6 ms·

IMO the simple problem here is that people are being paid for their time, not their output. Sure, the output is what is valued, but folks are paid for their tim

IMO the simple problem here is that people are being paid for their time, not their output. Sure, the output is what is valued, but folks are paid for their time via an annual salary. In part, this is because it’s too challenging to value and measure each person’s output, especially in orgs with a lot of different roles. It’s just easier to say, “well the market for a designer is X so let’s pay some % of that”. The problem with that, often, is that folks don’t actually know how much output they might expect from a lot of roles. Is this designer performing? This PM? Unless you have a real breadth of experience in these roles (almost nobody does), you look to other metrics like “are my teams unblocked”, “did this product ship”, “do these slides seem reasonable”, etc. IMO those are also imperfect because a great team, a great project, etc. can sometimes easily mask someone’s meagre contributions. I think some employees knowingly exploit this knowledge gap. I don’t think it’s common, but it happens. We’ve seen people post their own examples of doing that here on HN. So, given they often lack experience evaluating output, some managers want to see their high-priced employees at work to even understand what they’re buying. You can call that onerous micromanaging, if you want. A less cynical take could be “managers want other signals to understand how their team members contribute.” That’s my 2 cents, at least.

zmgsabst 3y ago
Salary is explicitly not paying for time, but output — the performance of duties. You want my time? Pay hourly.
- cassianoleal 3y ago
  So if you perform badly, you get paid less? Or if you perform exemplarily do you get paid more? How much do you get paid for each unit of output? Can you measure it so it's always the same, for every person, at any time? If not, you're selling your time - not your output.
  - bbor 3y ago
    This is just… false? Yes, if they cared/could, they would lower the salary of underperformers. The definition of a salary is that you’re paid to fulfill a role, not to work specific hours. That’s why hourly is called hourly. Either I’m taking crazy pills or this is a silly debate :)
    - cassianoleal 3y ago
      Obviously I'm not privy to your contract of employment, but so far in over 20 years in the market, all of mine established work hours. If I worked less than that, I'd get paid less. Some contracts had provisions for overtime, in which case I could be paid more for more hours of work. That's selling my time. I'd still get paid the same for the same number of hours, regardless of my output. With good or great output, there was a small chance I'd get a promotion, or a pay rise in the next round of performance reviews (which in my experience are nothing of the sort). With bad output, there was a small chance I'd get fired. In either case, my pay was never tied to my output. I'd still get paid for the hours I worked, regardless of how well I performed. > you’re paid to fulfill a role See above. You're usually getting paid to fulfill a role for a certain amount of time. If "number of hours you've fulfilled your role" is how you measure your output, then I 100% agree this is a silly debate. That is not what I consider output though. A factory is paid per output. If they produce 100 cars, they get paid 100 * price of 1 car. If they produce 90 cars, they get paid 10% less, and so on.
      - bbor 3y ago
        Thanks for the polite reply :) I am very confident I am right about this very pedantic point, though obviously it matters little in the end for many roles, as you’ve noted. For example, this is a good link: https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/pay-salary/salary-vs-hourly-pay https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/pay-salary/salary-vs-ho... Your job may require you work 40h, but that’s more of a employment requirement, such as “you’re a boat captain and need to be on the bridge for X hours in normal workdays, but get paid a monthly salary regardless.” That doesn’t mean you’re paid for your time any more than a dress code clause means you’re being paid for your fashion :) But again all moot in our industry in most cases! Really gets important in cases such as fast food, where they’ll promote people to salaried “manager” positions paying $40K/y that have no set working hours, but their responsibilities require them to work well over 40h/week EDIT: perhaps a clearer example: if you had to crunch and work 50h this week, and couldn’t take 10h off next week, would you require extra pay for that? If no, you’re salaried!
- TheLML 3y ago
  I get paid for 40 hours of my time per week, on average. So I am being paid for my time. Every extra hour I work in one week, I have to compensate in another. And vice versa.
  - bbor 3y ago
    Not the law, just your preference. Lots and lots of salaried employees work more or less than 40h/week, every week. Almost always the former ofc lol
- elefanten 3y ago
  Is that why its measured and paid in time-based increments while output is only measured in arbitrary ways and at fuzzy granularity?
  - bbor 3y ago
    “I am paid every two weeks” != “I am paid for my time”. Social security also pays out biweekly, and it has nothing to do with time
    - elefanten 3y ago
      Both salary and hourly roles ultimately have expectations around both time spent and work contributed. On average, in both cases, the time spent portion is tracked more closely while the worked performed portion is functionally given more leeway. That’s why the original comment nails it in the first two paragraphs. It may not be intended this way, but effectively people are paid for their time much moreso than their output.
- farazzz 3y ago
  Maybe it would be more clear if you specified salary is in exchange for a certain minimum amount of output, then I would kinda agree. But then you also are expected be at work for the remainder of your contractual work hours. So it’s not as easy as saying one or the other is completely true, it’s a mixture of both time and output
  - zmgsabst 3y ago
    I haven’t been at any salaried position: My contract explicitly states that any week in which I perform any work, I’m to be paid a prorated weekly amount. Managers do not care what hours I put in if my tickets + other duties are performed — and typically, I managed to get away with 35-37 hours. Some weeks were more like 50. Again, the role was duty based, not hourly. Every salaried job I’ve had has been output, not time.
hunter-gatherer 3y ago
> IMO the simple problem here is that people are being paid for their time, not their output. Sure, the output is what is valued, but folks are paid for their time via an annual salary. This is incorrect in the United States. Most WFH employees are under exempt status, and so by definition from US department of labor, they are explicity _not_ paid for their time. I'm on mobile so I can't find the link easy on the DOL website, but on desktop it is easy to find.
- somsak2 3y ago
  i don't think op was referring to a legal definition but rather how things de facto are seen. I'm technically salaried too but i can't say I'm really valued based on my output

zmgsabst 3y ago

Salary is explicitly not paying for time, but output — the performance of duties. You want my time? Pay hourly.

cassianoleal 3y ago
So if you perform badly, you get paid less? Or if you perform exemplarily do you get paid more? How much do you get paid for each unit of output? Can you measure it so it's always the same, for every person, at any time? If not, you're selling your time - not your output.
- bbor 3y ago
  This is just… false? Yes, if they cared/could, they would lower the salary of underperformers. The definition of a salary is that you’re paid to fulfill a role, not to work specific hours. That’s why hourly is called hourly. Either I’m taking crazy pills or this is a silly debate :)
  - cassianoleal 3y ago
    Obviously I'm not privy to your contract of employment, but so far in over 20 years in the market, all of mine established work hours. If I worked less than that, I'd get paid less. Some contracts had provisions for overtime, in which case I could be paid more for more hours of work. That's selling my time. I'd still get paid the same for the same number of hours, regardless of my output. With good or great output, there was a small chance I'd get a promotion, or a pay rise in the next round of performance reviews (which in my experience are nothing of the sort). With bad output, there was a small chance I'd get fired. In either case, my pay was never tied to my output. I'd still get paid for the hours I worked, regardless of how well I performed. > you’re paid to fulfill a role See above. You're usually getting paid to fulfill a role for a certain amount of time. If "number of hours you've fulfilled your role" is how you measure your output, then I 100% agree this is a silly debate. That is not what I consider output though. A factory is paid per output. If they produce 100 cars, they get paid 100 * price of 1 car. If they produce 90 cars, they get paid 10% less, and so on.
    - bbor 3y ago
      Thanks for the polite reply :) I am very confident I am right about this very pedantic point, though obviously it matters little in the end for many roles, as you’ve noted. For example, this is a good link: https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/pay-salary/salary-vs-hourly-pay https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/pay-salary/salary-vs-ho... Your job may require you work 40h, but that’s more of a employment requirement, such as “you’re a boat captain and need to be on the bridge for X hours in normal workdays, but get paid a monthly salary regardless.” That doesn’t mean you’re paid for your time any more than a dress code clause means you’re being paid for your fashion :) But again all moot in our industry in most cases! Really gets important in cases such as fast food, where they’ll promote people to salaried “manager” positions paying $40K/y that have no set working hours, but their responsibilities require them to work well over 40h/week EDIT: perhaps a clearer example: if you had to crunch and work 50h this week, and couldn’t take 10h off next week, would you require extra pay for that? If no, you’re salaried!
TheLML 3y ago
I get paid for 40 hours of my time per week, on average. So I am being paid for my time. Every extra hour I work in one week, I have to compensate in another. And vice versa.
- bbor 3y ago
  Not the law, just your preference. Lots and lots of salaried employees work more or less than 40h/week, every week. Almost always the former ofc lol
elefanten 3y ago
Is that why its measured and paid in time-based increments while output is only measured in arbitrary ways and at fuzzy granularity?
- bbor 3y ago
  “I am paid every two weeks” != “I am paid for my time”. Social security also pays out biweekly, and it has nothing to do with time
  - elefanten 3y ago
    Both salary and hourly roles ultimately have expectations around both time spent and work contributed. On average, in both cases, the time spent portion is tracked more closely while the worked performed portion is functionally given more leeway. That’s why the original comment nails it in the first two paragraphs. It may not be intended this way, but effectively people are paid for their time much moreso than their output.
farazzz 3y ago
Maybe it would be more clear if you specified salary is in exchange for a certain minimum amount of output, then I would kinda agree. But then you also are expected be at work for the remainder of your contractual work hours. So it’s not as easy as saying one or the other is completely true, it’s a mixture of both time and output
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  I haven’t been at any salaried position: My contract explicitly states that any week in which I perform any work, I’m to be paid a prorated weekly amount. Managers do not care what hours I put in if my tickets + other duties are performed — and typically, I managed to get away with 35-37 hours. Some weeks were more like 50. Again, the role was duty based, not hourly. Every salaried job I’ve had has been output, not time.

hunter-gatherer 3y ago

> IMO the simple problem here is that people are being paid for their time, not their output. Sure, the output is what is valued, but folks are paid for their time via an annual salary. This is incorrect in the United States. Most WFH employees are under exempt status, and so by definition from US department of labor, they are explicity _not_ paid for their time. I'm on mobile so I can't find the link easy on the DOL website, but on desktop it is easy to find.

somsak2 3y ago
i don't think op was referring to a legal definition but rather how things de facto are seen. I'm technically salaried too but i can't say I'm really valued based on my output