And is a worker obligated to work at a company that doesn't meet their (the worker's) needs?

I do not see the employer-employee relationship as a one-way street and would refuse to work at a company with this kind of orientation. It has never been a problem to find organizations with a different orientation.

There exists no axiom that says an employee is obligated to work at a company. For workers at a sufficient level of skill, resources, and privileges, the working relationship at a core level is centralized on the needs for both entities; there is a mutuality in regards to getting needs met.

Of course there are organizations that basically exploit and abuse their employees; many of us have the privilege and experience to be discerning such that we can completely avoid companies like that. For lesser-paying jobs, a worker's needs are still completely valid and almost always taken into consideration by both parties.

For instance, we usually require a paycheck, and we often have well-defined, quantitative needs around this. I am not going to work somewhere that pays me $0.15 per hour, to use an extreme edge case.

Some other common employee needs:

* to work somewhere with a good work-life balance.

* challenging and non-tedious work

* to be around people who aren't sociopaths.

* to work at an organization that isn't paralyzed by micro-managing pseudoprocesses.

* to work at place that doesn't require the installation of spyware or middle-managementware on our devices.

The list goes on.

How about you? Do you not have any needs in regards to where and how you are employed?

Thanks, you make a good point about folks who claim a lot of experience.

For me, "demeaning" does not have an emotional component in that I don't take this personally and that I don't feel much of an emotional "charge" around this... definitely nothing that is "directed" towards an organization like this.

And I made no claims about what tasks are "too lowly" for me to do, that's an orthogonal issue to the question at hand. I'll happily do simple, repetitive, potentially grueling tasks if necessary.

I'm thinking about our limited time and how this industry seems to have a unique approach to hiring. It's very challenging to apply to multiple jobs that all come with some form of code challenge and lengthy interviews, while also working full-time and taking care of a family. How do we increase the signal about where we are thinking of working?

Other folks in this thread have offered some great suggestions to this question that don't necessarily involve signing an NDA.

Nice! That's great to hear. Sounds like a very collaborative and supportive working environment.

no - I wouldn't need to see whole codebase.

These are wonderful suggestions!

That this would potentially exclude someone from a hiring process is a concern, yeah. It's definitely a big ask relative to what is the norm.

I'm trying to get a sense of whether or not _any_ companies would be willing to do this.

to add to what I said - puzzle-solving in an interview process is usually mandatory when it exists, in other words, an ultimatum (usually not framed as such, the implication is implicit).

this is the double standard.

just as, through their actions and words, a company is saying, "we need you to do Y in order to move forward", the engineer can also communicate that "I need you to do X in order to move forward." both needs are equally valid.

the way this would be presented and communicated about in the interview process definitely matters - if a prospective employee presents this need in an antagonistic way, that can definitely be a flag.

this need can be shared in a collaborative, kind, and curious fashion. that's how I would work to frame it.

I totally understand regarding the security clearance.

I updated my comment in terms of framing it as an ultimatum - that's not what I would say in the interview process.

Showing examples of fake code seems like a possibly great middle-ground here. As long as that code is an accurate reflection.

I have a hard time imagining that if their code base is awful, they'll present you with awful fake code that accurately represents that.

Thanks for the clarification. Ultimately I think a developer (and other employees) should be able to work with any task and (in this case) the status of the code shouldn’t determine if you want the job or not.

Personally I value other factors such as work/life-balance, coworkers, work-benefits and salary higher than the individual task I’m completing on a day to day basis.

Just because you "should be able to" doesn't mean you'll want to. If the job is going to be unpleasant because the code base is steaming dumpster pile of garbage, that would be nice to know. Maybe you'll appreciate that kind of challenge, maybe not.

These are good points... I certainly value these factors as well.

And agree with you, to a point, that an engineer "should" be able to work with any task or codebase. We aren't primary care doctors in a community clinic who are obligated to treat every person who comes through the door.

I know myself pretty well. I know the kinds of environments in which I am most productive. I know the kinds of environments that I find to be a tedious and mentally exhausting slog. I prefer to avoid those. Some codebases are just awful to touch. I think it's OK to have some boundaries around that.

thanks for your comment.

I definitely wouldn't phrase it as an ultimatum in the hiring process.

I would say something like, "I'd like to understand what I'll be working with. Would you be up for letting me sign an NDA so that I can view the codebases on which you'll be having me contribute?"

If there's pushback on that and they are asking me to do a puzzle, I might then frame it as follows:

"I understand that you need a strong signal about the skill of engineers you hire. I also need a strong signal about the technical elements where I'll be spending the vast majority of my time. How can I gauge this without looking at some of your code?"

And just go from there, depending on their answer.

Perhaps I'll edit to reflect that.