4 ms·

I don't think this is black and white. If you hire a contractor, you're paying for the accomplishment of a task. If you hire someone full-time, you're paying f

I don't think this is black and white. If you hire a contractor, you're paying for the accomplishment of a task. If you hire someone full-time, you're paying for... what? Not X hours, maybe, but not "whatever you feel like doing," either. Something more like "your best efforts in a reasonable work week." If you hire a contractor to accomplish X task for $Y, you don't care if it takes them 2 hours or 50, as long as they meet their deadline. If you hire a full-time developer and that person accomplishes in 3 hours a week what others do in 40, you'd be impressed. But you'd probably also be frustrated. Imagine what they could be doing for you if they worked the rest of the week! Even if you're not a stickler about hours, you want people to be giving you their best effort. If they say they can do that in 5 intense, randomly-scheduled hours a day, and they deliver, great. But if they work 5 hours a week, it's unlikely they're giving you their best.

dman 15y ago
Flip side - If you were paying them 13 times as much you would be paying them what the market would bear in terms of work output. If you are paying them just what you are paying everyone else its unlikely you are giving them your best.
- billybob 15y ago
  That's true, but imagine your employees started working only as many hours as they felt they were being paid for. If the employee feels underpaid, they should renegotiate or, failing that, leave.
  - masklinn 15y ago
    > That's true, but imagine your employees started working only as many hours as they felt they were being paid for. Why would that be a problem, as long as what they feel they're being paid for matches their actual productive output? > If the employee feels underpaid, they should renegotiate or, failing that, leave. The situation you talk about does not necessarily mean they're underpaid. If they do the job they're paid for in half a week, why could they not have all their afternoons with their children, or working at the gym, or going to the beach? Or have 4.5 days weekends? Working 60, 70 or 80 hours a week is not a goal in and of itself, and money is not necessarily the main sticking point and the only valuable result of a job, and if you feel they don't work enough you should renegotiate.
    - billybob 15y ago
      "Why would that be a problem, as long as what they feel they're being paid for matches their actual productive output?" My point is not "it is not OK for someone to work 5 hours a week." If both employer and employee agree to that, it's fine. The point is, if you hire someone full-time for $X, you probably expect something like 40 hours a week out of them. If they just stop showing up 4 days of the week without talking to you, it's the same as if they somehow managed to withdraw 5 times their salary from your bank account without talking to you.
      - masklinn 15y ago
        > The point is, if you hire someone full-time for $X, you probably expect something like 40 hours a week out of them. Then you'll get 40 hours of physical presence instead. I'm sure that'll go well. > If they just stop showing up 4 days of the week without talking to you, it's the same as if they somehow managed to withdraw 5 times their salary from your bank account without talking to you. No it's not, as long as they're doing the job they're supposed to do in full. That's like saying the guy who runs a 100m in 8s is a thief, and should run the whole 10s. It's retarded.
      - wnight 15y ago
        No, it's not. Analogies are hard, you aren't up it it, stop using them. If someone provides the work you expect, despite actually sleeping 4/5ths of the time, you're getting what you paid for. That they could have provided five times more work is irrelevant. The only exception is where the employee's presence, and presence of mind, is the product. Such as with a security guard, retail sales rep, manager, etc.
  - dman 15y ago
    I don know if its the case that I hang out with deadbeats but people around me do cut back from putting in their best when they feel under appreciated in terms of recognition or reward. It might be because I am currently not working in an aspirational field like Video Game programming where just the privilege of being able to work on a game means that people put in their best no matter what. Anyway I think that in a interface where there is less than complete communication renegotiation often happens in terms of readjusting deliverables.
etruong42 15y ago
If you hire someone, you are paying them to make you money, not necessarily to give full effort. If that employee is netting you a loss (don't forget opportunity cost) whether from incompetence and/or incompatibility, you let them go. Otherwise, you keep them. You can only incentivize them to be more productive if they're not putting forth "full effort", and in my experience, it requires a balanced laxness/strictness of scheduling, among other factors, such as bonuses, raises, interesting work, etc. But since you already accounted for opportunity cost in your hiring considerations, you've already made the best hire you could. The fact that an employee puts forth 20% effort shouldn't be a source of frustration; your only real consideration should be your next profit-maximizing move.
scottishwildcat 15y ago
Also, of course, working regular hours makes it easier for managers to compare one employee's performance against another, which unfortunately they have to do sooner or later if they're to fairly decide who gets paid what.

dman 15y ago

Flip side - If you were paying them 13 times as much you would be paying them what the market would bear in terms of work output. If you are paying them just what you are paying everyone else its unlikely you are giving them your best.

billybob 15y ago
That's true, but imagine your employees started working only as many hours as they felt they were being paid for. If the employee feels underpaid, they should renegotiate or, failing that, leave.
- masklinn 15y ago
  > That's true, but imagine your employees started working only as many hours as they felt they were being paid for. Why would that be a problem, as long as what they feel they're being paid for matches their actual productive output? > If the employee feels underpaid, they should renegotiate or, failing that, leave. The situation you talk about does not necessarily mean they're underpaid. If they do the job they're paid for in half a week, why could they not have all their afternoons with their children, or working at the gym, or going to the beach? Or have 4.5 days weekends? Working 60, 70 or 80 hours a week is not a goal in and of itself, and money is not necessarily the main sticking point and the only valuable result of a job, and if you feel they don't work enough you should renegotiate.
  - billybob 15y ago
    "Why would that be a problem, as long as what they feel they're being paid for matches their actual productive output?" My point is not "it is not OK for someone to work 5 hours a week." If both employer and employee agree to that, it's fine. The point is, if you hire someone full-time for $X, you probably expect something like 40 hours a week out of them. If they just stop showing up 4 days of the week without talking to you, it's the same as if they somehow managed to withdraw 5 times their salary from your bank account without talking to you.
    - masklinn 15y ago
      > The point is, if you hire someone full-time for $X, you probably expect something like 40 hours a week out of them. Then you'll get 40 hours of physical presence instead. I'm sure that'll go well. > If they just stop showing up 4 days of the week without talking to you, it's the same as if they somehow managed to withdraw 5 times their salary from your bank account without talking to you. No it's not, as long as they're doing the job they're supposed to do in full. That's like saying the guy who runs a 100m in 8s is a thief, and should run the whole 10s. It's retarded.
    - wnight 15y ago
      No, it's not. Analogies are hard, you aren't up it it, stop using them. If someone provides the work you expect, despite actually sleeping 4/5ths of the time, you're getting what you paid for. That they could have provided five times more work is irrelevant. The only exception is where the employee's presence, and presence of mind, is the product. Such as with a security guard, retail sales rep, manager, etc.
- dman 15y ago
  I don know if its the case that I hang out with deadbeats but people around me do cut back from putting in their best when they feel under appreciated in terms of recognition or reward. It might be because I am currently not working in an aspirational field like Video Game programming where just the privilege of being able to work on a game means that people put in their best no matter what. Anyway I think that in a interface where there is less than complete communication renegotiation often happens in terms of readjusting deliverables.

etruong42 15y ago

If you hire someone, you are paying them to make you money, not necessarily to give full effort. If that employee is netting you a loss (don't forget opportunity cost) whether from incompetence and/or incompatibility, you let them go. Otherwise, you keep them. You can only incentivize them to be more productive if they're not putting forth "full effort", and in my experience, it requires a balanced laxness/strictness of scheduling, among other factors, such as bonuses, raises, interesting work, etc. But since you already accounted for opportunity cost in your hiring considerations, you've already made the best hire you could. The fact that an employee puts forth 20% effort shouldn't be a source of frustration; your only real consideration should be your next profit-maximizing move.

scottishwildcat 15y ago

Also, of course, working regular hours makes it easier for managers to compare one employee's performance against another, which unfortunately they have to do sooner or later if they're to fairly decide who gets paid what.