Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I just turned down a job that I would've been amazing at, because they're in person 3 days a week.

They lost literally tens of millions in grant opportunities that I have written and the experience I bring, because they wouldn't go remote 3 days instead of just 2.

I understand wanting some time in person, absolutely. I hate it, but it does make certain processes much easier. But to not negotiate at all, even when the candidate is perfect for the job and happy with everything else? Ridiculous.



How did you get to the point of turning it down before finding out about the in person days?


I asked about remote and was told the company was up to 4 days a week remote.

Apparently I should've asked specifically about the role? Even though we were already talking about that role?


> they're in person 3 days a week.

> I asked about remote and was told the company was up to 4 days a week remote.

Wait, do they work 7 days a week?

If that's their attitude (and I've seen companies where it is), that's a huge red flag.


No, I worded that weird.

They said they were remote 4 out of 5 days. But the specific department is only remote 2 of the 5 days for that position.


I've noticed companies that recruit on LinkedIn marking roles as remote, then at the very bottom of the long job description it mentions that it is in fact not remote. I could see someone making it through the initial calls without it coming up. I'd go so far as to say some companies may use it as a backhanded tactic.


Asking whether the job requires in person presence is usually among the first questions to ask in an interview (e.g., the screening part)


I’m sure the person that took that job is grateful.


It's still open. So instead of filling it with a massively qualified candidate, they chose pain.


I suppose the bet from executives is: recession/influx of former government employees will allow for relatively easy replacement of candidates. I am not sure which consideration is more cynical and/or misguided.


Maybe they decided that your qualifications did not outweigh how much of a pain in the ass you seem to be.


No personal attacks please.


Not a personal attack. Merely observing that he's coming off as someone I would not want to work with. This answers his tacit question of why they wouldn't accept his deal.


I gather that you didn't intend it as a personal attack, but we have to moderate by effects, not intent. By that standard, "how much of a pain in the ass you seem to be" is squarely in the personal attack category. Not a borderline call!


Turning down a job because your potential employer values arbitrary control of their employees over the actual value they created and being frustrated at the silliness of it is so normal. If this is "pain in the ass" behavior I can't imagine how milquetoast and ChatGPT professionalism your company Slack must be.


I'm legit sorry if that's how I'm coming across. Don't read tone in text, because there's no sharpness or self-importance meant at all.

I'm not sure how else to say what I'm saying. My qualifications are literally perfect for the job. My experience is perfect for the job. My location is perfect for the job. My attitude is perfect for the job.

It was billed as remote up to four days but the department head only allows 3. That was a deal breaker. I legitimately only negotiated on that. I was willing to take a pay and title cut because I agree with the mission of the institution.

It seemed like a no brainer to me.


We’re on HN; regardless of the validity of your point, there’s less inflammatory ways to word it.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: