4 ms·

From the article: But while Huawei's compensation package is generous, its working culture can be challenging, according to chip industry managers. "Working w

From the article: But while Huawei's compensation package is generous, its working culture can be challenging, according to chip industry managers. "Working with them is brutal. It's not 996 -- meaning working from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., six days a week. ... It will literally be 007 -- from midnight to midnight, seven days a week. No days off at all," one Chinese chip engineer told Nikkei Asia. "The contract will be for three years, [but] the majority of people can't survive till renewal."

nicoburns 3y ago
What does that even mean? Obviously people need to eat and sleep and can't literally work 24 hours a day.
- nguyenkien 3y ago
  You basically trade 3 years of your life for money. Just like the Ben Affleck's Paycheck.
- throwaway4good 3y ago
  I have no idea. I should have added a smiley. The whole setup is out of this world: A vilified Chinese company at war with the full American empire. Its leader mumbling military clichees like "surround the cities from the country side". Its headquarters being a Disney-land of copied classical European architecture. And at the same time it is delivering breakthroughs that two years ago would have been thought to be impossible.
- onethought 3y ago
  In that working culture it is often okay to sleep (at work, at your desk) for 2-4 hours. It is brutal, but people are willing to do it, so it persists.
  - willt1979 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - onethought 2y ago
      Racism won’t get you far. Nor will thinking your culture is superior.
mft_ 3y ago
I assume that's a mistake and it means "twelve hours a day, seven days a week"? Either way, I have nothing but bad wishes for their new endeavors if that's the case - this is obviously not an acceptable way to treat people.
- onethought 3y ago
  If they state it up front and people know what they are getting into. What’s the issue? If it’s so horrible, it won’t work right?
  - willt1979 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - Rinzler89 3y ago
      I get both you and your parent's PoV but you gotta be aware that the people working on the first iPhone and Android were also working basically 24/7 up until the launch, and Apple even moved them into hotels next to the office so they wouldn't have to commute. Similarly, China is also now in a race of rapid technologization to catch up or surpass the US competitors and you don't get there by working only 40h/week. US big tech success proved that for the right amount of money clearly enough skilled people would work brutal schedules, so I also see no problem if this work relationship is consensual and agreed by both parties and can be terminated at any time if it's not bearable for the workers, especially since those skilled tech workers have plenty of other options for working lax schedules for less money if they wish so. But if they voluntarily choose the brutal schedules for the money, it's their call and why should I or other parties have a say in this?
      - mft_ 3y ago
        Well, a few thoughts. 1) There's a huge difference between a temporary 'crunch' (as in the examples you gave) and a prevailing company culture; organising a company such that the (unwritten?) expectation is of '007' working just shouldn't be an acceptable model. 2) I think you're conflating two different issues, deliberately or not. Fundamentally, yes, I agree that individuals should have a free choice over how they spend their time and their physical capital in return for money; and further, in this case, given we're taking about educated and sought-after workers, some of the arguments that apply to treatment of lower-paid workers don't apply. However, the issue is to what extent one views it as moral that a company is organised, implicity or explicity, along these lines: as the argument often goes, if you can't run your company profitably or effectively without resorting to such measures, you need to rethink your fundamentals. 3) And here, of course, it's probably not about scraping by in a low-margin sector, given it's R&D and they're apparently offering double the market rate: it's just about an pre-existing toxic company culture. And given what we know about people's output not scaling linearly with extreme hours worked, it doesn't even make rational sense. In theory, they could pay lower (but still attractive) salaries, hire 50% more people, work them less hard, and (all else being equal) probably be even more productive.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
TooTony 3y ago
007 is a humorous mockery of the younger generation of Chinese workers who work overtime desperately in their companies.
imtringued 3y ago
The incompetence of Russian communists has given people the impression that only capitalism works, but the reality is that the Russian communists were simply too stupid and too hatred driven by their ideology. The simple truth is, it doesn't matter how you organize your economy, as long as it produces what people need and want. Economists see the failure of central planning as evidence that government meddling can never improve the economy, which they then project onto the next closest thing (e.g. China's market economy with extremely severe government intervention) and then they act surprised that it works. Winners are chosen by their performance and luck, not by (western or eastern) ideology.

nicoburns 3y ago

What does that even mean? Obviously people need to eat and sleep and can't literally work 24 hours a day.

nguyenkien 3y ago
You basically trade 3 years of your life for money. Just like the Ben Affleck's Paycheck.
throwaway4good 3y ago
I have no idea. I should have added a smiley. The whole setup is out of this world: A vilified Chinese company at war with the full American empire. Its leader mumbling military clichees like "surround the cities from the country side". Its headquarters being a Disney-land of copied classical European architecture. And at the same time it is delivering breakthroughs that two years ago would have been thought to be impossible.
onethought 3y ago
In that working culture it is often okay to sleep (at work, at your desk) for 2-4 hours. It is brutal, but people are willing to do it, so it persists.
- willt1979 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - onethought 2y ago
    Racism won’t get you far. Nor will thinking your culture is superior.

mft_ 3y ago

I assume that's a mistake and it means "twelve hours a day, seven days a week"? Either way, I have nothing but bad wishes for their new endeavors if that's the case - this is obviously not an acceptable way to treat people.

onethought 3y ago
If they state it up front and people know what they are getting into. What’s the issue? If it’s so horrible, it won’t work right?
- willt1979 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - Rinzler89 3y ago
    I get both you and your parent's PoV but you gotta be aware that the people working on the first iPhone and Android were also working basically 24/7 up until the launch, and Apple even moved them into hotels next to the office so they wouldn't have to commute. Similarly, China is also now in a race of rapid technologization to catch up or surpass the US competitors and you don't get there by working only 40h/week. US big tech success proved that for the right amount of money clearly enough skilled people would work brutal schedules, so I also see no problem if this work relationship is consensual and agreed by both parties and can be terminated at any time if it's not bearable for the workers, especially since those skilled tech workers have plenty of other options for working lax schedules for less money if they wish so. But if they voluntarily choose the brutal schedules for the money, it's their call and why should I or other parties have a say in this?
    - mft_ 3y ago
      Well, a few thoughts. 1) There's a huge difference between a temporary 'crunch' (as in the examples you gave) and a prevailing company culture; organising a company such that the (unwritten?) expectation is of '007' working just shouldn't be an acceptable model. 2) I think you're conflating two different issues, deliberately or not. Fundamentally, yes, I agree that individuals should have a free choice over how they spend their time and their physical capital in return for money; and further, in this case, given we're taking about educated and sought-after workers, some of the arguments that apply to treatment of lower-paid workers don't apply. However, the issue is to what extent one views it as moral that a company is organised, implicity or explicity, along these lines: as the argument often goes, if you can't run your company profitably or effectively without resorting to such measures, you need to rethink your fundamentals. 3) And here, of course, it's probably not about scraping by in a low-margin sector, given it's R&D and they're apparently offering double the market rate: it's just about an pre-existing toxic company culture. And given what we know about people's output not scaling linearly with extreme hours worked, it doesn't even make rational sense. In theory, they could pay lower (but still attractive) salaries, hire 50% more people, work them less hard, and (all else being equal) probably be even more productive.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

TooTony 3y ago

007 is a humorous mockery of the younger generation of Chinese workers who work overtime desperately in their companies.

imtringued 3y ago

The incompetence of Russian communists has given people the impression that only capitalism works, but the reality is that the Russian communists were simply too stupid and too hatred driven by their ideology. The simple truth is, it doesn't matter how you organize your economy, as long as it produces what people need and want. Economists see the failure of central planning as evidence that government meddling can never improve the economy, which they then project onto the next closest thing (e.g. China's market economy with extremely severe government intervention) and then they act surprised that it works. Winners are chosen by their performance and luck, not by (western or eastern) ideology.