3 ms·
So, where do you draw the line between 'spending that time freelancing' and 'spending that time programming to become a better programmer?' My major gripe with
by bmelton 16y ago
So, where do you draw the line between 'spending that time freelancing' and 'spending that time programming to become a better programmer?'
My major gripe with it is that I'd rather have a flexible schedule that allowed me to work when I was in the zone and rest when I was weary. I understand that, from an employer's perspective, it's hard to monitor, and especially hard to make sure that you're "getting your money's worth" to a micro-manager, but if the core philosophy is that they want me to be highly productive and well-rested, those ideals are somewhat at odds -- at least for the way I work.
I'd much rather spend 14 hours non-stop on something if I'm making progress on it, and rest when the task is finished than be arbitrarily asked to stop for whatever reason. This doesn't burn me out in the least. Doing that non-stop definitely does, but I generally allow myself time to reset between tasks, when I'm less likely to forget things, or lose track of where I was in the code.
- tptacek 16y agoYou have a counterpart in management somewhere, with the same mindset about work rules, and he is the reason his team can't have a 4-day work week. No offense.
- bmelton 16y agoNone taken. At my last gig, I was management. My program manager hated it, but I refused to care who was coming in late and who was leaving early. It wasn't a terribly large team, and it was quite easy to know who was performing, and who wasn't. As we were meeting all our deadlines, and I never felt like I was being taken advantage of, I never saw it as an issue. My program manager, on the other hand, firmly believed in the 9-5 mentality, even when it was clearly not working for our team. Before that, I worked at a job where I was free to come and go as I pleased, so long as the work got done. The work got done, generally ahead of deadline. Admittedly, I was the only 'developer' on that team, but with careful hiring, and a slow evolution toward freedom, things were a-okay. When I left there for greener pastures, we'd had consecutive years in which each year was better than the last, dollar-wise. To beat the horse dead, you really got it right the first time, in that I'm free to take or leave the offer. I'd just really like to understand it better. The 32-hour week isn't for everybody. 4 10 hour shifts isn't for everybody. 5 8 hour shifts isn't for everybody. I'm sure it seems that I've made a mountain out of a molehill, and perhaps I have, which is ironic, since it doesn't really reflect what I'd want out of a job -- it's just confounding to me that they would say 'four day weeks are the norm', but then follow that up with 'well, it's really a five day week, you're just not allowed to do anything on the fifth.' I think we're running out of arguing room, so I'll finish by saying that really, I don't disagree with you in theory, or even in practice. It is perfectly within their right to structure their work weeks however they choose, and it is perfectly within the right of potential hires to take or leave potential offers from Carson and crew, and it is perfectly within the right of Carson to not hire people who would like to use their off-time to stay sharp. This doesn't mean that I wouldn't take the job at Carsonified (I've heard great things about Bath, England, as well as that team) -- it just means I'd have questions if I saw that in my contract. Since nobody from Carsonified has chimed in here to clear it up my hypotheticals, I'll save any further ponderance for the unlikely event that I'm ever presented with such a contract.