5 ms·

why? the answer is simple ... control you need to hit them with low salaries and high taxes, when they try for a better life quickly squash that crap with over

why? the answer is simple ... control you need to hit them with low salaries and high taxes, when they try for a better life quickly squash that crap with overly broad non-competes welcome to Europe how about paying employees adequately to a point where they don't have to work multiple full time jobs at a time, such an outlandish idea

jstx1 4y ago
> how about paying employees adequately to a point where they don't have to work multiple full time jobs at a time We aren't talking about people holding mulitple low-paying jobs to make ends meet. It's mostly people in well payed positions taking advantage of being remote.
- gregjor 4y ago
  Explain how that changes anything. Does an employer somehow have the right to limit the income of employees because they are supposedly well-paid? If someone can get two jobs done successfully who exactly are they taking advantage of?
  - jstx1 4y ago
    I don't think they have a right to limit the employees' income but they do have a right to demand full time work when they're paying for it. It's a tricky problem that I don't necessarily have an answer to. My point was that it's misleading to compare people who have to work multiple jobs to survive with people who are making hundreds of thousands at each job. Example from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29784608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29784608: > As far as the money goes, my math goes like this: > - 1 job: 250-300K cash, 250-300K equity (at the high end, higher if I moved to management) > - 4 jobs: My current situation is 225K avg cash (including bonuses) per job, 100K avg equity per job You can't look at this and say (like the GP comment did) "how about paying employees adequately".
    - gregjor 4y ago
      The employer can reasonably expect to get the work they pay for. Professional and creative employees usually get paid for results and meeting goals, not for warming a chair for eight hours. The employer can use cameras and keystroke loggers to make sure they get their eight hours a day — Upwork offers this “service” and I’ve heard of employers doing it. That would be a big morale booster and show of trust from the employer. It’s up to the employer to set clear performance expectations and measurements, then handle employees who don’t meet those expectations as a job performance problem. If the employer can’t do that basic management work, preferring to pry and control and intimidate their employees into submission, they deserve what they get. I don’t understand the argument “They are already well-paid so they shouldn’t look to make more money.” Try that on the C-suite execs who sit on multiple corporate boards.
      - jstx1 4y ago
        > It’s up to the employer to set clear performance expectations and measurements, then handle employees who don’t meet those expectations as a job performance problem. Yes, and that's the question that OP is asking - how do you set those expectations and measurements. It's a starting point for the whole conversation, not the end of it. > I don’t understand the argument “They are already well-paid so they shouldn’t look to make more money.” I've never made this argument or seen anyone else in the thread make this argument.
        gregjor 4y ago
        The OP didn’t ask how to measure employee performance or set expectations and goals. They asked how to identify employees who had multiple jobs. > First of all, I'd like to figure out how we can identify someone working more than we are aware of. Generally it would be fine for me (/us) what people do in their non-work time, but if it affects our work, then it's not acceptable. So how can we identify such a situation? The question indicates the OP doesn’t have a way to measure performance, and instead focuses on identifying employees who might have other jobs. > I've never made this argument or seen anyone else in the thread make this argument. I must have misunderstood what you meant by this: > We aren't talking about people holding mulitple low-paying jobs to make ends meet. It's mostly people in well payed positions taking advantage of being remote. One could read “taking advantage of being remote” more than one way, but in the context I read it as people already paid well taking advantage of their employer.
- rapjr9 4y ago
  Those "well payed positions" have had flat salaries for decades, same as every other non-C-suite job, at least until recently (and now we have inflation eating salary increases). Working one job to support kids, a house, and a stay-at-home partner used to be possible. Not any longer. If your partner can't work or you'd prefer to have more attention paid to raising the kids, then two simultaneous jobs for the wage earner seems like a requirement today. Or you could choose to live like a common laborer, cheap old house, beater for a car, having to shop carefully on a budget. The middle class is not what it used to be, although you are encouraged to think it is [citation needed :-)]
  - impjohn 4y ago
    Seems to be a local minima in Europe that for a family to have enough resources, both partners need to have careers and full-time jobs. However two careers do not mix very well with a family perspective and having kids. Then some people wonder why the birth rates in EU are falling rapidly..
gregjor 4y ago
I suspect it’s mostly about control, or maybe some misguided idea that employees owe loyalty to their employer. People trade their work for money. It’s not like getting married, forsaking all others. If the employer sets clear performance expectations and has some way to measure performance, then employees either meet expectations or they don’t. If they don’t the employer can take remedial action, up to letting the employee go. It doesn’t really matter if the poor performance or low productivity was caused by another job or the employee playing video games or watching TV all day. There’s some irony in the business the OP describes hires programmers out to multiple customers. That means the owners and managers of the company are working multiple jobs.
- iExploder 4y ago
  > There’s some irony in the business the OP describes hires programmers out to multiple customers. That means the owners and managers of the company are working multiple jobs. nailed it :) its fine when we pocket the US cost / EU dev salary difference, but its not ok when you try to go solo and do the same its not exactly breakthrough idea, don't get weird when someone else tries to have a go at it
- NaTopp 4y ago
  > There’s some irony in the business the OP describes hires programmers out to multiple customers. That means the owners and managers of the company are working multiple jobs. Interesting point. Didn't thought about that yet! I wouldn't say the situtations are exactly the same, but they share a lot of details.

jstx1 4y ago

> how about paying employees adequately to a point where they don't have to work multiple full time jobs at a time We aren't talking about people holding mulitple low-paying jobs to make ends meet. It's mostly people in well payed positions taking advantage of being remote.

gregjor 4y ago
Explain how that changes anything. Does an employer somehow have the right to limit the income of employees because they are supposedly well-paid? If someone can get two jobs done successfully who exactly are they taking advantage of?
- jstx1 4y ago
  I don't think they have a right to limit the employees' income but they do have a right to demand full time work when they're paying for it. It's a tricky problem that I don't necessarily have an answer to. My point was that it's misleading to compare people who have to work multiple jobs to survive with people who are making hundreds of thousands at each job. Example from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29784608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29784608: > As far as the money goes, my math goes like this: > - 1 job: 250-300K cash, 250-300K equity (at the high end, higher if I moved to management) > - 4 jobs: My current situation is 225K avg cash (including bonuses) per job, 100K avg equity per job You can't look at this and say (like the GP comment did) "how about paying employees adequately".
  - gregjor 4y ago
    The employer can reasonably expect to get the work they pay for. Professional and creative employees usually get paid for results and meeting goals, not for warming a chair for eight hours. The employer can use cameras and keystroke loggers to make sure they get their eight hours a day — Upwork offers this “service” and I’ve heard of employers doing it. That would be a big morale booster and show of trust from the employer. It’s up to the employer to set clear performance expectations and measurements, then handle employees who don’t meet those expectations as a job performance problem. If the employer can’t do that basic management work, preferring to pry and control and intimidate their employees into submission, they deserve what they get. I don’t understand the argument “They are already well-paid so they shouldn’t look to make more money.” Try that on the C-suite execs who sit on multiple corporate boards.
    - jstx1 4y ago
      > It’s up to the employer to set clear performance expectations and measurements, then handle employees who don’t meet those expectations as a job performance problem. Yes, and that's the question that OP is asking - how do you set those expectations and measurements. It's a starting point for the whole conversation, not the end of it. > I don’t understand the argument “They are already well-paid so they shouldn’t look to make more money.” I've never made this argument or seen anyone else in the thread make this argument.
      - gregjor 4y ago
        The OP didn’t ask how to measure employee performance or set expectations and goals. They asked how to identify employees who had multiple jobs. > First of all, I'd like to figure out how we can identify someone working more than we are aware of. Generally it would be fine for me (/us) what people do in their non-work time, but if it affects our work, then it's not acceptable. So how can we identify such a situation? The question indicates the OP doesn’t have a way to measure performance, and instead focuses on identifying employees who might have other jobs. > I've never made this argument or seen anyone else in the thread make this argument. I must have misunderstood what you meant by this: > We aren't talking about people holding mulitple low-paying jobs to make ends meet. It's mostly people in well payed positions taking advantage of being remote. One could read “taking advantage of being remote” more than one way, but in the context I read it as people already paid well taking advantage of their employer.
rapjr9 4y ago
Those "well payed positions" have had flat salaries for decades, same as every other non-C-suite job, at least until recently (and now we have inflation eating salary increases). Working one job to support kids, a house, and a stay-at-home partner used to be possible. Not any longer. If your partner can't work or you'd prefer to have more attention paid to raising the kids, then two simultaneous jobs for the wage earner seems like a requirement today. Or you could choose to live like a common laborer, cheap old house, beater for a car, having to shop carefully on a budget. The middle class is not what it used to be, although you are encouraged to think it is [citation needed :-)]
- impjohn 4y ago
  Seems to be a local minima in Europe that for a family to have enough resources, both partners need to have careers and full-time jobs. However two careers do not mix very well with a family perspective and having kids. Then some people wonder why the birth rates in EU are falling rapidly..

gregjor 4y ago

I suspect it’s mostly about control, or maybe some misguided idea that employees owe loyalty to their employer. People trade their work for money. It’s not like getting married, forsaking all others. If the employer sets clear performance expectations and has some way to measure performance, then employees either meet expectations or they don’t. If they don’t the employer can take remedial action, up to letting the employee go. It doesn’t really matter if the poor performance or low productivity was caused by another job or the employee playing video games or watching TV all day. There’s some irony in the business the OP describes hires programmers out to multiple customers. That means the owners and managers of the company are working multiple jobs.

iExploder 4y ago
> There’s some irony in the business the OP describes hires programmers out to multiple customers. That means the owners and managers of the company are working multiple jobs. nailed it :) its fine when we pocket the US cost / EU dev salary difference, but its not ok when you try to go solo and do the same its not exactly breakthrough idea, don't get weird when someone else tries to have a go at it
NaTopp 4y ago
> There’s some irony in the business the OP describes hires programmers out to multiple customers. That means the owners and managers of the company are working multiple jobs. Interesting point. Didn't thought about that yet! I wouldn't say the situtations are exactly the same, but they share a lot of details.