4 ms·

No. Many of us are working hard, trying to get real work done. And spending 20-40 mins a day checking Hacker News :) Seriously though, don’t you feel bad by no

No. Many of us are working hard, trying to get real work done. And spending 20-40 mins a day checking Hacker News :) Seriously though, don’t you feel bad by not pulling your weight? Someone has to get your work done.

autoexecbat 3y ago
> Someone has to get your work done. That's often the problem, in that it doesn't truly matter if the work got done
- icedchai 3y ago
  There's a ton of "fake work" in corporate america. This is basically busy work that isn't used by any real customer, external or internal. That work doesn't need to be done, but shows up because someone committed to it for political reasons (or because they were clueless.) Someone needs a box checked, but didn't check if the box needed to be there in the first place.
  - autoexecbat 3y ago
    It doesn't even need to be fake/busy work. It might just not be quite what's needed by the business or customer and see little/no use.
    - icedchai 3y ago
      True, though often that sort of work "feels" different from the more traditional fake work. It's at least built with the intent / belief that a customer will actually use it.
  - therealdrag0 3y ago
    And a lot of people can question these decisions and make and impact if they cared enough. I get tired of people, especially those with “senior” in their title complaining “they’re doing it wrong”, instead of participating in the planning and feedback and escalation process.
    - icedchai 3y ago
      Do you ask them to participate? Many companies don't, because they don't want anyone but yes-men that will agree to the plans around.
kjkjadksj 3y ago
Its not your work unless you own the company
- Seb-C 3y ago
  "your work" means "your responsibility" or "your part of the deal" here, not "you get legal ownership of the project". The premise of a working contract being that you have to work in exchange for a salary...
- WalterBright 3y ago
  Your work is what you agreed to in exchange for your salary.
  - switchbak 2y ago
    Exactly. We're adults making fair exchanges for compensation (assuming you've entered into a fair agreement). There's so many angsty takes in this thread, I'm actually pretty shocked. Working "hard" is an investment in yourself. You don't always have to be soley running on the SCRUM treadmill - you can learn other things that are valuable to the business. Ideally you'll also be smart and chose wisely for things that set you up better career-wise too. But the idea that one would treat their employer as some kind of chump that deserves the minimal possible output they can extract from you? That sounds like a great way to pigeonhole yourself into a lacklustre and short career. Not to mention a really unfulfilling life. You spend so much time at work, why not try to find work you enjoy for an employer that isn't crap? I get that many jobs are soulless - but we're still in the drivers seat and we typically have a lot of choices (especially these days).
- linhns 3y ago
  Then there will be no company
the_cat_kittles 3y ago
this mindset only makes sense when the mission of the company is noble and appreciated by the greater community. otherwise you are a fool for having this attitude
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
ammasant 3y ago
You falsely assume the only 'work' to be done is that immediately aligned with sprint velocity rather than all that done to make someone a valuable contributor in the first place (what your employer is actually paying for). The person who spends ~2 hours a day 'working' and the rest of their day on research, self-education, or more theoretical domains will become exponentially more valuable over time compared the most endurant hamster wheel runner as a function of qualitatively superior capabilities. Smart engineers realize this growth curve and alter their trajectory, benefitting both themselves and their employer long-term.
marssaxman 3y ago
> Someone has to get your work done. What makes it "my work"? That is for management to decide, is it not?
K0balt 3y ago
You get the work done that the position requires. If you can do that in a couple of hours, I see no incentive whatsoever for most employees to increase productivity beyond the requirement for the position plus maybe some minor stuff that won’t be enough to encourage additional responsibilities. If they want more than that, employers should pay significantly more than their competitors for those services, or significant stock bonuses tied to departmental efficiency, or some other add-on compensation that incentivises increased productivity.
- therealdrag0 3y ago
  A lot of promotion and salary increases comes from demonstrating your growing and operating towards the next level. Doing the minimum isn’t doing yourself any favors if you have any aspirations at all. That’s fine for those who knowingly make that decision, but there are consequences.
  - gunsle 3y ago
    This simply isn’t the case in the vast majority of companies, and honestly just seems kind of naive. Corporate America is a game of politics. Yeah working hard always looks good, but the guy who gets the promotion is the guy your boss plays golf with, not the guy who works 60 hours a week out of some idealistic obligation.
    - therealdrag0 3y ago
      I’m skeptical of the “vast amount”. But first I’m not suggesting 60 hours I have never worked a 60 in my life. But a solid 30-45 goes a long way, which shouldn’t be radical but some people here are advocating for 5-10 hour weeks… There maybe a certain type of job (“middle management”?) where “golf” gives you an edge, but for companies with engineering tracks to the top, you need to demonstrate performance and be able to deliver and show impact. Some of that takes “politics” but you also can’t play politics in 5-10 hours either.
  - K0balt 3y ago
    I should have added that my perspective is one of a founder, not an employee. It is just my observation of behaviour, not a moral position.
petepete 3y ago
20-40 mins an hour here chief.
OkayPhysicist 3y ago
You're applying emotion to the cold calculus of economics. I'm supplying an acceptable amount of labor to my boss (evident by the fact that my boss hasn't fired/complained to me) in exchange for an acceptable amount of money (evident by the fact that I haven't quit). We're all on salary. Unless whatever I'm working on is going to boost my options enough to make it worth my while (it won't), there's no reason to break my back.
- gunsle 3y ago
  Exactly. If my boss is happy with my output, and work is still getting done on time, why does it matter how many hours I actually work? I don’t get paid more for going above and beyond. The only reward for busting your ass in corporate America is more work. It’s a depressing reality but it’s the truth. Why should I bust my ass, just to get an extra percentage point on my yearly raise? I can work 30 hours a week and get 4%, or 60 hours and get 5%. The math just doesn’t make sense unless you’re working for a company you either founded, have significant equity in, or there’s some kind of profit sharing mechanism that actually results in a substantial amount of money.

autoexecbat 3y ago

> Someone has to get your work done. That's often the problem, in that it doesn't truly matter if the work got done

icedchai 3y ago
There's a ton of "fake work" in corporate america. This is basically busy work that isn't used by any real customer, external or internal. That work doesn't need to be done, but shows up because someone committed to it for political reasons (or because they were clueless.) Someone needs a box checked, but didn't check if the box needed to be there in the first place.
- autoexecbat 3y ago
  It doesn't even need to be fake/busy work. It might just not be quite what's needed by the business or customer and see little/no use.
  - icedchai 3y ago
    True, though often that sort of work "feels" different from the more traditional fake work. It's at least built with the intent / belief that a customer will actually use it.
- therealdrag0 3y ago
  And a lot of people can question these decisions and make and impact if they cared enough. I get tired of people, especially those with “senior” in their title complaining “they’re doing it wrong”, instead of participating in the planning and feedback and escalation process.
  - icedchai 3y ago
    Do you ask them to participate? Many companies don't, because they don't want anyone but yes-men that will agree to the plans around.

kjkjadksj 3y ago

Its not your work unless you own the company

Seb-C 3y ago
"your work" means "your responsibility" or "your part of the deal" here, not "you get legal ownership of the project". The premise of a working contract being that you have to work in exchange for a salary...
WalterBright 3y ago
Your work is what you agreed to in exchange for your salary.
- switchbak 2y ago
  Exactly. We're adults making fair exchanges for compensation (assuming you've entered into a fair agreement). There's so many angsty takes in this thread, I'm actually pretty shocked. Working "hard" is an investment in yourself. You don't always have to be soley running on the SCRUM treadmill - you can learn other things that are valuable to the business. Ideally you'll also be smart and chose wisely for things that set you up better career-wise too. But the idea that one would treat their employer as some kind of chump that deserves the minimal possible output they can extract from you? That sounds like a great way to pigeonhole yourself into a lacklustre and short career. Not to mention a really unfulfilling life. You spend so much time at work, why not try to find work you enjoy for an employer that isn't crap? I get that many jobs are soulless - but we're still in the drivers seat and we typically have a lot of choices (especially these days).
linhns 3y ago
Then there will be no company

the_cat_kittles 3y ago

this mindset only makes sense when the mission of the company is noble and appreciated by the greater community. otherwise you are a fool for having this attitude

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

ammasant 3y ago

You falsely assume the only 'work' to be done is that immediately aligned with sprint velocity rather than all that done to make someone a valuable contributor in the first place (what your employer is actually paying for). The person who spends ~2 hours a day 'working' and the rest of their day on research, self-education, or more theoretical domains will become exponentially more valuable over time compared the most endurant hamster wheel runner as a function of qualitatively superior capabilities. Smart engineers realize this growth curve and alter their trajectory, benefitting both themselves and their employer long-term.

marssaxman 3y ago

> Someone has to get your work done. What makes it "my work"? That is for management to decide, is it not?

K0balt 3y ago

You get the work done that the position requires. If you can do that in a couple of hours, I see no incentive whatsoever for most employees to increase productivity beyond the requirement for the position plus maybe some minor stuff that won’t be enough to encourage additional responsibilities. If they want more than that, employers should pay significantly more than their competitors for those services, or significant stock bonuses tied to departmental efficiency, or some other add-on compensation that incentivises increased productivity.

therealdrag0 3y ago
A lot of promotion and salary increases comes from demonstrating your growing and operating towards the next level. Doing the minimum isn’t doing yourself any favors if you have any aspirations at all. That’s fine for those who knowingly make that decision, but there are consequences.
- gunsle 3y ago
  This simply isn’t the case in the vast majority of companies, and honestly just seems kind of naive. Corporate America is a game of politics. Yeah working hard always looks good, but the guy who gets the promotion is the guy your boss plays golf with, not the guy who works 60 hours a week out of some idealistic obligation.
  - therealdrag0 3y ago
    I’m skeptical of the “vast amount”. But first I’m not suggesting 60 hours I have never worked a 60 in my life. But a solid 30-45 goes a long way, which shouldn’t be radical but some people here are advocating for 5-10 hour weeks… There maybe a certain type of job (“middle management”?) where “golf” gives you an edge, but for companies with engineering tracks to the top, you need to demonstrate performance and be able to deliver and show impact. Some of that takes “politics” but you also can’t play politics in 5-10 hours either.
- K0balt 3y ago
  I should have added that my perspective is one of a founder, not an employee. It is just my observation of behaviour, not a moral position.

petepete 3y ago

20-40 mins an hour here chief.

OkayPhysicist 3y ago

You're applying emotion to the cold calculus of economics. I'm supplying an acceptable amount of labor to my boss (evident by the fact that my boss hasn't fired/complained to me) in exchange for an acceptable amount of money (evident by the fact that I haven't quit). We're all on salary. Unless whatever I'm working on is going to boost my options enough to make it worth my while (it won't), there's no reason to break my back.

gunsle 3y ago
Exactly. If my boss is happy with my output, and work is still getting done on time, why does it matter how many hours I actually work? I don’t get paid more for going above and beyond. The only reward for busting your ass in corporate America is more work. It’s a depressing reality but it’s the truth. Why should I bust my ass, just to get an extra percentage point on my yearly raise? I can work 30 hours a week and get 4%, or 60 hours and get 5%. The math just doesn’t make sense unless you’re working for a company you either founded, have significant equity in, or there’s some kind of profit sharing mechanism that actually results in a substantial amount of money.