I'm one of the founders here. Yes, we work with hundreds of startups and large FN 500 companies. Happy to answer any questions. That's why we created Facet - trying to eliminate recruiter spam and create a better experience for engineering, product, or design contractors. Dev founded - dev run.
I was really excited to try out Facet at the start of the year, but I was disappointed to see that most of the opportunities were for full time work and there isn't a lot of contract work advertised!
Good feedback - contract work on the platform was super heavy in the beginning. Been lighter as of late, but does tend to ebb and flow a bit. Anticipate we start seeing more contracts coming through esp in the a potential recession where companies may not have the certainty to hire FTE, but still need work done. They tend to contract to fill that void in the interim.
Thx. Happy to - generally for senior engineers and above our market rates tend to be $120 - 160+/hr. For mid-levels, I would say about $100 - 130/hr. Our rates are market driven in that Facet members can set their salary and contract rates where ever they would like. We do an 80/20 rev share on the hourly billable to the client (the rates above would be general market averages for North American based engineers - this is the average hourly take home). People in other geographies tend to set their rates at a lower limit/range. We are growing internationally both in that we have clients looking for non-USA engineers and working with non-USA based companies. Most of our client side demand is for US-based engineers, but more roles and companies are coming onto the platform all the time. Hope that helps!
We provide guidance on how to set your market rate as well based on experience (some people looking to dip into contracting have no idea) whether or not you work on a contract for Facet. We have some documentation there that might be helpful.
I very seldom feel inclined to refuse, but I even more seldom feel comfortable on camera. Which is to say in most circumstances I avoid being on camera when I can. I’ve been remote most of my career, nothing changed the last few years to introduce new stressors around this. I just don’t like being on video, or interacting with other people on video. It gives me a firm but unspecific sense of unease is unlikely to be “compelling” to anyone who doesn’t relate… so, huge red flag I guess? Not sure what you think it flags, but I’m glad you’re not requesting meetings with me.
I think if you're introducing yourself to people who'd like to hire you and haven't met you, it is normal etiquette to appear on camera. There is still a level of body language conveyed, even if it's just your face.
I think we all get not wanting to be on camera for every meeting, but surely it makes sense to present yourself on camera for the initial interview if you're able?
This implies that body language is accurate and useful which is not always the case. I'd argue that many who legitimately don't wish to be on camera have very good reasons for this. I do not enjoy being on camera or even talking on the phone. I also have ADHD which makes it very difficult to just sit still and listen/watch an AV feed for a significant period of time even if I know that what is occurring on that feed is very important. My brain literally doesn't care what my mind thinks/knows it's going to do what it wants/needs to do which is fidget, search for sources of stimulation, and in general do all kinds of things considered "rude" to do when having a conversation or attending a meeting. Nevermind that I'm absolutely still paying attention, but I can't JUST pay attention. A lot of this hesitation to appear on camera in situations like mine isn't because I don't actually like being on camera, I don't care, but the negative reactions me being on camera can cause because someone doesn't know me and my specific uh... "issues" means that I just prefer not do so if possible.
I don’t know about etiquette, but body language is generally not how I want to be viewed during a hiring process, on screen or in person. I’m not particularly talented at making appropriate eye contact, or not flailing inappropriately, or keeping my coffee mug from crashing on the floor. I’m very talented at engineering software. I’m sure many businesses would agree I’m not a good fit, and… well, too bad for them.
I've made it clear to bossmang that I don't really do customer contact. I got badly burned out in technical support decades ago, and it's still baggage I carry around, so I simply do not have a "customer service voice".
I'm hired to develop software, and I will do that to the best of my ability, but if they ever ask me to help out on the support end, I've made it clear what they can expect.
Quoting myself: I very seldom feel inclined to refuse. That said, interviewing for my current position (fully remote team), I was given the option of video or voice call, and I chose voice. I chose that cautiously because I knew it might be offputting but I also knew it might be a good indicator of my prospective team’s culture if it had been offputting. Fortunately that wasn’t an issue!
And I now do a video chat about once a week, which isn’t particularly demanding, and it’s generally a positive experience because we work well together… but I do take an hour or two to decompress afterwards.
I would have chosen video chat, but otherwise it sounds likes we have a very similar perspective on this. Good point about using that moment as a team fit thing. Cheers
There have been good A/B studies showing significant changes in response rate to resumes with and without photos. How someone looks doesn't seem like it should be correlated with their ability to draw a picture or choose a search algorithm.
We’re not talking unconscious bias silliness here. We’re talking about literal fraud/misrepresentation and needing verification that someone is who they claim to be. Using our eyebulbs isn’t inherently problematic.
"unconscious bias silliness" so you're telling me that an interviewer is just as likely to hire someone who has visible issues sitting still/focusing on a video call as they are someone who sits perfectly still and gives their full 100% attention to the call? No, not a chance. When there are two candidates for a position at approximately equal skill levels when performing a video interview but one has ADHD that comes along with the inability to remain solely focused on one small screen and voice for an extended period of time you can guess which candidate is going to be picked the vast majority of the time. Dismissing such a huge issue as silliness is exactly the reason why many people who have issues similar to that do not want to perform video calls for interviews.
I think you're misunderstanding them. You two are basically discussing two (very important) topics.
On the topic of fraud prevention, the interviewer could simply ask the interviewee to be on camera for literally 5 seconds, then feel free to turn off video.
Again, this is based on an Upwork profile that already had a picture, so if discrimination was going to happen, it would be before the video interview stage anyway. This is just about a verification step, and in a platform like Upwork, refusing to be on camera for LITERALLY 5 seconds probably SHOULD be considered a big red flag.
Yes, unconscious bias is a silly thing to talk about when so many still people face outright discrimination and hostility, but I don't think GP meant unconscious bias.
The A/B studies are also used to prove discrimination that people usually won't admit to, not only to reveal unconscious bias.
I'm unsure if this is at all equivalent. I'm pretty sure I'd see someone in person before covid forced remote work (thankfully), physically, and that confirms the identity of who I'm talking to to a huge extent.
How you interact with someone is just as important, if not more important, than if they can choose the correct algorithm.
It's also true that Upwork has many, many people who will present themselves as a single individual. Instead, they are actually an agency and you will get a rotating cast of developers. This becomes apparent the fifth time you explain the same thing to your contractor, who is actually not the person you explained it to the fourth time, or the third time, or on and on and on.
Video verification helps you ensure that you are getting what you paid for, and that your time explaining the brief and iterating on their work isn't wasted.
Refusing to show up on a webcam is undoubtedly correlated with liklihood of fraud and misrepresentation. I suppose "this is why we can't have nice things."
I actually think I've benefited from the reverse. I have a very Asian sounding last name (spelled completely different though) despite being of Russian-Dutch-English descent.
I've noticed in the age of remote work some people seem suprised when they first see me. I am now wondering if I am benefiting from the opposite problem of people correlating me with Asian stereotypes?
I've worked with clients in the past who have never seen my face in video. Had years long relationships with some of them without ever having seen each other on webcam, and it worked out great on both of our ends.
I even have (ex)founding partners in million$ companies that were sold or still exist who I never saw or spoke to via voice. Only text chat. I also have and had many colleagues I never saw or voice spoke to. Works fine; no one cares on either side.
I would have made it clear that I'd rather not be inconvenienced, and I would also find it insulting that my identity was in question given the publicizing I've done, the publication of my work, how I feel about the quality of my work for said clients and the existing positive relationships with the clients.
There is a good percentage on the upper end of the experience spectrum that just won't take a coding challenge as part of the hiring process. You will miss out on a huge pool of talent that will automatically opt-out before the process even starts.
This ... I have a personal rule, I never interact with bots in a professional capacity (it's a sure fire strategy for demoting yourself to a cog in a machine), this includes slackbots etc. I would certainly not interact with a bot for a company I don't even have an business relationship with yet.
I think this is true to a certain point as it provides signal for high enthusiasm for a given role - huge plus if you meet all the other weightier requirements.
This article is brutal to read. Does Softbank have a new Narcissist Fund? First WeWork and now Better. Crazy how this company was still able to go public throiugh a SPAC when it couldn't IPO through traditional processes because Morgan Stanley wouldn't do it due to lawsuits. Then you have an executive that gets options with no vesting schedule, a board that doesn't seem to have any oversight over its CEO, etc. You can't make this stuff up.
I think WeWork stories are still more absurd like investing 13 million into the surfing tech company Wavegarden or smoking weed on the corporate jet with work colleagues in countries where it is illegal.
Lived in Seattle for a decade before relocating to Utah 2.5 years ago. Growing up in central WA we visited Seattle often when I was a teenager in the 90's. It was a pleasant, beautiful place - many areas around Seattle still are (love the outdoors there). A lot has changed over the past 10-15 years and not for the better. People are fleeing the city to the suburbs (mainly north and east of Seattle or even to the other side of the Cascades). The city needs better leadership to address chronic homelessness, crime, and drug use. Seems like they've had the funds, just don't get anything done effectively. Totally agree that housing affordability is a real challenge there. It's grown too fast for the infrastructure to catch up.
This is huge win for hearing impaired patients all around - lower cost, no Rx or physician visit required with the comparable or higher quality. Very interested to see how it works without having an Rx if insurers will reimburse for the device. How do you prove medical necessity?
