6 ms·

> 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'

> 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
  That just sounds like an inability of Google to aptly scale work.
  - rdtwo 5y ago
    No it’s a benefits thing they can’t scale
    - tolbish 5y ago
      Can you elaborate?
      - sircastor 5y ago
        You can’t offer give someone an 80% health plan, or match 4/5ths of their 401k. The structures that exist around those benefits aren’t customizable at that level. They’re bought as a package.
        kcplate 5y ago
        Exactly. A 32 hour employee with same benefits package as a 40 hour employee likely costs the company about 85% of the cost of the 40 hour employee. If you are giving the company 80% value for a 85% of FT investment, it’s a diminished return to the company.
        tolbish 5y ago
        Would you agree then that those employees are systemically set up to be forced out?
        kcplate 5y ago
        No. I think it depends on the situation and people involved. If you intend by working 32 hours instead of 40 hours to deliver only 80% value to your org, you would be at a disadvantage. If that extra 8 hours off has value to you, you will likely make sure your employer stays happy and maximize your value for that 32 hours you work. Conversely, if that 8 hours of payroll savings is needed for them, they will likely provide some grace during evaluation. Now if you are an exempt salaried employee, all bets are off. Whether you work 20 hours or 80, you get paid the same and are expected to deliver 100% value.

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
That just sounds like an inability of Google to aptly scale work.
- rdtwo 5y ago
  No it’s a benefits thing they can’t scale
  - tolbish 5y ago
    Can you elaborate?
    - sircastor 5y ago
      You can’t offer give someone an 80% health plan, or match 4/5ths of their 401k. The structures that exist around those benefits aren’t customizable at that level. They’re bought as a package.
      - kcplate 5y ago
        Exactly. A 32 hour employee with same benefits package as a 40 hour employee likely costs the company about 85% of the cost of the 40 hour employee. If you are giving the company 80% value for a 85% of FT investment, it’s a diminished return to the company.
        tolbish 5y ago
        Would you agree then that those employees are systemically set up to be forced out?
        kcplate 5y ago
        No. I think it depends on the situation and people involved. If you intend by working 32 hours instead of 40 hours to deliver only 80% value to your org, you would be at a disadvantage. If that extra 8 hours off has value to you, you will likely make sure your employer stays happy and maximize your value for that 32 hours you work. Conversely, if that 8 hours of payroll savings is needed for them, they will likely provide some grace during evaluation. Now if you are an exempt salaried employee, all bets are off. Whether you work 20 hours or 80, you get paid the same and are expected to deliver 100% value.