3 ms·

An employer is legally required to pay you for your time. They aren't anything whatsoever to let you build things that they're somehow going to depend on using

by rosser 11y ago

An employer is legally required to pay you for your time. They aren't anything whatsoever to let you build things that they're somehow going to depend on using NewHotness-0.1.3. EDIT: Look, I'm not saying growth and exploration are bad things. I'd never have learned the tools and technologies that have fed me for years now, or been able to expand those skills in ways that have made me tremendously valuable to the people who've decided to pay me nontrivial sums of money in exchange for my knowledge, skills, and time, if I hadn't been, as you say, "blessed" with opportunities to try new things. But there's a difference between acting like you're blessed, which to my mind entails exploration with respect for the needs of the folks who are paying you to explore, and gratitude for the opportunity to do so — and acting like you're entitled, which ignores those things, and treats it as an exercise in résumé-padding.

scrollaway 11y ago
Yes? That's not really relevant. You can just as well say "The company does not exist to give you money. It exists to provide a product to its customers." When you're getting a salary you're standing in the way of the company making that money they're giving you. It's very counter-productive (and illegal, as you mentioned), but if you find this silly maybe you understand why I find your original reply silly.
- rosser 11y ago
  But the company doesn't exist to give you money. That you, specifically, get paid for your specific services is incidental to the company's purpose, which is, indeed, serving the needs of its customers. Your job is to facilitate that, not to play with cool new tech. You aren't "standing in the way" of them making the money they pay you; they're making a choice, with every paycheck, that your time is worth more to them than what they're spending to keep you there. You upset that balance by introducing instability into the stack because it's new and shiny at the ultimate risk of making that exchange no longer worthwhile.

by rosser 11y ago

scrollaway 11y ago

Yes? That's not really relevant. You can just as well say "The company does not exist to give you money. It exists to provide a product to its customers." When you're getting a salary you're standing in the way of the company making that money they're giving you. It's very counter-productive (and illegal, as you mentioned), but if you find this silly maybe you understand why I find your original reply silly.

rosser 11y ago
But the company doesn't exist to give you money. That you, specifically, get paid for your specific services is incidental to the company's purpose, which is, indeed, serving the needs of its customers. Your job is to facilitate that, not to play with cool new tech. You aren't "standing in the way" of them making the money they pay you; they're making a choice, with every paycheck, that your time is worth more to them than what they're spending to keep you there. You upset that balance by introducing instability into the stack because it's new and shiny at the ultimate risk of making that exchange no longer worthwhile.