> being told I'd get a promotion and pay rise in 6 months. That didn't happen.

In my experience, that never happens. If they actually meant it, it would be written in your contract.

> Then they went legal trying to prevent me working for a competitor.

Was threatened with that early in my career after I resigned, I just replied "Check my employment contract, Good luck with that".

They where chaotically unorganised and the contract had no non-compete, they are enforceable in the UK but it's quite uphill to enforce an overly broad one (up to and including it just been nullified if you go too broad) and they have to show good evidence why it should be enforced.

> A friend that works as a manager told me that companies stretch the interview process on purpose so that at the end you will accept a lower offer that you normally would because you are exhausted by the process.

1. It depends on how desperate the applicant is: if they're searching while still employed then they can walk (like GP did).

2. Even if they are desperate, they may take the offer… for now… so they can start getting a salary again, but that won't prevent them from continue to look. In which case you're paying for them to learn a job which they'll leave and you'll have to pay someone (else) a second time to learn as well.

False economy IMHO.

Usually the manager doesn't care about this though - a p-number is a p-number, it doesn't matter if they are paying them $200k or $100k (assuming the salary range for the position was that large).

If anything the manager would prefer a higher offer that the candidate is likely to expect than a low-ball which they reject and then the hiring process has to continue.

It's just the good old boring sunk cost fallacy.

That can only really work if you are unemployed or they know your salary is is still way below.

> companies stretch the interview process on purpose so that at the end you will accept a lower offer

That doesn't pass the smell test. That would mean those companies do not care about filling a role of hiring competent workers. If your guy is willing to wait two whole months for your offer, you are either Google or you are trying to hire a dude who no company on earth wants.

This is what car dealerships in the US do too. Waste a ton of time and keep you there for hours to fatigue you into accepting whatever bullshit they throw at you in the "close".

>staff engineer

>under average eu minimum wage

Wth ? How does this work

I think it should be the other way around.

Google is a very large company. They have capital on hand and an established, well-worn process for onboarding. It costs them comparatively little to hire.

For a small company, an engineering hire is a big investment. They don't do it as often, so it costs them more in terms of both direct costs and indirect costs - like the time it takes their existing team to go through the process and bring the new hire up to speed.

I recently had a small company take a month and had after the final two 'interviews' with the CEO and CTO were scheduled a week apart, realized this is almost certainly a stalling tactic to have a couple more candidates in the pipeline so they can pick the best.

Agreed, when I was recruiting for a small company (where we could be easily outbid), the only tool I really had was that the process was 1 interview and I made a decision. This was before remote absolutely exploded but I was able to successfully recruit some really bright young developers and, I hope, kickstarted some incredible careers for them. Granted, I’m not confident I could do it now, as the gap between what the company could afford and what you can make working remote is much too large now!

Just to add a little bit of perspective here. When I was a manager, if a candidate reached an interview with me, they had already had an interview with the recrui-I mean, "talent acquisition expert", with whom the compensation had already been previously discussed. I often had no idea what was the salary offered and I could not negotiate on it.

That was the other guy's job, and it as a prerequisite - they would not reach me if the compensation was not to their satisfaction. My job was to determine whether the candidate could perform at the offered post. If I needed to discuss compensation then someone before me would have screwed up.

Yeah I was waiting for the anecdote to reveal why OP dislikes salary disclosure.

It already exists: Glassdoor.

I don't mind the company that makes me wait long, and in many cases prefer it. Just I reject any take home if takes more than few hours without communication, and I reject more than 1 round of interviews done by someone junior than me.

I like giving interviews. It gives me insight into their thinking and the company.

Turns out many people are in just that position.

Probably the majority in current late stage capitalism

Yes, but then you don't need to spend weeks of work to be low-balled.