5 ms·

This is exactly the kind of moronic bs that I haven't and will not put up with. Executives most of the time are paid, and compensated to be there 24/7. Software

This is exactly the kind of moronic bs that I haven't and will not put up with. Executives most of the time are paid, and compensated to be there 24/7. Software engineers are not. While founders and other execs have tendency to forget that - deal with it. I am there between 8am - 4pm, or 6am - 2pm or what ever it says in my contract. No more, no less. You want me to do extra hours, fine, most of the time happy to, you just need to pay me for it. Oh btw -- we have this online service that needs one or more of of the devs to bring it up if it goes down at 3am - well - don't expect me to pick up the phone unless you've set up the appropriate schedule for us devs to be on call, and that we're compensated accordingly. Bottomline -- you want to call me outside work hours, then you better compensate me accordingly.

pfarnsworth 10y ago
My colleagues have base pays > $150k/yr and I'm closer to $200k/yr. I consider myself very well paid, I'm grateful for it, and I'm available whenever I'm needed, within reason.
- rplst8 10y ago
  Not all software engineers make that kind of cash. In fact I'd say over 90% don't even come within 10% of that range.
- TuringNYC 10y ago
  I once had a conversation with an HR manager in our Manhattan office, she was upset that the office cleared out at 5pm and how we didnt have a "banker's hour culture." I just nodded but knew the problem -- we had an underclass of workers, mostly H1Bs, on a tight HR-policy driven rate card, most making 2/3 or 1/2 that other workers were making. They made ends meet by living in outer New Jersey and commuting 2hrs each way. They jetted out quickly to catch the 5:35pm train out to NJ before express trains stopped. I'm sure the more we paid them the closer they could live to the office and the longer they would work. In NYC, homes and rents go down as distance to Manhattan increase. I knew this as a fairly senior manager. Many people dont realize the stark differences in pay across different classes of workers. Getting up at 3am to fix a problem doesnt work for someone who needs to then get up at 5am to commute into work. It needs more thought and I did just that -- we had workers rotate night batch schedules and gave them Work-From-Home days or late-come-in-days during on-call periods. Even some of these things require thought -- allowing someone to come in late does'nt help if they live so far away that express/local train schedules dont make it feasible to come in mid-day...the commute ends up being as long as the half-day. Sorry for the ramble, TLDR: be mindful of people's situations and things they dont control. Not everyone has it as good as you do. HR can save a dollar here but it comes out of productivity figures. Don't expect "banker's hours" but forget "banker's pay." ASIDE: Several years later, the HR group got absorbed into the executive offices in posh rural Connecticut, where few low-level workers could afford to live locally. Low-level workers were required to visit the head office 2x/wk. The same exact HR manager then complained (in earshot) of how her commute was close to 3hrs each way and how she planned to sneak out at 4:30pm because she couldn't take it anymore.
  - justinclift 10y ago
    Did no-one explain the above to the HR person, or was she just resistant to common sense?
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  >within reason I think the concern is about what is "within reason".
morgante 10y ago
Do you consider six-figure salaries "not paying for it?" I have no doubt that if I wanted to work a strict 9-5 schedule I could easily do that as a developer. There are plenty of big companies which have a punch-in/punch-out system. They also pay less than market. On the other hand, if I'm making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year then I think it's pretty damn reasonable for me to work longer hours and to be available at random times.
- asdfasdfa11112 10y ago
  I don't think the fact that developers make hundreds of thousands of dollars means they have to put in more work. They are being paid to create a certain amount of value, and capture what is generally a small fraction of it. How does your logic scale? If a dev making $200k per annum has to put in 10 hours a day, does an executive making $600k per annum have to put in 30 hours per day?
  - morgante 10y ago
    It's not that making more money inherently means you have to work more, it's that if you're making a lot of money it's ridiculous to complain about the hours. Developers are not a subjugated underclass. If you really only want to work 40 hours a week, there are tons of employers who will happily hire you as a developer (at a lower salary). There's no reason you should be entitled to both a high salary and a short working week.
    - asdfasdfa11112 10y ago
      But now you're making a subjective statement about the pay. Without context (supply, demand, how much revenue you generate for your employer), how to determine what is highly paid? I fully reject the idea that more hours should be a requirement for good pay. Further, as a startup founder myself, I don't want my employees working much more than a 40 hour week. I have found* I prefer the work produced by someone with work-life balance, than someone who works all the time. * subjective sampling of colleagues/coworkers/direct reports/hires.

pfarnsworth 10y ago

My colleagues have base pays > $150k/yr and I'm closer to $200k/yr. I consider myself very well paid, I'm grateful for it, and I'm available whenever I'm needed, within reason.

rplst8 10y ago
Not all software engineers make that kind of cash. In fact I'd say over 90% don't even come within 10% of that range.
TuringNYC 10y ago
I once had a conversation with an HR manager in our Manhattan office, she was upset that the office cleared out at 5pm and how we didnt have a "banker's hour culture." I just nodded but knew the problem -- we had an underclass of workers, mostly H1Bs, on a tight HR-policy driven rate card, most making 2/3 or 1/2 that other workers were making. They made ends meet by living in outer New Jersey and commuting 2hrs each way. They jetted out quickly to catch the 5:35pm train out to NJ before express trains stopped. I'm sure the more we paid them the closer they could live to the office and the longer they would work. In NYC, homes and rents go down as distance to Manhattan increase. I knew this as a fairly senior manager. Many people dont realize the stark differences in pay across different classes of workers. Getting up at 3am to fix a problem doesnt work for someone who needs to then get up at 5am to commute into work. It needs more thought and I did just that -- we had workers rotate night batch schedules and gave them Work-From-Home days or late-come-in-days during on-call periods. Even some of these things require thought -- allowing someone to come in late does'nt help if they live so far away that express/local train schedules dont make it feasible to come in mid-day...the commute ends up being as long as the half-day. Sorry for the ramble, TLDR: be mindful of people's situations and things they dont control. Not everyone has it as good as you do. HR can save a dollar here but it comes out of productivity figures. Don't expect "banker's hours" but forget "banker's pay." ASIDE: Several years later, the HR group got absorbed into the executive offices in posh rural Connecticut, where few low-level workers could afford to live locally. Low-level workers were required to visit the head office 2x/wk. The same exact HR manager then complained (in earshot) of how her commute was close to 3hrs each way and how she planned to sneak out at 4:30pm because she couldn't take it anymore.
- justinclift 10y ago
  Did no-one explain the above to the HR person, or was she just resistant to common sense?
forgetsusername 10y ago
>within reason I think the concern is about what is "within reason".

morgante 10y ago

Do you consider six-figure salaries "not paying for it?" I have no doubt that if I wanted to work a strict 9-5 schedule I could easily do that as a developer. There are plenty of big companies which have a punch-in/punch-out system. They also pay less than market. On the other hand, if I'm making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year then I think it's pretty damn reasonable for me to work longer hours and to be available at random times.

asdfasdfa11112 10y ago
I don't think the fact that developers make hundreds of thousands of dollars means they have to put in more work. They are being paid to create a certain amount of value, and capture what is generally a small fraction of it. How does your logic scale? If a dev making $200k per annum has to put in 10 hours a day, does an executive making $600k per annum have to put in 30 hours per day?
- morgante 10y ago
  It's not that making more money inherently means you have to work more, it's that if you're making a lot of money it's ridiculous to complain about the hours. Developers are not a subjugated underclass. If you really only want to work 40 hours a week, there are tons of employers who will happily hire you as a developer (at a lower salary). There's no reason you should be entitled to both a high salary and a short working week.
  - asdfasdfa11112 10y ago
    But now you're making a subjective statement about the pay. Without context (supply, demand, how much revenue you generate for your employer), how to determine what is highly paid? I fully reject the idea that more hours should be a requirement for good pay. Further, as a startup founder myself, I don't want my employees working much more than a 40 hour week. I have found* I prefer the work produced by someone with work-life balance, than someone who works all the time. * subjective sampling of colleagues/coworkers/direct reports/hires.