4 ms·

Doesn't stop CEO's or beter known Actors does it and they earn a lot more than $200k. You may earn $200k but your still a worker and most do a lot of unpaid OT

eitally 11y ago
You need to weigh this perspective with the alternative point of view, that the US tech industry wouldn't have developed as quickly or be as world leading as it is if it wasn't for what has been accomplished because of the long hours. I don't disagree with you entirely, but I think we ended up in a good enough spot that it's much more productive to focus on the future than dwell on the past. What gets me is the dichotomy between "big tech" and everyone else employing programmers/designers/UXers doing exactly the same kind of work but for 1/3-1/2 the pay. But hey, when those companies have quarterly EPS above $5, they might start paying better, too.
- _delirium 11y ago
  Did the U.S. tech industry actually have long hours during the period when it became world-leading? The U.S. was dominant in technology by the 1970s, and as far as I understand the '50s-'70s tech work culture, it was more of a professional engineering culture. 9-to-5 jobs, everyone wore a tie, etc.
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    As it is known now, there sort of wasn't a "tech work culture." People just topped out at fairly low salaries relative to now. People were mostly "lifers". There was very little hope of a replacement job. I had relatives caught up in the early 1970s aerospace bust and they were out of work for a while and had to retool. As a view into it, see "Moon Machines" - that's what it looked like as a child to me. A lot of the "work long hours" thing is cargo culting / social signalling to project the image of "high performance." The first step is admitting you're not John Carmack. I have tendencies that way; I'll get caught up in something at home on the weekends and completely lose track of time. But it must be managed. I know better than to do that at work. You have to let the work breathe ( a metaphor for letting all your cognitive processes catch up after a burst ). It's fun to do... beer/coffee-fueled sprints far into the night but it's not very responsible nor sustainable. I learned this looking carefully at what I'd done in those.
- st3v3r 11y ago
  "You need to weigh this perspective with the alternative point of view, that the US tech industry wouldn't have developed as quickly or be as world leading as it is if it wasn't for what has been accomplished because of the long hours." I do not believe that for a second. And even if it were true, how does that justify not paying for those hours? "but I think we ended up in a good enough spot that it's much more productive to focus on the future than dwell on the past." Those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. "What gets me is the dichotomy between "big tech" and everyone else employing programmers/designers/UXers doing exactly the same kind of work but for 1/3-1/2 the pay. But hey, when those companies have quarterly EPS above $5, they might start paying better, too." If the company is doing well, it makes absolutely no sense that the people who did the actual work to make that happen don't share in it.
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    The unseen factor in companies is how risk is priced. Our perceptions of capital have gotten extremely self-referential - cash is its own good thing for lottery winners. If you're Apple, the probability of another iPhone is low. For MS, it's Windows. Dunno what really qualifies for Google, but Yahoo seems to be struggling. I strongly recommend empathy with the positions of those you oppose. It is, IMO, the only path to understanding. Chances are they're not psychotic. The scary part is - we seem out of ideas.
    - st3v3r 11y ago
      I should have empathy with the positions which say that I should feel happy to work unpaid overtime, and that I don't deserve to be paid for my time?
      - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
        Not at all - just be able to at least understand the positions you oppose.
        st3v3r 11y ago
themartorana 11y ago
Well, the courts have a) held that overtime is due to salaried workers so, abuse your employees at your own risk, b) held that salary collusion is illegal and fined companies millions Also I have no desire to be forced into a union, dues forcibly taken from my paycheck, thanks.
- unprepare 11y ago
  hmm, would you rather have a larger paycheck with dues taken out, still increasing your take home pay? Thats whats actually on the table - wage collusion has artifically deflated wages. Unionization would fight against that artifical deflation and bring wages up closer to market value. As long as union fees are less than the increase in your wage, why would you prefer to make less money overall just to not support a union?
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
So stop doing that and let Nature take its course. If something exists that you don't like and your behavior helps cause it to exist, you're part of the problem. There is no information anywhere that says the employer is doing anything by doing that that will help them get what they want. There is a lot of literature that says its a bad idea - for their own enlightened self interest. We do automation of things. If there is no multiplier inherent in that, we should not be there to start with. I'll caveat this with the statement that there may be things where it's just inherently that way, in the way that a surgeon must be there or human life is in the balance. Pushing your CRUD changes isn't likely to tip the scales on human life one way or the other. I've been in sprints where the fate of the company hung in the balance; I worked those hours. In the end it failed because it was going to fail anyway. It was worth doing, but this was cases where we knew it would fail if we didn't. There's no need for collective action. There is a need for many, many people to recognize what codependency is and adjust their behavior. I know all the "But I..." in the list. BTDT. But the truth is that until you stop, it won't.

eitally 11y ago

You need to weigh this perspective with the alternative point of view, that the US tech industry wouldn't have developed as quickly or be as world leading as it is if it wasn't for what has been accomplished because of the long hours. I don't disagree with you entirely, but I think we ended up in a good enough spot that it's much more productive to focus on the future than dwell on the past. What gets me is the dichotomy between "big tech" and everyone else employing programmers/designers/UXers doing exactly the same kind of work but for 1/3-1/2 the pay. But hey, when those companies have quarterly EPS above $5, they might start paying better, too.

_delirium 11y ago
Did the U.S. tech industry actually have long hours during the period when it became world-leading? The U.S. was dominant in technology by the 1970s, and as far as I understand the '50s-'70s tech work culture, it was more of a professional engineering culture. 9-to-5 jobs, everyone wore a tie, etc.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  As it is known now, there sort of wasn't a "tech work culture." People just topped out at fairly low salaries relative to now. People were mostly "lifers". There was very little hope of a replacement job. I had relatives caught up in the early 1970s aerospace bust and they were out of work for a while and had to retool. As a view into it, see "Moon Machines" - that's what it looked like as a child to me. A lot of the "work long hours" thing is cargo culting / social signalling to project the image of "high performance." The first step is admitting you're not John Carmack. I have tendencies that way; I'll get caught up in something at home on the weekends and completely lose track of time. But it must be managed. I know better than to do that at work. You have to let the work breathe ( a metaphor for letting all your cognitive processes catch up after a burst ). It's fun to do... beer/coffee-fueled sprints far into the night but it's not very responsible nor sustainable. I learned this looking carefully at what I'd done in those.
st3v3r 11y ago
"You need to weigh this perspective with the alternative point of view, that the US tech industry wouldn't have developed as quickly or be as world leading as it is if it wasn't for what has been accomplished because of the long hours." I do not believe that for a second. And even if it were true, how does that justify not paying for those hours? "but I think we ended up in a good enough spot that it's much more productive to focus on the future than dwell on the past." Those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. "What gets me is the dichotomy between "big tech" and everyone else employing programmers/designers/UXers doing exactly the same kind of work but for 1/3-1/2 the pay. But hey, when those companies have quarterly EPS above $5, they might start paying better, too." If the company is doing well, it makes absolutely no sense that the people who did the actual work to make that happen don't share in it.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  The unseen factor in companies is how risk is priced. Our perceptions of capital have gotten extremely self-referential - cash is its own good thing for lottery winners. If you're Apple, the probability of another iPhone is low. For MS, it's Windows. Dunno what really qualifies for Google, but Yahoo seems to be struggling. I strongly recommend empathy with the positions of those you oppose. It is, IMO, the only path to understanding. Chances are they're not psychotic. The scary part is - we seem out of ideas.
  - st3v3r 11y ago
    I should have empathy with the positions which say that I should feel happy to work unpaid overtime, and that I don't deserve to be paid for my time?
    - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
      Not at all - just be able to at least understand the positions you oppose.
      - st3v3r 11y ago

themartorana 11y ago

Well, the courts have a) held that overtime is due to salaried workers so, abuse your employees at your own risk, b) held that salary collusion is illegal and fined companies millions Also I have no desire to be forced into a union, dues forcibly taken from my paycheck, thanks.

unprepare 11y ago
hmm, would you rather have a larger paycheck with dues taken out, still increasing your take home pay? Thats whats actually on the table - wage collusion has artifically deflated wages. Unionization would fight against that artifical deflation and bring wages up closer to market value. As long as union fees are less than the increase in your wage, why would you prefer to make less money overall just to not support a union?

ArkyBeagle 11y ago

So stop doing that and let Nature take its course. If something exists that you don't like and your behavior helps cause it to exist, you're part of the problem. There is no information anywhere that says the employer is doing anything by doing that that will help them get what they want. There is a lot of literature that says its a bad idea - for their own enlightened self interest. We do automation of things. If there is no multiplier inherent in that, we should not be there to start with. I'll caveat this with the statement that there may be things where it's just inherently that way, in the way that a surgeon must be there or human life is in the balance. Pushing your CRUD changes isn't likely to tip the scales on human life one way or the other. I've been in sprints where the fate of the company hung in the balance; I worked those hours. In the end it failed because it was going to fail anyway. It was worth doing, but this was cases where we knew it would fail if we didn't. There's no need for collective action. There is a need for many, many people to recognize what codependency is and adjust their behavior. I know all the "But I..." in the list. BTDT. But the truth is that until you stop, it won't.