9 ms·

Indeed, there’s a sort of Moneyball aspect here. Companies that can accurately pay out only for productive time instead of assuming all 40 hours of a work week

by xwdv 5y ago

Indeed, there’s a sort of Moneyball aspect here. Companies that can accurately pay out only for productive time instead of assuming all 40 hours of a work week are spent producing will make huge savings in payroll, increasing cost efficiency and making it feasible to hire larger cross functional teams. A software engineer probably only really works about 20 hours a week. That’s a 50% savings right there.

tapvt 5y ago
What’s the definition of “really working?” I once told a freelance client (hourly) that I solved most of the tough problems while I thought about things in the shower. On that project, very little of my time was spent coding. Client then said I ought to pad my hours by 5 per week. He “got it.” If simply “coding” is what constitutes “really working,” that seems problematic.
ddoolin 5y ago
They're not assuming/under the impression that all 40 hours are spent working. This wouldn't work because this type of tacit admission works for everyone when they need it, even if that happens to be continuously.
arvinsim 5y ago
I would take a paycut to have much less work hours. Could be a win-win but maybe a lot of people prefer to earn more.
whateveracct 5y ago
You can't actually enforce that. The standard is salaried, at-will employment. The savvy, skilled remote worker is going to be able to put 20-30 hours in - literally just take off 1-2 days a week. But get paid for the "40hrs." Basically, the rules of the game mean a salaried, remote employee can easily work half time at full pay - gg
opportune 5y ago
Why would any software engineer take an equivalent paying job that micromanages their every minute to make sure the company gets a full 40 hrs out of them, unless the pay were much better than what they'd get otherwise (eating in to that 50%) or they were desperate? This would be a huge mis-optimization IMO. Good luck attracting "top" workers and retaining them with this model. It's just "butts in seats" taken to an extreme.
- xwdv 5y ago
  I mean what you’re basically saying is you want to work at inefficient companies that pay more than they actually need to. If you’re not working, you shouldn’t be paid. Fair is fair. Perhaps instead of paying per hour a company should offer pay per week, and it’s up to the developer to decide how many hours they will end up actually working that week and if the offered pay is worth it.
dukeyukey 5y ago
Equally speaking, if I realise how to fix that bug when I'm out with friends one night, should I present my employer with an extra bill for those hours spent drinking and relaxing, putting my mind in a state where it could fix the issue?
- xwdv 5y ago
  Should a factory worker be paid for resting their body to get ready for the next day of work?

by xwdv 5y ago

tapvt 5y ago

What’s the definition of “really working?” I once told a freelance client (hourly) that I solved most of the tough problems while I thought about things in the shower. On that project, very little of my time was spent coding. Client then said I ought to pad my hours by 5 per week. He “got it.” If simply “coding” is what constitutes “really working,” that seems problematic.

ddoolin 5y ago

They're not assuming/under the impression that all 40 hours are spent working. This wouldn't work because this type of tacit admission works for everyone when they need it, even if that happens to be continuously.

arvinsim 5y ago

I would take a paycut to have much less work hours. Could be a win-win but maybe a lot of people prefer to earn more.

whateveracct 5y ago

You can't actually enforce that. The standard is salaried, at-will employment. The savvy, skilled remote worker is going to be able to put 20-30 hours in - literally just take off 1-2 days a week. But get paid for the "40hrs." Basically, the rules of the game mean a salaried, remote employee can easily work half time at full pay - gg

opportune 5y ago

Why would any software engineer take an equivalent paying job that micromanages their every minute to make sure the company gets a full 40 hrs out of them, unless the pay were much better than what they'd get otherwise (eating in to that 50%) or they were desperate? This would be a huge mis-optimization IMO. Good luck attracting "top" workers and retaining them with this model. It's just "butts in seats" taken to an extreme.

xwdv 5y ago
I mean what you’re basically saying is you want to work at inefficient companies that pay more than they actually need to. If you’re not working, you shouldn’t be paid. Fair is fair. Perhaps instead of paying per hour a company should offer pay per week, and it’s up to the developer to decide how many hours they will end up actually working that week and if the offered pay is worth it.

dukeyukey 5y ago

Equally speaking, if I realise how to fix that bug when I'm out with friends one night, should I present my employer with an extra bill for those hours spent drinking and relaxing, putting my mind in a state where it could fix the issue?

xwdv 5y ago
Should a factory worker be paid for resting their body to get ready for the next day of work?