5 ms·
I can't remember if it was on HN or reddit, but there was a comment//post about how a job site operated similar to this. To heavily paraphrase over the gist of
by drdeadringer 9y ago
I can't remember if it was on HN or reddit, but there was a comment//post about how a job site operated similar to this.
To heavily paraphrase over the gist of the second-hand account from the boss: "Our workplace will be rule-free until people start abusing it. When someone goes overboard, a rule against their abuse will be created under their name which will be applicable to everybody; if you think that rule bullshit, go thank that person and a talk with your manager will always be welcome. We do this out of respect for you, our employees; you have our trust until you prove we don't."
- Mz 9y agoI am a big believer in "That government is best which governs least." I raised two 2xE sons (gifted plus special needs) and one of the best things I did was to only create minimal, very logical rules that they could respect and understand. For example: "I need to be able to walk to the dresser and closet without hurting myself so I can put clothes away." This was clear and sensible instructions for deciding for themselves where they could leave toys out and where they couldn't. The reason for it was also readily grasped and something they could agree with. It wasn't just abstract "I am in charge, you will do as you are told!" type BS.
- tonyedgecombe 9y agoThe problem with this is as organisations get older they accrete more and more rules until you aren't allowed to do anything.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoIt's sometimes called organizational scar tissue. But what about making it an organizational scab instead? Have the damage-control rules in an organization be time-limited? Those freedoms people keep abusing would get repeated temporary restrictions and eventually a permanent ruling, but one-time problems would not weigh down the organization forever.
- specialist 9y agoI'm starting to get metaphysical about IP leases. (Request, grant, revokation, expiration.) As in: leases are a cure all for all of societial and organizational woes. I'm having trouble articulating my thoughts. But the basic notion is give all the cruft a TTL, after which the cruft cleans itself up. --- Want a new tax, or tax break? Sure. It expires in 36 months. Want an extension? Then ask again and we'll reassess. Want to bring dogs into the office? Sure. Let's try it for 6 months. Want to provision a new customer of a critical service? Sure. Here's your token. It expires in 2 days. -- Hat tip to Bill Joy, Jini, JXTA, etc for lifting the lease notion up the OSI stack. Hat tip to The Utopia of Rules by David Graeber for describing how organizational scars/scabs come to be. I'm not yet sure how, if ZeroTrust Networking extends this model, metaphor.
- jpetso 9y agoI'm not sure I would want to operate in a country where the tax situation was likely to change drastically from one term to another. If I need Tea Party people to agree on frequent tax extensions, even the sensible/proven ones, I see nothing but zigzag and uncertainty instead of actual, planned forward progress.
- specialist 9y agoI hear ya. My state’s progressives have been trying to end ~500 tax breaks for years. Whereas reauthorizing taxes, budgets, appropriations is a cyclic fight, these frikkin tax bresks are untouchable. My notion is to apply the rules, mechanics to both ends. Wishful thinking, I know.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoIf lease times are predictable and actually honored by the government, I'm pretty sure people would handle it. That said, maybe tax reform is not the right place to try this idea. But I like it WRT regulation, and especially office rules - having an expiration date helps not getting stuck with obsolete regulations.
- adrianN 9y agoI'm a bit ambivalent about this. On the one hand, rules are stupid and red tape is one of the most annoying things about offices. On the other hand, rules also protect the employees from bad managers. If everything is allowed until "someone goes overboard", this basically allows the managers to make up rules after the fact to punish people they don't like.
- mindcrime 9y agoManager can always punish people they don't like. This doesn't change anything in that regard.
- drdeadringer 9y ago> rules also protect the employees from bad managers To offer the other side of the coin: I am currently working in a situation where the rules are protecting bad managers against employees. My current manger is clearly lacking in "good" manager skills, and his direct manager is protecting him. A group of my coworkers is working together "to survive" the both of them. Hopeful questions about re-orgs are asked, regular private meetings about sub-group self-reliance are held. "I'm worried about ageism", "I've lost total hope with this manager", "I'm in survival mode", and similar quotes are regular weekly features. The team has clear and obvious elevation in productivity and moral when the manager is absent [vacation, off-site business, sick, whatever]. The manager's manager doesn't want to hear it; "just work together" type of "advice". Yea ok that's been tried for a long time now, it's time for departures or re-orgs and those are the solutions at this point. /rant
- vidarh 9y agoI'd never, ever consider working a place like that, as it places the power in the hand of managers who may decide something I consider perfectly reasonable is "abuse", and use this "under their name" bit to harass people. Which means I can't evaluate if the company will be a decent work place or a sweatshop. To me, this is disrespectful to employees in the extreme. It shows a total disregard for the power disparity that exists, which makes rules more important for clarity for employees than for the company. If they wanted to be respectful to their employees: Set rules, and create a mechanism for asking for exemptions and be lenient with the. Otherwise they're asking me to trust that they will not abuse their power.
- ythn 9y agoI would rather work at a company with few rules than one where there is red tape around everything. For example, at my current company I don't even have root access on the machines I develop on, and I have to submit tickets to IT to get anything installed or changed. One time I asked them to install Docker and was met with suspicion. IT said they would investigate, and months later it is still is not installed.
- scaryclam 9y agoWhy do you feel like you need root access? In my experience, there are pretty much zero real reasons for a dev to need that level of access in a company that has an IT dept. IT may have good reasons not to let you mess around. If you want more access, I suggest you have a conversation with them and make a good business case for why it's a good thing. If you can't, then you probably don't need it and they would be right to deny it to you.
- ythn 9y ago> Why do you feel like you need root access? Because I'm a developer and I need to install things to develop. For whatever reason, the vast majority of windows packages require admin to install. If you think it's great that I have to open a ticket to IT every time I want to update VSCode or install Python or Node or whatever, that's good for you, but I find it cumbersome and annoying and would rather work for a company that gives me root and trusts that I won't install viruses.
- watwut 9y ago"There are rules, but we don't tell you what they are. It is up to you to guess. Once the group think moves too much in wild direction, we will pick up someone we don't like and make him/her an example"
- sharemywin 9y agoThis reminds me of the "no pictures at your desk rule" at a company I contracted at. everyone was allowed to have pictures at their desk until the guy put up a hundred pictures from his side photography business.