Would you people seriously just *stop* doing unpaid work already?!?!
-
StatementTerminator wrote:
If you want to do something about it, lobby for unionization and fair labor laws, that's the real problem.
I disagree; get rid of the specific concept of "labor laws" altogether because they're already covered by contract law. The only thing that "labor laws" do currently is provide structure to sloppy arrangements where a worker signs to an open contract and then complains about the terms that he ends up signing up for. An open contract makes you a vassal. "Labor" is fundamentally indiscernible from any product supplied on the market. You are supplying a product (your skill) to a buyer (the company) under specific terms. It is your responsibility to create terms in your favor and it is their responsibility to create terms in their favor. If either party violates those terms, you have a tortious breach of contract to address with the other party or take to arbitration. There's really no need for any special rules that would not also apply to selling something out of your garage at a garage sale or buying a refrigerator from a store; they are all the same thing.
StatementTerminator wrote:
We're being exploited, many of us,
If you voluntarily agree to do something, it's illogical to claim exploitation; you chose it voluntarily because it was your best available option, did you not? I think I understand what you're saying, but I take issue with the word "exploited."
StatementTerminator wrote:
Expecting people to put their jobs on the line in the hopes that wages will go up and you'll get paid more for fewer hours is total fantasy.
Why would anyone arrange their affairs in a way in which they become dependent on a single "employer?" The price you can command is directly related to your second best option on the market, because the "best option" merely has to provide a modicum above that to price the second option out. That is what determines the price you can command, so you should always be investigating what other people are willing to pay for your service. If you are selling under market, raise your price! The only input a company has into what I earn is to say "yes, I'll pay that for your services" or "no, that's too steep for my budget." They don't get to tell me what I make; they only get to tell me what they're willing to pay. "Increasing price while decreasing output" is know
Alaric_ wrote:
If you voluntarily agree to do something, it's illogical to claim exploitation
No, exploitation is "voluntary," otherwise it's slavery.
Alaric_ wrote:
If either party violates those terms, you have a tortious breach of contract to address with the other party or take to arbitration.
Um, not where I live, I don't think you understand how employment works in the South. You don't get to negotiate a contract for a permanent salaried position, you only negotiate pay, and your employer can reduce your pay at any time for any reason. Your choice is to do whatever your employer wants or take a walk, you can't sue except in cases of discrimination or other violations of federal law. Where do you live, where you can force your employer into arbitration if you don't like what you're asked to do?
Alaric_ wrote:
Why would anyone arrange their affairs in a way in which they become dependent on a single "employer?"
Who says I did that? I left that job for a better one. Same lack of legal protections, though. Your concept of contract laws covering employment is strange to me, there's no binding contract in at-will employment, and that's very deliberate.
-
You're blaming the victim for being exploited, and ignoring reality. I work in the American South, where workers have zero rights. Like you say they weren't in a good position to let me go at that time, but they could have punished me in many other ways. The sales guy was let go. The contract wasn't flexible, the client had to deliver on their end, if we didn't make deadline it meant a lawsuit. I had responsibilities to meet whether I liked it or not, no matter how unfair it was. Refusing would have been insubordinate, pretty much the same as walking out (and believe me, I considered it, even packed up my stuff at one point). I'm not defending the situation, I'm pointing out the reality of it. We're being exploited, many of us, but not everyone is in a position to refuse unfair assignments. If you want to do something about it, lobby for unionization and fair labor laws, that's the real problem. Expecting people to put their jobs on the line in the hopes that wages will go up and you'll get paid more for fewer hours is total fantasy.
I cannot blame a victim in a situation where there is none. You made a choice, and now to cope with your choices and the damage they caused you are trying to convince others that doing something like what you did is justified somehow. The parallels to hazing psychology are striking. Please try to bear in mind I have done the same, I am not judging you. You have rights. You can say no. Nobody forced you or took advantage of you. This is self inflicted damage my friend. You speak of responsibility while simultaneously refusing to accept it where it matters most. The most important question to ask is "What could I have done differently?". I suggest reading around emotional intelligence. FWIW I live in a right to work state as well - in the Midwest, and I like the south... good bourbon for one. I will move, change jobs, leave the country, etc before I ever accept unionization - I would fight it first of course. Unlike southerners those of us in the Midwest have witnessed first hand the undesirable effects unions have on an industry/economy. My home city is almost dead at this point and unions played a big role in that. If you wont take my word take the word of the voters of Michigan who just turned that state into a right to work state. A much better and free market solution to the wage/working conditions issue is to end the abuse of H1-B and similar programs. Lawsuits are a cost of doing business. If you cannot deal with being sued you should not be in business in the US. I am not gonna defend this; just stating reality. You offer up that they fired the sales guy anyway as some sort of defense. I could argue that the more responsible approach is to manage the situation, NOT take actions that end up with the company losing two valuable employees. Maybe if thing were managed properly you would both still be working there happily to this day, but we will never know. Having the character to tell people when they are wrong/screwed up is valuable and factors into your net worth.
-
Alaric_ wrote:
If you voluntarily agree to do something, it's illogical to claim exploitation
No, exploitation is "voluntary," otherwise it's slavery.
Alaric_ wrote:
If either party violates those terms, you have a tortious breach of contract to address with the other party or take to arbitration.
Um, not where I live, I don't think you understand how employment works in the South. You don't get to negotiate a contract for a permanent salaried position, you only negotiate pay, and your employer can reduce your pay at any time for any reason. Your choice is to do whatever your employer wants or take a walk, you can't sue except in cases of discrimination or other violations of federal law. Where do you live, where you can force your employer into arbitration if you don't like what you're asked to do?
Alaric_ wrote:
Why would anyone arrange their affairs in a way in which they become dependent on a single "employer?"
Who says I did that? I left that job for a better one. Same lack of legal protections, though. Your concept of contract laws covering employment is strange to me, there's no binding contract in at-will employment, and that's very deliberate.
StatementTerminator wrote:
No, exploitation is "voluntary," otherwise it's slavery.
Then we're arguing semantics; it makes no sense to me to bundle "exploitation" with voluntary agreements because if you are agreeing to something voluntarily that you consider exploitative, you are agreeing to be "exploited" which means you are not being exploited.
StatementTerminator wrote:
I don't think you understand how employment works in the South. You don't get to negotiate a contract for a permanent salaried position, you only negotiate pay, and your employer can reduce your pay at any time for any reason.
I do understand; I work in an At-Will employment state, but my labor is protected by contracts. It's a pain in the ass to deal with disputes, but that's a cost of doing business with untrustworthy customers...and why I make sure I have a contract.
StatementTerminator wrote:
Where do you live, where you can force your employer into arbitration if you don't like what you're asked to do?
That's my point. I don't have an "employer." I think the concept of the "employer" needs to be abolished. There's really nothing special about the arrangement. As I said before, you present a service to the market (your labor) and a customer buys your service (the company). Labor is just a part of their production schedule and their capital structure. Sure, they want it to be treated differently, in their favor, but that's where getting the State out of the business of granting favors to their buddies comes into play...but that's getting into Anarcho-Capitalism and a completely different can of worms.
"I need build Skynet. Plz send code"
-
I cannot blame a victim in a situation where there is none. You made a choice, and now to cope with your choices and the damage they caused you are trying to convince others that doing something like what you did is justified somehow. The parallels to hazing psychology are striking. Please try to bear in mind I have done the same, I am not judging you. You have rights. You can say no. Nobody forced you or took advantage of you. This is self inflicted damage my friend. You speak of responsibility while simultaneously refusing to accept it where it matters most. The most important question to ask is "What could I have done differently?". I suggest reading around emotional intelligence. FWIW I live in a right to work state as well - in the Midwest, and I like the south... good bourbon for one. I will move, change jobs, leave the country, etc before I ever accept unionization - I would fight it first of course. Unlike southerners those of us in the Midwest have witnessed first hand the undesirable effects unions have on an industry/economy. My home city is almost dead at this point and unions played a big role in that. If you wont take my word take the word of the voters of Michigan who just turned that state into a right to work state. A much better and free market solution to the wage/working conditions issue is to end the abuse of H1-B and similar programs. Lawsuits are a cost of doing business. If you cannot deal with being sued you should not be in business in the US. I am not gonna defend this; just stating reality. You offer up that they fired the sales guy anyway as some sort of defense. I could argue that the more responsible approach is to manage the situation, NOT take actions that end up with the company losing two valuable employees. Maybe if thing were managed properly you would both still be working there happily to this day, but we will never know. Having the character to tell people when they are wrong/screwed up is valuable and factors into your net worth.
Rowdy Raider wrote:
You offer up that they fired the sales guy anyway as some sort of defense. I could argue that the more responsible approach is to manage the situation, NOT take actions that end up with the company losing two valuable employees.
It wasn't a defense, nor did I have anything to do with it, are you seriously blaming me for his firing? I took actions to cause that how? You keep saying that I handled it irresponsibly and should have done something different. Like what? Complain? Management knew the situation, they weren't happy about it either, but if they didn't meet deadline they might have had a hard time making payroll, and then layoffs, it had happened before. Would that have been responsible? So what was I supposed to do, in your opinion? Would walking out have been a responsible thing to do, leaving them high-and-dry and leaving me in a position where I had no job and an uphill battle to get a new one? It's a bit hard to explain that in a job interview. Walking out seems like it would have been irresponsible to both my employer and myself. I didn't take actions that caused the loss of two employees, don't hang that on me. What exactly do you think I should have done? Please tell me what you mean by "manage the situation." I wasn't in control of anything other than doing the job or walking out.
Rowdy Raider wrote:
You speak of responsibility while simultaneously refusing to accept it where it matters most.
How did I refuse to take responsibility? From my point of view I did the responsible thing, I did what had to be done and then left when I had another job lined up. In what way did I refuse to take responsibility? Should I have said "oh well, my fault for taking this job, I'll just stay here," or "I shouldn't have taken this job, I'm walking out right now?"
-
I'd have to agree. It really surprised me: I had always been in an environment where you ate at your desk, worked long hours, some weekends - mostly unpaid, but for the occasional "thank you" - then I started a new job with a different company and on the first day I was told (with some impatience) that they were waiting to lock up the building at 17:02. On the second day, one of the order processing ladies "had a quiet word" and told me to stop working my lunch hour. They suspected that if I didn't they would have to start... :laugh: So I found myself working 09:00 to 17:00 (13:00 on Fridays) even after I was given the key to the building with a full hour off for lunch. And b*gg*r me! I was getting more done... :omg: I think it has two effects: you focus better while you are working, and the breaks let you relax and become more creative at the same time. So much so that I don't work a full hour any more: I take regular breaks and do something different - come here for example - and it works. Counter-intuitive, I know.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
Funny you should say that: in the late '80s, I wrote some stuff for British [pa]Telecom, and the last part of the project involved me actually being on site for a few weeks, during which I learned that the working day there consisted of the following: 1. Start of working day: 09:00. 2. Show up for work: 09:15. Go to cafeteria. Breakfast. 3. Start working: 09:45. 4. Elevenses: 11:00. Go to cafeteria. 5. Work some more: 11:20. 6. Lunch: 12:00. Go to cafeteria. And fuck it - have a few beers, too. 7. Work some more: 13:15. 8. Afternoon tea: 15:00. Go to cafeteria. Have coffee to recover from the beer at lunch. 9. Work some more: 15:20. 10. Go home: 16:30. 11. End of working day: 17:00. ...and the amount of work I did during that period was staggering. I came to dread the cafeteria -- in fact, after a few days, work began to feel like a vacation. It was astounding.
-
Rowdy Raider wrote:
You offer up that they fired the sales guy anyway as some sort of defense. I could argue that the more responsible approach is to manage the situation, NOT take actions that end up with the company losing two valuable employees.
It wasn't a defense, nor did I have anything to do with it, are you seriously blaming me for his firing? I took actions to cause that how? You keep saying that I handled it irresponsibly and should have done something different. Like what? Complain? Management knew the situation, they weren't happy about it either, but if they didn't meet deadline they might have had a hard time making payroll, and then layoffs, it had happened before. Would that have been responsible? So what was I supposed to do, in your opinion? Would walking out have been a responsible thing to do, leaving them high-and-dry and leaving me in a position where I had no job and an uphill battle to get a new one? It's a bit hard to explain that in a job interview. Walking out seems like it would have been irresponsible to both my employer and myself. I didn't take actions that caused the loss of two employees, don't hang that on me. What exactly do you think I should have done? Please tell me what you mean by "manage the situation." I wasn't in control of anything other than doing the job or walking out.
Rowdy Raider wrote:
You speak of responsibility while simultaneously refusing to accept it where it matters most.
How did I refuse to take responsibility? From my point of view I did the responsible thing, I did what had to be done and then left when I had another job lined up. In what way did I refuse to take responsibility? Should I have said "oh well, my fault for taking this job, I'll just stay here," or "I shouldn't have taken this job, I'm walking out right now?"
Ah... see I have helped you down the road to recovery, now you have moved on from denial to anger. I cannot give you the answers you need to find them on your own.
-
Yup, you're arguing semantics. I know they technically work different, that's common sense. Seriously Mike, no duh. Any fool knows that. Guess what, circles and squares are different too. Are you trying to sound smart by finding something that silly to argue about? Everyone knows they're different. But they are both shapes they both work like shapes. Like I said, you're arguing semantics simply because I didn't use a word such as "like" in my original post when comparing the two. Do me a favor, argue about not arguing some more. That would be swell. And speaking of semantics, muscles are organs too.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Because overworked employees are not productive. Nor happy. No matter how much they fake it. Productive and happy people think better and produce better code.
Jeremy Falcon
Not with all programmers. Some devs, specially young single mid-20s type devs like to work overtime (even without pay) and 50-60 hour weeks would not be unusual to them, nor does it affect their productivity all that much.
Regards, Nish
Blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
-
Ah... see I have helped you down the road to recovery, now you have moved on from denial to anger. I cannot give you the answers you need to find them on your own.
That's a cop-out, and an arrogant one. You need to explain exactly what you mean, or you are just blowing hot air. You keep talking about how I handled things the wrong way, and then refuse to say what I should have done differently. You keep saying that I acted irresponsibly, and then refuse to say what a responsible course of action would have been. Unless you can explain what you think I should have done differently, I'm going to have to assume that you're just concern trolling.
-
That's a cop-out, and an arrogant one. You need to explain exactly what you mean, or you are just blowing hot air. You keep talking about how I handled things the wrong way, and then refuse to say what I should have done differently. You keep saying that I acted irresponsibly, and then refuse to say what a responsible course of action would have been. Unless you can explain what you think I should have done differently, I'm going to have to assume that you're just concern trolling.
Not liking what I say doesn't mean it is trolling. Not giving you answers isn't a cop out. I was trying to bow out of this conversation, but insinuations of trolling should not be ignored. I saw Alaric_ jumping in as well and primarily I am concerned that he and I do not start to triangulate on you. I never said nor implied nor insinuated you are irresponsible go reread. Expecting me to provide you detailed answers as to how you should have handled a difficult situation long since passed is not realistic nor fair to me. Here is what you need to digest. The answers to your questions do not matter. Asking them and considering he possibilities is where the growth lies. A lot of these kinds of things do not have a right answer now or then - how could I give you one? If you want to have a philosophical conversation I can indulge. But I wont go for further insinuations.
-
Not liking what I say doesn't mean it is trolling. Not giving you answers isn't a cop out. I was trying to bow out of this conversation, but insinuations of trolling should not be ignored. I saw Alaric_ jumping in as well and primarily I am concerned that he and I do not start to triangulate on you. I never said nor implied nor insinuated you are irresponsible go reread. Expecting me to provide you detailed answers as to how you should have handled a difficult situation long since passed is not realistic nor fair to me. Here is what you need to digest. The answers to your questions do not matter. Asking them and considering he possibilities is where the growth lies. A lot of these kinds of things do not have a right answer now or then - how could I give you one? If you want to have a philosophical conversation I can indulge. But I wont go for further insinuations.
Rowdy Raider wrote:
I never said nor implied nor insinuated you are irresponsible go reread.
You need to take a deep breath and go back and read what you said. You did imply that I acted irresponsibly, you accused me of causing a co-worker to get fired because I didn't handle things properly (without saying what I should have done), and you only offer up advice along the lines of "go read up on emotional intelligence." Regardless of what you intended, you were being insulting and arrogant. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, but I think it's a bit ironic that you are refusing to take responsibility for what you said.
Rowdy Raider wrote:
I could argue that the more responsible approach is to manage the situation, NOT take actions that end up with the company losing two valuable employees. .
Do you really not see what you are saying there? You seem keen on pointing out the psychology of others but seem blind to your own. Physician, heal thyself.
-
Childish.
Jeremy Falcon
-
it's weird (and this is just a pretest not a contestation) how many time is wasted on trying to state something that is simply wrong, and being wrong do not make you silly, but make the sentence "Brain is a muscle" silly. This is semantic, just say: "Hey, I am not silly. I just wrote something silly" and all the discuss stop there. Hey, we are human, we make errors such as missing "like", and we have an ego, that could be offended, it happen, just that. Saying "is a" followed by "and like a" make a shift from language to metalanguage, the "and" make that shift. English is not my mother tongue, I am sure I am doing error here too. The pretest is because maybe is for the ego that one pretends to stay on deadline, or at least this is my experience, I want to show I am good and I can do it in time, is not always a matter of money. Again, I am human, and I will stop doing unpaid work. I just did a silly thing ;) p.s. I am trying to sound smart because a silly thing to argue about, but I like to sound smart, I do not care if I am not, or maybe that is my fail (to care) and I want to change it.
Daniele Cruciani wrote:
p.s. I am trying to sound smart because a silly thing to argue about, but I like to sound smart, I do not care if I am not, or maybe that is my fail (to care) and I want to change it.
I actually like your reply. The fact is, he was being argumentative and taking things way too literally. Whereas you're not. Sure, we all have egos, but to get caught up on one silly little word when anyone with any real intelligence knows what I mean is just being anal.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Your words mean nothing from me until you do something useful with your life.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington
Cute Mike. Enjoy being you, I'm sure you have tons of friends offline.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Very clearly you do not talk to people that aren't programmers.
Jeremy Falcon
-
You're welcome.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Come on - he's not arguing semantics - you said the brain is a muscle - it is not in the least bit like a muscle. The only respect it is in any way like a muscle is that its efficiency seems to be increased with increased use, up to a point. saying "the brain is a muscle" is like saying "a toenail is a human" because they both grow when healthy.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
He's being pedantic over semantics. Anyone that doesn't rot in front of a computer and knows how to talk to people should know better that any fool already knows what he said. It was a pointless post and argumentative. Plain and simple. And I don't expect most people on here to know since they don't have any social skills. Keep in mind, I don't think your post was argumentative. Just referring to his.
Jeremy Falcon
-
I have to ask, what do you care what the salaried employees do? It's their time not yours.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
jeron1 wrote:
I have to ask, what do you care what the salaried employees do?
The real problem of course is that it means that the professionals don't understand the impact of that on the business. There are probably many but some include - There is an expectation that everyone should work those hours - Some employees don't want to work that long but do because of the expectations. - Some employees cant work that long but feel like they are not contributing. - Some employees that work that long, like doing so, but resent the ones that don' also do it. - The above two impact moral in various ways. And moral is something that has been proven to impact productivity. - When a normal work week consumes all the time that employees have then when an emergency develops something will fail because there are no hours left. - Often such extra work is never added into the project thus there is no way a business can create an accurate project plan. - The loss of a employee can hurt a normal project but, because employees have extra time, they can make up for that. Obviously when there is no extra time no one can make up for it. - Over work very likely means cutting corners, which can impact quality. Doesn't of course mean that it it crap but it is unlikely that it as good as it could have been.
-
No.Unbillable.Work! If the customer isn't paying for it, the customer doesn't get it. Call me crazy, but I bill for every single hour I work...like I am supposed to. It infuriates me when I get into a project with salaried employees that commit "heroic effort" to making their screw ups not look like screw ups and make my 40-45 hour a week billable commitment look diminished. I had a guy tell me first thing when we got in that he was working until 2:00 this morning completing something because the customer ballooned our scope but held firm to the original deadline. What does project management tell said customer when he did this? "Ok." The real problem is that giving project management what they want just reinforces to them that it is ok to start death marches; your reward for completing one is that you get to start your next. I get paid or you do not get work done. No. Unbillable. Work. STOP IT!!!!
"I need build Skynet. Plz send code"
I'm in agreement here. If this becomes the norm in the industry it's going to run the same destruction my other job had: In architecture the client is basically asking for a Rolls Royce, yet willing to pay only for a Mini. And then as the project continues adds to it, modifies it, asks for 100's of throwaway alternative designs, to the point where the actual amount of work going into it (at the end of several years) is equivalent to a passenger liner instead of the original under-quoted Rolls Royce. And the trouble is that everyone's been doing it for so long now, that that is what every single client expects! If an architect refuses he will simply loose that project as well as any future projects since the client then just goes to the guy down the street who's perfectly willing to work himself to death for the bare minimum pay. Used to be a lucrative career, now it's more like 16 hour days with pay you'd expect for a labourer. So if this is where the programming industry is heading, be sure to rather go with those far-east sweat shops like most architects are also now doing!
