Tech Pros' Struggle For Work-Life Balance Continues (dice.com) 195
Nerval's Lobster writes: Work-life balance among technology professionals is very much in the news following a much-discussed New York Times article about workday conditions at Amazon. That piece painted a picture of a harsh workplace where employees literally cried at their desks. While more tech companies are publicly talking about the need for work-life balance, do the pressures of delivering revenues, profits, and products make much of that chatter mere lip-service? Or are companies actually doing their best to ensure their workers are treated like human beings with lives outside of work?
This one's easy (Score:5, Insightful)
"do the pressures of delivering revenues, profits, and products make much of that chatter mere lip-service?"
Yes.
"Or are companies actually doing their best to ensure their workers are treated like human beings with lives outside of work?"
No.
Next.
Re: (Score:2)
Fun fact, creating a good work life balance for your employees may actually have a positive outcome to the bottom line. First, motivated workers generally have something like a 10x higher output. Second, when you have a nice place to work, employees are ready to be payed less; generally they tend to favor a better place to work over a higher salary. Third, having a nice place to work will attract talent and retain it. At least for the tech sector, creating a nice place to work is the egoistical approach.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, what I expect from an employer is not to "create" a good work-life balance, but to provide an environment where a day's work can be ended (I didn't say 'finished' on purpose) at the 9 hour mark - unless the employee explicitely wishes to make longer hours for whatever reason - and not have any influence on the out-of-work time at all aside from making it possible to actually have out-of-work time.
"when you have a nice place to work, employees a
Re: (Score:2)
Some people will be willing to give up some compensation to get better working conditions, and some won't. In cases where money isn't that strong a motivator within a certain range, employees may well decide where to work based on working conditions.
You might put it that, if you have a crap working environment, people had better be paid a lot better than other places or you'll lose them.
Re: (Score:2)
Work-life balance thrives where it is prioritized (Score:5, Insightful)
I've had three employers: one Fortune 500 company and two 50 employee consulting companies. At the big company, I worked 50-60 hours/week in a high stress environment, but the work was exciting and I really enjoyed it.
At the two smaller companies, it is rare that I would work over 41 hours/week. I've never done it in 6 months at my current company. I think it is easier for small consulting companies to offer a balance like this because our clients won't pay for more than 40 hours/week except under exceptional circumstances, and our company does a great job being realistic about timelines so we almost always deliver on time.
You can find work-life balance, but you have to look for it and prioritize it in you job search. I would probably make 10-20% more had I stayed at the large company, but the relaxed hours are worth it to me.
I'll also note that this is in the Midwest, where all you tech people from the coasts complaining about not finding jobs should move.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll also note that this is in the Midwest, where all you tech people from the coasts complaining about not finding jobs should move.
I think you're an H1-B Visa loving CEO of a midwest company looking to reduce your payroll expenses, because you've just invited a whole bunch of tech people to flood the midwest. If that were to happen, midwest tech wages would plummet.
If you're really who you claim to be in this posting, then you are actively sabotaging your ability to have a work/life balance.
Re: (Score:2)
Nawh. He knows they won't move here, the salaries aren't as high as on the coasts. People on the coasts just look at the number, not the overall cost of living.
Re: (Score:2)
Nawh. He knows they won't move here, the salaries aren't as high as on the coasts. People on the coasts just look at the number, not the overall cost of living.
Does your software license cost less in Nowhere Idaho? How about your car, health insurance and kids college tuition? No? The F250 isn't sold for 75%off in Kansas vs Houston? So what is cheaper? Land, and... what exactly?
Sure, your housing may be cheap, but... you're not in an interesting city - which is fine if you don't like a city lifestyle, but otherwise its not a plus and you've already lost on every other material factor mentioned.
Granted, Houston's not an interesting city, but I'm not there either :D
Land, rent, property taxes, many types of consumer goods, vehicles (lot easier to run a clunker with no emission laws), insurance are all cheaper.
I think you are underestimating the difference in property and rent. Around here, even the difference between college town and middle of nowhere is 900 - 1500 a month. That's a whole stinking mortgage out in the boonies, and then some. Where I live now in NYC would cost 3500 to 5000 per month to rent. I pay 870. Even if you assume cost of car vs walking in that
Re: (Score:2)
So what is cheaper? Land, and... what exactly?
We don't need to go any further. The cost of your home is dependent on the price of the land. The cost of everything you purchase locally is dependent to some degree on the price of the land, including most of the things you mentioned.
a city lifestyle
One pays quite the premium for that lifestyle.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're really who you claim to be in this posting, then you are actively sabotaging your ability to have a work/life balance.
It's kind of sad that you believe everyone is so viciously self-interested as you make out. Most people actually aren't and will happily do things for the greater good even if the eventual outcome is worse for themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
I work for a company with about 250 employees, and it is rare that I work more than 45 hours a week. Our managers will tell people, "Go home, you've worked enough today," and when you go on vacation, "Don't check your mail or anything, you're on vacation, the rest of us are here and can handle any emergencies while you're gone."
My company has a TON of problems: Product owners make promises to clients we can't keep, our release process changes from product to product, logging is inadequate at best, requireme
Re: (Score:2)
Most of those problems are not your fault. Having you go home early is to make sure you don't get stressed out due to poor efforts of others.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've worked in the Midwest all my life, working 40-hour weeks. Well, there was that testing gig where I worked long hours, but it wasn't as intense as software development and I was getting paid hourly, and really needed the money. I minded long hours a lot less when the meter was still running.
Re: (Score:3)
That was 1980-81, long before I got a decent
Re: (Score:2)
My work-life balance was to work 70 hours a week for fourteenteen years then retire. YMMV. Work is for suckers.
When I was younger I preferred to work as little as possible and enjoy myself as much as possible.
Working's much easier when you get a bit older and more settled, there is no longer the opportunity or desire to be partying four or five days a week.
Who wants to retire at forty with no memories or experience of anything much except working?
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all - it makes perfectly rational sense if the marginal benefit of an extra few dollars is greater than the marginal benefit of an extra hour of free time.
For example, if I'm saving for a deposit on a mortgaged house purchase then an extra 15% on my salary might be great even if it comes with a 25% increase in my working hours.
Reminder: This is a Dicevertisement (Score:5, Informative)
Just a friendly reminder that Nerval's Lobster is a Dice shill account, and posts articles for Dice.com. Oh, and that editors either refuse to, or are banned from, putting a disclaimer that Dice.com is owned by Dice Holdings, Inc., the parent company of Slashdot, as they once would when posting a link to "sister" sites prior to being purchased by Dice.
Re: (Score:2)
Kindda makes you wonder who the financial genius at Dice was that decided to buy Slashdot just for the privilege of posting ads for free. Unless, of course, these things are really just a gimmick to move all those unforeseen Slashdot losses into a different accounting category: "Eureka! We'll just write the losses off as advertising!"
Re: (Score:2)
I think Beta was actually their attempt to monetize Slashdot, but the community reaction was so horrendous (and rightfully so, IMO) that they had to cancel it, which is why they're looking to sell off Slashdot. These Dicevertisements are just a little side action for them, for whatever ads I'm sure they have plastered over their own page.
Re: (Score:2)
editors either refuse to, or are banned from, putting a disclaimer that Dice.com is owned by Dice Holdings, Inc.
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that pretty self evident because of the names? If Dice Holding Inc was called Randomnoun Inc, then fair enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I was just making sure the relationship was clear (that /. is owned by DHI, not by Dice.com)
Re: (Score:2)
Not when the source holds a status of privilege above other sources and the connection is not disclosed.
My personal problem isn't Slashdot having articles linking to Dice, or even using a shill account; it's the refusal to post a disclaimer about sharing a parent company. /.ers cry foul over any article where the author has a potential conflict of interest and does not disclose it; why should we do any different when Slashdot editors post a Dice story?
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't; I just saw "Nerval's Lobster" and made my post. While you know about Nerval's Lobster, and I know about Nerval's Lobster, there are many who don't, especially newer users. Therefore, I do what Slashdot editors will not.
Incidentally, you seem to be rather pissed about my comment. Why did you not take your own advice and simply not read it? :)
Re: (Score:2)
Incidentally, you seem to be rather pissed about my comment. Why did you not take your own advice and simply not read it? :)
Au contraire, mon frere, I'm not pissed, I'm agitation engineering with someone who is posting AC caliber stuff while using an ID.
I have no intention of not reading your stuff, it gives me mirth - showing me someone to make fun of for their pettyness.
Now to drop to seriousness for a moment, if the posts from Nerval's Lobster were the self serving stuff posted by say, Microsoft shill propagandists, maybe there is a reason to take umbrage.
But this? Work-life balance for tech pros? Hardly even qualifies
Re: (Score:2)
astroturfing,
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm talking about when it was owned by Geeknet. Any time they posted a link to, say, SourceForge, they would mention that SourceForge and Slashdot are both owned by the same company.
I wonder (Score:3)
Work-Life Balance Isn't Profitable (Score:2)
1) Hire new STEM worker, reset pay scale to minimum.
2) Drive worker to burnout in two years or so, worker leaves/commits suicide/has heart attack.
3) PROFIT!!
4) Start process again at 1)
Keeping employees around that expect periodic raises and sensible work-life balance will never increase profit margins in the short term. Only companies concerned about the long term and brain drain (and few are) will do anything to change this. Most just want billable hours.
Re:Work-Life Balance Isn't Profitable (Score:5, Informative)
That works as long as you don't need to train your staff. But, well, you know how managers are. "Burger joint, IT security consulting, I can manage anything, what's the difference anyway?"
Re: (Score:2)
That works as long as you don't need to train your staff. But, well, you know how managers are. "Burger joint, IT security consulting, I can manage anything, what's the difference anyway?"
That should be marked insightful or informative.
Modern business and elsewhere now wants MBA's as managers. No experience needed in the working field. My last manager had absolutely no idea about what I did, and very little about my co-workers. During one of our meetings I told him that I could bullshit him into anything, and he'd have no idea ifI was being truthful or not.
He was a nice enough guy, but having no idea about how or what we did was a disaster.
Re: (Score:2)
I worked for a Director once who didn't understand the first thing about software, and it worked well. He knew what he didn't know, and trusted us to know that instead of him.
Re: (Score:2)
That can work if, and only if, the manager knows that he doesn't know the subject and concentrates on his strengths, i.e. getting the stuff his people need.
If such a person insists in micro managing his people, it's time to start reading job ads.
Re: (Score:2)
I worked for a Director once who didn't understand the first thing about software, and it worked well. He knew what he didn't know, and trusted us to know that instead of him.
Well now, that's a different kettle o'fish. If a person knows what they don't know - that's a basis for a constructive work relationship. I had a similar relationship with my director(s), and the folks directly below him and the department heads.
It's when you get an MBA who is clueless, but doesn't think they are - that the problems develop.
Re: (Score:2)
That works as long as you don't need to train your staff.
Yes. However, in a lot of places, "training" is a terse statement to the worker to "figure it out [dumbass, or get fired]*" All that "self-motivated, quick learner" BS in the job description, remember? "Training" == "stressed out monkeys Googling shit like their next meal depended on it."
*The bit in square brackets is rarely said aloud, because HR, but there is a special low frequency managerial growl that gets this across quite succinctly.
Re: (Score:2)
The bit in square brackets is rarely said aloud, because HR, but there is a special low frequency managerial growl that gets this across quite succinctly.
If you know this quote, you know what it's talking about:
Third prize is you're fired
Re: (Score:2)
And Mr. I ate an Engineer do you hate gotos so much that you forget we really start counting at 1 (one). See your step 4 to get more confused.
Re:Work-Life Balance Isn't Profitable (Score:4, Insightful)
This is what I was taught in Business School.
Employee turnover cost 150% more to replace then to keep. So you will break even if you replace a $125k with a $50k assuming that the new guy is capable of doing the work. The period of burnout means you will not be able to recoup your costs, as you are just paying the employee to be trained to work for your competitor.
I don't know where a lot of companies went to business schools to get their MBA. But I went to an accredited one that focused a lot on ethics, and long term planning.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a book called Peopleware, by DeMarco and Lister. In one chapter, they had a quiz for managers: what is your turnover, and how much does it cost you to replace someone? At the end of the chapter, they said that if the manager actually answers both questions, they pass.
What does the contract say? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I now work Mon-Fri, two days from home each week. Supposed to be 9-5 but quite often start late and finish early, and have long lunches.
Fuck working, it's for chumps.
Re: (Score:2)
As an I.T. support contractor for the last ten years, my contracts prohibits me from working overtime. I'm only allowed to work from Monday through Friday, during regular business hours. Which is fine with me.
We have that too, except we're only allowed to charge for 40 hours. How much we work is a "gray" area.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I refuse to work beyond shift (Score:5, Insightful)
If I'm hired to work days, which is all I will take, I work from the minute I start until the minute it's time to leave. I don't work for free. I'd rather be an hourly worker because they will not be so quick to take advantage of you. Currently I'm salaried, but my boss knows I'm 8-5, no nights, no weekends. I might work a special event if I get a comp day. My time is valuable, I'm in my 40s so I know how the game is played, and I do push back when pushed. I do my job, they like the results, so no one messes with me when it's time to find warm bodies to work odd events. My time at home is more valuable. I cannot hit the rewind button. The time I have with my children can never be given back to me.
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting that this post is currently at +4 Insightful. Here is a guy who puts his family first and refuses to do overtime, yet still expects to be paid properly for his time and won't take any crap. All well and good, except that people complain that women who want to avoid overtime so they can see their families are not working as hard and thus don't deserve to be paid as well.
It's just just an anecdote. there is data showing that after having children men's income tends to rise and women's tends t
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a guy who puts his family first
Hmmm . . . you may be right, of course, but actually I cannot see anything the GP post that indicates the author's gender!
Re: (Score:2)
I actually wouldn't want to be hourly. The reason is, my work (and that of my employees) is measured by success, by what we do and what we produce - not by how long it takes to do so. Paying by the hour is, in my view, rewarding slowness. My workplace gives me the flexibility to work when/wherever I need to - yesterday for example I took the morning to go to an event at my kids school. Had I been on some 9-5 hourly rate that would have cost me $$$, as it was, no big deal.
I literally Do. Not. Care what hours
Re: (Score:2)
Used to be that 9-5 included your lunch and other breaks. At some point employers managed to change lunch to unpaid for white collar workers while still expecting you to be at your desk for 8 hours so now it's 8-5 (or 9-6). For a lot of blue collar jobs, especially when there multiple shifts, it's still an 9-5 or a similar eight-hour block (for first shift).
A lot of it is driven by the engineers themselves. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, companies sometimes push employees too hard. Lately in engineering though, you can punch the CEO in the face and he/she'll say "Sorry, please don't quit", with the current market. Obviously not true of all IT positions, but in engineering, it almost is.
So there's really no reason to screw over your work life balance, aside for maybe a pager rotation for emergencies (but the company should have a level 2 or 3 support to handle he common cases...I guess those guys work/life balance is fucked. Sorry)
Engineers however, are arrogant as fuck, and want to be at the top of the food chain, so a couple of them will willingly fuck over their work life balance. Then they'll get promoted for it (which is a problem with the company...but its hard to say no to someone who delivered twice as much for the same pay, even if he/she screwed over their life over it).
Then, people will feel they have to do this to compete. And thus, the New York Times Pseudo-Amazon is born.
Employers should not reward those people, and other engineers should NOT worship them. You don't need a union to make things reasonable, but please for god's sake, don't encourage your peers who do that shit.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not just engineers. I work in education and there are two of those people I can think of off the top of my head. Both of them gave tons of free time to the company to get promoted and now everyone else is held to their standard.
Already have my resume out.
Re: (Score:3)
Engineers however, are arrogant as fuck, and want to be at the top of the food chain, so a couple of them will willingly fuck over their work life balance. Then they'll get promoted for it (which is a problem with the company...but its hard to say no to someone who delivered twice as much for the same pay, even if he/she screwed over their life over it).
I suppose I resemble that remark, probably including the arrogance, though I don't care about being at the top of the food chain. I just like what I do, and really feel it's important and makes the world a better place, so I sometimes work extra hours to get stuff done. On the other hand, I sometimes work a bit less, and I usually feel no compunction about dropping what I'm doing for a while for family-related activities, or to go out for a hike in the summer or skiing in the winter.
I'm posting mainly to
Make sure projects are planned (Score:3)
Quote from TFA
If we can make sure projects are planned and time is allocated for the right tasks, we can really improve balance.
Good joke!
A solution (Score:2)
It is really easy to solve this problem. Hire more tech workers.
Re: (Score:2)
That's like saying, Throw more money at the problem
I've watched a few die this year (Score:2)
Little boxes, little boxes (Score:2)
Little boxes made of ticky-tacky.
(Yes, it's actually relevant. Google it.)
As a post-doc researcher, I have good balance (Score:2)
My context is widely different from a US-living IT worker: I live in Finland and am a post-doc researcher in a field related to chemistry. I work very close to exactly 40 hours/week, even though sometimes I could get away with less. It's just that I really enjoy what I do. But even so, I never let myself work more than 40 hrs/week because family.
Work-life balance? (Score:2)
In the US, back in the old days, folks who worked on-call got a fixed amount for that time - I think 10% was common - and the on-call hours were fixed, and you were off call the rest of the time.
Oh, sorry, that was when unions were strong, and about 25% of the working population were in them.
But we're techies, we don't need unions, we *love* being on call 24x7x365.25 from work, and love dropping whatever we're doing to respond, and not getting anything more for all of this, and not having any off-time. We *
Re: (Score:2)
It's time some managers learn that they are much, much easier to replace than most techs. How much experience and training does it take to drive a company into the ground and beg for bailouts?
Re: (Score:2)
Managers are quite aware of that. That is why they may feel the need to push down on the employees to keep their numbers up.
The execs who come up with these performance numbers out of their butts are the real problems.
Their Ego states, because they are so high up that they must be smarter than everyone.
But the organization is so large they cant grasp what is going on, as it is very complex. So they try to make a simple metric so they can spot what is going on.
The problem is this metric needs to be easily c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And last but not least, did the firm bother with composing a mission statement? Did they care to let You --the new employee-- know about it? Or did they skip that and went straight to your work hours? This is the answer to the question, Do they care about you as a human being?
Re: (Score:2)
GP said that you need to find out what your working hours are up front, not to make sure it's an 8-hour day. I make it clear in my interviews that I do understand the concept of limited crunch time, and will work longer hours temporarily as actually needed. If they offer me the job after that, I figure they've agreed to reasonable normal working hours. I may have lost some offers because of that, but I really didn't want to work there anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
GP said that you need to find out what your working hours are up front, not to make sure it's an 8-hour day.
Might not be a sound strategy if a person demands to know exactly how many hours they will be working. You somehow figure that when they demand that as a condition of working, they aren't demanding a 40 hour week?
Someone asks me that in an interview, it's over, thank you very much.
I make it clear in my interviews that I do understand the concept of limited crunch time, and will work longer hours temporarily as actually needed. If they offer me the job after that, I figure they've agreed to reasonable normal working hours. I may have lost some offers because of that, but I really didn't want to work there anyway.
Yup, and I wouldn't want you working with me either, so it's a match made in heaven. I much prefer professional people who will work to get the task finished. People who have time constraints they place upon their employer shoul
Re: (Score:2)
People who have time constraints they place upon their employer should be working non-exempt and punching in and out on a time clock.
There is a difference between being flexible and willing to put in extra hours as truly necessary and just being taken advantage of.
Re: (Score:2)
People who have time constraints they place upon their employer should be working non-exempt and punching in and out on a time clock.
There is a difference between being flexible and willing to put in extra hours as truly necessary and just being taken advantage of.
Sure. Problem I see is way too many slashdotters think that putting anything other than a bare minimum is being tasken advantage of.
I worked a lot of hours, had a lot of fun, went to a lot of interesting places, met a lot of interesting people, went to a lot of meetings - the least fun part - but still worthwhile as a learning instrument, and was paid pretty well. Then got to retire 10 years early at 55 on my own terms. If that's being taken advantage of, sign me up.
Re: (Score:2)
I worked a lot of hours, had a lot of fun, went to a lot of interesting places, met a lot of interesting people, went to a lot of meetings - the least fun part - but still worthwhile as a learning instrument, and was paid pretty well. Then got to retire 10 years early at 55 on my own terms. If that's being taken advantage of, sign me up.
I'm glad your anecdotal experience worked out well for you, but that has nothing to do with the broader situation.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad your anecdotal experience worked out well for you, but that has nothing to do with the broader situation.
Its anecdotes all the way down.
Re: (Score:2)
It's partially a zero-sum game. If everyone worked as many "lot of hours" as you, then chances are you wouldn't have been able to retire at 55.
Re: (Score:2)
It's partially a zero-sum game. If everyone worked as many "lot of hours" as you, then chances are you wouldn't have been able to retire at 55.
His eyes wide open!
Everything is relative. And I'm not even telling people this is how they should act. Merely a little bit about effort, attitude, and rewards. There is enough laziness and fear that someone may take advantage in most people, that I'm not even worried about sharing this knowledge. Most think my approach to work and career is stupid. Good for them. I'm certain that they reap the rewards of their smarter outlook. I dunno, most of the posters here seem pretty miserable, or brag how they onl
Re: (Score:2)
I am task-oriented, and want to get it done well. I really can't function on any other basis.
If there's things that come up occasionally that require me to work extra hours, I understand that and will do so. If the job normally requires extra hours, I'm not interested.
Moreover, if the development job typically requires in excess of 45 hours a week, the employer is not getting its money's worth. After that point, employees tend to burn out and are overall less productive. Moreover, suppose you have
Re: (Score:2)
I am task-oriented, and want to get it done well. I really can't function on any other basis.
If there's things that come up occasionally that require me to work extra hours, I understand that and will do so. If the job normally requires extra hours, I'm not interested.
Moreover, if the development job typically requires in excess of 45 hours a week, the employer is not getting its money's worth.
Odd. My employers had no issues with my productivity. I didn't specifically get paid for working OT, but I made much much more than the other employees in my department. Most had your outlook
After that point, employees tend to burn out and are overall less productive.
Especially if you feel very put upon. For the most part, I felt rather appreciated. I also rode through the occasional downturn while some folks got themselves a lot more free time.
Regardles
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in a similar position, but I get my work done in the allotted time. I've just noticed that a vast majority of people who work long hours do a hell of a lot of fucking around.
And people who can't work over 40 hours are often lazy. Spare me the innuendo. You're amazing productivity wouldn't work if you had my job. Very often the work came in at 1655, and was due at 0800. Or I was in a remote field test, where things happen when they happen. Or the meeting I was in started early, and ended late.
Oddly enough, a fair number of co-workers always had a reason they couldn't come in early or leave late, or go on field testing. Car pooling, making dinner for the husband, so there w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you are bragging about being the whipping boy.
No. I'm merely offering an alternative to the almost universal Slashdotter opinion that you dare not work more than 40 hours.
The scientists and engineers I worked with were right there with me in most cases, except whne I was preparing something in a real panic for the director. And despite slash dotters view of the suits as sociopaths, most aren't, and when I made the big guy look good, I look good, and that has its rewards.
Maybe I come from a different world, maybe the almost universal slashdotter
Re: (Score:2)
There's always exceptions to every rule that involves humans. Most people can't work extended hours for a long time and still be as productive.
Re: (Score:2)
On the average the cost to replace an employee is 150% More over a year. Making a culture where people just get kicked out only to be replaced by someone else, who will need to learn how the business operates the written and unwritten rules, knowing what trends will kick in, what breaks more often, isn't economical.
Normally a new employee will need to stayed hired at an organization for 3 years for them to break even. Years 3-5 are critical time to make sure that employee stays that is where you need to m
Re: (Score:2)
"Now quit your whining, cash in your paycheck, and meet that arbitrary deadline".
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think debt is a form of slavery, you don't know what a powerful lever debt can be.
Some of the most successful companies, explorations, and other major human works started when one or more person mortgaged themselves to finance their efforts. Virtually no company considers itself prepared to grow until it has an established line of credit.
Getting into a debt you cannot get out of is slavery. For everything else, there's collateral. And insurance.
Re:Example must be set by team leads / managers (Score:5, Insightful)
If your company has a "first to leave is a slacker" culture, don't expect me to show up before noon.
Re: (Score:2)
If your company has a "first to leave is a slacker" culture, don't expect me to show up before noon.
I wouldn't expect you to show up at all.
Re: (Score:2)
If your company has a "first to leave is a slacker" culture, don't expect me to show up before noon.
Don't expect me to show up at all.
I've had a few interviews over the years with companies who felt that such a "work ethic" was important. I declined their offers. Were I to accidentally allow myself to be hired by one such, I'd be around just enough to avoid getting fired until I had found another job.
Of course, these days I refuse to consider any position that doesn't allow full-time telecommuting and that pretty much eliminates any concern about face time-based evaluation of my "slacking".
Re: (Score:2)
If your company has a "first to leave is a slacker" culture, don't expect me to show up before noon.
I don't think you understand how it works. Anywhere with that attitude will also have a "last to arrive is a slacker" culture too.
Re: (Score:2)
You can have me early or late. Pick one.
Sorry, but IT security is a pretty specialized field, with lots of demand and very few people able to offer the skill set needed. In other words, "my way or the highway" means that people will go travel elsewhere.
Re:Example must be set by team leads / managers (Score:4, Insightful)
No one wants to be the first to exit at the end of the day.
I am always happy to be the first one to leave at the end of the day. We shouldn't be unduly affected by peer pressure.
I can get away with it because my work is good, and I work hard during the hours I'm at work. If a company prefers "sitting in a seat" over "doing quality work," then I can find a better company.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm usually among the later to leave. That's because I'm usually among the later to arrive. Worst part is that all the good parking spots can be taken when I get in.
Re: (Score:2)
Normally I was the first to leave, but I was also the first to get there. My projects are on time, and the quality is up.
Re: (Score:3)
When a story is first posted, it's in red. Now be good boys, and take your blood pressure meds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only EFFICIENT way to make up for lack of skill and experience is gain skill and experience. Working long hours will not get you jack. Working long hours gets you tired and worn out, and neither is good if you plan to gain skill and experience.
If you lack skill and experience, get a job that allows you to set enough time aside to gain that skill and experience. Because yes, you may learn a thing or two on the job, too. But it's inefficient. At a job, you usually do the same things over and over (especia
Re: (Score:2)
I think I'm starting to understand why you're the one who always gets downsized.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It can be a good investment, provided it's limited in duration. I work in order to have a personal life, and am aware of my priorities.
Re: (Score:2)
McDonalds is hiring, but so is your biggest competitor who would love to get their hands on a trained employee with insider knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)