4 ms·

I really love dogs, but this is just nuts. Pets belong at home, not at work. A dog tribunal? Talk about a waste of company time. I understand that in certain c

by jstsch 13y ago

I really love dogs, but this is just nuts. Pets belong at home, not at work. A dog tribunal? Talk about a waste of company time. I understand that in certain companies (with sky-high margins or money to burn) the line between work and play gets blurred more and more, but that's in stark contrast to the rest of the economy. I can understand that certain people outside of tech (who are struggling) are starting to get a bit restless.

TeMPOraL 13y ago
> I understand that in certain companies (with sky-high margins or money to burn) the line between work and play gets blurred more and more, but that's in stark contrast to the rest of the economy. I think that the blurring of the line between work and play is a Good Thing in some sectors, namely engineering/tech/creative jobs. Creativity comes out of playtime, not worktime.
- yen223 13y ago
  I think the blurring of the line is good for all sectors. Let's not assume that people who aren't in tech somehow don't deserve to have the same perks.
  - TeMPOraL 13y ago
    Maybe, but I'm not thinking about deserving and making workers feel good; though I'm all for it in every industry, in some this is a requirement rather than perk. You can treat people like slaves (and many do) in grocery stores or internet bookshops with little negative impact on productivity or profitability, but I wouldn't want to see or use code written by people in similar conditions.
    - yen223 13y ago
      I don't want to be operated on by a stressed-out doctor who's at the end of a 36-hour shift either. If your only concern was profitability, there are a huge number of engineering companies who achieved success despite, or perhaps because of, encouraging long hours and driving their employees to the ground. That's why profitability is not my only concern.
      - TeMPOraL 13y ago
        > I don't want to be operated on by a stressed-out doctor who's at the end of a 36-hour shift either. Good point. > That's why profitability is not my only concern. It isn't mine either; I wanted to point out that even in the most selfish, profit-focused world imaginable, there'd still be an argument for blurring work and play for at least some types of jobs.
  - yardie 13y ago
    Except in the medical field. I draw the line at seeing a dog, except for aid, walking around a clinic. People are disgusting enough as it is, complicating it with canine/feline borne vectors doesn't help.
  - aaronem 13y ago
    Wouldn't work where I work; I'm not sure whether having a dog running around in the sequencing lab would be worse for the dog (in a facility some of whose areas are rated BSL-3) or the lab (where contaminants are generally regarded as a Bad Thing), but I can't see it being a good thing for either. Kind of a shame, I think; it'd be nice to have pups around, at least in the office areas. But I just don't see it working. (I try not to be biased by the fact that, the first and so far only time someone brought a dog into an office where I worked, it promptly waddled over and pissed on my shoes.)
kbutler 13y ago
Just nuts is right. 3:1 ratio of people to dogs? That's a dog park. I can enjoy playing with a dog periodically, but I would definitely prefer to not spend a lot of time (much less work 40++ hours/week) in that environment. That said, it's a company choice they've made. Reversing it it now or even severely restricting it would probably mean attrition of a large portion of their staff.
belorn 13y ago
Some places has daycare in the building, blurring the line between home and work even more.
Frencil 13y ago
In all fairness it used to be more of a waste of time (as mentioned in the post it got progressively worse and widely viewed as a waste of time) until the tribunal came along. Under that setup it's 30 minutes of 5 peoples' time once a month, which is pretty easy to swing.

by jstsch 13y ago

TeMPOraL 13y ago

> I understand that in certain companies (with sky-high margins or money to burn) the line between work and play gets blurred more and more, but that's in stark contrast to the rest of the economy. I think that the blurring of the line between work and play is a Good Thing in some sectors, namely engineering/tech/creative jobs. Creativity comes out of playtime, not worktime.

yen223 13y ago
I think the blurring of the line is good for all sectors. Let's not assume that people who aren't in tech somehow don't deserve to have the same perks.
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  Maybe, but I'm not thinking about deserving and making workers feel good; though I'm all for it in every industry, in some this is a requirement rather than perk. You can treat people like slaves (and many do) in grocery stores or internet bookshops with little negative impact on productivity or profitability, but I wouldn't want to see or use code written by people in similar conditions.
  - yen223 13y ago
    I don't want to be operated on by a stressed-out doctor who's at the end of a 36-hour shift either. If your only concern was profitability, there are a huge number of engineering companies who achieved success despite, or perhaps because of, encouraging long hours and driving their employees to the ground. That's why profitability is not my only concern.
    - TeMPOraL 13y ago
      > I don't want to be operated on by a stressed-out doctor who's at the end of a 36-hour shift either. Good point. > That's why profitability is not my only concern. It isn't mine either; I wanted to point out that even in the most selfish, profit-focused world imaginable, there'd still be an argument for blurring work and play for at least some types of jobs.
- yardie 13y ago
  Except in the medical field. I draw the line at seeing a dog, except for aid, walking around a clinic. People are disgusting enough as it is, complicating it with canine/feline borne vectors doesn't help.
- aaronem 13y ago
  Wouldn't work where I work; I'm not sure whether having a dog running around in the sequencing lab would be worse for the dog (in a facility some of whose areas are rated BSL-3) or the lab (where contaminants are generally regarded as a Bad Thing), but I can't see it being a good thing for either. Kind of a shame, I think; it'd be nice to have pups around, at least in the office areas. But I just don't see it working. (I try not to be biased by the fact that, the first and so far only time someone brought a dog into an office where I worked, it promptly waddled over and pissed on my shoes.)

kbutler 13y ago

Just nuts is right. 3:1 ratio of people to dogs? That's a dog park. I can enjoy playing with a dog periodically, but I would definitely prefer to not spend a lot of time (much less work 40++ hours/week) in that environment. That said, it's a company choice they've made. Reversing it it now or even severely restricting it would probably mean attrition of a large portion of their staff.

belorn 13y ago

Some places has daycare in the building, blurring the line between home and work even more.

Frencil 13y ago

In all fairness it used to be more of a waste of time (as mentioned in the post it got progressively worse and widely viewed as a waste of time) until the tribunal came along. Under that setup it's 30 minutes of 5 peoples' time once a month, which is pretty easy to swing.