6 ms·

Your employer is paying you to deliver things that make them money. They're not paying you for your time.

mpyne 14y ago
Does viewing videos of cats make your employer money? If you've already delivered what they paid you for today then go home and watch the videos there in your pajamas, if they're not paying you for your time.
jwdunne 14y ago
It comes down to time. My employer pays me money with the understanding I will dedicate a slot of time to working solely on the projects he needs me to work on. Yes, he's paying me to deliver. If he was paying for my time and I wasn't delivering then there's a problem. If I deliver, however, I can't just get up and walk out in the middle of the day.
- jchrisa 14y ago
  Really? I'm a big fan of delivering and then spending less time in the office.
- tmh88j 14y ago
  >It comes down to time. >If he was paying for my time and I wasn't delivering then there's a problem No, he's paying you to deliver and that's it. Your time is required to do work. Your time is worthless to them, what you produce is, however. Robots require less time to do many tasks, and they can accomplish more of them. They're paying you for output, not time.
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    This depends on individual agreements between employer/employee at the end of the day and also on the nature of the job. There are certainly situations where it is advantageous to have your employees sitting at their desks in your building. So you know where they are if some emergency situation arises or if you need to ask them some questions or even just to make the place look big/busy.
    - tmh88j 14y ago
      >This depends on ....and on the nature of the job. I agree in some situations, but this was a programmer. Unless he was a manager that has to oversee others, there's no need for a mandatory appearance >So you know where they are if some emergency situation arises That's completely irrelevant to the situation. A company does not profit when it's down for an emergency.
      - jiggy2011 14y ago
        There's definitely situations where you might want to have a programmer in the office (or at least "on the clock"). Perhaps your system goes down and you need it fixed ASAP, you don't want to be calling the programmer and hoping he hasn't gone to the movies and turned his phone off. Likewise with mentoring/helping other staff, sometimes this is just far easier to do when you are physically present.
        tmh88j 14y ago
        >Perhaps your system goes down and you need it fixed ASAP So you're saying, all this person is hypothetically doing is sitting around waiting for something to break, presumably at night? You don't think the company would delegate other tasks as well? >Likewise with mentoring/helping other staff, sometimes this is just far easier to do when you are physically present. That's not benefiting the company in any way? How is that just "your time"
        jiggy2011 14y ago
        My point is that it is often beneficial to the company to know that you will definitely be available during certain hours. Obviously you are going to be doing other work during these hours assuming that there is something to do.
      - bphogan 14y ago
        At least half the people I've seen on Hacker News doing startups want people to relocate to NYC or SF. Apparently lots of folks think face to face / butt in chair time is important for "team building" or something.
  - jwdunne 14y ago
    It's besides my core point really. In fact, it reinforces it since that's pretty much what I mean anyway. The reason why I bring time into it is because, as I've said, if there was absolutely nothing to do, I couldn't just get up and leave mid-day. If there's nothing else to work on, stuff will be found for me and I can continue to use that time productively. In my contract, I'm obligated to work 5 days a week, 7 hours per day. My income is worked out based on my value and the number of working days in a month. This is what I'm getting at - I'm obligated to spend that much time in the office, delivering. If you rework what I said about outsourcing my workload so that it removes time and is replaced with delivering, it'd still make sense. Now that you mention, I prefer the sound of it: My boss pays me to deliver. If I outsourced my workload, I could deliver more. My employer will then increase my pay.
  - JanezStupar 14y ago
    In general yes. However in practice employers expect total dedication and focus, deliveries while _at the same time_ counting minutes. Employers are a lot like women. They have a hard time making up their mind about what they really want. Everything being the default answer.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - Fargren 14y ago
      Try delivering your reply without the sexism. What you said is offensive.
      - JanezStupar 14y ago
        I am sorry. It is true, didn't think of it at the time of writing.
      - transitionality 14y ago
        Great observation! Women are often offended by accurate characterizations of their behavior.
    - JabavuAdams 14y ago
      > In general yes. However in practice employers expect total dedication and focus, deliveries while _at the same time_ counting minutes. Largely true. > Employers are a lot like women. They have a hard time making up their mind about what they really want. Everything being the default answer. This is silly. You're playing in to a narrative that's acceptable in some sub-cultures but that is basically ridiculous once you know enough people and try to debunk handed-down narratives.
- rondon 14y ago
  When you purchase a product or service do you ever consider how long someone spent making that product/service when deciding what to buy? Imagine someone saying something like "That Toyota Car is exactly what I'm looking for, but I know that the workers at the GM factory spent way more time building the GM car, so I'm going to buy that GM car instead."
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    Not so with products, but many services are charged by the hour.
    - rondon 14y ago
      Obviously! If I purchased 1 hour of Day Care I would expect to receive 1 hour of day care. However, if I paid someone to clean my house I would expect it to be clean after they were done. I don't care how long it takes. If it takes 10 hours and the floors a filthy I'm going to be upset. If it takes 1 hour and everything is very clean I'm going to be happy.
- moe 14y ago
  If I deliver, however, I can't just get up and walk out in the middle of the day. Then you're working outside the IT-sector or in an old fashioned company. In modern IT-companies (most startups that I know, including some with >150 people that barely qualify as startup anymore) the above is perfectly acceptable and normal for programmers. You are expected to meet your deadlines, to be present for appointed meetings, and usually during a fixed set of "core working hours". Sometimes there are Sprints or "crunches" during which everyone is expected to be a little more present than usual. In these companies nobody cares what you do with your remaining time as long as you meet the above criteria. Quite a few of my co-workers I've never met in person or only after already skyping with them for months. Others I'll see every time I hit an office because they're more the 9-5 (or 11-22..) type of guys. The line between "employee" and "consultant" is blurring rapidly.
  - pc86 14y ago
    If I had to pick one thing I dislike about HN, this is it. Not everybody works for a startup, and not everybody works in San Francisco. The majority of programmers work in 9-5 office jobs where if you left every day at 4 PM you'd be fired as soon as your supervisor(s) caught on. It doesn't mean you're working outside of IT (although that's likely) and it sure as hell doesn't mean you're working in an old fashioned company. Do you think any bank, healthcare provider, or BigCo business lets the programmers come in whenever they want and leave whenever their work is "done?"
    - moe 14y ago
      Not everybody works for a startup, and not everybody works in San Francisco. Which I didn't suggest, I think? Do you think any bank, healthcare provider, or BigCo business lets the programmers come in whenever they want and leave whenever their work is "done?" No, that's why I qualified my comment with "In modern IT-companies". Sorry, do you also disagree with something that I actually wrote? ;)
      - pc86 14y ago
        > Which I didn't suggest, I think? I didn't mean to suggest you said everybody works for a startup or in SF, but the tone of the post was such that I felt you were implying most (or even a large minority) of programmers do. > No, that's why I qualified my comment with "In modern IT-companies". Upon rereading it a few times, it's likely I misunderstood the tone of your comment, but I took it to mean essentially "this is how it is for the majority of programmers[, and if it's any other way that's ridiculous and there's no reason for it]." I have lived and worked my entire life on the east coast of the US. Because I'm not in NYC which is probably the closest the SF this side of Austin, the odds of me getting a job where I'm not required to be in my chair from 8 AM to 5 PM is slim to none. I think even across the US that sort of freedom only applies to a very slim (and very lucky) minority.
lmm 14y ago
Not what the contract says, nor how it works in practice. If I did the work in half the time and left early, I'd be fired. But conversely if I don't get the work done it's not a problem as long as I'm there for the hours. I can forsee replies telling me to get a better job, but my experience is that most jobs are like this, even at trendy tech companies. And it's not a bad bargain all told; my employer takes on all the volatility, I can plan my time with knowledge of how long my job's going to take, while from their side the variations in productivity probably average out over x employees.
- nostrademons 14y ago
  That's not actually the case at all companies. My employer has no problem with me waltzing in to work at 1:00 PM and leaving at 5:30, as long as I get my work done. (Granted, I'm still at work and it's 10:00 PM, so maybe it doesn't work that way. Some days of the week, though.) Conversely, if I don't get the work done, I'll be fired, even if I put in my 8 hours - I have one friend that this happens to.
martinced 14y ago
"Your employer is paying you to deliver things that make them money. They're not paying you for your time." Several people already pointed out how wrong you are... In addition to that there are a lot of administration living of public funds whose goal is not to make money but to provide a service. I'm not saying at all that I like that (I think socialism already brought Greece to state default and we'll see more and more state defaulting in Europe soon). I'm just stating a fact: in a lot of socialist countries (for example throughout Europe), there are a lot of jobs for programmers in administrations. There are cities where the biggest employer of computer programmers are administrations. I'll just give one example: there are administration whose yearly budget is in the $bn range (eg european institutions) which have very strict pyramidal structure. When division x has a budget y and someone decides, for example, that each application in maintenance needs to have one programmer maintaining it, then there's a budget for that programmer (who very often is a contractor). And the budget and number of hours MUST be respected precisely. They do not care at all about you delivering anything: all they want is their arses covered in case the shit hit the fan. You can be there, sitting 8 hours per day reading WoW forums (and some do just that), because they paid for your time. I'm not saying it's "good". I think socialism is deeply flawed. But I'm getting tired about reading the same old "Your employer is paying you to deliver things that make them money" (just as I'm tired of reading "if it's free, you're not the user, you're the product"). As a side note and as it has already been pointed out: that's not was most contract between employers and employees or contractors do state. Most contracts talk about number of hours / days and not about "project" or "things to deliver because it is going to make the company more money".
- afterburner 14y ago
  " I think socialism is deeply flawed" Yeah, so's capitalism... good thing we can mix 'em!
  - frogpelt 14y ago
    For socialism to work the nature of people has to change. The nature of people is to be greedy and keep what they "want" or think they "need", not just what they actually need. Socialism asks (and eventually commands) people to give up things they wouldn't otherwise give up for the good of others who don't have those things with the motivation being either A) it's for the good of everyone and ultimately B) you'll be breaking the law if you don't. Capitalism on the other is based upon everyone desiring to make a profit and thereby providing their own wants/needs, with the wants/needs themselves being the motivation to do so. At first blush, it seems like everyone can't make a profit. Someone has to lose, right? But that thinking is incorrect. In the words of Paul Graham himself: "What leads people astray here is the abstraction of money. Money is not wealth. It's just something we use to move wealth around. So although there may be, in certain specific moments (like your family, this month) a fixed amount of money available to trade with other people for things you want, there is not a fixed amount of wealth in the world. You can make more wealth. Wealth has been getting created and destroyed (but on balance, created) for all of human history." In other words, profits come many times from created wealth that didn't otherwise exist. So, while I don't know what particular flaws of capitalism you were referring to, capitalism is inherently based upon freedom of the individual while socialism is inherently based upon lack of freedom for the individual. I'll take 100% capitalism with all of its flaws, no question, over most any brand of socialism, including the one we have now in the US.

mpyne 14y ago

Does viewing videos of cats make your employer money? If you've already delivered what they paid you for today then go home and watch the videos there in your pajamas, if they're not paying you for your time.

jwdunne 14y ago

It comes down to time. My employer pays me money with the understanding I will dedicate a slot of time to working solely on the projects he needs me to work on. Yes, he's paying me to deliver. If he was paying for my time and I wasn't delivering then there's a problem. If I deliver, however, I can't just get up and walk out in the middle of the day.

jchrisa 14y ago
Really? I'm a big fan of delivering and then spending less time in the office.
tmh88j 14y ago
>It comes down to time. >If he was paying for my time and I wasn't delivering then there's a problem No, he's paying you to deliver and that's it. Your time is required to do work. Your time is worthless to them, what you produce is, however. Robots require less time to do many tasks, and they can accomplish more of them. They're paying you for output, not time.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  This depends on individual agreements between employer/employee at the end of the day and also on the nature of the job. There are certainly situations where it is advantageous to have your employees sitting at their desks in your building. So you know where they are if some emergency situation arises or if you need to ask them some questions or even just to make the place look big/busy.
  - tmh88j 14y ago
    >This depends on ....and on the nature of the job. I agree in some situations, but this was a programmer. Unless he was a manager that has to oversee others, there's no need for a mandatory appearance >So you know where they are if some emergency situation arises That's completely irrelevant to the situation. A company does not profit when it's down for an emergency.
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      There's definitely situations where you might want to have a programmer in the office (or at least "on the clock"). Perhaps your system goes down and you need it fixed ASAP, you don't want to be calling the programmer and hoping he hasn't gone to the movies and turned his phone off. Likewise with mentoring/helping other staff, sometimes this is just far easier to do when you are physically present.
      - tmh88j 14y ago
        >Perhaps your system goes down and you need it fixed ASAP So you're saying, all this person is hypothetically doing is sitting around waiting for something to break, presumably at night? You don't think the company would delegate other tasks as well? >Likewise with mentoring/helping other staff, sometimes this is just far easier to do when you are physically present. That's not benefiting the company in any way? How is that just "your time"
        jiggy2011 14y ago
        My point is that it is often beneficial to the company to know that you will definitely be available during certain hours. Obviously you are going to be doing other work during these hours assuming that there is something to do.
    - bphogan 14y ago
      At least half the people I've seen on Hacker News doing startups want people to relocate to NYC or SF. Apparently lots of folks think face to face / butt in chair time is important for "team building" or something.
- jwdunne 14y ago
  It's besides my core point really. In fact, it reinforces it since that's pretty much what I mean anyway. The reason why I bring time into it is because, as I've said, if there was absolutely nothing to do, I couldn't just get up and leave mid-day. If there's nothing else to work on, stuff will be found for me and I can continue to use that time productively. In my contract, I'm obligated to work 5 days a week, 7 hours per day. My income is worked out based on my value and the number of working days in a month. This is what I'm getting at - I'm obligated to spend that much time in the office, delivering. If you rework what I said about outsourcing my workload so that it removes time and is replaced with delivering, it'd still make sense. Now that you mention, I prefer the sound of it: My boss pays me to deliver. If I outsourced my workload, I could deliver more. My employer will then increase my pay.
- JanezStupar 14y ago
  In general yes. However in practice employers expect total dedication and focus, deliveries while _at the same time_ counting minutes. Employers are a lot like women. They have a hard time making up their mind about what they really want. Everything being the default answer.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - Fargren 14y ago
    Try delivering your reply without the sexism. What you said is offensive.
    - JanezStupar 14y ago
      I am sorry. It is true, didn't think of it at the time of writing.
    - transitionality 14y ago
      Great observation! Women are often offended by accurate characterizations of their behavior.
  - JabavuAdams 14y ago
    > In general yes. However in practice employers expect total dedication and focus, deliveries while _at the same time_ counting minutes. Largely true. > Employers are a lot like women. They have a hard time making up their mind about what they really want. Everything being the default answer. This is silly. You're playing in to a narrative that's acceptable in some sub-cultures but that is basically ridiculous once you know enough people and try to debunk handed-down narratives.
rondon 14y ago
When you purchase a product or service do you ever consider how long someone spent making that product/service when deciding what to buy? Imagine someone saying something like "That Toyota Car is exactly what I'm looking for, but I know that the workers at the GM factory spent way more time building the GM car, so I'm going to buy that GM car instead."
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  Not so with products, but many services are charged by the hour.
  - rondon 14y ago
    Obviously! If I purchased 1 hour of Day Care I would expect to receive 1 hour of day care. However, if I paid someone to clean my house I would expect it to be clean after they were done. I don't care how long it takes. If it takes 10 hours and the floors a filthy I'm going to be upset. If it takes 1 hour and everything is very clean I'm going to be happy.
moe 14y ago
If I deliver, however, I can't just get up and walk out in the middle of the day. Then you're working outside the IT-sector or in an old fashioned company. In modern IT-companies (most startups that I know, including some with >150 people that barely qualify as startup anymore) the above is perfectly acceptable and normal for programmers. You are expected to meet your deadlines, to be present for appointed meetings, and usually during a fixed set of "core working hours". Sometimes there are Sprints or "crunches" during which everyone is expected to be a little more present than usual. In these companies nobody cares what you do with your remaining time as long as you meet the above criteria. Quite a few of my co-workers I've never met in person or only after already skyping with them for months. Others I'll see every time I hit an office because they're more the 9-5 (or 11-22..) type of guys. The line between "employee" and "consultant" is blurring rapidly.
- pc86 14y ago
  If I had to pick one thing I dislike about HN, this is it. Not everybody works for a startup, and not everybody works in San Francisco. The majority of programmers work in 9-5 office jobs where if you left every day at 4 PM you'd be fired as soon as your supervisor(s) caught on. It doesn't mean you're working outside of IT (although that's likely) and it sure as hell doesn't mean you're working in an old fashioned company. Do you think any bank, healthcare provider, or BigCo business lets the programmers come in whenever they want and leave whenever their work is "done?"
  - moe 14y ago
    Not everybody works for a startup, and not everybody works in San Francisco. Which I didn't suggest, I think? Do you think any bank, healthcare provider, or BigCo business lets the programmers come in whenever they want and leave whenever their work is "done?" No, that's why I qualified my comment with "In modern IT-companies". Sorry, do you also disagree with something that I actually wrote? ;)
    - pc86 14y ago
      > Which I didn't suggest, I think? I didn't mean to suggest you said everybody works for a startup or in SF, but the tone of the post was such that I felt you were implying most (or even a large minority) of programmers do. > No, that's why I qualified my comment with "In modern IT-companies". Upon rereading it a few times, it's likely I misunderstood the tone of your comment, but I took it to mean essentially "this is how it is for the majority of programmers[, and if it's any other way that's ridiculous and there's no reason for it]." I have lived and worked my entire life on the east coast of the US. Because I'm not in NYC which is probably the closest the SF this side of Austin, the odds of me getting a job where I'm not required to be in my chair from 8 AM to 5 PM is slim to none. I think even across the US that sort of freedom only applies to a very slim (and very lucky) minority.

lmm 14y ago

Not what the contract says, nor how it works in practice. If I did the work in half the time and left early, I'd be fired. But conversely if I don't get the work done it's not a problem as long as I'm there for the hours. I can forsee replies telling me to get a better job, but my experience is that most jobs are like this, even at trendy tech companies. And it's not a bad bargain all told; my employer takes on all the volatility, I can plan my time with knowledge of how long my job's going to take, while from their side the variations in productivity probably average out over x employees.

nostrademons 14y ago
That's not actually the case at all companies. My employer has no problem with me waltzing in to work at 1:00 PM and leaving at 5:30, as long as I get my work done. (Granted, I'm still at work and it's 10:00 PM, so maybe it doesn't work that way. Some days of the week, though.) Conversely, if I don't get the work done, I'll be fired, even if I put in my 8 hours - I have one friend that this happens to.

martinced 14y ago

"Your employer is paying you to deliver things that make them money. They're not paying you for your time." Several people already pointed out how wrong you are... In addition to that there are a lot of administration living of public funds whose goal is not to make money but to provide a service. I'm not saying at all that I like that (I think socialism already brought Greece to state default and we'll see more and more state defaulting in Europe soon). I'm just stating a fact: in a lot of socialist countries (for example throughout Europe), there are a lot of jobs for programmers in administrations. There are cities where the biggest employer of computer programmers are administrations. I'll just give one example: there are administration whose yearly budget is in the $bn range (eg european institutions) which have very strict pyramidal structure. When division x has a budget y and someone decides, for example, that each application in maintenance needs to have one programmer maintaining it, then there's a budget for that programmer (who very often is a contractor). And the budget and number of hours MUST be respected precisely. They do not care at all about you delivering anything: all they want is their arses covered in case the shit hit the fan. You can be there, sitting 8 hours per day reading WoW forums (and some do just that), because they paid for your time. I'm not saying it's "good". I think socialism is deeply flawed. But I'm getting tired about reading the same old "Your employer is paying you to deliver things that make them money" (just as I'm tired of reading "if it's free, you're not the user, you're the product"). As a side note and as it has already been pointed out: that's not was most contract between employers and employees or contractors do state. Most contracts talk about number of hours / days and not about "project" or "things to deliver because it is going to make the company more money".

afterburner 14y ago
" I think socialism is deeply flawed" Yeah, so's capitalism... good thing we can mix 'em!
- frogpelt 14y ago
  For socialism to work the nature of people has to change. The nature of people is to be greedy and keep what they "want" or think they "need", not just what they actually need. Socialism asks (and eventually commands) people to give up things they wouldn't otherwise give up for the good of others who don't have those things with the motivation being either A) it's for the good of everyone and ultimately B) you'll be breaking the law if you don't. Capitalism on the other is based upon everyone desiring to make a profit and thereby providing their own wants/needs, with the wants/needs themselves being the motivation to do so. At first blush, it seems like everyone can't make a profit. Someone has to lose, right? But that thinking is incorrect. In the words of Paul Graham himself: "What leads people astray here is the abstraction of money. Money is not wealth. It's just something we use to move wealth around. So although there may be, in certain specific moments (like your family, this month) a fixed amount of money available to trade with other people for things you want, there is not a fixed amount of wealth in the world. You can make more wealth. Wealth has been getting created and destroyed (but on balance, created) for all of human history." In other words, profits come many times from created wealth that didn't otherwise exist. So, while I don't know what particular flaws of capitalism you were referring to, capitalism is inherently based upon freedom of the individual while socialism is inherently based upon lack of freedom for the individual. I'll take 100% capitalism with all of its flaws, no question, over most any brand of socialism, including the one we have now in the US.