5 ms·

I've done this for a number of years. This would be my current advice: - Don't try it on-site (unless they specifically were seeking a consultant beforehand).

by vemv 8y ago

I've done this for a number of years. This would be my current advice: - Don't try it on-site (unless they specifically were seeking a consultant beforehand). It'll just create resent. - Therefore go for remote jobs. Which don't need to be advertised as such - strong applicants can negotiate a remote arrangement. - Don't bill by the hour, but daily. Leaving your earnings aside, this approach puts the focus in work days, not hours (duh), therefore you aren't framed as a 'part-time' contributor. - When asked how many hours your work day takes, reply "as much as needed". This would be in fact a honest response. Some days (especially as you join a team) you'll need 6-8h/d to perform acceptably. Gradually you'll be able to deliver the same in 3-5h/d. - The key part is, employer/client is only aware (in principle) of days and results (tickets closed, commits pushed, meetings attended, etc). Again this is not hiding the truth - it is focusing on the results. - Do keep track internally of your time spent per day, and have some way to graph your productivity vs. the time spent. That graph can eventually save your ass! - Be aware that (at least IME), even if spending as little as 3 effective hours per day, a large chunk of your day can revolve around work, especially if you interact with a typical team. This includes being available in Slack, for meetings etc.

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
> When asked how many hours your work day takes, reply "as much as needed". TBH that seems like a BS answer to me. With most programming projects there is always more work to be done, so "as much as needed" could mean 24 hours a day if you're being honest.
- vemv 8y ago
  Let me complete my phrase then (although the intent seemed pretty obvious to me): "as many hours needed for me to complete a reasonable day of work". I realise that this is kind of self-referential, but in practice both sides know what to expect from "1 man-day" in terms of deliverables/progress. Similarly in a remote engagement typically there's the implicit assumption that you are a reputable, seasoned, productive coder.
  - hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
    This still doesn't make sense at all to me. If you mean "as many hours needed for me to complete a reasonable day of work", then, by your own definition, if you're only putting in 4-5 hours every day why wouldn't I reasonably ask you to work 3 hours more?
    - vemv 8y ago
      "A day's worth of work" is a chunk of results - not physically spending 8h in those results. It's well-known (and documented) that remote workers are more productive, so on a good day you can call it a day at hour 4. YMMV Working more hours would pay a toll on one's ability to keep delivering tasks with the same focus and quality.
      - hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
        > It's well-known (and documented) that remote workers are more productive Can you please provide a link or evidence of this?
        vemv 8y ago
        You can just google "remote workers are more productive"
baybal2 8y ago
Doesn't work much these day I believe. I think the only time there was a road for a true part-time in software development was during the time around 2005-2008 when first mainstream businesses just got hit with web 2.0 bug and began to think of having something other than a static website. Back then, a good profile on any freelancing website would be scoring you $50-$100 per hour any time you want. And if you were already living in some cheap country in global south, that was a recipe for carefree life for a few years.
- vemv 8y ago
  Yeah it's getting harder, IMO one has to level up his game accordingly. Worth noting that high-profile teams rarely seek 'remote web freelancers', that kind of niche has kind of become synonymous with cheap/low-quality work. Better to frame yourself under a different lens.
itamarst 8y ago
I've done it on site, as have other people I know, with no resentment by anyone. Depends on organization, maybe.
- vemv 8y ago
  It can take just one frustrated peer (who may join the company after you do) for 'situations' to arise. For me it is a risk too big and prefer to keep a healthy distance from those who engage in more traditional settings. Admittedly certain countries/cities have a more consultant-centric culture, but mine definitely doesn't!
mseebach 8y ago
Especially in terms of resentment, it seems risky to conflate "remote" and "part time", especially without very clear boundaries. This is exactly the fear many managers have about remote work: that it gradually slides into part time work. It's not at all generally accepted that if you can do "a days work" in three hours, you get to take the rest of the day off. If you want to decouple hours spent from your earnings without risking resentment, you need to find a way to bill firm fixed price for well-defined deliverables. This is very difficult and risky, to say the least (but very valuable if you can pull it off). I don't agree with the assertion that a negotiated part time agreement with clearly defined boundaries ("John works Tuesdays, Thursday and Friday and isn't expected to be available on email or Slack, except under the same kinds of emergencies when we'd call people on weekends") necessarily created resentment outside of how other workplace status dynamics might create resentment -- meaning, something your boss should manage, and if they can't, that person shouldn't be your boss.
- vemv 8y ago
  > it gradually slides into part time work. I would reword it as "the remote worker is getting more productive". As long as the measured outcome (which I recommend keeping track of) remains constant, invested hours don't matter that much. Of course, if you repeatedly ask to the employer "is it OK to work less hours", he will hesitate. Just don't ask, while at the same time ensure you deliver constant meaningful work and document that activity. Personally I'm serious about crafting meaningful git commits and logging my daily activity. Also important to be willing to work a longer day when you've wasted time in improductive situations (e.g. discarded code, silly bug hunts). Employer shouldn't necessarily pay for our blunders (which is why sometimes daily rate is more 'honest' than hourly). Also note that I specifically point that you cannot just sit 3 consecutive hours and disappear the rest of the day. I doubt many can do focused high-quality work without periods of rest. Also important to interact with the team.
  - kelnos 8y ago
    > As long as the measured outcome (which I recommend keeping track of) remains constant, invested hours don't matter that much. I don't think most employers would agree with that. If I'm a "normal" full-time, salaried employee, I'm expected to work 5 days a week, usually for at least 8 hours a day. If I'm able to become more efficient or automate parts of my job away, my employer would expect me to take on more work or responsibility, not work fewer hours a day. (You're free to argue that this isn't fair, but I'm just talking about reality here.) If I were to work a reduced schedule of 3 or 4 days a week, the same thing would apply. Of course, if the negotiation resulted in more of a contracting role, as in being paid for milestones and project delivery, then time-spent-in-chair shouldn't matter. The grandparent post seemed to be talking of a sort of a hybrid of FTE/salaried and consulting, so perhaps your advice might apply to that sort of thing, but I don't think what you're saying would apply to a traditional salaried position, even after negotiating a reduced work-week.
ataturk 8y ago
I have to be honest with you: I love the idea in theory and I'm glad it works out for people, but no place I have ever worked measured anything in terms of tickets closed, or any other objective measurements of productivity unrelated to "perceived time at the office" mainly because managers are lazy, I suppose. Again, it's great that you've worked this out. I am desperately trying to work out something similar in my career--some kind of "happier medium" in which there is some payoff for me other than mental and physical exhaustion. But it isn't there and probably isn't going to be there. I can't negotiate "80%" time, I can't even negotiate regular jobs very well. As of yesterday, I have pretty much resigned myself to getting out of this career completely and go do something else. It is terrifying to give up a good salary, work I have done for the last 15 years straight, and all that goes with it, just for a breath of freedom and a shot at more happiness. I know if I don't my health is going to keep suffering. Is it weird for a guy with PhD to want to be a ski lift operator or a baggage thrower at the airport when there is full employment in his chosen field? This isn't fantasy, btw--I can completely afford to walk away, but I want some non-investment income and want to pay for health insurance so as not to tap my nest egg too hard yet.

by vemv 8y ago

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago

> When asked how many hours your work day takes, reply "as much as needed". TBH that seems like a BS answer to me. With most programming projects there is always more work to be done, so "as much as needed" could mean 24 hours a day if you're being honest.

vemv 8y ago
Let me complete my phrase then (although the intent seemed pretty obvious to me): "as many hours needed for me to complete a reasonable day of work". I realise that this is kind of self-referential, but in practice both sides know what to expect from "1 man-day" in terms of deliverables/progress. Similarly in a remote engagement typically there's the implicit assumption that you are a reputable, seasoned, productive coder.
- hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
  This still doesn't make sense at all to me. If you mean "as many hours needed for me to complete a reasonable day of work", then, by your own definition, if you're only putting in 4-5 hours every day why wouldn't I reasonably ask you to work 3 hours more?
  - vemv 8y ago
    "A day's worth of work" is a chunk of results - not physically spending 8h in those results. It's well-known (and documented) that remote workers are more productive, so on a good day you can call it a day at hour 4. YMMV Working more hours would pay a toll on one's ability to keep delivering tasks with the same focus and quality.
    - hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
      > It's well-known (and documented) that remote workers are more productive Can you please provide a link or evidence of this?
      - vemv 8y ago
        You can just google "remote workers are more productive"

baybal2 8y ago

Doesn't work much these day I believe. I think the only time there was a road for a true part-time in software development was during the time around 2005-2008 when first mainstream businesses just got hit with web 2.0 bug and began to think of having something other than a static website. Back then, a good profile on any freelancing website would be scoring you $50-$100 per hour any time you want. And if you were already living in some cheap country in global south, that was a recipe for carefree life for a few years.

vemv 8y ago
Yeah it's getting harder, IMO one has to level up his game accordingly. Worth noting that high-profile teams rarely seek 'remote web freelancers', that kind of niche has kind of become synonymous with cheap/low-quality work. Better to frame yourself under a different lens.

itamarst 8y ago

I've done it on site, as have other people I know, with no resentment by anyone. Depends on organization, maybe.

vemv 8y ago
It can take just one frustrated peer (who may join the company after you do) for 'situations' to arise. For me it is a risk too big and prefer to keep a healthy distance from those who engage in more traditional settings. Admittedly certain countries/cities have a more consultant-centric culture, but mine definitely doesn't!

mseebach 8y ago

Especially in terms of resentment, it seems risky to conflate "remote" and "part time", especially without very clear boundaries. This is exactly the fear many managers have about remote work: that it gradually slides into part time work. It's not at all generally accepted that if you can do "a days work" in three hours, you get to take the rest of the day off. If you want to decouple hours spent from your earnings without risking resentment, you need to find a way to bill firm fixed price for well-defined deliverables. This is very difficult and risky, to say the least (but very valuable if you can pull it off). I don't agree with the assertion that a negotiated part time agreement with clearly defined boundaries ("John works Tuesdays, Thursday and Friday and isn't expected to be available on email or Slack, except under the same kinds of emergencies when we'd call people on weekends") necessarily created resentment outside of how other workplace status dynamics might create resentment -- meaning, something your boss should manage, and if they can't, that person shouldn't be your boss.

vemv 8y ago
> it gradually slides into part time work. I would reword it as "the remote worker is getting more productive". As long as the measured outcome (which I recommend keeping track of) remains constant, invested hours don't matter that much. Of course, if you repeatedly ask to the employer "is it OK to work less hours", he will hesitate. Just don't ask, while at the same time ensure you deliver constant meaningful work and document that activity. Personally I'm serious about crafting meaningful git commits and logging my daily activity. Also important to be willing to work a longer day when you've wasted time in improductive situations (e.g. discarded code, silly bug hunts). Employer shouldn't necessarily pay for our blunders (which is why sometimes daily rate is more 'honest' than hourly). Also note that I specifically point that you cannot just sit 3 consecutive hours and disappear the rest of the day. I doubt many can do focused high-quality work without periods of rest. Also important to interact with the team.
- kelnos 8y ago
  > As long as the measured outcome (which I recommend keeping track of) remains constant, invested hours don't matter that much. I don't think most employers would agree with that. If I'm a "normal" full-time, salaried employee, I'm expected to work 5 days a week, usually for at least 8 hours a day. If I'm able to become more efficient or automate parts of my job away, my employer would expect me to take on more work or responsibility, not work fewer hours a day. (You're free to argue that this isn't fair, but I'm just talking about reality here.) If I were to work a reduced schedule of 3 or 4 days a week, the same thing would apply. Of course, if the negotiation resulted in more of a contracting role, as in being paid for milestones and project delivery, then time-spent-in-chair shouldn't matter. The grandparent post seemed to be talking of a sort of a hybrid of FTE/salaried and consulting, so perhaps your advice might apply to that sort of thing, but I don't think what you're saying would apply to a traditional salaried position, even after negotiating a reduced work-week.

ataturk 8y ago

I have to be honest with you: I love the idea in theory and I'm glad it works out for people, but no place I have ever worked measured anything in terms of tickets closed, or any other objective measurements of productivity unrelated to "perceived time at the office" mainly because managers are lazy, I suppose. Again, it's great that you've worked this out. I am desperately trying to work out something similar in my career--some kind of "happier medium" in which there is some payoff for me other than mental and physical exhaustion. But it isn't there and probably isn't going to be there. I can't negotiate "80%" time, I can't even negotiate regular jobs very well. As of yesterday, I have pretty much resigned myself to getting out of this career completely and go do something else. It is terrifying to give up a good salary, work I have done for the last 15 years straight, and all that goes with it, just for a breath of freedom and a shot at more happiness. I know if I don't my health is going to keep suffering. Is it weird for a guy with PhD to want to be a ski lift operator or a baggage thrower at the airport when there is full employment in his chosen field? This isn't fantasy, btw--I can completely afford to walk away, but I want some non-investment income and want to pay for health insurance so as not to tap my nest egg too hard yet.