4 ms·

I'd go further and say to never sacrifice your life for any deadline at all. Part of having a work contract specifically means that all risks rests on capital h

I'd go further and say to never sacrifice your life for any deadline at all. Part of having a work contract specifically means that all risks rests on capital holders shoulders and not yourself.

noir_lord 3y ago
That is an incredibly succinct way of summarising the way I started to see the world about a decade ago (and more than a decade into my career as a developer).
- anal_reactor 3y ago
  Me and my employer are in a contract that legally obliges us to pretend we care.
  - datascienced 3y ago
    Why legally?
lotsofpulp 3y ago
This seems trivially false. The risk that a worker stops being paid because their capital holder no longer has income is always going to be there, and that could be because one or more workers were unable to accomplish one or more tasks necessary for the capital holders to sell a product or service. Of course, some workers are also capital holders, and should be negotiating appropriate terms such that their mission critical contribution is appropriately rewarded. And no one should be compelled to sacrifice their life without this “appropriate reward”, but exactly what that is is always in flux depending on many parameters.
- realusername 3y ago
  It's on the capital holders to make sure that the deadlines are reachable and appropriate to the amount of time you actually have working normally, rushing as a worker doesn't make any sense. Either they miscalculated the number of employees they needed or they just aren't profitable enough to sustain the workload, both cases are failures on the company side. And sure, if the company is willing to, they can share some of that risk and reward associated with it to the employees
  - cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
    You’re clearly saying this from a position of privilege. A whole lot of “should” not any “this is how it is in reality”.
    - realusername 3y ago
      Sure, I'm opened to some strict law enforcement and heavy fines to make sure the company doesn't step outside their boundaries.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    >both cases are failures on the company side. Who/what/why fails is irrelevant. Anytime you are selling something, including labor, there exists a risk that the buyer stops paying, for myriad reasons. One of those reasons is that the buyer themselves (which could be a business) are not able to sell. Which means that some of the “capital holder’s” risk is inherently a worker’s risk.
    - realusername 3y ago
      The worker usually has no input on that anyways, what can you realistically do if the business model doesn't work?

I'd go further and say to never sacrifice your life for any deadline at all. Part of having a work contract specifically means that all risks rests on capital holders shoulders and not yourself.

noir_lord 3y ago

That is an incredibly succinct way of summarising the way I started to see the world about a decade ago (and more than a decade into my career as a developer).

anal_reactor 3y ago
Me and my employer are in a contract that legally obliges us to pretend we care.
- datascienced 3y ago
  Why legally?

lotsofpulp 3y ago

This seems trivially false. The risk that a worker stops being paid because their capital holder no longer has income is always going to be there, and that could be because one or more workers were unable to accomplish one or more tasks necessary for the capital holders to sell a product or service. Of course, some workers are also capital holders, and should be negotiating appropriate terms such that their mission critical contribution is appropriately rewarded. And no one should be compelled to sacrifice their life without this “appropriate reward”, but exactly what that is is always in flux depending on many parameters.

realusername 3y ago
It's on the capital holders to make sure that the deadlines are reachable and appropriate to the amount of time you actually have working normally, rushing as a worker doesn't make any sense. Either they miscalculated the number of employees they needed or they just aren't profitable enough to sustain the workload, both cases are failures on the company side. And sure, if the company is willing to, they can share some of that risk and reward associated with it to the employees
- cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
  You’re clearly saying this from a position of privilege. A whole lot of “should” not any “this is how it is in reality”.
  - realusername 3y ago
    Sure, I'm opened to some strict law enforcement and heavy fines to make sure the company doesn't step outside their boundaries.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  >both cases are failures on the company side. Who/what/why fails is irrelevant. Anytime you are selling something, including labor, there exists a risk that the buyer stops paying, for myriad reasons. One of those reasons is that the buyer themselves (which could be a business) are not able to sell. Which means that some of the “capital holder’s” risk is inherently a worker’s risk.
  - realusername 3y ago
    The worker usually has no input on that anyways, what can you realistically do if the business model doesn't work?