5 ms·

I've seen a fair share of googlers who work 4 days a week and getting 80% of the pay. Most prefer to get 100% of the money though, especially since at review ti

I've seen a fair share of googlers who work 4 days a week and getting 80% of the pay. Most prefer to get 100% of the money though, especially since at review time you're judged on what you accomplished, not raw butt-in-the-seat time. Likely sub-100% work time is something you'd have to negotiate with your managers after spending some time at a company, not right from day 1. One case I've seen - a guy working 50% between google and PhD (working on alternating weeks) flat out said there's no way in hell he'd get hired into this kind of arrangement - it was only after building trust with management and moving to a team with lower workload/stress.

stevewodil 5y ago
The problem is that 40 hours is seen as 100%. If I can accomplish my job in less than 40 hours, I'm giving more than 100% by working 40 hours. It shouldn't be based on time
- quantumofalpha 5y ago
  From what I've seen, it's mostly not based on time in big US tech companies for salaried full-timers. Nobody cares if you put 20, 40 or 60 honest hours a week into a project. Ultimately, visibility and impact of your work is what matters, usually in comparison to your peers. If you get same impact working half the time than the person next to you, more glory to you. (Just don't let your manager directly or indirectly know that you're idling, that's essentially asking for more work - so don't complain if they oblige)
- throw123123123 5y ago
  But pay is not based on results. If it were, you would not get paid when you are down on productivity. Salary is an aggregate solution that works as insurance for both workers and employers to not have to do the above calculations.
  - stevewodil 5y ago
    Pay is sometimes certainly based on results. CEO's aren't getting paid by the hour, they are compensated based on stock performance, financials, roadmap, future guidance, etc.
    - throw123123123 5y ago
      That is certainly not true, as CEO of failing companies also get paid.
tolbish 5y ago
> Most prefer to get 100% of the money though, especially since at review time you're judged on what you accomplished, not raw butt-in-the-seat time. Why aren't they being compared to 80% of the others' accomplishments? This seems like it is designed to get rid of those who want the 80% schedule. Has this been addressed by management?
- bumbledraven 5y ago
  At Google, expectations are scaled for part-time employees. In other words, a 60%/80% part-timer is expected to do 60%/80% as much as a full-timer at the same level. Source: I work part-time at Google (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17133830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17133830)
  - tolbish 5y ago
    Thanks. I figured, otherwise it would defeat the purpose.
  - quantumofalpha 5y ago
    That's the theory but it isn't that trivial to measure engineer's productivity, especially in small +/-20% range we're talking here. We aren't like bricklayers where you can directly and precisely measure the output. That's why in practice google's famous "20% time" is 120% time and on other hand it also has a lot of coasters working at half pace while cashing in 100% pay.
- kcplate 5y ago
  Because it’s not always a 1 to 1 ratio. Especially generically. An 80% worker with paid benefits doing just 80% productivity provides less productivity value per comp $ to the employer than a 100% worker doing 100% of the work due to the cost of benefits. So a smart employer realizes that for it to make value sense, an 80% worker with benefits better be providing more than 80% productivity.
  - tolbish 5y ago

stevewodil 5y ago

The problem is that 40 hours is seen as 100%. If I can accomplish my job in less than 40 hours, I'm giving more than 100% by working 40 hours. It shouldn't be based on time

quantumofalpha 5y ago
From what I've seen, it's mostly not based on time in big US tech companies for salaried full-timers. Nobody cares if you put 20, 40 or 60 honest hours a week into a project. Ultimately, visibility and impact of your work is what matters, usually in comparison to your peers. If you get same impact working half the time than the person next to you, more glory to you. (Just don't let your manager directly or indirectly know that you're idling, that's essentially asking for more work - so don't complain if they oblige)
throw123123123 5y ago
But pay is not based on results. If it were, you would not get paid when you are down on productivity. Salary is an aggregate solution that works as insurance for both workers and employers to not have to do the above calculations.
- stevewodil 5y ago
  Pay is sometimes certainly based on results. CEO's aren't getting paid by the hour, they are compensated based on stock performance, financials, roadmap, future guidance, etc.
  - throw123123123 5y ago
    That is certainly not true, as CEO of failing companies also get paid.

tolbish 5y ago

> Most prefer to get 100% of the money though, especially since at review time you're judged on what you accomplished, not raw butt-in-the-seat time. Why aren't they being compared to 80% of the others' accomplishments? This seems like it is designed to get rid of those who want the 80% schedule. Has this been addressed by management?

bumbledraven 5y ago
At Google, expectations are scaled for part-time employees. In other words, a 60%/80% part-timer is expected to do 60%/80% as much as a full-timer at the same level. Source: I work part-time at Google (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17133830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17133830)
- tolbish 5y ago
  Thanks. I figured, otherwise it would defeat the purpose.
- quantumofalpha 5y ago
  That's the theory but it isn't that trivial to measure engineer's productivity, especially in small +/-20% range we're talking here. We aren't like bricklayers where you can directly and precisely measure the output. That's why in practice google's famous "20% time" is 120% time and on other hand it also has a lot of coasters working at half pace while cashing in 100% pay.
kcplate 5y ago
Because it’s not always a 1 to 1 ratio. Especially generically. An 80% worker with paid benefits doing just 80% productivity provides less productivity value per comp $ to the employer than a 100% worker doing 100% of the work due to the cost of benefits. So a smart employer realizes that for it to make value sense, an 80% worker with benefits better be providing more than 80% productivity.
- tolbish 5y ago