Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Jaded Burnout
Jul 10, 2004


baquerd posted:

What personally worries me the most is having my coding skills atrophy, hating just doing investigation and write-ups all the time, or just plain failing by missing important things that then blow up in my face.

A positive trade-off is that you get to be part of shipping many more projects than if you were a line dev, at the cost of becoming "post-technical" as they call it round here.

Are you not already experiencing many of these issues as a team lead?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

baquerd
Jul 2, 2007

by FactsAreUseless
I really appreciate the responses, though I don't want to make this an E/N thread, so it would be great if other people looking at organizational moves asked for advice too. I've gone from night shift help desk to where I'm at now and can talk a lot about the transitions if that's something that could help someone.

Sagacity posted:

Also, doing architecture doesn't mean you should have this big upfront design that everyone then works on. You could still do things in small iterations and make sure your ideas actually work. If you've made a misstep along the way the team can just go back and refactor. It's just that you're the one who's supposed to keep the ultimate goal in mind.

I like how you're thinking here, though big upfront design is actually how I'm supposed to do it. The implementation of the components of the design can be vague and entirely up to the developers, but all of the system level components and functional groups should have documented and defined relationships before stories are created for the development group. I know that depending on which development group I'd work with, I could either give a very vague, high-level description that barely translates from the product owner, or I could be harassed by the team lead that my spec isn't detailed enough when I give a full class diagram.

Arachnamus posted:

A positive trade-off is that you get to be part of shipping many more projects than if you were a line dev, at the cost of becoming "post-technical" as they call it round here.

Are you not already experiencing many of these issues as a team lead?

Post-technical is great term for the cost of the move. I don't think I'd actually work on more projects, as the role is pretty much doing the rough draft of development and a lot of hacking things together to check boundary conditions, and then writing up a formal specification, it's a full time job on a single project.

I'm part of a rapidly expanding group, so the responsibilities have been more flexible. I ditch meetings and do development work, or do no development and whiteboard architecture pretty much as I see fit. I pair program, help testers, organize free drinks, and attend fun discussion lunches. I'm really happy where I'm at, so the prospects of making more money and getting a notch up on the ladder are weighty.

Ahz posted:

It depends on who you report to and who reports to the same structure. It's worthwhile when your boss or bosses boss holds the purse strings on projects. Project managers generally aren't fans of architects and if you don't have any control yourself or related influence, you're going to be frustrated.

It's only 6 months so whatever though, its different if you're thinking of a permanent move.

The fun thing about R&D is that your budget is basically unlimited as long as you can justify it. This is a permanent move though, I said 6+ months to size the scope of the architecture and development of projects I'd be working on.

Forgall
Oct 16, 2012

by Azathoth
How much of an issue is having a gap in your work history? I've left my day job 3 years ago to try and work on a "dream project". That really didn't work out well, and now that I've finally shaken myself loose from the grip of sunk cost fallacy I just want to have normal boring job again. I'm worried about this failure reflecting very poorly on me though, and I'd rather avoid even bringing it up because I've come to really hate the drat thing. Certainly wouldn't want them to ask to see the code... Have I totally screwed myself over?

Doh004
Apr 22, 2007

Mmmmm Donuts...
Unsuccessful endeavors are just as worthy, if not more, to me. Especially if you can pinpoint where things didn't go well and how you'd correct them moving forward.

Mniot
May 22, 2003
Not the one you know
"Brilliant enough to be founding a start-up, but doesn't want to" sounds like Google's ideal employee.

Forgall
Oct 16, 2012

by Azathoth

Doh004 posted:

Unsuccessful endeavors are just as worthy, if not more, to me. Especially if you can pinpoint where things didn't go well and how you'd correct them moving forward.
Thing is, I think the issues that stumped me weren't even objectively difficult, it's just that I'm a huge incompetent idiot. I just found it harder and harder to motivate myself eventually sliding into depression and procrastination pattern. There isn't even that much code to show for it, and it's really crappy because it's all unrefactored experimental code to try out various things.

Adahn the nameless
Jul 12, 2006

Forgall posted:

Thing is, I think the issues that stumped me weren't even objectively difficult, it's just that I'm a huge incompetent idiot. I just found it harder and harder to motivate myself eventually sliding into depression and procrastination pattern. There isn't even that much code to show for it, and it's really crappy because it's all unrefactored experimental code to try out various things.

Don't tell people that. Find a way to spin it. I did the same thing over 8 months and easily got another dev job when I pulled my head out of the weeds.

Paolomania
Apr 26, 2006

baquerd posted:

I really appreciate the responses, though I don't want to make this an E/N thread, so it would be great if other people looking at organizational moves asked for advice too. I've gone from night shift help desk to where I'm at now and can talk a lot about the transitions if that's something that could help someone.
I've had such a different experience. I've had to jump ship for every significant promotion. Some places were so good to work at that senior people didn't leave but not growing enough to create room to move up. Some places pedigree mattered more than skill. At my new gig they seem to have great processes in place for measuring and rewarding performance, and plenty of internal hiring for lateral moves, so I'm hoping that I won't have to move for some time.

No Wave
Sep 18, 2005

HA! HA! NICE! WHAT A TOOL!
Hey guys - I'm having a lot of trouble making this career decision.

I majored Computer Science in college but wasn't super into it - I did fine in my classes but worked in a different career path for two years after college. I went back to programming, though, and I've got about two years of experience on a Django project that I had to leave for a totally random reason that doesn't reflect poorly on me or anything. Because it was the same project for two years, I have some weird gaps in my programming knowledge (I know nothing about threading, for example), so I haven't been exactly crushing it during the interviews.

I've gotten an offer in NYC (where I'm located now, temporarily staying with parents until I have this figured out) for around $90K for a small start-up. There are only a few engineers there.

But also, my friend who got me the last gig wants me to come out to San Francisco and work with him on a new project for at least a month - and if that works out, move forward from there (he's got a steady stream of work coming in). He's definitely trustworthy, and we worked together OK the last time - I just sort of thought that I'd learn better habits by working with a wider variety of people.

I'm having trouble deciding which of these choices would be better in the long run in terms of becoming a more knowledgeable coder. It seems like the ideal would be to work at a bigger company with smart programmers, but I don't think I'm qualified yet to work at a Google/Facebook/other obvious tech company. Would it be better to consult, try to learn stuff in my off time, and make it a goal to get in with one of the big guys?

Che Delilas
Nov 23, 2009
FREE TIBET WEED

I don't really know how competitive 90k is for NYC, since I've never even glanced at it for my own career, but I think you're over-thinking this.

Get a job where you're programming in a reasonably modern language that you're interested in. Try and learn poo poo while you're working. Try and keep up on, or at least be aware of, some of the advances in your language/framework while you're working. If you find you don't like working at a startup, apply to non-startup companies for your next job. The way to be a better coder in the long run is to code, it doesn't really matter what the type of business is where you're doing it.

Also, you haven't really given us nearly enough information about the SF job, but I'd be really
really
really
really
really really wary of moving across the country, to the other highest cost of living city in the country, for nothing more than a single month of guaranteed work (Oh but there will be more IF it's successful I pinky promise). Hell of a risk when you've already got an offer where you're living now.

quote:

but I don't think I'm qualified yet to work at a Google/Facebook/other obvious tech company.

Why not? Did you apply there and the hiring managers/senior engineers tell you that you aren't qualified? Because that's the only valid way to tell. Don't disqualify yourself, that's their job, and frankly you aren't qualified to know if you're qualified.

No Wave
Sep 18, 2005

HA! HA! NICE! WHAT A TOOL!

Che Delilas posted:

I don't really know how competitive 90k is for NYC, since I've never even glanced at it for my own career, but I think you're over-thinking this.

Get a job where you're programming in a reasonably modern language that you're interested in. Try and learn poo poo while you're working. Try and keep up on, or at least be aware of, some of the advances in your language/framework while you're working. If you find you don't like working at a startup, apply to non-startup companies for your next job. The way to be a better coder in the long run is to code, it doesn't really matter what the type of business is where you're doing it.
Appreciate the feedback.

Che Delilas posted:

Also, you haven't really given us nearly enough information about the SF job, but I'd be really
really
really
really
really really wary of moving across the country, to the other highest cost of living city in the country, for nothing more than a single month of guaranteed work (Oh but there will be more IF it's successful I pinky promise). Hell of a risk when you've already got an offer where you're living now.
All my stuff is stored rent-free, no car, no responsibilities at all, which is actually pretty pathetic, but my absolute worst-case scenario is that I end up back in NYC interviewing again in a month.

Che Delilas posted:

Why not? Did you apply there and the hiring managers/senior engineers tell you that you aren't qualified? Because that's the only valid way to tell. Don't disqualify yourself, that's their job, and frankly you aren't qualified to know if you're qualified.
In general, haven't heard much response from my applications. I get the feeling that trying to work at a bigger one like that is something better done while currently working, as the timeframes can be kind of long and I don't really know how to juggle that with the smaller companies I've applied to that want to know if you're interested in working there within a day or two of making a decision. That's sort of why the consulting thing was of interest to me - I could have the time to get referrals and interview as I get results (which could take months) without having to hold off entirely for two years (the length I'd want to stay at a normal job before leaving).

No Wave fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Oct 26, 2014

Jaded Burnout
Jul 10, 2004


No Wave posted:

I've gotten an offer in NYC (where I'm located now, temporarily staying with parents until I have this figured out) for around $90K for a small start-up. There are only a few engineers there.

[...]

I'm having trouble deciding which of these choices would be better in the long run in terms of becoming a more knowledgeable coder.

I've found that tiny companies are either amazing or terrible for inexperienced coders and it can be very hard to tell which ahead of time.

It's all in the quality of the senior staff, as they're highly susceptible to both big-fish-little-pond-"lead"-developer issues and overworking by management.

The flip side is if you get a good group of people, you'll be working closely with them on the company's entire codebase and learning shedloads.

No Wave
Sep 18, 2005

HA! HA! NICE! WHAT A TOOL!

Arachnamus posted:

I've found that tiny companies are either amazing or terrible for inexperienced coders and it can be very hard to tell which ahead of time.

It's all in the quality of the senior staff, as they're highly susceptible to both big-fish-little-pond-"lead"-developer issues and overworking by management.

The flip side is if you get a good group of people, you'll be working closely with them on the company's entire codebase and learning shedloads.
Yeah, I don't have a ton of confidence (not proven wrong, just no reason to believe that they're great) in this particular company. I may try out the consulting-thingy route, continuing to apply for jobs at bigger companies while doing so - especially because I already have the experience of having a ton of autonomy/responsibility on a smaller project.

No Wave fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Oct 26, 2014

Plorkyeran
Mar 22, 2007

To Escape The Shackles Of The Old Forums, We Must Reject The Tribal Negativity He Endorsed

Adahn the nameless posted:

Don't tell people that. Find a way to spin it. I did the same thing over 8 months and easily got another dev job when I pulled my head out of the weeds.
I don't think you even really need to spin it. If you're looking for a job at a large stuff company then discovering that you don't work well in unstructured self-directed environments isn't really a problem, and anywhere else taking a few years to try to build a company and failing generally isn't seen as a bad thing.

syntaxrigger
Jul 7, 2011

Actually you owe me 6! But who's countin?

I feel like I am in a weird position. Which also feels like it could be the motto of my career up till now.

I left my old job in finance programming for a start-up for reasons I can elaborate on if needed, however this work is proving to be more annoying/frustrating than I gave it credit for. I also kinda feel like I was duped yet again by an optimistic interview process. I am not sure how I keep falling for this crap.

Now a company I applied to in the past for a Scala position, for which I was not qualified for really but just hoping, has a Front End Dev position open. The position would be working with two ppl I know in real life and seems like a great place to hang my hat and learn a lot, which is what I have been trying to do for the past 4 years but keep getting in these dumb situations. The space looks very cool and I am pretty excited at the opportunity to work in market research.

Anyway, I threw them my resume at the insistence of my friends and just went through the process without any expectations. I interviewed with 7 people and 6 of them have signed off on me. The problem is that the one who 'has reservations' is the CTO. I have a phone call with him tomorrow to attempt to 'alleviate his concerns' about me. His main one seems to be that I haven't been at on job for more than a year and a half since I got out of college. I explained the reasons for each move but apparently I used words I shouldn't have like "work/life balance" and "being poorly managed".

It is frustrating because I feel like this whole phone call is to see if I can say the same things I said before but without using the 'wrong words' so the CTO will stop halting the process. Has anyone else had any experiences like this? Do they know the magic words to say?

All I really want is a place where I can program, become a better programmer, and be around people who are excited about programming. Which this place has.

Full Disclosure: The startup I work for is in Texas. It is my first time working for one.

baquerd
Jul 2, 2007

by FactsAreUseless

syntaxrigger posted:

It is frustrating because I feel like this whole phone call is to see if I can say the same things I said before but without using the 'wrong words' so the CTO will stop halting the process. Has anyone else had any experiences like this? Do they know the magic words to say?

"It wasn't a good fit"
"I always want to ensure that I am adding to the company's bottom line, and ultimately the position wasn't adding value"
"I always want to give my best, and there seemed to be more of an emphasis of quantity over quality"
"It's important to me that the customer comes first, and I wasn't allowed to emphasize that objective"

Doctor w-rw-rw-
Jun 24, 2008

baquerd posted:

"It wasn't a good fit"
"I always want to ensure that I am adding to the company's bottom line, and ultimately the position wasn't adding value"
"I always want to give my best, and there seemed to be more of an emphasis of quantity over quality"
"It's important to me that the customer comes first, and I wasn't allowed to emphasize that objective"
These sound pretty bland. If the CTO is looking for something to change their mind, they may not be enough. But that's not to say they might not work. I don't know who the CTO is, and those are standard lines that may work.

I've been in a similar situation and going in deep and being earnest *can* work, though it's certainly risky.

Saying too much is worse than saying too little, and you really need to come off as authentically wanting to be in it for the long term, and be as honest as you can be without stooping to trash-talking. I've gotten away with it because I can usually get a good enough read on my interviewer to know how far to go.

syntaxrigger
Jul 7, 2011

Actually you owe me 6! But who's countin?

Doctor w-rw-rw- posted:

These sound pretty bland. If the CTO is looking for something to change their mind, they may not be enough. But that's not to say they might not work. I don't know who the CTO is, and those are standard lines that may work.

I've been in a similar situation and going in deep and being earnest *can* work, though it's certainly risky.

Saying too much is worse than saying too little, and you really need to come off as authentically wanting to be in it for the long term, and be as honest as you can be without stooping to trash-talking. I've gotten away with it because I can usually get a good enough read on my interviewer to know how far to go.

I tend to ramble and so saying too little sounds like good advice to me. Thanks.

Hiowf
Jun 28, 2013

We don't do .DOC in my cave.

syntaxrigger posted:

but apparently I used words I shouldn't have like "work/life balance"

I wouldn't be too disappointed about not getting the job.

return0
Apr 11, 2007

syntaxrigger posted:

I have a phone call with him tomorrow to attempt to 'alleviate his concerns' about me. His main one seems to be that I haven't been at on job for more than a year and a half since I got out of college. I explained the reasons for each move but apparently I used words I shouldn't have like "work/life balance" and "being poorly managed".

Critically examine this carefully.

Pythagoras a trois
Feb 19, 2004

I have a lot of points to make and I will make them later.
Yeah, I don't think work/life balance is going to get a lot of traction at startups, they're often exercises in paying people half in cash and half in dreams, while expecting 2x as many hours.

If you're looking for better hours, a longer term position, and stronger management, the CTO may have a point that this isn't the job for you. That said, there are plenty of positions that do put emphasis on these things.

Doctor w-rw-rw-
Jun 24, 2008

Cheekio posted:

If you're looking for better hours, a longer term position, and stronger management, the CTO may have a point that this isn't the job for you. That said, there are plenty of positions that do put emphasis on these things.
He says what he's really looking for:

syntaxrigger posted:

All I really want is a place where I can program, become a better programmer, and be around people who are excited about programming. Which this place has.

Full Disclosure: The startup I work for is in Texas. It is my first time working for one.
For non-dealbreaker issues, you can learn and adapt and figure out more about what you want. Having friend recommendations (assuming they actually work there) counts for a lot.

syntaxrigger
Jul 7, 2011

Actually you owe me 6! But who's countin?

I had my phone call and they decided to pass on me. The CTO at this new place was super type A. I have a feeling if they made me an offer I would have a lot of trouble trusting a leader who focuses more on what he wants without even considering his team's input.

For now I am going to ride out startup land and hope I don't get burned too bad. I am sure I will learn a lot.

Thanks for the advice.

Vulture Culture
Jul 14, 2003

I was never enjoying it. I only eat it for the nutrients.
The term "work/life balance" has taken on a loaded meaning with a lot of people who buy into 2010s un-management, so you should be careful with it. Most organizations running lean, startup-style management cultures are perfectly content to let you have your leisure time and family obligations, but work/life balance carries a connotation of your phone being off after 5 PM, "Work/life integration" is the preferred nomenclature of HBR hipsters. Depending on what the actual problems were, it might be better to avoid either term and be specific instead about how they prevented you from doing anything outside of work. In the past, I've couched this in language like "they expected me to be available 24/7 for them but weren't willing to accommodate any of my emergencies" because it helps eke out the company's attitudes towards unofficial time off, remote work, and employee burnout.

That said, anyone running a technology organization at a startup and looking for a lifer employee is a special kind of delusional. You want people who will stick around when the going gets tough, but anyone looking to spend 10 years at a company is probably going to do it at a stable company that makes it easy to retire there, not at a startup.

Vulture Culture fucked around with this message at 06:06 on Dec 13, 2014

Blotto Skorzany
Nov 7, 2008

He's a PSoC, loose and runnin'
came the whisper from each lip
And he's here to do some business with
the bad ADC on his chip
bad ADC on his chiiiiip

Misogynist posted:

The term "work/life balance" has taken on a loaded meaning with a lot of people who buy into 2010s un-management, so you should be careful with it. Most organizations running lean, startup-style management cultures are perfectly content to let you have your leisure time and family obligations, but work/life balance carries a connotation of your phone being off after 5 PM,

I would contend that not being on-call after hours is part of the normal meaning of "work/life balance"

minato
Jun 7, 2004

cutty cain't hang, say 7-up.
Taco Defender
There's a good 30 min talk here about a guy's experience with burnout in the Ops field, although it equally applies to development.

https://www.usenix.org/conference/lisa14/conference-program/presentation/lehtonen

The gist is that people work themselves to their detriment in order to prove themselves to their higher ups, with a view to moving up the chain. He came to the conclusion that the higher-ups don't really care and will instead use this behavior to their own ends. And more importantly, the people you should be trying to impress are other engineers because they're the ones you're likely to be working with for the rest of your career.

He also talks about the pager-duty situation. He's a consultant, so he can afford to say "sure I can be on call, for $$$", and he's been much happier because most clients balk at that.

Paolomania
Apr 26, 2006

minato posted:

There's a good 30 min talk here about a guy's experience with burnout in the Ops field, although it equally applies to development.

https://www.usenix.org/conference/lisa14/conference-program/presentation/lehtonen

Great talk. I saw the same worker/management relations back when I worked as a game artist as well, but I can't imagine it applying in that situation. His strategies apply well to engineering, but I think they depend on having the leverage of the non-commodity skills he acquired over the course of his career. That leverage was probably much less while he was scrambling to prove himself early on. I think the difficulty comes in recognizing when you have leverage (at least the leverage of "I can get a new gig before I go broke") and how much (i.e. how much benefit-increase/poo poo-reduction you could negotiate for.

Vulture Culture
Jul 14, 2003

I was never enjoying it. I only eat it for the nutrients.

Blotto Skorzany posted:

I would contend that not being on-call after hours is part of the normal meaning of "work/life balance"
That's exactly correct, exactly what I'm saying and exactly why it's a problematic thing to tell some interviewers. Most employers with lean practices are looking for employees who are able to participate in a two-way give-and-take instead of declaring rigid boundaries about when they are and aren't available. Like, "hey, as long as you're available to help us with emergencies when the poo poo hits the fan, we don't care if you take off at 3 PM on Tuesday to catch your kid's basketball game."

I'm probably doing a lovely job of explaining what I mean, so here's a Forbes article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ronashkenas/2012/10/19/forget-work-life-balance-its-time-for-work-life-blend/

This doesn't mean that you have to blindly accept this, of course; there's lots of positions out there that don't require this type of interplay between work and home life. But do be aware that this is the expectation of many smaller companies, particularly startups, and word your responses accordingly when interviewing.

Gul Banana
Nov 28, 2003

the point is that it isn't that the meaning of "work/life balance" has shifted. these companies are genuinely unwilling to provide work/life balance, which is why they see it as a danger phrase. they're rejecting employees for having reasonable expectations, as their hr practises are unreasonable.

Blinkz0rz
May 27, 2001

MY CONTEMPT FOR MY OWN EMPLOYEES IS ONLY MATCHED BY MY LOVE FOR TOM BRADY'S SWEATY MAGA BALLS

Misogynist posted:

That's exactly correct, exactly what I'm saying and exactly why it's a problematic thing to tell some interviewers. Most employers with lean practices are looking for employees who are able to participate in a two-way give-and-take instead of declaring rigid boundaries about when they are and aren't available. Like, "hey, as long as you're available to help us with emergencies when the poo poo hits the fan, we don't care if you take off at 3 PM on Tuesday to catch your kid's basketball game."

I'm probably doing a lovely job of explaining what I mean, so here's a Forbes article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ronashkenas/2012/10/19/forget-work-life-balance-its-time-for-work-life-blend/

This doesn't mean that you have to blindly accept this, of course; there's lots of positions out there that don't require this type of interplay between work and home life. But do be aware that this is the expectation of many smaller companies, particularly startups, and word your responses accordingly when interviewing.

Two-way give-and-take is codeword for "we give you a phone and require you to check your email 24/7 and you take it with a smile" or "we give you a meeting while you're on your vacation you take the call because if you don't you lose your job."

Companies that expect that sort of thing are awful. Don't work at them. You're only justifying their practices.

Hughlander
May 11, 2005

I agree with pretty much all of this. I'm as guilty as anyone of keeping up to date on my E-Mail over the weekend. We have a production environment with new products shipping all the time and early warning signs of failure don't do 8x5. However, I draw the line at vacation-time. I'm leaving to see family out of state soon and when I do I'll delete the mail credentials from the phone, and sign out of hipchat on the phone and laptop. Yes I'll be bringing the work provided laptop with me, but mostly because it's a Late-2013 MBP and that's my gaming machine these days. If people really need me they have my phone number, but everyone where I am has the culture of, "X is on vacation if it's at all possible to do without their input we'll do without their input."

Not sure if that's balance/integration or just pragmatism.

Vulture Culture
Jul 14, 2003

I was never enjoying it. I only eat it for the nutrients.

Blinkz0rz posted:

Two-way give-and-take is codeword for "we give you a phone and require you to check your email 24/7 and you take it with a smile" or "we give you a meeting while you're on your vacation you take the call because if you don't you lose your job."

Companies that expect that sort of thing are awful. Don't work at them. You're only justifying their practices.
You can't apply a generalization like that to the whole software industry. There are situations where that's not the norm and there's no reason to do it -- for example, companies who produce installable, on-premises software or consumer products like single-player games generally have very little legitimate reason to exert this kind of time pressure. On the other side you have service-oriented online products that are directly consumer-facing, and major problems immediately lead to permanent loss of users and unrecoverable damage to the revenue stream. If you're a frontend HTML/CSS developer you should expect not to be called after you go home for the day. On the other hand, if you're responsible for the messaging layer and something goes south and takes out the ability for production services to talk to each other, you bet your rear end you're going to be on the conference call if the poo poo hits the fan, especially in a smaller company.

If your company has risky testing/deployment practices that lead to this happening all the time, that's lovely management and a major organizational problem independent of your actual availability. People shouldn't stand for that; they should work to change that part of the culture/process or find a better work environment. But at the same time, don't go on a date and volunteer that your last relationship ended because your partner's life was getting too difficult. Figure out a way to make it about the broken processes, not about how those processes made you feel.

Che Delilas
Nov 23, 2009
FREE TIBET WEED

Misogynist posted:

You can't apply a generalization like that to the whole software industry. There are situations where that's not the norm and there's no reason to do it

Yeah, there's no reason to do it. That doesn't stop some crusty executive or a random MBA from doing it anyway. Though in smaller companies I imagine it's easier to get that person sent packing. If 10 employees complain about one manager and those 10 employees are 30% of someone's company, that someone might be inclined to listen and take action. Unless the guy being complained about is that someone's nephew.

I'm pretty sure they're not applying it to the whole software industry, either. But people get burned, and it embitters us.

Blinkz0rz
May 27, 2001

MY CONTEMPT FOR MY OWN EMPLOYEES IS ONLY MATCHED BY MY LOVE FOR TOM BRADY'S SWEATY MAGA BALLS
And then it becomes the new normal. If you're default stance isn't to distrust your corporate structure and be wary of any and all management decisions, then shake my goddamn head at you.

Management's job is to make you do more for less. Always.

bonds0097
Oct 23, 2010

I would cry but I don't think I can spare the moisture.
Pillbug

Blinkz0rz posted:

And then it becomes the new normal. If you're default stance isn't to distrust your corporate structure and be wary of any and all management decisions, then shake my goddamn head at you.

Management's job is to make you do more for less. Always.

Some of us find places to work where paranoia isn't the only sane default.

wins32767
Mar 16, 2007

Blinkz0rz posted:

Management's job is to make you do more for less. Always.

You need to a new place to work. I tell my folks to go home if they're putting in more than like 41-42 hours a week. Don't get me wrong, from time to time there may be a long day or two if there is a fire, but I do my best to spread the pain around and give comp time to make up for it. Long hours are terrible for productivity, effectiveness and morale.

Doctor w-rw-rw-
Jun 24, 2008

Blinkz0rz posted:

And then it becomes the new normal. If you're default stance isn't to distrust your corporate structure and be wary of any and all management decisions, then shake my goddamn head at you.

Management's job is to make you do more for less. Always.
Quit your job or quit the industry, please.

I've been there. I've worked at two companies where the leadership was distrustful and/or exploitative, but my last two jobs have been exactly the opposite. Circumstances allowing, you need to avoid companies that make you act like an abused employee.

Blinkz0rz
May 27, 2001

MY CONTEMPT FOR MY OWN EMPLOYEES IS ONLY MATCHED BY MY LOVE FOR TOM BRADY'S SWEATY MAGA BALLS

wins32767 posted:

You need to a new place to work. I tell my folks to go home if they're putting in more than like 41-42 hours a week. Don't get me wrong, from time to time there may be a long day or two if there is a fire, but I do my best to spread the pain around and give comp time to make up for it. Long hours are terrible for productivity, effectiveness and morale.

I should clarify that I really enjoy my job and the company that I work for. I just celebrated my 5 year anniversary and look forward to many more. I work just about 40 hours a week. After that, unless I have a massive deadline, I'm going home. I like my boss and his boss and even her boss, the CEO. Right now I'm rushing to get things wrapped up before my two week vacation that starts after this week. I will not check email and I will not accept phone calls from work.

I understand, however, that companies make money by paying their employees less than the value that they produce. If you're tethered to a phone or taking conference calls on vacations, then your company is getting more value from you at your expense.

Which is the really, really long way about saying that startup life might sound glamorous, but it gives you a mental model of what productive labor should be that's fundamentally at odds with the best interests of employees. That might not be the case for every startup, but the culture promotes it heavily.

I should add that this isn't industry specific. Management's job is to maximize productivity while minimizing cost. That's kind of a truism in labor economics.

sarehu
Apr 20, 2007

(call/cc call/cc)

Blinkz0rz posted:

I understand, however, that companies make money by paying their employees less than the value that they produce.

You presume that capital investment and entrepreneurial ability has no value.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

down with slavery
Dec 23, 2013
STOP QUOTING MY POSTS SO PEOPLE THAT AREN'T IDIOTS DON'T HAVE TO READ MY FUCKING TERRIBLE OPINIONS THANKS

sarehu posted:

You presume that capital investment and entrepreneurial ability has no value.

This really doesn't have anything to do with what he said. He's right, companies make money by paying their employees less than the value they produce. Maybe not on an individual level, but certainly as a whole. It's mindblowing to me that "companies exist only to make money" is somehow considered "paranoia" by this thread. I mean, publically traded corporations are by law working for the shareholders, not the employees or anyone else.

Companies simply don't invest in their employees like they used to and it's all about the bottom line. Look out for #1 because your manager isn't, no matter how many times he promises you a great raise at the end of the year. Want to truly receive the fruits of your labor(and others for that matter)? Own part of the company you're working for, society is pretty much built from the ground up to favor the owners over the employees. If you're not a shareholder, you're a sucker. Especially at a startup.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply