3 ms·
> Are most of us secretly lying about how much we are working? Yes, but I would venture it's the other way - most of us are probably working our butts off and
by ghostoftiber 5y ago
> Are most of us secretly lying about how much we are working?
Yes, but I would venture it's the other way - most of us are probably working our butts off and thinking we make a decent wage for 40 hours a week when we're putting in 60 hours a week. I didn't really notice this until I had a family and started bumping into family activities. At first, I was really pissed off that something was getting in the way of work, then I reassessed by values and got pissed off that I was putting in that sort of time.
> Have I just been incredibly lucky and every boss I have had is too incompetent to notice?
Pretty much. It's likely the problem is systemic (your boss doesn't work either). One of two things are going to happen, by my guess. You are going to get re-orged when some efficiency expert comes in and they're going to apply arbitrary metrics which are designed to "accelerate delivery" or something. Since you don't do anything already, you can't meet those metrics. The good news is people who do work probably can't meet them either since it's designed to make people uncomfortable, so you'll be one of many getting a parachute. Feign indignation and leave with the herd.
The second thing that might happen is someone updates the tech stack in a significant way. This happens when consultants come through and a company tries to "buy the devops" or "buy the kubernetes". They have a vested interest in delivering a solution, so they're going to want to train people on the new thing. If you're not participating in the existing workflow in a meaningful way, it's going to be rapidly apparent that you're also not using the New Expensive Thing(tm). Since the New Expensive Thing is indeed quite expensive, there's going to be a lot of eyeballs on it, and you'll probably either get noticed for not using it or for being one of the people "not adopting the New Expensive Thing".
Of course the third option is you live in like Cornfield, Kansas and you're actually pretty cheap compared to everyone else across the country and so you're really not going to attract any scrutiny whatsoever. Who knows!
Best of luck, either way.
- vlunkr 5y ago> putting in 60 hours a week I would just get a new job. Unless you're volunteering for it and getting paid overtime, that is unacceptable.
- sneak 5y agoA lot of workers in technology are getting paid in equity. For many, it makes it more than acceptable. It's not really anyone's place to tell someone else that the way they're making money is unacceptable without knowing all of the details. I put in 60-70 hour weeks routinely. I work at companies I founded and own. I don't make overtime. Is my work schedule unacceptable? What is the percentage of equity between 0% and 100% that makes working above 40 hours per week "acceptable"? Who picks?
- vlunkr 5y agoI think it should be obvious that that's not what I'm talking about. If I'm employed to work 40 hours a week, I'm not going to work more than that on a regular basis.
- sneak 5y agoWhat if you are employed "full time" with the expectation that that means substantially more than 40 hours (and your compensation package includes equity in the company)? That is the (commonplace) situation that I am describing, that almost all of my friends and acquaintances in this industry (developers) find themselves in. They don't find it unacceptable, or they'd go do something else.
- vlunkr 5y agoIf you go in expecting to work that much, great, but I think it's easy for people to be manipulated and overworked for the good of a company when they should push back for their own good.
- sneak 5y agoI guess my point is that it's not your place to tell other professional adults what they should do "for their own good" when their own opinions contradict yours in practice, as they would be the top world expert on what is or isn't in the interest of their own good.