6 ms·

This is my personal opinion as a software development manager, so take it as just that. A developer that always leave at exactly 17.00 and adamantly refuse to

by MortenK 13y ago

This is my personal opinion as a software development manager, so take it as just that. A developer that always leave at exactly 17.00 and adamantly refuse to come in on a Saturday, gives a very clear signal that they don't give a shit about the company, the product or the team. They're there to get paid. While most employers realize that your work isn't (or should be) your single burning passion, it is very negative for team morale when one of the guys always flakes out when the clock hits 17 regardless of the fire in the kitchen. I knew a developer who always left at exactly 17.00, because "that's what they are paying me for". On several occasions, he deployed breaking changes to production five minutes before leaving. Other devs had to come in and work very late to get the system back online. While he is technically in his right to leave at 5, he causes his team much grief and as such is not an asset. The other side of the coin is that lots of software companies, really has little to no control over software development. Especially startups run by young, inexperienced guys rarely have any idea what they are doing. This is a company where crisis' occurs daily or weekly instead of maybe once every couple of months. They make up for this by rampant overtime, and excuse this with BS about being dedicated and a team player. You know you're in such an organization if they talk about how "that's what the industry is like". Your organizations work culture seem like that - very long hours and (seemingly) no extraordinary reason for coming in on Saturday. If that's the case, then leave. There's not much that can be done except a total change of top management. But if it's a rare occurrence that they call you in on Saturday and there is a good explanation for it, then buckle up and help your team mates.

jason_slack 13y ago
I dont mean any disrespect, but you sound like the same type of manager he has now.... So you have a case where there is a "clock puncher" that is pushing out changes, leaving and then issues occur that others must stay and clean up after. Would you share if your point of view would be different if that "clock puncher" was your best developer and nobody had to stay late to clean up after his/her mess?
- MortenK 13y ago
  I think I have not formulated myself very well. A bad company is "a company where crisis' occurs daily or weekly instead of maybe once every couple of months." In such a company, crisis is the standard, not the deviation. In such a company there'll be rampant requests for overtime. That's a terrible place to work. As I recommended to OP, if he is in such a company (which it could sound like), he should leave. A good place is one where most people consistently leave after their standard 7-8 hours. But IF there is a fire, then it's a terrible attitude for a developer to adopt a "not my problem, time's up" attitude. This doesn't only go for devs by the way, it's the same for managers and any other role really.
noir_lord 13y ago
> A developer that always leave at exactly 17.00 and adamantly refuse to come in on a Saturday, gives a very clear signal that they don't give a shit about the company, the product or the team. They're there to get paid. If once in a while something crops up that requires staying after 5 then that is fine however the expectation should be that all the developers go home at 5pm > While most employers realize that your work isn't (or should be) your single burning passion, it is very negative for team morale when one of the guys always flakes out when the clock hits 17 regardless of the fire in the kitchen. If there are constant fires in the kitchen you might want to find out who keeps lighting them, if's not the guy leaving at 5 then I fail to see the issue. > I knew a developer who always left at exactly 17.00, because "that's what they are paying me for". On several occasions, he deployed breaking changes to production five minutes before leaving. Other devs had to come in and work very late to get the system back online. While he is technically in his right to leave at 5, he causes his team much grief and as such is not an asset. Pushing to production shortly before going home is a separate issue to whether he leaves on time or not, a developer leaving on time should be expected, a developer pushing breaking changes and leaving should not. The other stuff I wholeheartedly agree with.
- oddevan 13y ago
  > Pushing to production shortly before going home is a separate issue to whether he leaves on time or not, a developer leaving on time should be expected, a developer pushing breaking changes and leaving should not. This. I strongly believe in finishing what I've started and not leaving things broken. I also strongly believe in work-life balance which to me means working hard until 5 but leaving then. EC1: If you're confident that your work ethic is sound, then there sounds like there's a significant culture mismatch here. I know it's not easy to think about going somewhere new, but you may have to consider that sooner rather than later. I honestly wish you the best of luck no matter how this shakes out.
- MortenK 13y ago
  Yeah I might not have been entirely clear in my post, but I write: "The other side of the coin is that lots of software companies, really has little to no control over software development... This is a company where crisis' occurs daily or weekly instead of maybe once every couple of months." That's entirely agreeing with your point: The standard should be a well run team where everybody goes home after their 7-8 hours. If there is constant fire in the kitchen, then it's certainly not up to developers to constantly do overtime. In my post I do actually suggest to OP he gets out, if he is indeed in such a situation (which again, it sounds like).
toadi 13y ago
Well if it's an employee why should he be taking risks? He's paid until 17h... We can be flexible no doubt, but if one week you work 60 hours to meet a deadline next week you should only work 20. Flexibility works in 2 directions. If the big payday comes it's not the employee who wins! You aren't betting with equity as employee...
- MortenK 13y ago
  Certainly. Is there anything in my post that suggests flexibility should not be two ways?
RyanZAG 13y ago
> I knew a developer who always left at exactly 17.00, because "that's what they are paying me for". What? But that is what you're paying him for. You realize how employment works, surely? You give him some money in exchange for the use of his time and skills to perform a task your business requires. The results of his work are owned by the business who take ownership of any benefits arising from the work. If you want him to be involved in the company, you're going to have to involve him in the rewards by giving him a part of the company. If there is an emergency and an employee does need to stay later, you need to pay that employee overtime - generally at a higher multiple of his standard pay. The reason for this is because a business needs to avoid having emergencies and the best way to do that is to make having an emergency an expensive thing. Then everyone will work to avoid them. For the OP: just leave and get a new job. If you're able to put together software as well as you say, then you probably don't even need a job. Find a business co-founder and start your own company.
- MortenK 13y ago
  "The reason for this is because a business needs to avoid having emergencies " Exactly what I wrote in my post, if you'd actually bothered to read the lower half. "If there is an emergency and an employee does need to stay later, you need to pay that employee overtime" I didn't write anything about compensation - I would think it entirely obvious that if you work overtime you either get paid or take compensatory time off?
  - RyanZAG 13y ago
    I read the lower half, but I still wanted to comment on the top half. You seemed to be implying that a fire in the kitchen was the developer's problem. It is not - the business takes ownership of the rewards and the business takes ownership of the fire in the kitchen. If the business wants to make the fire the responsibility of the developer, the business needs to transfer ownership of the benefits of avoiding a fire to the developer as well. I also noticed you didn't write anything about compensation and that's why I did. That developer that insisted on leaving at 5 because that's what his job was? I can assure you that if you paid him a multiple of his standard rate and made it clear that he was doing the business a favor then he would remain there to help fix the fire. Also regarding deploying breaking changes five minutes before leaving - I'm assuming this means it was standard procedure to deploy non-breaking changes five minutes before leaving as well. This feels like a management problem. Those changes should be deployed to a staging environment of some kind and not directly to production without some kind of testing or sign off procedure as then it doesn't matter if they break anything as it will continue to be worked on the following day without affecting customers.
notastartup 13y ago
I really hope you don't start a company and have people work on the weekends and threaten them with their job if they refuse.
- MortenK 13y ago
  Where did that come from... Did you read the post in it's entirety?
  - elbear 13y ago
    You have touched a nerve. First, the part where your developer breaks the site and leaves really tells you that he doesn't care about the product. On the other hand, the fact that he chooses to leave when his time is out shows you that he values his time. He values it more than the company, if you want to look at it like that. Not everyone who works for you will love your company. For some people it's just a job. Now, it's your choice to make if that is good enough for you.
    - MortenK 13y ago
      Yeah definitely seems I have touched a nerve. Just had all my replies being drive-by downvoted by some guy even :-) In any case, you make a good point. Basically he values a fraction of his time more than any negative, however big, inflicted on his company and his team members.
copergi 13y ago
>They're there to get paid Everyone is there to get paid. >when one of the guys always flakes out when the clock hits 17 Doing your job is not "flaking out".
- MortenK 13y ago
  1) Of course, but if you do not care at all for the business, the product or your team, your not exactly a paragon of the model employee are you? 2) Leaving at 17 under ordinary circumstances is not flaking out. If there is a major crisis which happens in average maybe once every three months, and you consistently can't be arsed to put in some extra hours of effort while your team mates and managers are, then yes, you are flaking out.
  - copergi 13y ago
    >but if you do not care at all for the business Your business? Of course not. Unless I have equity, why would I fall for the "you need to care about the company even though it doesn't care about you" scam? >or your team You are the one screwing my team, not me. >your not exactly a paragon of the model employee are you I would certainly hope not. I try to me a model human. I have no interest in being a model employee. If you want a slave, buy someone else. >If there is a major crisis which happens in average maybe once every three months, and you consistently can't be arsed to put in some extra hours of effort while your team mates and managers are, then yes, you are flaking out If that is part of my job, sure. But you are aiming for a world record in strawmanning with that one. Remember the discussion is about employers feeling entitled to owning employees time?
    - MortenK 13y ago
      "Remember the discussion is about employers feeling entitled to owning employees time?" No, that's actually not at all what this discussion is about. That's what OP's situation is about. My post made two points: 1) If a company is mismanaged or just plain taking advantage of you by requiring regular overtime, then leave such a company. 2) A company (not OP's company) who is well managed and does not require regular overtime, pay their wages on time etc, should be able to expect at least a little bit dedication from their employees. No you don't have to tattoo the product name on your chest, but it would suit you to help out your managers and colleagues in case of (rarely occurring) emergencies.
ozchrisb 13y ago
"A company that always wants me to work past 17.00 and expects me to come in on a Saturday, gives a very clear signal that they don't give a shit about me, the product or the team. They're hiring me to get paid."
joesmo 13y ago
If you expect people to work more than eight hours or on Saturdays, pay them by the hour. Otherwise, any negative feelings you may have are your own fault. If you can't pay them, don't have such ridiculous expectations. It's that simple. EDIT: Also, don't release after noon (or some other set time) and never release on Fridays. This is just common sense if builds have problems. That way, no one has to stay late.

by MortenK 13y ago

jason_slack 13y ago

I dont mean any disrespect, but you sound like the same type of manager he has now.... So you have a case where there is a "clock puncher" that is pushing out changes, leaving and then issues occur that others must stay and clean up after. Would you share if your point of view would be different if that "clock puncher" was your best developer and nobody had to stay late to clean up after his/her mess?

MortenK 13y ago
I think I have not formulated myself very well. A bad company is "a company where crisis' occurs daily or weekly instead of maybe once every couple of months." In such a company, crisis is the standard, not the deviation. In such a company there'll be rampant requests for overtime. That's a terrible place to work. As I recommended to OP, if he is in such a company (which it could sound like), he should leave. A good place is one where most people consistently leave after their standard 7-8 hours. But IF there is a fire, then it's a terrible attitude for a developer to adopt a "not my problem, time's up" attitude. This doesn't only go for devs by the way, it's the same for managers and any other role really.

noir_lord 13y ago

> A developer that always leave at exactly 17.00 and adamantly refuse to come in on a Saturday, gives a very clear signal that they don't give a shit about the company, the product or the team. They're there to get paid. If once in a while something crops up that requires staying after 5 then that is fine however the expectation should be that all the developers go home at 5pm > While most employers realize that your work isn't (or should be) your single burning passion, it is very negative for team morale when one of the guys always flakes out when the clock hits 17 regardless of the fire in the kitchen. If there are constant fires in the kitchen you might want to find out who keeps lighting them, if's not the guy leaving at 5 then I fail to see the issue. > I knew a developer who always left at exactly 17.00, because "that's what they are paying me for". On several occasions, he deployed breaking changes to production five minutes before leaving. Other devs had to come in and work very late to get the system back online. While he is technically in his right to leave at 5, he causes his team much grief and as such is not an asset. Pushing to production shortly before going home is a separate issue to whether he leaves on time or not, a developer leaving on time should be expected, a developer pushing breaking changes and leaving should not. The other stuff I wholeheartedly agree with.

oddevan 13y ago
> Pushing to production shortly before going home is a separate issue to whether he leaves on time or not, a developer leaving on time should be expected, a developer pushing breaking changes and leaving should not. This. I strongly believe in finishing what I've started and not leaving things broken. I also strongly believe in work-life balance which to me means working hard until 5 but leaving then. EC1: If you're confident that your work ethic is sound, then there sounds like there's a significant culture mismatch here. I know it's not easy to think about going somewhere new, but you may have to consider that sooner rather than later. I honestly wish you the best of luck no matter how this shakes out.
MortenK 13y ago
Yeah I might not have been entirely clear in my post, but I write: "The other side of the coin is that lots of software companies, really has little to no control over software development... This is a company where crisis' occurs daily or weekly instead of maybe once every couple of months." That's entirely agreeing with your point: The standard should be a well run team where everybody goes home after their 7-8 hours. If there is constant fire in the kitchen, then it's certainly not up to developers to constantly do overtime. In my post I do actually suggest to OP he gets out, if he is indeed in such a situation (which again, it sounds like).

toadi 13y ago

Well if it's an employee why should he be taking risks? He's paid until 17h... We can be flexible no doubt, but if one week you work 60 hours to meet a deadline next week you should only work 20. Flexibility works in 2 directions. If the big payday comes it's not the employee who wins! You aren't betting with equity as employee...

MortenK 13y ago
Certainly. Is there anything in my post that suggests flexibility should not be two ways?

RyanZAG 13y ago

> I knew a developer who always left at exactly 17.00, because "that's what they are paying me for". What? But that is what you're paying him for. You realize how employment works, surely? You give him some money in exchange for the use of his time and skills to perform a task your business requires. The results of his work are owned by the business who take ownership of any benefits arising from the work. If you want him to be involved in the company, you're going to have to involve him in the rewards by giving him a part of the company. If there is an emergency and an employee does need to stay later, you need to pay that employee overtime - generally at a higher multiple of his standard pay. The reason for this is because a business needs to avoid having emergencies and the best way to do that is to make having an emergency an expensive thing. Then everyone will work to avoid them. For the OP: just leave and get a new job. If you're able to put together software as well as you say, then you probably don't even need a job. Find a business co-founder and start your own company.

MortenK 13y ago
"The reason for this is because a business needs to avoid having emergencies " Exactly what I wrote in my post, if you'd actually bothered to read the lower half. "If there is an emergency and an employee does need to stay later, you need to pay that employee overtime" I didn't write anything about compensation - I would think it entirely obvious that if you work overtime you either get paid or take compensatory time off?
- RyanZAG 13y ago
  I read the lower half, but I still wanted to comment on the top half. You seemed to be implying that a fire in the kitchen was the developer's problem. It is not - the business takes ownership of the rewards and the business takes ownership of the fire in the kitchen. If the business wants to make the fire the responsibility of the developer, the business needs to transfer ownership of the benefits of avoiding a fire to the developer as well. I also noticed you didn't write anything about compensation and that's why I did. That developer that insisted on leaving at 5 because that's what his job was? I can assure you that if you paid him a multiple of his standard rate and made it clear that he was doing the business a favor then he would remain there to help fix the fire. Also regarding deploying breaking changes five minutes before leaving - I'm assuming this means it was standard procedure to deploy non-breaking changes five minutes before leaving as well. This feels like a management problem. Those changes should be deployed to a staging environment of some kind and not directly to production without some kind of testing or sign off procedure as then it doesn't matter if they break anything as it will continue to be worked on the following day without affecting customers.

notastartup 13y ago

I really hope you don't start a company and have people work on the weekends and threaten them with their job if they refuse.

MortenK 13y ago
Where did that come from... Did you read the post in it's entirety?
- elbear 13y ago
  You have touched a nerve. First, the part where your developer breaks the site and leaves really tells you that he doesn't care about the product. On the other hand, the fact that he chooses to leave when his time is out shows you that he values his time. He values it more than the company, if you want to look at it like that. Not everyone who works for you will love your company. For some people it's just a job. Now, it's your choice to make if that is good enough for you.
  - MortenK 13y ago
    Yeah definitely seems I have touched a nerve. Just had all my replies being drive-by downvoted by some guy even :-) In any case, you make a good point. Basically he values a fraction of his time more than any negative, however big, inflicted on his company and his team members.

copergi 13y ago

>They're there to get paid Everyone is there to get paid. >when one of the guys always flakes out when the clock hits 17 Doing your job is not "flaking out".

MortenK 13y ago
1) Of course, but if you do not care at all for the business, the product or your team, your not exactly a paragon of the model employee are you? 2) Leaving at 17 under ordinary circumstances is not flaking out. If there is a major crisis which happens in average maybe once every three months, and you consistently can't be arsed to put in some extra hours of effort while your team mates and managers are, then yes, you are flaking out.
- copergi 13y ago
  >but if you do not care at all for the business Your business? Of course not. Unless I have equity, why would I fall for the "you need to care about the company even though it doesn't care about you" scam? >or your team You are the one screwing my team, not me. >your not exactly a paragon of the model employee are you I would certainly hope not. I try to me a model human. I have no interest in being a model employee. If you want a slave, buy someone else. >If there is a major crisis which happens in average maybe once every three months, and you consistently can't be arsed to put in some extra hours of effort while your team mates and managers are, then yes, you are flaking out If that is part of my job, sure. But you are aiming for a world record in strawmanning with that one. Remember the discussion is about employers feeling entitled to owning employees time?
  - MortenK 13y ago
    "Remember the discussion is about employers feeling entitled to owning employees time?" No, that's actually not at all what this discussion is about. That's what OP's situation is about. My post made two points: 1) If a company is mismanaged or just plain taking advantage of you by requiring regular overtime, then leave such a company. 2) A company (not OP's company) who is well managed and does not require regular overtime, pay their wages on time etc, should be able to expect at least a little bit dedication from their employees. No you don't have to tattoo the product name on your chest, but it would suit you to help out your managers and colleagues in case of (rarely occurring) emergencies.

ozchrisb 13y ago

"A company that always wants me to work past 17.00 and expects me to come in on a Saturday, gives a very clear signal that they don't give a shit about me, the product or the team. They're hiring me to get paid."

joesmo 13y ago

If you expect people to work more than eight hours or on Saturdays, pay them by the hour. Otherwise, any negative feelings you may have are your own fault. If you can't pay them, don't have such ridiculous expectations. It's that simple. EDIT: Also, don't release after noon (or some other set time) and never release on Fridays. This is just common sense if builds have problems. That way, no one has to stay late.