←back to thread

Ask HN: How did Soham Parekh get so many jobs?

291 points jshchnz | 3 comments | 02 Jul 25 20:28 UTC | HN request time: 1.15s | source

Soham Parekh is all the rage on Twitter right now with a bunch of startups coming out of the woodwork saying they either had currently employed him or had in the past.

Serious question: why aren't so many startups hiring processes filtering out a candidate who is scamming/working multiple jobs?

Show context
gargoyle9123 ◴[02 Jul 25 23:50 UTC] No.44450088[source]▶
We hired Soham.

I can tell you it's because he's actually a very skilled engineer. He will blow the interviews completely out of the water. Easily top 1% or top 0.1% of candidates -- other startups will tell you this as well.

The problem is when the job (or work-trial in our case) actually starts, it's just excuses upon excuses as to why he's missing a meeting, or why the PR was pushed late. The excuses become more ridiculous and unbelievable, up until it's obvious he's just lying.

Other people in this thread are incorrect, it's not a dev. shop. I worked with Soham in-person for 2 days during the work-trial process, he's good. He left half of each day with some excuse about meeting a lawyer.

replies(20): >>44451943 #>>44452130 #>>44452579 #>>44454933 #>>44455825 #>>44464702 #>>44466618 #>>44466761 #>>44467187 #>>44467327 #>>44467349 #>>44468081 #>>44469987 #>>44470878 #>>44472784 #>>44475315 #>>44476353 #>>44483740 #>>44490801 #>>44500486 #
snthpy ◴[03 Jul 25 06:13 UTC] No.44452130[source]▶
Do employment contracts in the US not normally have "sole focus" clauses? We have those in my location.
replies(5): >>44454202 #>>44456283 #>>44457161 #>>44458102 #>>44469756 #
FootballBat ◴[03 Jul 25 15:51 UTC] No.44456283[source]▶
Employment contracts in the US are rare.
replies(2): >>44457760 #>>44464669 #
dragonwriter ◴[03 Jul 25 18:13 UTC] No.44457760[source]▶
Employment contracts that are reduced to a single explicit written agreement are relatively rare in the US, most employment contracts are implied by conduct.
replies(1): >>44458916 #
snthpy ◴[03 Jul 25 20:31 UTC] No.44458916[source]▶
Wow, that's interesting. I didn't know that.
replies(1): >>44459292 #
1. dragonwriter ◴[03 Jul 25 21:20 UTC] No.44459292[source]▶
A lot of people think of "contract" as specifically a written document, but that's not what a "contract" is in law, the written document (if it exists) can be very powerful evidence that (1) there is a contract, and (2) what its terms are, but contracts exist without them.

While US employment is usually at will without a defined contract term, there are mutually enforceable obligations, including some definition of what the employee is obligated to do for the employer and that the employer is obligated to pay the employee at some specified rate assuming the employee's obligations are met. That's a contract. Exactly what the detailed terms are may be difficult to prove absent a single comprehensive written document, but it is a contract.

replies(2): >>44468784 #>>44470356 #
2. reshlo ◴[04 Jul 25 23:20 UTC] No.44468784[source]▶
What good is a contract if you can’t prove what its terms are? Such a contract is worth the paper it’s printed on.
3. KPGv2 ◴[05 Jul 25 05:49 UTC] No.44470356[source]▶
That being said, "employment contract" colloquially connotes more than "agreement to trade labor for X salary." It implies something other than at-will employment, for one thing.