3 ms·

I have a friend that did this in a summer job about 12 or 13 years ago. Got some temp work doing data entry, did it for 2 days before realising it could be done

by iamben 15y ago

I have a friend that did this in a summer job about 12 or 13 years ago. Got some temp work doing data entry, did it for 2 days before realising it could be done better. He wrote something in VB and did 15x more than everyone else over the course of a day. They (obviously) thought something was wrong so examined what he'd done. When he explained about the program, they told him if he left the temp firm he was employed through and knocked on their door in the morning, they'd give him a job and pay him £2 more an hour. This he (naively) did, and with him came his software. They fired 10 of the other temps the day he 'started' and kept his piece of software when he went back to university after the summer. In this case, the scumbag was most definitely the employer. When he told me the story I wept into my pint glass at what could have been.

paulhauggis 15y ago
Why is the employer wrong here? If they were hiring 10 temp workers to do the job of a simple program, they really didn't need them in the first place.
- andys627 15y ago
  Employer's wrong because they let the intern make a crappy deal for his software... hmm
- SomeCallMeTim 15y ago
  £2/hour more than a temp data-entry position isn't market compensation for an entry-level programming gig. Converting to US wages, temp workers often make $8-$12/hour -- the temp AGENCY may be making $20-$25 for that, but the worker only pulls in up to $24k/year. If they'd doubled his salary to ~$48k/year (assuming he previously was earning ~$12/hour) then that starts to be a decent wage for an entry-level programmer. Consider this the bare minimum ethical offer, paying the developer based on minimal market value (instead of taking advantage of his naivete). But if it was saving them from having to pay 10 temp workers (at $20/hour each, say) and they only paid him for the summer months to perfect the script and (presumably) train a replacement, then they were basically treating him as a consultant, which (reasonably) would have doubled his hourly rate again. Paying him for 3 months at $48/hour should have cost them about $30k, but he ended up saving the company ~$350k/year (assuming they still needed to retain a $50k/year "expert" data-entry/programmer type to use and maintain the script). Since they could see his script was valuable, the least they could have done would have been to pay him a reasonable consulting rate for a few month. On the other hand, if they'd at least gone with a fair entry-level programmer salary I wouldn't be complaining -- paying someone half of what they're worth seems to be too common to name a company a scumbag over. But yes, the company is well into scumbag territory for taking advantage of someone by paying them 1/4 of the fair market value of their time.
  - jlarocco 15y ago
    Nonsense. The guy accepted the $2 raise. He could have said, "No, I want $xx an hour," or "I'll sell you the script for $xxxxx," but he didn't.
    - bsphil 14y ago
      He also never said he was using a script to do his work for him. He "accepted" the raise by not letting them know how he did it.
      - kamaal 14y ago
        The problem is programmers must learn to sell their work not their time. We are not like sports coaches. The stuff we deliver sells for higher price, compared to if we would sell the time taken to build it. He should have sold the program, not this time to build it. Just like how a painter would sell his painting not the time taken to paint it.
    - SomeCallMeTim 14y ago
      >The guy accepted the $2 raise. Taking advantage of naivete doesn't excuse them from being scumbags. You can worship scumbag employment practices if you like, or claim that it's his "fault" somehow for not understanding the value of what he was doing. I prefer to reward people at least SOMEWHAT proportional to their contribution, as opposed to proportional to their business acumen. In your world, the 1% get richer, the rest get screwed, and the economy crashes like clockwork. Sounds like a bunch of scumbags in control to me. In the world I'd like to move toward, everyone (but the 1%) would benefit from a more stable and sustainable economy, since the 99% (those who actually create) would be compensated much more, and would actually benefit from the crazy productivity gains we've experienced over the past 40 years, instead of it going to the talentless 1% who happen to be holding all of the cash rightfully earned by the 99%. And the frustrating this is that they believe they deserve it. [1] More details as to how this could be true? Too many to relate them all in a comment. If you care, or if you want to argue with my conclusion, watch this (warning: Long video): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-KqeU8nzn4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-KqeU8nzn4 It's like Atlas Shrugged, only without the "Be a huge asshole to everyone" part at the end of every sentence. [2] ------- [1] http://www.salon.com/2012/05/07/americas_idiot_rich/ http://www.salon.com/2012/05/07/americas_idiot_rich/ [2] (in the rollover) http://xkcd.com/1049/ http://xkcd.com/1049/
- nsmartt 15y ago
  I wouldn't say the employer is wrong (I don't think parent was saying that either), but that the choice was naive. The company saved the the wages of 10 temps and only paid the guy $2 more. He should have asked for more/something more long term.
pan69 15y ago
They have a word for this: Business Your friend just turned out to be a lousy business person and his employer was not.

by iamben 15y ago

paulhauggis 15y ago

Why is the employer wrong here? If they were hiring 10 temp workers to do the job of a simple program, they really didn't need them in the first place.

andys627 15y ago
Employer's wrong because they let the intern make a crappy deal for his software... hmm
SomeCallMeTim 15y ago
£2/hour more than a temp data-entry position isn't market compensation for an entry-level programming gig. Converting to US wages, temp workers often make $8-$12/hour -- the temp AGENCY may be making $20-$25 for that, but the worker only pulls in up to $24k/year. If they'd doubled his salary to ~$48k/year (assuming he previously was earning ~$12/hour) then that starts to be a decent wage for an entry-level programmer. Consider this the bare minimum ethical offer, paying the developer based on minimal market value (instead of taking advantage of his naivete). But if it was saving them from having to pay 10 temp workers (at $20/hour each, say) and they only paid him for the summer months to perfect the script and (presumably) train a replacement, then they were basically treating him as a consultant, which (reasonably) would have doubled his hourly rate again. Paying him for 3 months at $48/hour should have cost them about $30k, but he ended up saving the company ~$350k/year (assuming they still needed to retain a $50k/year "expert" data-entry/programmer type to use and maintain the script). Since they could see his script was valuable, the least they could have done would have been to pay him a reasonable consulting rate for a few month. On the other hand, if they'd at least gone with a fair entry-level programmer salary I wouldn't be complaining -- paying someone half of what they're worth seems to be too common to name a company a scumbag over. But yes, the company is well into scumbag territory for taking advantage of someone by paying them 1/4 of the fair market value of their time.
- jlarocco 15y ago
  Nonsense. The guy accepted the $2 raise. He could have said, "No, I want $xx an hour," or "I'll sell you the script for $xxxxx," but he didn't.
  - bsphil 14y ago
    He also never said he was using a script to do his work for him. He "accepted" the raise by not letting them know how he did it.
    - kamaal 14y ago
      The problem is programmers must learn to sell their work not their time. We are not like sports coaches. The stuff we deliver sells for higher price, compared to if we would sell the time taken to build it. He should have sold the program, not this time to build it. Just like how a painter would sell his painting not the time taken to paint it.
  - SomeCallMeTim 14y ago
    >The guy accepted the $2 raise. Taking advantage of naivete doesn't excuse them from being scumbags. You can worship scumbag employment practices if you like, or claim that it's his "fault" somehow for not understanding the value of what he was doing. I prefer to reward people at least SOMEWHAT proportional to their contribution, as opposed to proportional to their business acumen. In your world, the 1% get richer, the rest get screwed, and the economy crashes like clockwork. Sounds like a bunch of scumbags in control to me. In the world I'd like to move toward, everyone (but the 1%) would benefit from a more stable and sustainable economy, since the 99% (those who actually create) would be compensated much more, and would actually benefit from the crazy productivity gains we've experienced over the past 40 years, instead of it going to the talentless 1% who happen to be holding all of the cash rightfully earned by the 99%. And the frustrating this is that they believe they deserve it. [1] More details as to how this could be true? Too many to relate them all in a comment. If you care, or if you want to argue with my conclusion, watch this (warning: Long video): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-KqeU8nzn4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-KqeU8nzn4 It's like Atlas Shrugged, only without the "Be a huge asshole to everyone" part at the end of every sentence. [2] ------- [1] http://www.salon.com/2012/05/07/americas_idiot_rich/ http://www.salon.com/2012/05/07/americas_idiot_rich/ [2] (in the rollover) http://xkcd.com/1049/ http://xkcd.com/1049/
nsmartt 15y ago
I wouldn't say the employer is wrong (I don't think parent was saying that either), but that the choice was naive. The company saved the the wages of 10 temps and only paid the guy $2 more. He should have asked for more/something more long term.

pan69 15y ago

They have a word for this: Business Your friend just turned out to be a lousy business person and his employer was not.