Topics of Systems Administration
-
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
You say you couldn't get a job after Citi because of a non compete,
I never said that. My non-compete was years after being at a bank.
-
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
and there are times where you are working 3 full time jobs for 3 different companies.
Definitely. Working multiple full time jobs is part of getting ahead in IT. What shocks me is people who've not done this.
-
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
but they allowed you to work one to two other jobs while you were employed there? That doesn't make any sense.
It doesn't make sense because you don't follow what was said and mix things that don't go together.
-
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
It seems to change quite a bit to fit the scenario
You say things like this, but you never produce evidence. My history definitely doesn't change. Find this example you claim to know about. You can't, because it's consistent.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
It seems to change quite a bit to fit the scenario
You say things like this, but you never produce evidence. My history definitely doesn't change. Find this example you claim to know about. You can't, because it's consistent.
One being you mentioned in this thread that you taught at Lockheed, and somewhere else said that you were only there for a week. There's no way you were onboarded and teaching within a week. You also mentioned in another place the quality of engineers at Lockheed. There's no way you would have gained that knowledge from a weeks time.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
You say you couldn't get a job after Citi because of a non compete,
I never said that. My non-compete was years after being at a bank.
What? Your non-compete issue was from CitiGroup correct? Somehow they enforced a non-compete years after you worked there, but didn't care that you were working for another company while working for them seems suspect.
-
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
One being you mentioned in this thread that you taught at Lockheed, and somewhere else said that you were only there for a week.
IBM and Lockheed had a joint teaching / training facility. I was at IBM teaching both IBM and Lockheed engineers in Endicott, NY. I taught at Lockheed, but for IBM.
-
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
What? Your non-compete issue was from CitiGroup correct?
Incorrect. It was from a hedge fund, years after I was at a bank.
-
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
Somehow they enforced a non-compete years after you worked there, but didn't care that you were working for another company while working for them seems suspect.
I was able to work for one company in a continuous capacity (unable to change roles) while there (not the bank, the place with the non-compete) because they had accepted it during the hiring process and it was exempted from the non-compete ahead of time. I was unable to take any work in the country for the duration of the non-compete, but they could not stop me working in another country (no non-compete can do that, ever) so I worked in Spain, if you recall.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
You're the only person that keeps saying this.
Maybe I'm the only person you know with that kind of experience. That's the thing I was saying about the barrier, jobs in this range aren't advertised on job sites full of fluff and fake listings. They go through headhunters. If you filter for only low to mid range sites, of course you see low to mid range jobs.
See that's the thing. It's always you're the only person that has this experience. There's never any proof, and after working in the field and interviewing with companies of large size, it's never that way.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
Somehow they enforced a non-compete years after you worked there, but didn't care that you were working for another company while working for them seems suspect.
I was able to work for one company in a continuous capacity (unable to change roles) while there (not the bank, the place with the non-compete) because they had accepted it during the hiring process and it was exempted from the non-compete ahead of time. I was unable to take any work in the country for the duration of the non-compete, but they could not stop me working in another country (no non-compete can do that, ever) so I worked in Spain, if you recall.
Non-competes don't cross industry lines. If it's bank to bank, that might make sense. Things like bank to manufacturing, or bank to logistics don't.
-
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
Somehow they enforced a non-compete years after you worked there, but didn't care that you were working for another company while working for them seems suspect.
I was able to work for one company in a continuous capacity (unable to change roles) while there (not the bank, the place with the non-compete) because they had accepted it during the hiring process and it was exempted from the non-compete ahead of time. I was unable to take any work in the country for the duration of the non-compete, but they could not stop me working in another country (no non-compete can do that, ever) so I worked in Spain, if you recall.
Non-competes don't cross industry lines. If it's bank to bank, that might make sense. Things like bank to manufacturing, or bank to logistics don't.
I mean I guess anything is possible, but why would you accept employment from somewhere that wouldn't allow you to work after that?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
One being you mentioned in this thread that you taught at Lockheed, and somewhere else said that you were only there for a week.
IBM and Lockheed had a joint teaching / training facility. I was at IBM teaching both IBM and Lockheed engineers in Endicott, NY. I taught at Lockheed, but for IBM.
Through a contractor. You specifically said in another place that "feel dirty for having stayed that long". That really makes it sound like you had a choice even though you were contracted through someone else for IBM teaching at Lockheed?
-
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
Somehow they enforced a non-compete years after you worked there, but didn't care that you were working for another company while working for them seems suspect.
I was able to work for one company in a continuous capacity (unable to change roles) while there (not the bank, the place with the non-compete) because they had accepted it during the hiring process and it was exempted from the non-compete ahead of time. I was unable to take any work in the country for the duration of the non-compete, but they could not stop me working in another country (no non-compete can do that, ever) so I worked in Spain, if you recall.
Non-competes don't cross industry lines. If it's bank to bank, that might make sense. Things like bank to manufacturing, or bank to logistics don't.
Well, tell that to the courts. Because they do cross industry lines at times. As I was told by my attorney.... in court I'd win, but not until after a decade of fighting and we'd have to pay attorneys all that time and be unemployable. In the end, we were expected to win big, but my kids would grow up destitute while we fought the non-compete.
As my employer said at the time "You can't bag groceries in Oregon", that was their policy. No job, of any sort, anywhere in the country. Their policy was that they were a "US business" and "all US business" was a competitor. Clearly that doesn't work in court, but the number of people who had won against them were.... very few. Famously, two just did a few months ago. But it's taken that long.
So while you can say that non-competes have whatever limits, when you are talking companies of this size and resources, the courts are a bit fungible and what is legal or not becomes a question of who can afford to make it so.
-
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
Somehow they enforced a non-compete years after you worked there, but didn't care that you were working for another company while working for them seems suspect.
I was able to work for one company in a continuous capacity (unable to change roles) while there (not the bank, the place with the non-compete) because they had accepted it during the hiring process and it was exempted from the non-compete ahead of time. I was unable to take any work in the country for the duration of the non-compete, but they could not stop me working in another country (no non-compete can do that, ever) so I worked in Spain, if you recall.
Non-competes don't cross industry lines. If it's bank to bank, that might make sense. Things like bank to manufacturing, or bank to logistics don't.
I mean I guess anything is possible, but why would you accept employment from somewhere that wouldn't allow you to work after that?
Because legally, as you said, a non-compete will have an industry and distance limit. But they decided that they didn't like the legal limits and with that much money, the courts do little to stop them. As an individual, I couldn't afford to lose my house and pay an attorney for a decade to win a spiritual victory. I had taken a job in another state in a slightly different industry and they went to the company and told them that they'd sue me and my employer if they hired me. They were happy to lose the case, because just bringing them to court was all that mattered. That's the thing about US law, suing an employer is generally enough to stop employment, there's zero need for the case to be legitimate.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
Somehow they enforced a non-compete years after you worked there, but didn't care that you were working for another company while working for them seems suspect.
I was able to work for one company in a continuous capacity (unable to change roles) while there (not the bank, the place with the non-compete) because they had accepted it during the hiring process and it was exempted from the non-compete ahead of time. I was unable to take any work in the country for the duration of the non-compete, but they could not stop me working in another country (no non-compete can do that, ever) so I worked in Spain, if you recall.
Non-competes don't cross industry lines. If it's bank to bank, that might make sense. Things like bank to manufacturing, or bank to logistics don't.
Well, tell that to the courts. Because they do cross industry lines at times. As I was told by my attorney.... in court I'd win, but not until after a decade of fighting and we'd have to pay attorneys all that time and be unemployable. In the end, we were expected to win big, but my kids would grow up destitute while we fought the non-compete.
As my employer said at the time "You can't bag groceries in Oregon", that was their policy. No job, of any sort, anywhere in the country. Their policy was that they were a "US business" and "all US business" was a competitor. Clearly that doesn't work in court, but the number of people who had won against them were.... very few. Famously, two just did a few months ago. But it's taken that long.
So while you can say that non-competes have whatever limits, when you are talking companies of this size and resources, the courts are a bit fungible and what is legal or not becomes a question of who can afford to make it so.
To me it's hard to believe that the company would spend millions in legal feels to prevent you from working at a company that has nothing to do with them. What did they gain from that?
-
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
You specifically said in another place that "feel dirty for having stayed that long". That really makes it sound like you had a choice even though you were contracted through someone else for IBM teaching at Lockheed?
That's an unrelated (by job, related by location) time when I took a contract at Lockheed and it was the shittiest place on earth when you worked inside and saw how they operated. My teaching Lockheed staff and my time working at Lockheed weren't connected.
-
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
To me it's hard to believe that the company would spend millions in legal feels to prevent you from working at a company that has nothing to do with them. What did they gain from that?
This is where you have to understand hedge funds. Mathematically it made perfect business sense. You are thinking of it from a "Scott's value" perspective, but that didn't matter to them at all. What mattered was that they'd become famous as a shitty place to work and couldn't hire new people, and everyone working there wanted to leave. If they let me leave (for a lot more money) they had two problems - one was that I'd been chosen for the outside role when several people higher than me in the company had been turned down which looked really bad for them internally; and second that it meant that their stories that they told that we were the highest paid place and that people couldn't get better work elsewhere would be broken. Keeping their staff afraid was worth billions and billions to them because if the IT team fled, they'd be out of business (finance runs on tech.) So MY value to them was meaningless and small, but the risk of me taking another job that paid better and treated me better was enormous - worth essentially any amount of money or risk to stop.
Likewise, someone that sat in the office directly next to me also took an outside job and the same thing happened to him about a month before. But he backed down and asked to stay so that he'd keep his paycheck. I, instead, fled to Europe and took a job that they couldn't touch (and then they settled the non-compete with a payout once they knew I would be able to fund the lawsuit.) But it was nothing to do with me, everyone was treated the same because threatening a few people scared everyone.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
To me it's hard to believe that the company would spend millions in legal feels to prevent you from working at a company that has nothing to do with them. What did they gain from that?
This is where you have to understand hedge funds. Mathematically it made perfect business sense. You are thinking of it from a "Scott's value" perspective, but that didn't matter to them at all. What mattered was that they'd become famous as a shitty place to work and couldn't hire new people, and everyone working there wanted to leave. If they let me leave (for a lot more money) they had two problems - one was that I'd been chosen for the outside role when several people higher than me in the company had been turned down which looked really bad for them internally; and second that it meant that their stories that they told that we were the highest paid place and that people couldn't get better work elsewhere would be broken. Keeping their staff afraid was worth billions and billions to them because if the IT team fled, they'd be out of business (finance runs on tech.) So MY value to them was meaningless and small, but the risk of me taking another job that paid better and treated me better was enormous - worth essentially any amount of money or risk to stop.
Likewise, someone that sat in the office directly next to me also took an outside job and the same thing happened to him about a month before. But he backed down and asked to stay so that he'd keep his paycheck. I, instead, fled to Europe and took a job that they couldn't touch (and then they settled the non-compete with a payout once they knew I would be able to fund the lawsuit.) But it was nothing to do with me, everyone was treated the same because threatening a few people scared everyone.
Is this bridgewater?
-
$400K per year doesn't sound impossible to me. It's roughly the same as outsourcing it at $200 per hour full time.
