4 ms·

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 14y ago
Employer's wrong because they let the intern make a crappy deal for his software... hmm
SomeCallMeTim 14y 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 14y 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/
    - jlarocco 14y ago
nsmartt 14y 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.

andys627 14y ago

Employer's wrong because they let the intern make a crappy deal for his software... hmm

SomeCallMeTim 14y 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 14y 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/
  - jlarocco 14y ago

nsmartt 14y 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.