Programmers are people, too | Hacker News Reader

Programmers are people, too

codeanthem.com

54 pointsAmberShah32 comments

Some developers don't have life experience apparently. Here, some hard won lessons from the people who suffered so you don't have to:

1) If the paycheck you receive does not exactly match the amount you were promised, stop working now and get it resolved. One successful resolution is "Doh, I did not calculate my deductions correctly", and you thank your local HR drone and carry on. Another successful resolution is "Doh, you don't want to pay me what we agreed upon", and you quit on the spot.

2) Two kinds of companies miss payroll: companies about to fail and companies about to screw you. No company anywhere on earth deserves two extensions to payroll, and I would be darn selective to those companies I gave a single extension to.

I agree that in case 1/b) quitting in the spot is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, if you need the money (have children and no savings ...) the next big thing would be to start searching for a new job immediately as your top priority.

> "(have children and no savings ...)"

There's your problem right there. We rail on people constantly for overextending their financial circumstances (mortgages bigger than they can afford, etc), but rarely do we rail on people for overextending their life circumstances.

If you're in a vulnerable position to get fucked over, don't be very surprised when you do. The trick is to avoid those positions - in this case, leaving yourself no room to maneuver financially.

Note: This is not to justify the deplorable behavior of the other party, but rather to say that this sort of thing will keep happening regardless, in any industry. Caveat emptor is really the most productive and relevant thing here.

I concur, people should work hard to avoid being in this situation. This means working hard to maintain savings and postponing having children until you are financially ready, amoungst other things.

With that said, there are ways that even generally well prepared people can wind up in bad situations. The obvious one is being unexpectedly hit by catastrophic medical bills. Another is being laid off and not being able to find more work for longer than your savings holds out, even if it was a reasonable amount to start with.

I have had both of those happen when I was younger and but for the generosity of friends and family I would have been in bad straights even though I had set aside savings ahead of time.

I would personally probably have quit on the spot. Partly, that's because I know my financial situation allows me to do that sort of. And partly because I would rather scrape the gunk off of someone else's kitchen counters than work for a slimey person who did that to me. I don't think you can judge someone else harshly (especially someone with an infant) for working until he had something else lined up. 2 months was probably an eternity for him but short in the grand scheme of things.

>I don't think you can judge someone else harshly (especially someone with an infant) for working until he had something else lined up.

But if you're not getting paid (or very likely not to, as in this case) then you're not working. You're donating time to someone. Don't do that if you have mouths to feed.

Expanding this a bit, the State of California is another "company" that misses payroll. If they don't have a budget passed by their June deadline, State workers may get paid in IOUs or simply get paid minimum wage until a budget is passed. They do get their full back pay once a budget is passed, but the state cannot pay them more than minimum wage until they have a budget.

Of course, these days California might belong in the "about to fail" group.

So, why is it that even after all the long -hours, all the trash talk about us being "resources" and after all other issues, we "programmers" (I would like to call ourselves "hackers", but whatever) still continue to serve others while taking all this BS. I know why I do it, is because I am an immigrant here, hoping to make my dream project work while working on the side. I am one of the mere 1% or so of american population. (An excuse, but a valid one. I tried making the company work for almost a year, before I realized I would be kicked out if I don't get employed and get a H1B ) But what stops US citizens from putting an end to this BS?? Is that because we "programmers" tend to be people who are always optimistic and hope that things will get better as we go? Are we really that naive to keep working on something, hoping for better conditions, happier days, a bonus or a raise?

Or is it that we are not united enough? Is that it? Are we not networking enough?? (I am guilty, I know).

I mean, I hear of all these stories about inhuman treatments (I'm looking at you EA). And I somehow always go back to work, almost always being thankful it wasn't me. Are we selfish to think that? Why are we thinking it's ok until it happens to us?

How can we make this better, without making a traditional Trade union? I am serious.

I wanna know.

There must be some way we can unite ourselves to get better work conditions for everyone, AND still not hurt our bosses and companies in the process??

Suggestions?

I think that while these extreme cases certainly exist, there are actually a lot of "normal" companies out there. I've worked for three (two small and one big), and while none were my "dream job", none of them treated me unfairly either. I don't understand why developers stay at companies that treat them like trash, particularly the talented ones at places like EA. However, I also don't get the impression that developer abuse is a widespread epidemic or common occurrence. (Or maybe I'm just very fortunate!)

The way to fight employer abuse is the same as it's always been: forming a union.

As far as "still not hurt our bosses and companies in the process", you will do exactly that. That money they save by getting you to do the hours of 2 people isn't just laying on the ground. It's going somewhere. So if you want the company to pay you more or hire the amount of people they actually need to let everyone work more reasonable hours then they either have to raise their prices or cut costs somewhere.

Right. I was referring more to the whole "Unions tend to go more towards some sort of combo of blackmail/ bribery".

Or they just end up being controlled by a few union leaders, and then we are serving another middle man (union leader), who is probably only making himself richer in the process.

I have this feeling that usually unions tend to grab attention of more cunning people, who know how to play that system in their favor mostly, thereby hurting both the employer and the employee, in a even more hidden manner.

Of course, I have never been part of one, so this "opinion" of mine about unions is what I formed from hearing about 'em. Correct me if I am wrong.

This is certainly the case in some places, but I don't think it's like that everywhere nor has to be. If you don't want unions then the next option is to make the government protect the workers directly, but I don't see that as an option in the US. At least not today.

> He shows up and begins working and when it comes time to get paid. It turns out he’s going to be paid substantially less than the offer he accepted.

Wait, do contracts not exist in this wacky world?

Most people are much shyer about contracts than one might expect. I have never had an employment contract that specified my wage explicitly when I was working as an employee. Fortunately, I was never stiffed that way.

Even if you do have a contract, people will still get away without paying because most people don't have the legal resources to contend in court, especially against big companies.

Every job I have had a contract that told me how much I would be paid and when. (NB I am in the UK).

No way would I take a job without reading the contract.

Even when contracts do exist, there is a significant cost overhead to get them enforced. Further the process to enforce said contracts takes an amount of time that requires either 1) acceptance of the new pay or 2) no pay, until enforcement kicks in. In the case of 1 the pay is effectively and in actuality the situation described in the post.

It's called at-will employment.

Actually, I think he may have a legal case to be paid the original offer from the time he started working up until he got notice of the lower pay (a week or two tops) but that's a very small amount of money for a very big deal court case. His time would be better spent getting out, which he did.

The usual contract is at-will employment - you can quit anytime, they can fire you or cut your pay anytime.

So as long as they told him they were lowering his pay before he actually did any work for them, I don't think they broke a contract.

Honestly, I'm mostly confused about why he stayed. Yeah, baby at home - but he was looking for a job with a baby at home, too.

I'd walk out and keep on looking.

The usual contract is at-will employment...

This is usual in the US. It's definitely not usual everywhere (in the UK for example, pretty much nobody works without a contract).

In Aus I've never had a job where either the annual salary or hourly rate was not declared in a contract, except my first retail job where it was under "the award rate" which is a public document specifying the minimum rates of pay for that industry.

Must be an EU thing. In Ireland every worker is entitled to a written declaration of their job, pay, conditions etc.

BILL: Hi, Milton. What's going on?

MILTON: I, I, I, I, I didn't receive my paycheck this week.

BILL: Uh, you're gonna have to talk to Payroll about that.

I am sure you are going to reach out to lot of "Programmers" with this :).. especially because of the "zombie" mention there; its so real.

"I’m sure it’s easier to layoff someone here, outsource overseas for $7 an hour, and then have to hire the same developers back to fix the ridiculous mess of a software project you got back (ie. rewrite) when you don’t think of programmers as people."

and

"I think it can affect programmers more because of the disparity between corporations viewing programming as monkeys banging on a keyboard whereas a truly good developer knows that it’s much more of a craft or even an art."

The author thinks of her own work as art, but those of fellow programmers across the pond is all a "ridiculous mess". Neat.

It might not be as racist as you imply. The fact is those fellow programmers "across the pond" are usually not experienced. That's why they're so cheap. After they get a few years experience they leave to start getting paid. Because of this, outsourcing firms usually have insane turn over and actually do give back a "ridiculous mess".

If this weren't the case programming would probably have been outsourced years ago. Having face time is worth something, but not worth the discrepancy in pay between outsource and insourced.

"The fact is those fellow programmers "across the pond" are usually not experienced. That's why they're so cheap."

Would you entertain the possibility that their wages are lower because the cost of living in their countries are also lower? I agree that many outsourcing firms operate the way you described it. But then, I think that many people who call themselves professional programmers here in the US should never have been allowed near a keyboard unattended. The author takes offense when corporations paint all programmers with a broad brush and view them as "monkeys banging on a keyboard" - but somehow she has no issues applying a similar description to programmers elsewhere.

>Would you entertain the possibility that their wages are lower because the cost of living in their countries are also lower?

In the connected world we live in now, people can see what they could be making. If they can be mobile then many are going to (and do) take advantage of it. They gain enough experience, move to a country with a higher salary and then invest the money back home. Why would you spend your life working for a "comfortable but frugal lower middle class lifestyle" when you could be rich without having to put out much more effort?

You take that back :P

>He shows up and begins working and when it comes time to get paid. It turns out he’s going to be paid substantially less than the offer he accepted.

And he doesn't take the other offer?

It may have been dead by then. That's what happened to me the last time I went to work for a company that substantially and ruinously changed what they promised me (although not the pay).

Already rejected.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com