6 ms·

Not surprising at all. Lots of companies like that: developers who only know how to develop, managers who only know how to manage, human resourcers who only kno

by hhas01 6y ago

Not surprising at all. Lots of companies like that: developers who only know how to develop, managers who only know how to manage, human resourcers who only know how to… resource. Lots of people who know the cost of everything and value of nothing. Bear in mind too that the average employee, regardless of rank, is more concerned about what’s in their own best interests than what’s in the company’s. It’s only when you’re a director and major shareholder that these are one and the same, and even then you’re not magically immune to making really stupid decisions. As for “Gust”, my sympathies are severely limited. He remained in a job where he knew his employers were taking the absolute piss out him long enough that he turned toxic himself. I get that changing jobs has its own set of costs and challenges, but thinking that your employer owes you for all your “loyalty” is a fool’s delusion. I’ve been in jobs where management’s been taking the piss while I’ve been burning out, and realizing that environment’s turning me toxic too I’ve walked.[1][2] After all, my first obligation is to me and my health, and I’m no use to anyone when I fail to look after that. Too often computer geeks have a self-inflicted martyr complex, but you try telling them that their own worst enemy is themselves… (And, hey, fight me if you think I’m wrong.) -- [1] After giving generous notice, mind, and tying up the work I’ve done there as best I can. After all, I see no need to burn bridges with others already digging perfectly good holes for themselves. Besides, as an employee I know that it’s their work, not mine; so why should I get myself emotionally twisted up in work I don’t own when even its owners don’t care that much? [2] (Including that time when I was the management. I don’t stand my own shite either.)

user5994461 6y ago
>>> the average employee, regardless of rank, is more concerned about what’s in their own best interests than what’s in the company’s. It’s only when you’re a director and major shareholder that these are one and the same Lol here. Directors got where they are by caring about themselves and/or by staying long enough that all superiors went away leaving the position vacant. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the interests of the company.
- _8ljf 6y ago
  I was a company director. Started the company, put in the major investment, brought in two other people I knew and trusted as fellow directors, and I still had to walk away 18 months later because all three of us—as first-time directors with more lofty ambition than hard, dirty experience—made a thorough cock of the business. Glad I did it. Not happy about that particular outcome, but at least now I know it’s harder than it looks and some of the errors to avoid in future. And hopefully once I’ve finished dusting myself down I’ll be back up on another horse to try again. It’s real easy to sit in the peanut gallery pontificating loudly. I’ve more respect for those who actually do it, even if they are assholes as people (but really, who isn’t?).
Symbiote 6y ago
We don't know how long Gust stuck with the poor situation. Depending on the local job market, his family situation, etc, it might have been a reasonable option for him. I stuck with a job where I was undervalued for about a year. I was more focussed on other parts of my life, and an easy job where I could coast when it was beneficial to me was useful. (Straightforward example: Gust might have a partner in a less-flexible field. They agreed that the partner would spend 1-2 years looking for a good opportunity in a different state; once that was found Gust would quit and they'd move together.)
- hhas01 6y ago
  OP says 18 months and Gust was waiting for annual bonuses and stock to mature. As you say, you chose to coast at your own job as a reasonable and fair response. You did the work you were contracted to do and got paid correspondingly. Yeah you’d have liked a promotion path to a more demanding and rewarding role, but that’s just not something your employeer needed/wanted. Lots of jobs aren’t our perfect dream jobs. But I assume you started looking in the meantime, and when you did find a job which better fit your ambitions you moved on, and did so in a professional manner which ensures your own professional reputation stays intact. Gust just burnt the world; took his own pain and paid it forward. Victim (partly self-made) becomes an abuser himself. Sorry, no, I’m going to call that.
content_sesh 6y ago
> As for “Gust”, my sympathies are severely limited. He remained in a job where he knew his employers were taking the absolute piss out him long enough that he turned toxic himself. I get that changing jobs has its own set of costs and challenges, but thinking that your employer owes you for all your “loyalty” is a fool’s delusion. I’ve been in jobs where management’s been taking the piss while I’ve been burning out, and realizing that environment’s turning me toxic too I’ve walked.[1][2] Why the lack of sympathy? We don't know from the article how long Gust's been in the industry; this could have been his first experience with a company so dysfunctional. I think you may have missed this bit as well: > Gust waited until annual bonuses and stock payouts cleared, and served his notice. Sounds like he remained precisely as long as he needed to once the scales fell from his eyes.
rualca 6y ago
> As for “Gust”, my sympathies are severely limited. He remained in a job where he knew his employers were taking the absolute piss out him long enough that he turned toxic himself. What? Do you realize you're attacking the guy for breaking out of the toxic relationship? And do you realize you're attacking the guy for refusing further abusive requests directed at him by the same guys with a long track record of abuse? Let's try to be serious: there is exactly zero issues to point at Gust's actions. He was subjected to abuse, he packed his bags and left, and when subjected to further abuse after his resignation he simply rejected it. End of story. And using profanity does not make someone as bad a participant than employers abusing their employees as described in the article.
- hhas01 6y ago
  A toxic relationship that Gust tolerated for 18 months, which turned him toxic too. Fine, so he was just treading water till his own bonuses cleared, but that was his choice. He was contracted and paid to do a certain job, and ended up doing a different, harder job which presumably wasn’t in his contract and for which he wasn’t being paid. That was his choice. I know, geeks are bad at saying “no”, but work-to-rule is a thing for a reason, and you don’t have to be a douche about it; unfailingly, excruciatingly polite is its own weapon too. And then Gust turned various independent OSS projects toxic as well, even though his fight was not theirs. And the people they’re chucking abusing at now are not the abusive management who used Gust as their personal doormat, but ordinary employees down in the trenches just trying to do their own jobs. I’m not sure where you’re getting the “subjected to further abuse after his resignation” from; there’s nothing in the article about that. Nobody comes out of this one looking good, except for OP, who is just trying to do his job as best he can. His post is tagged “unprofessional-behavior” and he’s not wrong about that. And Gust hasn’t done himself any favors either if/when that reputation follows him to future jobs. I get that he’s angry and burnt out and that’s leading him to make poor decisions—been there, done that—but like I say, if you don’t look after yourself you’re no good to anyone. I know I wouldn’t want to hire someone coming off the back of that shitshow lest they bring all their toxic baggage with them and infect my business too. I understand Gust, cos there’s a bit of Gust in many of us, but he chose to take the abuse far longer than I would have before cutting my losses and getting out. And much of that abuse was ultimately self-inflicted because he chose to let himself be taken for a ride (because geeks love to be Helpful), instead of apologizing profusely that he was not qualified, competent, nor contracted to do work so far out of his job description. And sad to say the world is full of people (at all social and professional levels) who’ll be happy to take good-willed naive suckers for everything they’re worth (hell, just look at US politics!). But the moment Gust turned abusive himself—boom, whatever sympathies I had for him as another fallible human being are done, and I’ve no interest in fellow geeks crafting a Robin Hood narrative just because it pleases them to do so.

by hhas01 6y ago

user5994461 6y ago

>>> the average employee, regardless of rank, is more concerned about what’s in their own best interests than what’s in the company’s. It’s only when you’re a director and major shareholder that these are one and the same Lol here. Directors got where they are by caring about themselves and/or by staying long enough that all superiors went away leaving the position vacant. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the interests of the company.

_8ljf 6y ago
I was a company director. Started the company, put in the major investment, brought in two other people I knew and trusted as fellow directors, and I still had to walk away 18 months later because all three of us—as first-time directors with more lofty ambition than hard, dirty experience—made a thorough cock of the business. Glad I did it. Not happy about that particular outcome, but at least now I know it’s harder than it looks and some of the errors to avoid in future. And hopefully once I’ve finished dusting myself down I’ll be back up on another horse to try again. It’s real easy to sit in the peanut gallery pontificating loudly. I’ve more respect for those who actually do it, even if they are assholes as people (but really, who isn’t?).

Symbiote 6y ago

We don't know how long Gust stuck with the poor situation. Depending on the local job market, his family situation, etc, it might have been a reasonable option for him. I stuck with a job where I was undervalued for about a year. I was more focussed on other parts of my life, and an easy job where I could coast when it was beneficial to me was useful. (Straightforward example: Gust might have a partner in a less-flexible field. They agreed that the partner would spend 1-2 years looking for a good opportunity in a different state; once that was found Gust would quit and they'd move together.)

hhas01 6y ago
OP says 18 months and Gust was waiting for annual bonuses and stock to mature. As you say, you chose to coast at your own job as a reasonable and fair response. You did the work you were contracted to do and got paid correspondingly. Yeah you’d have liked a promotion path to a more demanding and rewarding role, but that’s just not something your employeer needed/wanted. Lots of jobs aren’t our perfect dream jobs. But I assume you started looking in the meantime, and when you did find a job which better fit your ambitions you moved on, and did so in a professional manner which ensures your own professional reputation stays intact. Gust just burnt the world; took his own pain and paid it forward. Victim (partly self-made) becomes an abuser himself. Sorry, no, I’m going to call that.

content_sesh 6y ago

> As for “Gust”, my sympathies are severely limited. He remained in a job where he knew his employers were taking the absolute piss out him long enough that he turned toxic himself. I get that changing jobs has its own set of costs and challenges, but thinking that your employer owes you for all your “loyalty” is a fool’s delusion. I’ve been in jobs where management’s been taking the piss while I’ve been burning out, and realizing that environment’s turning me toxic too I’ve walked.[1][2] Why the lack of sympathy? We don't know from the article how long Gust's been in the industry; this could have been his first experience with a company so dysfunctional. I think you may have missed this bit as well: > Gust waited until annual bonuses and stock payouts cleared, and served his notice. Sounds like he remained precisely as long as he needed to once the scales fell from his eyes.

rualca 6y ago

> As for “Gust”, my sympathies are severely limited. He remained in a job where he knew his employers were taking the absolute piss out him long enough that he turned toxic himself. What? Do you realize you're attacking the guy for breaking out of the toxic relationship? And do you realize you're attacking the guy for refusing further abusive requests directed at him by the same guys with a long track record of abuse? Let's try to be serious: there is exactly zero issues to point at Gust's actions. He was subjected to abuse, he packed his bags and left, and when subjected to further abuse after his resignation he simply rejected it. End of story. And using profanity does not make someone as bad a participant than employers abusing their employees as described in the article.

hhas01 6y ago
A toxic relationship that Gust tolerated for 18 months, which turned him toxic too. Fine, so he was just treading water till his own bonuses cleared, but that was his choice. He was contracted and paid to do a certain job, and ended up doing a different, harder job which presumably wasn’t in his contract and for which he wasn’t being paid. That was his choice. I know, geeks are bad at saying “no”, but work-to-rule is a thing for a reason, and you don’t have to be a douche about it; unfailingly, excruciatingly polite is its own weapon too. And then Gust turned various independent OSS projects toxic as well, even though his fight was not theirs. And the people they’re chucking abusing at now are not the abusive management who used Gust as their personal doormat, but ordinary employees down in the trenches just trying to do their own jobs. I’m not sure where you’re getting the “subjected to further abuse after his resignation” from; there’s nothing in the article about that. Nobody comes out of this one looking good, except for OP, who is just trying to do his job as best he can. His post is tagged “unprofessional-behavior” and he’s not wrong about that. And Gust hasn’t done himself any favors either if/when that reputation follows him to future jobs. I get that he’s angry and burnt out and that’s leading him to make poor decisions—been there, done that—but like I say, if you don’t look after yourself you’re no good to anyone. I know I wouldn’t want to hire someone coming off the back of that shitshow lest they bring all their toxic baggage with them and infect my business too. I understand Gust, cos there’s a bit of Gust in many of us, but he chose to take the abuse far longer than I would have before cutting my losses and getting out. And much of that abuse was ultimately self-inflicted because he chose to let himself be taken for a ride (because geeks love to be Helpful), instead of apologizing profusely that he was not qualified, competent, nor contracted to do work so far out of his job description. And sad to say the world is full of people (at all social and professional levels) who’ll be happy to take good-willed naive suckers for everything they’re worth (hell, just look at US politics!). But the moment Gust turned abusive himself—boom, whatever sympathies I had for him as another fallible human being are done, and I’ve no interest in fellow geeks crafting a Robin Hood narrative just because it pleases them to do so.