7 ms·

> If you've ever thought "I'm done for the day, but I'm going to hang out a little longer to leave at a more respectable time," then you're feeling (and doing)

> If you've ever thought "I'm done for the day, but I'm going to hang out a little longer to leave at a more respectable time," then you're feeling (and doing) the same kind of thing. Not quite. First, this guy went out of his way to lie and insert extra bugs in his code to make it appear like manual labor. Second, this guy is doing it all the time, whereas normally people might only do this on occasion. You can argue about whether the latter is right or wrong, but there's quite a clear line between the two, making the former far more indefensible.

BeetleB 9y ago
> First, this guy went out of his way to lie and insert extra bugs in his code to make it appear like manual labor. Second, this guy is doing it all the time I don't see the difference. I've known people who intentionally work slowly or pretend to do manual labor when they've already got a process for automating it. They'll just goof around for a while and then run the automation. Whether you're introducing bugs to fix yourself or pretending to work - the effect is the same. Not as extreme in terms of time as this guy (more like doing a process that took 4 hours in 2 and pretending it took 4 hours). Initially I felt it was unprofessional. I kind of still do. However, I also knew the management, and the behavior was consistent with the types of rewards management provided: The reward for this kind of increase in productivity was never financial, and was always "OK, now you can do even more work". One person's boost in productivity would raise the bar for the whole team - everyone felt punished. So as time went on, people would come up with process improvements and ensure the management did not know about them. Why do I still feel it is unprofessional? Behaving like this is not why I became an engineer, where solving problems makes you regret you solve them. So I thought about it hard, and realized I should find a job that encourages and rewards improving productivity, and not uses it as an excuse to give more work.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- wfunction 9y ago
  > I don't see the difference. Really now? Are you sure it's not a case of you not wanting to see the difference? > Whether you're introducing bugs to fix yourself or pretending to work - the effect is the same. Being at work and not working is quite a far cry from actively lying that you did things that you didn't do, or from inserting defects in your code so that they pay you to remove them. It's at least honest to screw around at work when your manager can observe that fact, and merely turn in the desired output on time. You could argue (rightly or wrongly) that the manager is supposed to be the one tracking your workload. But it's dishonest (and frankly outrageous) to actively lie about what you're doing so that your manager can't track your workload, or to insert defects so that the company -- unaware of your deliberate sabotage -- pays you to fix the "accidental" mistake. What kind of world do you live in where intentions and honesty don't matter, and only "effects" do? Frankly, I'm finding what I'm reading from you and others here so outrageous that I'm nearing a loss for more words. I literally cannot remember the last time (i.e. I don't think there was one) I was this disappointed at HN users and ashamed of even being among them. It's disgusting.
  - naasking 9y ago
    > What kind of world do you live in where intentions and honesty don't matter, and only "effects" do? Probably the business world. If we momentarily put aside the intentional insertion of mistakes which takes the ethical considerations to a whole new level, we're still left with an interesting ethical question of whether automation of your own job requires you to inform your employer of how you're doing your job. That answer isn't so clear to me. You're hired to do a job, and you're doing it to the best of your ability. Do you consider that unethical?
    - wfunction 9y ago
      > If we momentarily put aside the intentional insertion of mistakes which takes the ethical considerations to a whole new level, we're still left with an interesting ethical question of whether automation of your own job requires you to inform your employer of how you're doing your job. That answer isn't so clear to me. You're hired to do a job, and you're doing it to the best of your ability. Do you consider that unethical? I'm not going to "momentarily put that aside". The active lying and sabotage of this case are extremely material facts of the entire discussion. The alternate circumstances you're asking about form an entirely different question that is worthy of a separate post and discussion, and I'm not going to get derailed trying to change the subject and address it here.
- hinkley 9y ago
  Management almost always treat estimates as promises, and you get what you measure. If you automate and that reduces the best case time for a task, it might not improve the average case very much, and the worst case not at all. That means the difference between the usual case and the worst case gets worse, and you'd be a fool to invite that sort of criticism from the management team more than twice. Your smartest path is to do the task at or under the usual time and spend any remaining budget on improving the situation for next time. Only when you can draw down the worst case time (or frequency) should you set new expectations with the organization.
barrkel 9y ago
I don't think there's an ethical consideration here; it's a transactional relationship, value delivered for wages paid. If the company could get the job done cheaper in a different manner, it would do it and dismiss the employee. Is that defensible? The employee is creating value for the company. They're holding up their end of the bargain. Companies exploit employees all the time; if something made by an employee happens to be particularly valuable, it's not like the company gives the employee a big chunk of the profits. It's not like big hits can be manufactured on demand or incentivized by bonuses, so why would they let the employee keep some of the windfall?
- wfunction 9y ago
  The guy is actively and explicitly lying to get paid money that he otherwise likely would not, and yet you "don't think there's an ethical consideration here"? What has this world devolved into?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - barrkel 9y ago
    Communication isn't the value he's generating, and he's not causing harm through deception. Companies employing me all my life have lied by omission to me, about my value to the company and how much more they benefit from my work over and above my salary. Is that ethical?
    - c22 9y ago
      He is causing harm through deception. The bugs he produces as a ruse have to be checked for and repaired by other employees who might not need to check the output of a well tested automated solution at all.
      - CRConrad 9y ago
        Nope, you got that wrong. He reported the workflow (possibly extended on it in a comment) as he generates a draft, others check that for bugs, he generates a final version ostensibly based on that bug-checking. Intentional errors are introduced only into the draft, not the final version, so even if his colleagues miss any of them, they aren't in the final result. So nothing _has_ "to be checked for and repaired"; as others have commented, he's just doing his part to help these colleagues have something to do, too.

BeetleB 9y ago

> First, this guy went out of his way to lie and insert extra bugs in his code to make it appear like manual labor. Second, this guy is doing it all the time I don't see the difference. I've known people who intentionally work slowly or pretend to do manual labor when they've already got a process for automating it. They'll just goof around for a while and then run the automation. Whether you're introducing bugs to fix yourself or pretending to work - the effect is the same. Not as extreme in terms of time as this guy (more like doing a process that took 4 hours in 2 and pretending it took 4 hours). Initially I felt it was unprofessional. I kind of still do. However, I also knew the management, and the behavior was consistent with the types of rewards management provided: The reward for this kind of increase in productivity was never financial, and was always "OK, now you can do even more work". One person's boost in productivity would raise the bar for the whole team - everyone felt punished. So as time went on, people would come up with process improvements and ensure the management did not know about them. Why do I still feel it is unprofessional? Behaving like this is not why I became an engineer, where solving problems makes you regret you solve them. So I thought about it hard, and realized I should find a job that encourages and rewards improving productivity, and not uses it as an excuse to give more work.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
wfunction 9y ago
> I don't see the difference. Really now? Are you sure it's not a case of you not wanting to see the difference? > Whether you're introducing bugs to fix yourself or pretending to work - the effect is the same. Being at work and not working is quite a far cry from actively lying that you did things that you didn't do, or from inserting defects in your code so that they pay you to remove them. It's at least honest to screw around at work when your manager can observe that fact, and merely turn in the desired output on time. You could argue (rightly or wrongly) that the manager is supposed to be the one tracking your workload. But it's dishonest (and frankly outrageous) to actively lie about what you're doing so that your manager can't track your workload, or to insert defects so that the company -- unaware of your deliberate sabotage -- pays you to fix the "accidental" mistake. What kind of world do you live in where intentions and honesty don't matter, and only "effects" do? Frankly, I'm finding what I'm reading from you and others here so outrageous that I'm nearing a loss for more words. I literally cannot remember the last time (i.e. I don't think there was one) I was this disappointed at HN users and ashamed of even being among them. It's disgusting.
- naasking 9y ago
  > What kind of world do you live in where intentions and honesty don't matter, and only "effects" do? Probably the business world. If we momentarily put aside the intentional insertion of mistakes which takes the ethical considerations to a whole new level, we're still left with an interesting ethical question of whether automation of your own job requires you to inform your employer of how you're doing your job. That answer isn't so clear to me. You're hired to do a job, and you're doing it to the best of your ability. Do you consider that unethical?
  - wfunction 9y ago
    > If we momentarily put aside the intentional insertion of mistakes which takes the ethical considerations to a whole new level, we're still left with an interesting ethical question of whether automation of your own job requires you to inform your employer of how you're doing your job. That answer isn't so clear to me. You're hired to do a job, and you're doing it to the best of your ability. Do you consider that unethical? I'm not going to "momentarily put that aside". The active lying and sabotage of this case are extremely material facts of the entire discussion. The alternate circumstances you're asking about form an entirely different question that is worthy of a separate post and discussion, and I'm not going to get derailed trying to change the subject and address it here.
hinkley 9y ago
Management almost always treat estimates as promises, and you get what you measure. If you automate and that reduces the best case time for a task, it might not improve the average case very much, and the worst case not at all. That means the difference between the usual case and the worst case gets worse, and you'd be a fool to invite that sort of criticism from the management team more than twice. Your smartest path is to do the task at or under the usual time and spend any remaining budget on improving the situation for next time. Only when you can draw down the worst case time (or frequency) should you set new expectations with the organization.

barrkel 9y ago

I don't think there's an ethical consideration here; it's a transactional relationship, value delivered for wages paid. If the company could get the job done cheaper in a different manner, it would do it and dismiss the employee. Is that defensible? The employee is creating value for the company. They're holding up their end of the bargain. Companies exploit employees all the time; if something made by an employee happens to be particularly valuable, it's not like the company gives the employee a big chunk of the profits. It's not like big hits can be manufactured on demand or incentivized by bonuses, so why would they let the employee keep some of the windfall?

wfunction 9y ago
The guy is actively and explicitly lying to get paid money that he otherwise likely would not, and yet you "don't think there's an ethical consideration here"? What has this world devolved into?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- barrkel 9y ago
  Communication isn't the value he's generating, and he's not causing harm through deception. Companies employing me all my life have lied by omission to me, about my value to the company and how much more they benefit from my work over and above my salary. Is that ethical?
  - c22 9y ago
    He is causing harm through deception. The bugs he produces as a ruse have to be checked for and repaired by other employees who might not need to check the output of a well tested automated solution at all.
    - CRConrad 9y ago
      Nope, you got that wrong. He reported the workflow (possibly extended on it in a comment) as he generates a draft, others check that for bugs, he generates a final version ostensibly based on that bug-checking. Intentional errors are introduced only into the draft, not the final version, so even if his colleagues miss any of them, they aren't in the final result. So nothing _has_ "to be checked for and repaired"; as others have commented, he's just doing his part to help these colleagues have something to do, too.