11 ms·

I'm pretty familiar with Jack's situation. Yes, this is indeed true, now. For a time he was splitting one day on / one day off at each company. Frankly, Jack h

by jof 15y ago

I'm pretty familiar with Jack's situation. Yes, this is indeed true, now. For a time he was splitting one day on / one day off at each company. Frankly, Jack has very little time outside of his work, but I wouldn't say that he doesn't have a life. His work is his life and they are closely intertwined. This is great, since it means he's quite passionate about both product sets and the quality of his companies' net output really shines, IMO. The danger of this obsessive behavior though is that it can begin to warp ones perspective on others' work/life balance. Jack works like a dog because he's excited about what he does, so it seems to baffle him when those around him aren't equally excited and committed to their work as well. In the case of Square, they've been very quick to fire anyone who isn't putting 80+% percent of their life into Square -- often with little warning or reason. Dogma is dangerous.

brown9-2 15y ago
His work is his life and they are closely intertwined. This is great... IMO. In the case of Square, they've been very quick to fire anyone who isn't putting 80+% percent of their life into Square -- often with little warning or reason. What does this mean practically - that employees are expected to put 134 hours a week into working at Square? Or does sleep time not count against them, meaning they are expected to work only 89.6 hours a week? How many hours of sleep each night does Square recommend their employees get?
- jof 15y ago
  No number is made explicit -- they can't really be demanding more than 40 hours / week for exempt employees in California. You're expected to "find your own work/life balance", but there is strong social pressure to stay in the office nights and weekends. I would expect to work 70 - 80+ weeks there if you're really into it (and checking in / working at home in the evenings and mornings).
  - SCdF 15y ago
    US employment law is nuts, here in NZ you'd have an amazingly hard time firing people who don't work the 80hr weeks you wish they did.
    - ghshephard 15y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean about "US employment law is nuts". If you are an hourly employee, you get paid so many dollars/hours, for the number of hours you work, and after you work so many hours a day, you get paid overtime. If you are exempt (Salaried) - you basically work when your manager tells you to. I've been at (several) companies where we had 3-4 month death marches with _everyone_ working late and on weekends in the office to push the ball over the line.
      - bluedanieru 15y ago
        I think he means exactly what you just described. That if you're paid hourly you'll get overtime so don't complain lest you be fired. That simply deciding you don't want to work those hours regardless of the overtime pay is not on the table. That if you're a salaried employee and a white collar worker, somehow any and all abuse is justified in the name of making you really earn that 85K a year plus some options we're probably going to screw you out of anyway. That you can be fired for trying to organize. That you can be fired for being sick, subsequently lose access to health care, and die. That you get two, maybe three weeks vacation a year, if you're lucky. And we'll shit on you for taking it, btw. I guess what he's getting at is that the US is a pretty terrible place to work and live, gilded though the cage may often be, and it is hard to disagree.
      - rsynnott 15y ago
        > If you are exempt (Salaried) - you basically work when your manager tells you to. I've been at (several) companies where we had 3-4 month death marches with _everyone_ working late and on weekends in the office to push the ball over the line. This is probably the point of confusion. In most of Europe, at any rate, salaried employees are subject to the working time directive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Time_Directive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Time_Directive
ootachi 15y ago
Square sounds like a terrible place to work, then. We should stop giving startups free passes for demanding ridiculous hours out of employees in the name of equity, when they usually end up screwing their employees out of it anyway.
- jof 15y ago
  I think startup politics generally reflects the power structure surrounding it; whether that be founders or investors that hold a relatively big stake in an organization, or the society surrounding it. The US is not always the most meritocratic or egalitarian environment, and it seems that those that latch onto or come into some power tend to hold to it very tightly and don't share with those around them. Equity, unless you're very lucky or diligent, often doesn't equate to much. I think, too often, folks tend to place too much emphasis on equity. The terms and value of which are not often immediately obvious to the recipient and can get diluted over time. Twitter's on what... round G now? Ultimately, starting a startup is a big uphill slog. At the end of the day, everyone needs to put in some level of herculean effort from time to time if it's going to work. The trick is figuring out how to effectively value the things that each contributor is best at. If you're working in an organization that primarily values software engineers, it can be hard to get recognition as a visual designer. In an organization that primarily (and sometimes only) values and recognizes software engineers that make things you can see or touch, it can even be hard to make it as a systems plumber or kernel hacker.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - kamaal 15y ago
    >>I think startup politics generally reflects the power structure surrounding it; whether that be founders or investors that hold a relatively big stake in an organization, or the society surrounding it. Its not about who holds power or has a bigger stake. Its just that people need to stick to the promises made and pay up as agreed. Beyond that its your usual economics. Just because investors have put in the money its no reason for them or a senior executive who just joined the company and realized cheating developers on equity can help him earn another millions during the IPO, gets a chance to redefine what meritocracy according to him is. And its no reason, to suddenly consider all developer contribution useless without any merit to deserve stocks and that only some one with a Business designation next to their names are the only ones to deserve stock.

by jof 15y ago

brown9-2 15y ago

His work is his life and they are closely intertwined. This is great... IMO. In the case of Square, they've been very quick to fire anyone who isn't putting 80+% percent of their life into Square -- often with little warning or reason. What does this mean practically - that employees are expected to put 134 hours a week into working at Square? Or does sleep time not count against them, meaning they are expected to work only 89.6 hours a week? How many hours of sleep each night does Square recommend their employees get?

jof 15y ago
No number is made explicit -- they can't really be demanding more than 40 hours / week for exempt employees in California. You're expected to "find your own work/life balance", but there is strong social pressure to stay in the office nights and weekends. I would expect to work 70 - 80+ weeks there if you're really into it (and checking in / working at home in the evenings and mornings).
- SCdF 15y ago
  US employment law is nuts, here in NZ you'd have an amazingly hard time firing people who don't work the 80hr weeks you wish they did.
  - ghshephard 15y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean about "US employment law is nuts". If you are an hourly employee, you get paid so many dollars/hours, for the number of hours you work, and after you work so many hours a day, you get paid overtime. If you are exempt (Salaried) - you basically work when your manager tells you to. I've been at (several) companies where we had 3-4 month death marches with _everyone_ working late and on weekends in the office to push the ball over the line.
    - bluedanieru 15y ago
      I think he means exactly what you just described. That if you're paid hourly you'll get overtime so don't complain lest you be fired. That simply deciding you don't want to work those hours regardless of the overtime pay is not on the table. That if you're a salaried employee and a white collar worker, somehow any and all abuse is justified in the name of making you really earn that 85K a year plus some options we're probably going to screw you out of anyway. That you can be fired for trying to organize. That you can be fired for being sick, subsequently lose access to health care, and die. That you get two, maybe three weeks vacation a year, if you're lucky. And we'll shit on you for taking it, btw. I guess what he's getting at is that the US is a pretty terrible place to work and live, gilded though the cage may often be, and it is hard to disagree.
    - rsynnott 15y ago
      > If you are exempt (Salaried) - you basically work when your manager tells you to. I've been at (several) companies where we had 3-4 month death marches with _everyone_ working late and on weekends in the office to push the ball over the line. This is probably the point of confusion. In most of Europe, at any rate, salaried employees are subject to the working time directive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Time_Directive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Time_Directive

ootachi 15y ago

Square sounds like a terrible place to work, then. We should stop giving startups free passes for demanding ridiculous hours out of employees in the name of equity, when they usually end up screwing their employees out of it anyway.

jof 15y ago
I think startup politics generally reflects the power structure surrounding it; whether that be founders or investors that hold a relatively big stake in an organization, or the society surrounding it. The US is not always the most meritocratic or egalitarian environment, and it seems that those that latch onto or come into some power tend to hold to it very tightly and don't share with those around them. Equity, unless you're very lucky or diligent, often doesn't equate to much. I think, too often, folks tend to place too much emphasis on equity. The terms and value of which are not often immediately obvious to the recipient and can get diluted over time. Twitter's on what... round G now? Ultimately, starting a startup is a big uphill slog. At the end of the day, everyone needs to put in some level of herculean effort from time to time if it's going to work. The trick is figuring out how to effectively value the things that each contributor is best at. If you're working in an organization that primarily values software engineers, it can be hard to get recognition as a visual designer. In an organization that primarily (and sometimes only) values and recognizes software engineers that make things you can see or touch, it can even be hard to make it as a systems plumber or kernel hacker.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- kamaal 15y ago
  >>I think startup politics generally reflects the power structure surrounding it; whether that be founders or investors that hold a relatively big stake in an organization, or the society surrounding it. Its not about who holds power or has a bigger stake. Its just that people need to stick to the promises made and pay up as agreed. Beyond that its your usual economics. Just because investors have put in the money its no reason for them or a senior executive who just joined the company and realized cheating developers on equity can help him earn another millions during the IPO, gets a chance to redefine what meritocracy according to him is. And its no reason, to suddenly consider all developer contribution useless without any merit to deserve stocks and that only some one with a Business designation next to their names are the only ones to deserve stock.