4 ms·

Why?

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
If someone joins your company as a remote employee but publicly advertises themselves as working for someone else, you investigate further. The "why" is in the linked article: It's in the playbook of people trying to manipulate you into letting them work half as much as their coworkers (thereby screwing over coworkers, who are forced to pick up the slack). If you care about your team, you don't sit idle while one of the employees is slacking off, putting in half the effort as their peers, or manipulating their way into doing less than others.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  > If you care about your team, you don't sit idle while one of the employees is slacking off. There we go! "Slacking off" is not relevant. What's relevant is that you, as my manager at a company I already work for, are happy with my work, or not. It shouldn't matter whether it takes 100%, 80%, 50%, or 20% of my capacity to make you happy. This would be completely non-controversial in the vast majority of jobs.
  - PragmaticPulp 5y ago
    In the real world, managers don't look at a task and schedule out exactly 40 hours of work each week. We trust our employees to give us feedback and healthy estimates. Truth is, double job workers are usually caught because they're underperforming. But smart managers give employees the benefit of the doubt and don't go firing people at first signs of underperformance. If someone has a legitimate reason for falling behind for a while (maybe overleveled during hiring, maybe struggling with real life issues, etc.) then we work with them. If they have a manipulative/deceptive reason (working two jobs, avoiding work) then it's better off that we replace them with someone who cares. If you think that a job is a simple matter of "do fixed pile of work every week", that's not how 95% of software jobs work. We rely on a 2-way communication with employees to establish what's reasonable, and if someone is manipulating us into lowering expectations (literally the title of this article) then they must go and be replaced with someone who cares.
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      It's not "do fixed pile of work every week." It's "provide a multiple of N worth of your salary value to the company." The amount of work necessary to do so is (should be) irrelevant. Effort is not relevant, and you don't get to demand I commit body and soul to please you if I'm providing a reasonable amount of value.
      - PragmaticPulp 5y ago
        No, it's about "Is this employee occupying headcount and payroll that would be better used on someone more deserving". And you've still misunderstand the 2-way feedback loop about effort estimation. You have this misconception that a job is an isolated 1:1 relationship with an employer where units of work are passed in isolation back and forth. In the real world, something like this does huge damage to the team by forcing everyone else to compensate for the deliberate underperformance.
        actually_a_dog 5y ago
        Oh, wait, now I need to deserve a job in addition to being able to perform all aspects of it adequately with respect to the offered compensation? You really are something if that's what you believe.
        PragmaticPulp 5y ago
        > Oh, wait, now I need to deserve a job I didn't say a job. I said the job I'm hiring for. If you're going to come in and deliberately do as little work as possible to extract as much as possible from the team, why should I give the job to you instead of someone who is actually honest and cares? You're not entitled to any job you want, obviously. I usually have 10-100 applicants who would honestly do the job and not sandbag their work onto peers. Obviously we would all rather have the honest employees working on the team. In what moral system do you deserve the job more than literally any other honest employee if you're dead set on doing less than them and lying your way through the job? If nothing else, having two jobs becomes a conflict of interest with a huge monetary incentive to continue lying. There's also the matter of trade secrets as people often come from related companies.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    Would stealing from your employer be ok as long as he doesn't notice?
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      Who's stealing? Why the red herring?
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        Working half of the agreed upon hours is, what? You've already implied you'd do whatever you could get away with: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29668597 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29668597
        actually_a_dog 5y ago
        Again, I told you, I never agreed to work X amount of hours for any tech company I've ever worked at. In fact, it's always been made clear to me by my managers that time and effort spent is irrelevant, and only results count. Deliver on your sprint commitments, and you're gold, regardless of how long it takes. Oh, and let's not pretend companies won't do "whatever they can get away with," either. Read the news if you need examples.
        WalterBright 5y ago
        Then you're doing piecework? I thought you said you weren't a contractor. I've done piecework, too, which is deliver a product to a specification. But that's not as an employee. Employees get W2s, contractors get 1099s.
        actually_a_dog 5y ago
        No, I'm not a contractor. I work as an employee. And, no, I've never signed anything stating I'd work "40 hours" for a tech company. I edited this into a previous comment, but this is literally the applicable phrase from my last offer letter: > As an exempt salaried employee, you will be expected to work the hours, including evenings and weekends, required to perform your job duties. It goes both way, you see. I accomplish my duties in less than 40 hours, I get to be done. If my manager is happy with my work, quite frankly, why does it matter how long it takes?
- HWR_14 5y ago
  > as their coworkers (thereby screwing over coworkers, who are forced to pick up the slack) Why is it their coworkers responsibility to make sure enough total labor is present? According to you, anyone not giving 100% is slacking and doing something wrong, so I assume their coworkers are already giving 100%. Why should they have to work harder than 100% because management is bad at getting workers?

Why?

If someone joins your company as a remote employee but publicly advertises themselves as working for someone else, you investigate further. The "why" is in the linked article: It's in the playbook of people trying to manipulate you into letting them work half as much as their coworkers (thereby screwing over coworkers, who are forced to pick up the slack). If you care about your team, you don't sit idle while one of the employees is slacking off, putting in half the effort as their peers, or manipulating their way into doing less than others.

actually_a_dog 5y ago
> If you care about your team, you don't sit idle while one of the employees is slacking off. There we go! "Slacking off" is not relevant. What's relevant is that you, as my manager at a company I already work for, are happy with my work, or not. It shouldn't matter whether it takes 100%, 80%, 50%, or 20% of my capacity to make you happy. This would be completely non-controversial in the vast majority of jobs.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  In the real world, managers don't look at a task and schedule out exactly 40 hours of work each week. We trust our employees to give us feedback and healthy estimates. Truth is, double job workers are usually caught because they're underperforming. But smart managers give employees the benefit of the doubt and don't go firing people at first signs of underperformance. If someone has a legitimate reason for falling behind for a while (maybe overleveled during hiring, maybe struggling with real life issues, etc.) then we work with them. If they have a manipulative/deceptive reason (working two jobs, avoiding work) then it's better off that we replace them with someone who cares. If you think that a job is a simple matter of "do fixed pile of work every week", that's not how 95% of software jobs work. We rely on a 2-way communication with employees to establish what's reasonable, and if someone is manipulating us into lowering expectations (literally the title of this article) then they must go and be replaced with someone who cares.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    It's not "do fixed pile of work every week." It's "provide a multiple of N worth of your salary value to the company." The amount of work necessary to do so is (should be) irrelevant. Effort is not relevant, and you don't get to demand I commit body and soul to please you if I'm providing a reasonable amount of value.
    - PragmaticPulp 5y ago
      No, it's about "Is this employee occupying headcount and payroll that would be better used on someone more deserving". And you've still misunderstand the 2-way feedback loop about effort estimation. You have this misconception that a job is an isolated 1:1 relationship with an employer where units of work are passed in isolation back and forth. In the real world, something like this does huge damage to the team by forcing everyone else to compensate for the deliberate underperformance.
      - actually_a_dog 5y ago
        Oh, wait, now I need to deserve a job in addition to being able to perform all aspects of it adequately with respect to the offered compensation? You really are something if that's what you believe.
        PragmaticPulp 5y ago
        > Oh, wait, now I need to deserve a job I didn't say a job. I said the job I'm hiring for. If you're going to come in and deliberately do as little work as possible to extract as much as possible from the team, why should I give the job to you instead of someone who is actually honest and cares? You're not entitled to any job you want, obviously. I usually have 10-100 applicants who would honestly do the job and not sandbag their work onto peers. Obviously we would all rather have the honest employees working on the team. In what moral system do you deserve the job more than literally any other honest employee if you're dead set on doing less than them and lying your way through the job? If nothing else, having two jobs becomes a conflict of interest with a huge monetary incentive to continue lying. There's also the matter of trade secrets as people often come from related companies.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  Would stealing from your employer be ok as long as he doesn't notice?
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    Who's stealing? Why the red herring?
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      Working half of the agreed upon hours is, what? You've already implied you'd do whatever you could get away with: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29668597 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29668597
      - actually_a_dog 5y ago
        Again, I told you, I never agreed to work X amount of hours for any tech company I've ever worked at. In fact, it's always been made clear to me by my managers that time and effort spent is irrelevant, and only results count. Deliver on your sprint commitments, and you're gold, regardless of how long it takes. Oh, and let's not pretend companies won't do "whatever they can get away with," either. Read the news if you need examples.
        WalterBright 5y ago
        Then you're doing piecework? I thought you said you weren't a contractor. I've done piecework, too, which is deliver a product to a specification. But that's not as an employee. Employees get W2s, contractors get 1099s.
        actually_a_dog 5y ago
        No, I'm not a contractor. I work as an employee. And, no, I've never signed anything stating I'd work "40 hours" for a tech company. I edited this into a previous comment, but this is literally the applicable phrase from my last offer letter: > As an exempt salaried employee, you will be expected to work the hours, including evenings and weekends, required to perform your job duties. It goes both way, you see. I accomplish my duties in less than 40 hours, I get to be done. If my manager is happy with my work, quite frankly, why does it matter how long it takes?
HWR_14 5y ago
> as their coworkers (thereby screwing over coworkers, who are forced to pick up the slack) Why is it their coworkers responsibility to make sure enough total labor is present? According to you, anyone not giving 100% is slacking and doing something wrong, so I assume their coworkers are already giving 100%. Why should they have to work harder than 100% because management is bad at getting workers?