4 ms·

£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-$1

£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
    The guy didn't care enough to ask for more than $2, why should I care on his behalf? The problem I have with your rant is that you're implicitly segregating the population into two groups, one which knows better and one which needs the other group to take care of it. Of course you're placing yourself in the group that knows better... I have enough work taking care of myself. If saying, "That guy can look out for himself also" makes me an "asshole" or a "scumbag" then so be it.
    - SomeCallMeTim 14y ago
      Are you willing to go to naive elderly folks and convince them to give you most of their retirement savings based on lies? (Lies in the form of withheld information, say.) No? Why is that different than taking advantage of someone too young to know better? If I sell you a car that has a hard-to-detect problem deep in its engine that I know will cause the engine to need to be rebuilt at a cost of nearly half the price you're paying, and I fail to tell you about it because I'm sure you'll never know that I knew, is that OK? No? Why is that different? I'm NOT saying that you should be "taking care of" that guy. Frankly you're not part of the equation between him and his employer. I AM saying that, if he were to do business with you, as an employee or otherwise, and the relationship were based in part on lies (even if they were lies-by-omission), then yes, THAT would make you a scumbag. I hasten to add that I am not accusing the real YOU of being a scumbag, just the hypothetical "you" that would take advantage of someone to that extreme. Capitalism doesn't have to be about screwing the other guy when you can get away with it. It often IS, but it doesn't have to be. Sometimes the value of an unproven kid really is low, because the odds of them doing a good job aren't very high, and so you're amortizing the cost across a number of hires -- but he was a proven value to the company (to the point that they fired 10 other temp workers), and so their behavior was blatantly unethical. (Aside from the fact that most temp worker contracts prohibit you from hiring the worker directly without giving the temp agency a fee, and by the description they almost certainly sidestepped any such clause, which is itself a probable unethical contract violation.)

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
  The guy didn't care enough to ask for more than $2, why should I care on his behalf? The problem I have with your rant is that you're implicitly segregating the population into two groups, one which knows better and one which needs the other group to take care of it. Of course you're placing yourself in the group that knows better... I have enough work taking care of myself. If saying, "That guy can look out for himself also" makes me an "asshole" or a "scumbag" then so be it.
  - SomeCallMeTim 14y ago
    Are you willing to go to naive elderly folks and convince them to give you most of their retirement savings based on lies? (Lies in the form of withheld information, say.) No? Why is that different than taking advantage of someone too young to know better? If I sell you a car that has a hard-to-detect problem deep in its engine that I know will cause the engine to need to be rebuilt at a cost of nearly half the price you're paying, and I fail to tell you about it because I'm sure you'll never know that I knew, is that OK? No? Why is that different? I'm NOT saying that you should be "taking care of" that guy. Frankly you're not part of the equation between him and his employer. I AM saying that, if he were to do business with you, as an employee or otherwise, and the relationship were based in part on lies (even if they were lies-by-omission), then yes, THAT would make you a scumbag. I hasten to add that I am not accusing the real YOU of being a scumbag, just the hypothetical "you" that would take advantage of someone to that extreme. Capitalism doesn't have to be about screwing the other guy when you can get away with it. It often IS, but it doesn't have to be. Sometimes the value of an unproven kid really is low, because the odds of them doing a good job aren't very high, and so you're amortizing the cost across a number of hires -- but he was a proven value to the company (to the point that they fired 10 other temp workers), and so their behavior was blatantly unethical. (Aside from the fact that most temp worker contracts prohibit you from hiring the worker directly without giving the temp agency a fee, and by the description they almost certainly sidestepped any such clause, which is itself a probable unethical contract violation.)