6 ms·
A lot of these pro-labor-reg people argue (and I agree with them!) that the ROI on additional hours worked past 40 is pretty bad. If this is the case, then som
by wyager 2y ago
A lot of these pro-labor-reg people argue (and I agree with them!) that the ROI on additional hours worked past 40 is pretty bad.
If this is the case, then someone working an extra N hours a week won't actually move the needle that much when it comes to performance ranking.
My experience has been that the people who choose to work super long hours do not actually perform much better, if at all, than those who don't.
Caveat is that this could, of course, be selection effects a la Berkson's paradox. Maybe those who work very long hours do so because they must to reach the expected output level for the firm they work at.
- trinix912 2y agoI agree with this, but I think we need to keep in mind that oftentimes managers and executives aren't aware of how this works in our domain. When it's time to cut someone short, they have to decide between you and me doing 40 hour weeks vs. some other employees putting in overtime. It's not an easy problem to solve though.
- VirusNewbie 2y agoright, but a lot of people at Big Tech are looking for the sweet spot of productivity, and it very well may be 45 hours a week or 48 or something, and to others that is unacceptable. I don't see very many senior level folks in FAANG who are "5:01" engineers. There is pressure, but you're compensated quite generously for it.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]