4 ms·

While what your company is doing is commendable (most don't pay extra or rotate in that fashion) #3 is a red flag for me because it sounds like the overly frien

While what your company is doing is commendable (most don't pay extra or rotate in that fashion) #3 is a red flag for me because it sounds like the overly friendly but in the end passive aggressive and unprofessional atmosphere I've witnessed at startups and midsize companies who pretend they're startups. If on call is optional what's with the social penalty for people not wanting to do it. IMO what companies should be doing is paying extra per hour until they get people that want to do it. As in, increase the price they pay "extra" until someone decides to give up their free time outside of normal development hours.

munchbunny 8y ago
I agree on the preference that if it's not really optional, just don't make it optional. On-call also varies a ton between companies. I was technically on-call all of the time in my last job, but it was a low throughput system. I had to be up at odd hours maybe once every 2-3 months. I slept pretty well. If you offered me free meals for the week, I wouldn't mind taking my turn on the watch regularly. This job, I'm on call maybe one week every two months on a high throughput system, and even though it's only half of the day (we have an overseas team to take the night shift), it's generally acknowledged in the team that your sleep takes a hit and you get no real work done that week. If this were an optional part of my job, you'd have to pay me double for the week (basically a 10% raise).
- devuo 8y ago
  evidently the pay must be adjusted to how painful the on call experience is. as I said it is optional, no harm comes to you for not participating, and we have people with very good reasons for not helping the team support the code they themselves built and deployed themselves to production.
devuo 8y ago
who said there is a social penalty? There are a number of reasons which I explained in a reply below.
- hardwaresofton 8y ago
  > 3 - it's optional, but you're a bit of a bad mate if you don't participate This seems to clearly state that you have a negative opinion of you for turning down extra work that is clearly undesirable. I assume that you're not the only one on your team that feels this way either, that's what I meant by social penalty. Depending on who you ask it may not be a penalty but that would mean everyone on the team has to think this way. I personally don't think people should be considered a bad mate if they don't want to do an optional thing -- what if they value their time more than the pay+extra that's being offered? I don't know if you've noticed, but time is the one thing you can never get back. Once you make a certain amount of money, you can live very comfortably -- priorities shift to things that you can't just buy, time is basically the most lucrative and rare yet abundant resource there is.
  - devuo 8y ago
    team effort is a thing, and we want everyone to pull their own weight. In my team we work at most 40h week and on call alerts are rare events, we work to keep it that way and we need solid team spirit to do that. There are other companies to work at, and we make our expectations clear before the person is hired in relation to on call.
sheepmullet 8y ago
> If on call is optional what's with the social penalty for people not wanting to do it. Because many optional activities have an impact on your peers and they are unlikely to judge you strictly based upon your job duties?
- hardwaresofton 8y ago
  I think we don't have the same definition of optional -- like someone else has noted, maybe the better word was "flexible". The way you're using it is the super manipulative "yeah it's optional, but why would you want the rest of your team to suffer?". Does that not sound manipulative to you? As far as your impact-on-peers argument -- you could "optionally" also stay 5 hours after when you normally go home to help reduce workload for your peers and help them, do you do that? No? What about 4 hours? what about 3? 2? Where is it fair to stop? The rest of the adult world calls this professionalism, and you stop at what's required of you as your job duty, put forth in your employment contract. In the course of fulfilling that duty you're expected to be reasonably courteous, not to subscribe to some weird hostage situation where the rest of your team suffers if you don't do something that was marked as optional.
  - sheepmullet 8y ago
    > Does that not sound manipulative to you? You seem to be assuming there is a lot of peer pressure placed on you if you don’t want to do it. Why? I’m simply saying there are always social costs. For example you probably won’t be listened to as much when there are conversations around improving system stability. It’s like our after work Friday drinks are entirely optional - but lots of people build friendships and trust there and this can often lead to higher productivity. If you can build these friendships another way or have a different path to an equivalently high productivity then not going doesn’t have an impact on you.
    - watwut 8y ago
      > For example you probably won’t be listened to as much when there are conversations around improving system stability. That sounds like not listening to people about things they might be good at and know something about, because you want to punish them for something completely unrelated. Namely, punish them for not participating in "optional" activities. All the while you don't want to openly and transparently say what you expect from people. Yes, it is manipulative and it is bad workplace. > It’s like our after work Friday drinks are entirely optional - but lots of people build friendships and trust there and this can often lead to higher productivity. It sounds sounds like nepotism where your ability to function and be promoted rests on your ability to make friends and be charming around beer. No a meritocracy, but rather badly managed workplace. ----------------- Seriously, you openly say that you would listen and judge system stability suggestions based on participation in supposedly optional activity unrelated to system stability. You also openly say that you trust people work based on Friday beer instead on how they act when working. That sounds like horrible workplace for anyone who care about work and great workplace for charming bullshitters.

munchbunny 8y ago

I agree on the preference that if it's not really optional, just don't make it optional. On-call also varies a ton between companies. I was technically on-call all of the time in my last job, but it was a low throughput system. I had to be up at odd hours maybe once every 2-3 months. I slept pretty well. If you offered me free meals for the week, I wouldn't mind taking my turn on the watch regularly. This job, I'm on call maybe one week every two months on a high throughput system, and even though it's only half of the day (we have an overseas team to take the night shift), it's generally acknowledged in the team that your sleep takes a hit and you get no real work done that week. If this were an optional part of my job, you'd have to pay me double for the week (basically a 10% raise).

devuo 8y ago
evidently the pay must be adjusted to how painful the on call experience is. as I said it is optional, no harm comes to you for not participating, and we have people with very good reasons for not helping the team support the code they themselves built and deployed themselves to production.

devuo 8y ago

who said there is a social penalty? There are a number of reasons which I explained in a reply below.

hardwaresofton 8y ago
> 3 - it's optional, but you're a bit of a bad mate if you don't participate This seems to clearly state that you have a negative opinion of you for turning down extra work that is clearly undesirable. I assume that you're not the only one on your team that feels this way either, that's what I meant by social penalty. Depending on who you ask it may not be a penalty but that would mean everyone on the team has to think this way. I personally don't think people should be considered a bad mate if they don't want to do an optional thing -- what if they value their time more than the pay+extra that's being offered? I don't know if you've noticed, but time is the one thing you can never get back. Once you make a certain amount of money, you can live very comfortably -- priorities shift to things that you can't just buy, time is basically the most lucrative and rare yet abundant resource there is.
- devuo 8y ago
  team effort is a thing, and we want everyone to pull their own weight. In my team we work at most 40h week and on call alerts are rare events, we work to keep it that way and we need solid team spirit to do that. There are other companies to work at, and we make our expectations clear before the person is hired in relation to on call.

sheepmullet 8y ago

> If on call is optional what's with the social penalty for people not wanting to do it. Because many optional activities have an impact on your peers and they are unlikely to judge you strictly based upon your job duties?

hardwaresofton 8y ago
I think we don't have the same definition of optional -- like someone else has noted, maybe the better word was "flexible". The way you're using it is the super manipulative "yeah it's optional, but why would you want the rest of your team to suffer?". Does that not sound manipulative to you? As far as your impact-on-peers argument -- you could "optionally" also stay 5 hours after when you normally go home to help reduce workload for your peers and help them, do you do that? No? What about 4 hours? what about 3? 2? Where is it fair to stop? The rest of the adult world calls this professionalism, and you stop at what's required of you as your job duty, put forth in your employment contract. In the course of fulfilling that duty you're expected to be reasonably courteous, not to subscribe to some weird hostage situation where the rest of your team suffers if you don't do something that was marked as optional.
- sheepmullet 8y ago
  > Does that not sound manipulative to you? You seem to be assuming there is a lot of peer pressure placed on you if you don’t want to do it. Why? I’m simply saying there are always social costs. For example you probably won’t be listened to as much when there are conversations around improving system stability. It’s like our after work Friday drinks are entirely optional - but lots of people build friendships and trust there and this can often lead to higher productivity. If you can build these friendships another way or have a different path to an equivalently high productivity then not going doesn’t have an impact on you.
  - watwut 8y ago
    > For example you probably won’t be listened to as much when there are conversations around improving system stability. That sounds like not listening to people about things they might be good at and know something about, because you want to punish them for something completely unrelated. Namely, punish them for not participating in "optional" activities. All the while you don't want to openly and transparently say what you expect from people. Yes, it is manipulative and it is bad workplace. > It’s like our after work Friday drinks are entirely optional - but lots of people build friendships and trust there and this can often lead to higher productivity. It sounds sounds like nepotism where your ability to function and be promoted rests on your ability to make friends and be charming around beer. No a meritocracy, but rather badly managed workplace. ----------------- Seriously, you openly say that you would listen and judge system stability suggestions based on participation in supposedly optional activity unrelated to system stability. You also openly say that you trust people work based on Friday beer instead on how they act when working. That sounds like horrible workplace for anyone who care about work and great workplace for charming bullshitters.