4 ms·

I'm on a non-tech-related Vancouver discord server, and I can name 10 people on there who work in tech and actively try to do the least they can get away with a

I'm on a non-tech-related Vancouver discord server, and I can name 10 people on there who work in tech and actively try to do the least they can get away with at jobs, or work multiple jobs secretly, etc. and not one of them complains about money. You can no-true-Corporationsman it if you want but there are a lot of people who are naturally actively shady like that.

Spivak 3y ago
Doing the least you can at work is also called "meeting expectations." Why are you going above and beyond to create value you won't capture? If someone is willing to pay you a lot for not doing much and is happy with your output then what's the issue? People working multiple jobs is typically a sign of hard work. They could be playing Xbox instead but they chose more work. Spinning working on things that no one asked you to do to fill the free time can't be better for you or the economy than doing useful work somewhere else. Like yeah sure it's probably a violation of your employment contract or whatever but ignoring the rules is practically the west coast hacker spirit. And ethically I have no issue with it at all. You can pay for hours or output, when I meet my output goals the excess hours are mine back. Folks will unironically joke "the reward for hard work is more work," put zero additional thought into it, work hard and wake up 10 years later burnt out, getting 2% raises, with their job consuming their whole lives.
- vehementi 3y ago
  I am kinda tiring of seeing this rationalization. Don't you see, it's on the company to fire you if your productivity is low! Feel free to do nothing or as little as possible! That's such trash. If you're in software and are being honest you know we are not being paid for our output. Where are you working where the understanding is that if you get assigned a task for the week and finish it in one hour, it is common knowledge between you and your management chain that you have the rest of the week off and the CEO says "nice, see ya!"? Where your team says the same and doesn't look at you sideways? No, we aren't being paid for output, we are being paid for being as productive as we can (sustainably) for the generally accepted hours (9-5 or whatever your company says), and continually improving our skills. There is a general extreme difficulty to measure and track and enforce that (because as we all know, estimation is hard and shit happens) which is where trust comes in and why companies are so vulnerable to people working less and lying about it -- it's super difficult to verify.
  - mckn1ght 3y ago
    Wanted to chime back in to say I agree with you here and on your previous reply. I should’ve been clearer but I was talking about if the resting/vesting is endemic. Yes, there are always going to be people who will skate by as easily as possible. Hard to avoid completely in a gold rush, but I do believe that a company with better culture can suss it out better. I do think there’s a limit to how much more work should be taken on once you finish planned tasks, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do anything either. People saying that are, like you said, just rationalizing their own lazy/exploitative attitude. It’s perfectly reasonable to expect someone to try to get ahead, and keep a company as competitive as possible, if they’re able to finish tasks faster and still staying within a healthy set of working hours. Nobody is asking for 80 hour weeks here. 20 is just unreasonable as 80 when you’re making a ”full time“ tech salary. If you’re vesting, it’s in your best interests to stay competitive. Otherwise you’re riding on your coworkers’ coattails. All while probably complaining about the ultracapitalism of the C-suite. They’d step into their shoes in a heartbeat.
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      >I do think there’s a limit to how much more work should be taken on once you finish planned tasks, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do anything either. People saying that are, like you said, just rationalizing their own lazy/exploitative attitude. You can call it rationalizing and exploitative, I can call it tit for tat on a skewed power dynamic. I've never been rewarded and have in fact been punished for taking the initiative, so I learned to just lay low. I'm laid off either way, what's the point? >if they’re able to finish tasks faster and still staying within a healthy set of working hours. spoiler: it's never a healthy set of hours. You're describing a just world and I've seen those same 80 hours workers laid off after draining themselves dry as well. Loyalty isn't rewarded. >Nobody is asking for 80 hour weeks here. 20 is just unreasonable as 80 when you’re making a ”full time“ tech salary. if you want hours, pay hourly. It won't fix the issue here, but the whole point of salary is that you trust workers to be available in working hours and get assigned tasks done, not have a but in a seat for X hours a day. If someone finishes in 20 hours I don't see why they are "rewarded" with twice the work for not twice the pay. You can increase their workload if you want in the next meeting, but well: that's a good "reward" huh? >If you’re vesting, it’s in your best interests to stay competitive. Otherwise you’re riding on your coworkers’ coattails. I'm much closer to someone working 80 hours than a vester, to my dismay. But as a hot take: not every software company needs top engineers. If you can coast and make widgets for 20-30 years, that's fine. Not everyone is going to have the same passion for their career. But passion doesn't correlate with productivity, that myth needs to die.
johnnyanmac 3y ago
>I can name 10 people on there who work in tech and actively try to do the least they can get away with at jobs so, "doing their job?". They aren't paid nor incentivized to put 100% into work. >or work multiple jobs secretly if there's no moonlighting clause, I don't see the issue. The company doesn't control what I do outside of work. >If you're in software and are being honest you know we are not being paid for our output. it's not a software issue, it's a "salaried worker" issue. And that's part of the issue. If you get your work done in 60 hours a week, no one bats an eye (and sotware has specific exemptions from overtime pay). If you get it done in 20, you just get 20 more hours of work. You are not relieved for overtime, but are still expected to give 40 hours of work for being "too fast". The structure is flawed unless your company has a profit sharing program or something (90% of workers are too insignifigant in company impact for most stock options to matter). >No, we aren't being paid for output, we are being paid for being as productive as we can (sustainably) for the generally accepted hours (9-5 or whatever your company says), and continually improving our skills. If I wasn't laid off every 2-3 years, I may actually believe that. But it's become clear these days that the company does not care about growth nor retention. If I'm kicked out in a few years regardless of performance, what's the point? They are just draining my time and labor and giving nothing extra in return for "excellent performance". They may even punish me for it. You get what you pay for. And some things matter more than raw salary. Companies can complain about "trust" all they want, but they sure as hell burned their trust with me. It's a two-way street. if you want my full productivity, incentivize it instead of punishing me for doing exactly what you asked to do.

Spivak 3y ago

Doing the least you can at work is also called "meeting expectations." Why are you going above and beyond to create value you won't capture? If someone is willing to pay you a lot for not doing much and is happy with your output then what's the issue? People working multiple jobs is typically a sign of hard work. They could be playing Xbox instead but they chose more work. Spinning working on things that no one asked you to do to fill the free time can't be better for you or the economy than doing useful work somewhere else. Like yeah sure it's probably a violation of your employment contract or whatever but ignoring the rules is practically the west coast hacker spirit. And ethically I have no issue with it at all. You can pay for hours or output, when I meet my output goals the excess hours are mine back. Folks will unironically joke "the reward for hard work is more work," put zero additional thought into it, work hard and wake up 10 years later burnt out, getting 2% raises, with their job consuming their whole lives.

vehementi 3y ago
I am kinda tiring of seeing this rationalization. Don't you see, it's on the company to fire you if your productivity is low! Feel free to do nothing or as little as possible! That's such trash. If you're in software and are being honest you know we are not being paid for our output. Where are you working where the understanding is that if you get assigned a task for the week and finish it in one hour, it is common knowledge between you and your management chain that you have the rest of the week off and the CEO says "nice, see ya!"? Where your team says the same and doesn't look at you sideways? No, we aren't being paid for output, we are being paid for being as productive as we can (sustainably) for the generally accepted hours (9-5 or whatever your company says), and continually improving our skills. There is a general extreme difficulty to measure and track and enforce that (because as we all know, estimation is hard and shit happens) which is where trust comes in and why companies are so vulnerable to people working less and lying about it -- it's super difficult to verify.
- mckn1ght 3y ago
  Wanted to chime back in to say I agree with you here and on your previous reply. I should’ve been clearer but I was talking about if the resting/vesting is endemic. Yes, there are always going to be people who will skate by as easily as possible. Hard to avoid completely in a gold rush, but I do believe that a company with better culture can suss it out better. I do think there’s a limit to how much more work should be taken on once you finish planned tasks, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do anything either. People saying that are, like you said, just rationalizing their own lazy/exploitative attitude. It’s perfectly reasonable to expect someone to try to get ahead, and keep a company as competitive as possible, if they’re able to finish tasks faster and still staying within a healthy set of working hours. Nobody is asking for 80 hour weeks here. 20 is just unreasonable as 80 when you’re making a ”full time“ tech salary. If you’re vesting, it’s in your best interests to stay competitive. Otherwise you’re riding on your coworkers’ coattails. All while probably complaining about the ultracapitalism of the C-suite. They’d step into their shoes in a heartbeat.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    >I do think there’s a limit to how much more work should be taken on once you finish planned tasks, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do anything either. People saying that are, like you said, just rationalizing their own lazy/exploitative attitude. You can call it rationalizing and exploitative, I can call it tit for tat on a skewed power dynamic. I've never been rewarded and have in fact been punished for taking the initiative, so I learned to just lay low. I'm laid off either way, what's the point? >if they’re able to finish tasks faster and still staying within a healthy set of working hours. spoiler: it's never a healthy set of hours. You're describing a just world and I've seen those same 80 hours workers laid off after draining themselves dry as well. Loyalty isn't rewarded. >Nobody is asking for 80 hour weeks here. 20 is just unreasonable as 80 when you’re making a ”full time“ tech salary. if you want hours, pay hourly. It won't fix the issue here, but the whole point of salary is that you trust workers to be available in working hours and get assigned tasks done, not have a but in a seat for X hours a day. If someone finishes in 20 hours I don't see why they are "rewarded" with twice the work for not twice the pay. You can increase their workload if you want in the next meeting, but well: that's a good "reward" huh? >If you’re vesting, it’s in your best interests to stay competitive. Otherwise you’re riding on your coworkers’ coattails. I'm much closer to someone working 80 hours than a vester, to my dismay. But as a hot take: not every software company needs top engineers. If you can coast and make widgets for 20-30 years, that's fine. Not everyone is going to have the same passion for their career. But passion doesn't correlate with productivity, that myth needs to die.

johnnyanmac 3y ago

>I can name 10 people on there who work in tech and actively try to do the least they can get away with at jobs so, "doing their job?". They aren't paid nor incentivized to put 100% into work. >or work multiple jobs secretly if there's no moonlighting clause, I don't see the issue. The company doesn't control what I do outside of work. >If you're in software and are being honest you know we are not being paid for our output. it's not a software issue, it's a "salaried worker" issue. And that's part of the issue. If you get your work done in 60 hours a week, no one bats an eye (and sotware has specific exemptions from overtime pay). If you get it done in 20, you just get 20 more hours of work. You are not relieved for overtime, but are still expected to give 40 hours of work for being "too fast". The structure is flawed unless your company has a profit sharing program or something (90% of workers are too insignifigant in company impact for most stock options to matter). >No, we aren't being paid for output, we are being paid for being as productive as we can (sustainably) for the generally accepted hours (9-5 or whatever your company says), and continually improving our skills. If I wasn't laid off every 2-3 years, I may actually believe that. But it's become clear these days that the company does not care about growth nor retention. If I'm kicked out in a few years regardless of performance, what's the point? They are just draining my time and labor and giving nothing extra in return for "excellent performance". They may even punish me for it. You get what you pay for. And some things matter more than raw salary. Companies can complain about "trust" all they want, but they sure as hell burned their trust with me. It's a two-way street. if you want my full productivity, incentivize it instead of punishing me for doing exactly what you asked to do.