No overtime for us anymore?
-
http://www.msnbc.com/news/931238.asp[^] What do you think about this one? It mentions computer programmers ... Als
-
http://www.msnbc.com/news/931238.asp[^] What do you think about this one? It mentions computer programmers ... Als
Anyone that pays programmers by the hour is a moron anyway... I've always been "exempt". ------- signature starts "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 Please review the Legal Disclaimer in my bio. ------- signature ends
-
http://www.msnbc.com/news/931238.asp[^] What do you think about this one? It mentions computer programmers ... Als
The problem with overtime is that it pushes your check into a higher pay bracket and you never see the extra cash because of it. Matt Newman Post best viewed with lynx
-
Anyone that pays programmers by the hour is a moron anyway... I've always been "exempt". ------- signature starts "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 Please review the Legal Disclaimer in my bio. ------- signature ends
-
http://www.msnbc.com/news/931238.asp[^] What do you think about this one? It mentions computer programmers ... Als
I haven't gotten overtime since I became a salaried employee. X|
Jon Sagara
A bottle a night isn't alcoholism - it's persistence! -- A coworker, jokingly -
Are you new here? Did you even READ my post? I said that anyone that PAYS programmers to work by the hour is a moron. In fact, the decision to pay programmers by the hour should probably be preceeded with the question "How can we drive up development costs and justify not being able to guarantee a delivery date on our software?" ------- signature starts "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 Please review the Legal Disclaimer in my bio. ------- signature ends
-
http://www.msnbc.com/news/931238.asp[^] What do you think about this one? It mentions computer programmers ... Als
I've never believed in paying programmers by the hour. You should pay me for my skills and experience. This allows me to work flexible hours, if I can get my project finished working 5 hour days why should I lose out on 2 hours pay. Michael 'War is at best barbarism...Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.' - General William Sherman, 1879
-
http://www.msnbc.com/news/931238.asp[^] What do you think about this one? It mentions computer programmers ... Als
I've always gotten a kick out of this kind of mentality. Maybe it's just me, but why on earth would anyone be OK with working for free? Hey, if I'm going to donate my time, I'll do it for the charity of my choice, not for some company that will make money from my work. I doubt there are many companies out there that would be willing to provide free work at the whim of a client, so why should they expect that from their employees? Just my 2 cents worth. Drew.
-
Are you new here? Did you even READ my post? I said that anyone that PAYS programmers to work by the hour is a moron. In fact, the decision to pay programmers by the hour should probably be preceeded with the question "How can we drive up development costs and justify not being able to guarantee a delivery date on our software?" ------- signature starts "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 Please review the Legal Disclaimer in my bio. ------- signature ends
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: I said that anyone that PAYS programmers to work by the hour is a moron. In fact, the decision to pay programmers by the hour should probably be preceeded with the question "How can we drive up development costs and justify not being able to guarantee a delivery date on our software?" I strongly disagree. It’s better to pay for the hour, although not intuitive. Let’s make a supposition: when you pay for the job, you always pay for estimate errors, whether there are errors or not. When you pay for hour, you only pay the actual hours worked, and do not pay for estimate errors if they are not made. If they are made, you'll pay exactly the money needed for the error. Looking that way, those who pay for hour, pay less. Your statement makes me conclude that you trust the estimating ability of those who are paid by the job and doesn’t trust the estimating ability of those who are paid by hour. But you do trust they are honest. Because those who are paid by the job but are dishonest can deliver a crap work, although attending the specifications, just like those who are paid by hour and are dishonest will deliver it late and for much more money. The bottom line is: those who pay dishonest workers are morons. Those who pay for the job, thinking that this will make workers honest, are morons too. ORACLE One Real A$#h%le Called Lary Ellison
-
John's medication has worn off again, ignore him ;P Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
I've never believed in paying programmers by the hour. You should pay me for my skills and experience. This allows me to work flexible hours, if I can get my project finished working 5 hour days why should I lose out on 2 hours pay. Michael 'War is at best barbarism...Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.' - General William Sherman, 1879
Then how do you cost a job ? In the end, the amount of effort and estimated time will come into the calculation. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
Then how do you cost a job ? In the end, the amount of effort and estimated time will come into the calculation. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
Trollslayer wrote: Then how do you cost a job ? In the end, the amount of effort and estimated time will come into the calculation. I'm not sure I understand? The cost of a job is based on the number of estimated days it will take to complete the project. The cost to the customer is always a fixed price, whether the programmer works 3 hours that day or whether the programmer works 12 hours. I know from experience that even if I'm in the office for 8 hours, I'll rarely do more the five productive hours work. So paying by the hour doesn't make sense to me, because it means I'm paying for 8 hours work but only getting five hours. I'd rather pay a developer for his skills and experience than for his hours done. This seems much fairer on both employer and employee. Michael 'War is at best barbarism...Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.' - General William Sherman, 1879
-
I've always gotten a kick out of this kind of mentality. Maybe it's just me, but why on earth would anyone be OK with working for free? Hey, if I'm going to donate my time, I'll do it for the charity of my choice, not for some company that will make money from my work. I doubt there are many companies out there that would be willing to provide free work at the whim of a client, so why should they expect that from their employees? Just my 2 cents worth. Drew.
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: I said that anyone that PAYS programmers to work by the hour is a moron. In fact, the decision to pay programmers by the hour should probably be preceeded with the question "How can we drive up development costs and justify not being able to guarantee a delivery date on our software?" I strongly disagree. It’s better to pay for the hour, although not intuitive. Let’s make a supposition: when you pay for the job, you always pay for estimate errors, whether there are errors or not. When you pay for hour, you only pay the actual hours worked, and do not pay for estimate errors if they are not made. If they are made, you'll pay exactly the money needed for the error. Looking that way, those who pay for hour, pay less. Your statement makes me conclude that you trust the estimating ability of those who are paid by the job and doesn’t trust the estimating ability of those who are paid by hour. But you do trust they are honest. Because those who are paid by the job but are dishonest can deliver a crap work, although attending the specifications, just like those who are paid by hour and are dishonest will deliver it late and for much more money. The bottom line is: those who pay dishonest workers are morons. Those who pay for the job, thinking that this will make workers honest, are morons too. ORACLE One Real A$#h%le Called Lary Ellison
Daniel Turini wrote: When you pay for hour, you only pay the actual hours worked When you pay by the hour, you tend to pay for the hours they are in the office - not the hours worked. I'd hate to work in a place which said "You only did 3 hours productive work today. So I'm only going to pay you for three hours". Pay a guy for his skills and experience and not for the number of hours he has put in. If he gets a job done ahead of schedule by putting in the extra hours then you know he's doing it for the job and not for the money. If by putting the extra hours in, he manages to get a product out on schedule or even before the you give him a bonus payment. Michael 'War is at best barbarism...Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.' - General William Sherman, 1879
-
http://www.msnbc.com/news/931238.asp[^] What do you think about this one? It mentions computer programmers ... Als
-
This post is not about getting paid for sitting on your behind for hours. Being "exempt" or paid by the hour makes little difference here. The question is: Just skills/experience is all you are being paid for? What about doing 20 hours of skilled/experienced work and getting paid for 16 of them? And that just because the guy who makes the money out of you says so (or his profit vs. cost indicates). This is what I call overtime. If the employer thinks that you are just sitting there, he shouldn't hire you in the first place. No matter how prima donna one might be, still long hours of hard/smart work make the damn good systems. This is why people who are "exempt" won't appreciate being overworked for the salary they get. I worked both ways and I have seen people doing almost nothing regardless. But I do not see why some employers think that they can throw at you endless volume of work and ask for *at least 40 hours* from you, the "exempt" guy? Plus, the government thinks that this is how it should be. And that is my other 2 cents.
-
I've never believed in paying programmers by the hour. You should pay me for my skills and experience. This allows me to work flexible hours, if I can get my project finished working 5 hour days why should I lose out on 2 hours pay. Michael 'War is at best barbarism...Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.' - General William Sherman, 1879
I will generally only work for an hourly rate. I can't see ever going back to salary, although i will do fixed fee. My counter-argument for your statement : "This allows me to work flexible hours, if I can get my project finished working 5 hour days why should I lose out on 2 hours pay." would be that you can't have it both ways, you either look at it as getting a salary based on working 40hrs a week (where one week might be a little short, and the next a little long, with it evening out in the long run) or you look at it as being compensated for each hour you work. Also what you said yourself - "You should pay me for my skills and experience." which they would be doing through your hourly rate, or higher salary. That is they pay you $100/hr for 5 hrs, or JoeBlow $50/hr for 10 hrs (or more), they are willing to pay the higher rate to get the job done more quickly, so you taking 2 hrs off a day and still getting paid is stealing that time. I never liked salary. If there was nothing to do you were still expected to put the time in behind the desk, and if you had to work a weekend because management screwed something up there was no compensation. In my mind an hourly rate helps train management to manage their resources better. :) ...cmk
-
Trollslayer wrote: Then how do you cost a job ? In the end, the amount of effort and estimated time will come into the calculation. I'm not sure I understand? The cost of a job is based on the number of estimated days it will take to complete the project. The cost to the customer is always a fixed price, whether the programmer works 3 hours that day or whether the programmer works 12 hours. I know from experience that even if I'm in the office for 8 hours, I'll rarely do more the five productive hours work. So paying by the hour doesn't make sense to me, because it means I'm paying for 8 hours work but only getting five hours. I'd rather pay a developer for his skills and experience than for his hours done. This seems much fairer on both employer and employee. Michael 'War is at best barbarism...Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.' - General William Sherman, 1879
"The cost to the customer is always a fixed price ..." This is perhaps where our views differ, for me not all projects are fixed fee. A lot of the time management doesn't have a clear vision of the solution and i'll be paid by the hour as I'm not willing to take on the risk associated with fixed fee in this case. I guess the best we can say is that each compensation model has it's pros and cons depending on the situation. :) ...cmk
-
I will generally only work for an hourly rate. I can't see ever going back to salary, although i will do fixed fee. My counter-argument for your statement : "This allows me to work flexible hours, if I can get my project finished working 5 hour days why should I lose out on 2 hours pay." would be that you can't have it both ways, you either look at it as getting a salary based on working 40hrs a week (where one week might be a little short, and the next a little long, with it evening out in the long run) or you look at it as being compensated for each hour you work. Also what you said yourself - "You should pay me for my skills and experience." which they would be doing through your hourly rate, or higher salary. That is they pay you $100/hr for 5 hrs, or JoeBlow $50/hr for 10 hrs (or more), they are willing to pay the higher rate to get the job done more quickly, so you taking 2 hrs off a day and still getting paid is stealing that time. I never liked salary. If there was nothing to do you were still expected to put the time in behind the desk, and if you had to work a weekend because management screwed something up there was no compensation. In my mind an hourly rate helps train management to manage their resources better. :) ...cmk
... granted my argument is a little off topic, as the article is only relevant to _employees_ being compensated by an hourly rate. As a contractor i can't see it having any impact - if i want 5 furry lemurs for each hour i work, and my client is agreeable (if a little uneasy) about this compensation then we are free contract on that basis and there isn't much George can do about it. ...cmk
