well for it too.

How easy would it be for then to get a new job should the worst happen in their current company?

Graham

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

How easy would it be for then to get a new job should the worst happen in their current company?

If I were to respond with a sweeping generalisation I'd say there's obviously less opportunities compared to the latest and greatest language/frameworks BUT there's less competition for those opportunities, they pay well and they're less likely to take a hammering in an economic downturn.

moycullen14

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

How easy would it be for then to get a new job should the worst happen in their current company?

I think the problem with staying with one company is that you become dependent on that one copnay - often to the detriment of your transferrable skills. You will probably gain a huge amount of domain knowledge that may or may not be useful in your next employment.

You tend to lose perspective on the outside world. Your view of how software should be built, design, quality, development practices become those of the company rather than industry.

Of course this is a gross generalisation. I don't think anyone would would criticise someone who has spent the last 15 years at Google!

In the end, though, as a developer, all you have are your skills. You need to make sure these do not go stale. This can happen if you stay in the one role/company for too long.

FAILSAFE 00

moycullen14 wrote: »

I think the problem with staying with one company is that you become dependent on that one copnay - often to the detriment of your transferrable skills. You will probably gain a huge amount of domain knowledge that may or may not be useful in your next employment.

You tend to lose perspective on the outside world. Your view of how software should be built, design, quality, development practices become those of the company rather than industry.

Of course this is a gross generalisation. I don't think anyone would would criticise someone who has spent the last 15 years at Google!

In the end, though, as a developer, all you have are your skills. You need to make sure these do not go stale. This can happen if you stay in the one role/company for too long.