3 ms·

I don't really understand your complaint here. Unless they have a real stake in the company (as in non-trivial equity grants) why the hell would they prioritiz

I don't really understand your complaint here. Unless they have a real stake in the company (as in non-trivial equity grants) why the hell would they prioritize making you additional money (or saving money) by using tooling that will make them a less valuable hire in the future? They are getting paid to accomplish a task for you, they are NOT getting paid more if they use tools that would be more effective but hurt their future prospects. You can set guidelines around tooling if you want to prevent engineers from doing this, but otherwise assume that part of the reason they're willing to show up for the salary they get paid is to learn more and eventually make more. If they can't make more through the company making more (equity) don't expect them to prioritize that.

wpietri 5y ago
Is there anything more to your comment then a long elaboration of a cash-focused self-centeredness? Certainly you seem aggressively unaware of anything other than "the company", setting aside other relevant parties, like colleagues, users, and society at large. While also ignoring quite a lot of things that even engineers value in their work besides money. Econ 101 is an ok first-cut model, but it's pretty bad as a religion. There are more things, Horatio.
- horsawlarway 5y ago
  > Is there anything more to your comment then a long elaboration of a cash-focused self-centeredness? Big ooof, given the entire discussion is predicated around using simple and plain tooling to save a company money, and then berating developers who dare to learn new tools on the job. It turns out part of learning is picking the wrong tool occasionally. Who knew?
thegrimmest 5y ago
I disagree. You're not paying engineers to develop their own careers, you're paying them to act strictly in the best interests of the organization they are working for. It's not just about "accomplishing tasks", but about using their judgement to accomplish them in a manner that best serves the company's stated objectives. That is what "professionalism" means, at least to me.
- horsawlarway 5y ago
  Define the "best interests of the organization". Otherwise your take is meaningless. Is it in the best interests to lose interested and engaged engineers but to save 10% on cloud computing fees? Is it simply making the most money? Is it picking a tool you're comfortable with, but is hard to hire for? Is it accomplishing the "stated objectives" even when those objectives are wrong, or immoral, or illegal? Basically - unless I have equity (and more than .01 of a %) then the "organization I work for" is ME. I'm managing my time, and renting it out to the current highest bidder. I will absolutely work to ensure that bidder is happy and satisfied with the results of hiring me - but I WILL NOT devalue future earning to do so.

wpietri 5y ago

Is there anything more to your comment then a long elaboration of a cash-focused self-centeredness? Certainly you seem aggressively unaware of anything other than "the company", setting aside other relevant parties, like colleagues, users, and society at large. While also ignoring quite a lot of things that even engineers value in their work besides money. Econ 101 is an ok first-cut model, but it's pretty bad as a religion. There are more things, Horatio.

horsawlarway 5y ago
> Is there anything more to your comment then a long elaboration of a cash-focused self-centeredness? Big ooof, given the entire discussion is predicated around using simple and plain tooling to save a company money, and then berating developers who dare to learn new tools on the job. It turns out part of learning is picking the wrong tool occasionally. Who knew?

thegrimmest 5y ago

I disagree. You're not paying engineers to develop their own careers, you're paying them to act strictly in the best interests of the organization they are working for. It's not just about "accomplishing tasks", but about using their judgement to accomplish them in a manner that best serves the company's stated objectives. That is what "professionalism" means, at least to me.

horsawlarway 5y ago
Define the "best interests of the organization". Otherwise your take is meaningless. Is it in the best interests to lose interested and engaged engineers but to save 10% on cloud computing fees? Is it simply making the most money? Is it picking a tool you're comfortable with, but is hard to hire for? Is it accomplishing the "stated objectives" even when those objectives are wrong, or immoral, or illegal? Basically - unless I have equity (and more than .01 of a %) then the "organization I work for" is ME. I'm managing my time, and renting it out to the current highest bidder. I will absolutely work to ensure that bidder is happy and satisfied with the results of hiring me - but I WILL NOT devalue future earning to do so.