4 ms·

And yet engineers wonder why we are thrown into open offices like cattle and compensated with foosball tables and Mountain Dew. We are skilled professional work

And yet engineers wonder why we are thrown into open offices like cattle and compensated with foosball tables and Mountain Dew. We are skilled professional workers. How about starting with some self-respect? Grow up and put on a collared shirt at least. (NOTE: This is not directed at the parent commenter...I'm just ranting in general)

shredprez 11y ago
Amen. Whenever I see old photos of early coders in dress shirts and ties, I smile.
EliRivers 11y ago
What I would sometimes really, really like to wear at work, is a three-piece suit, minus the jacket. So smart suit trousers, a well ironed tailored (i.e. made to measure) shirt with a good tie, and a waistcoat. The waistcoat ensures that the tie doesn't flap, and also neatly covers the join twixt shirt and trousers - no unsightly loose shirt on display (because, if you wear a shirt, it's going to loosen as you move around). Shirt sleeves folded back from the cuffs (which require cuff-links to join, such that when not joined they're free enough to fold back smartly) and the sleeve prevented from loosening unduly with a discrete sleeve garter. Look smart, feel smart, and a clear separation for me between dressing for work (and thus being in professional work mode - this would be advantageous to my employer), and dressing for not work. As it is, at my current place, I can dress like this, which is nice. However, the majority of tech places seem to have strict dress codes (brilliantly, hidden behind protestations that there's totally no dress code, no no no, although last week we [1] didn't hire someone because he wore a suit to the interview, but that's not for violating the dress code at a job he didn't even work at, no no no), and someone dressing smartly rather than the uniform of jeans/chinos and t-shirt, would cause uncertainty and unsettlement amongst the workers, many of whom would not be able to effectively work with someone who is not just like them. [1] General case "we". If I ever hear someone come out of interviewing a candidate and suggest that dressing smartly was a negative, I go absolutely. Nuts. Hasn't happened for a very long time.

shredprez 11y ago

Amen. Whenever I see old photos of early coders in dress shirts and ties, I smile.

EliRivers 11y ago

What I would sometimes really, really like to wear at work, is a three-piece suit, minus the jacket. So smart suit trousers, a well ironed tailored (i.e. made to measure) shirt with a good tie, and a waistcoat. The waistcoat ensures that the tie doesn't flap, and also neatly covers the join twixt shirt and trousers - no unsightly loose shirt on display (because, if you wear a shirt, it's going to loosen as you move around). Shirt sleeves folded back from the cuffs (which require cuff-links to join, such that when not joined they're free enough to fold back smartly) and the sleeve prevented from loosening unduly with a discrete sleeve garter. Look smart, feel smart, and a clear separation for me between dressing for work (and thus being in professional work mode - this would be advantageous to my employer), and dressing for not work. As it is, at my current place, I can dress like this, which is nice. However, the majority of tech places seem to have strict dress codes (brilliantly, hidden behind protestations that there's totally no dress code, no no no, although last week we [1] didn't hire someone because he wore a suit to the interview, but that's not for violating the dress code at a job he didn't even work at, no no no), and someone dressing smartly rather than the uniform of jeans/chinos and t-shirt, would cause uncertainty and unsettlement amongst the workers, many of whom would not be able to effectively work with someone who is not just like them. [1] General case "we". If I ever hear someone come out of interviewing a candidate and suggest that dressing smartly was a negative, I go absolutely. Nuts. Hasn't happened for a very long time.