Hacker News Reader

Comment by zaptheimpaler | Hacker News Reader

If you don't like the job, DONT APPLY.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with seeking people who voluntarily wish to work those hours.

It is in fact much better than implicitly expecting long working hours like many jobs while not being upfront about it - that can trap people into a deal they did not fully understand. This is the opposite.

It may be unsustainable for the vast majority of people (me included) - so what? I don't go around crying about coal miners jobs because it would be unsustainable for my physical frame, I just choose not to apply.

View on HN

This is my industry. I don't want to companies to start expecting a minimum of 70 hours of work for 40 hours of pay. Until they start adding "one-and-a-half compensation for overtime" to these job, I will always see this as a thinly veiled attempt to extract free labor from their employees without paying for it. Companies openly engaging in that kind of behavior worries me, and unless you own a business, it should worry you too.

This isn't a job you take for the pay. You ask for enough money that you no longer care about it (e.g. you just throw money at problems. If your car won't start, call a towtruck and a cab to get to work).

You can't do this kind of work motivated by money. You have to love the idea.

So... take advantage of people's passions to extract free labour out of them.

That's so much better...

Or, here's a crazy idea: You could hire two passionate people and allow them to each live a normal, balanced life, thus preventing burnout and reducing the chance of mistakes while increasing overall productivity (since studies show that one person working twice as long is not twice as productive).

Wild idea, right?

someone taking this job for $150,000 while working 70 hours a week is helping to depress wages across the entire industry.

I don't care how much I love the work, I get paid the value of my labor or I walk. If that means $800,000 year for 80 hours a week, that's what it takes. There are very few cases I would ever take less compensation then I think my time is worth, even for a job I would love. To me, its a matter of self-respect.

I totally understand that - but I don't expect those working at deeplearning.ai will be paid unfairly.

When the job description directly says 70+ hours expected, it puts you in a position to clearly say "Hey since this job will be roughly 70-90 hours, I expect my salary to be commensurate".

Its very different when companies don't clearly state that expectation - that is when the pay problems come in. Its so much worse to advertise a 40 hour job where candidates find out 3 months later how f* they are - those guys deserve the flak for overwork.

My guess is this is being called out because it's symptomatic of a toxic valley culture that clearly values workaholism, to the detriment of people's mental and physical health.

Couple that with a broader obsession in the US corporate workplace for increased productivity at all costs, and I can see why people would see this as beyond the pale.

So, yes, taken as a single point, you're right, simply don't apply. As part of a larger trend in tech workplaces, it's a worrying symptom of a deeper dysfunction.

Working these hours at Google would be stupidity. But startups are different. I've worked for a few. You basically sell your soul to try to make it succeed. If you love the idea the work hours are not the issue. Things go sour when the startup is being sold. Then everyone discovers that only a few people will make money off the effort and you get to watch. It gets toxic quickly.

The problem isn't that people should be forbidden from working hard on something they are passionate about. Its simply that it shouldn't be the norm. And also: that kind of work should be compensated appropriately. From your comments it seems like that is not usually the case for startups.

I agree that there is a larger problem. Taking it out on these guys is completely backwards.

Take it out on the hundred companies who advertise and pay for 40 hr workweeks while really expecting much more. That would be so much better for our industry.

What, because they're honest about it it's more noble?

Sorry, no.

If anything, this is the next step in normalizing this kind of destructive work culture: being up front and unapologetic about wanting to exploit people.

Agree. I think it's fair. I know a lot of companies which state they have work-life balance culture but in reality they are in permanent deadlines and do work in a hurry. They also require more from employees than needed. Many jobs require more involvement than standard 40 hours per week but we don't usually count these additional hours (e.g. learning something, communications, etc).

Of course, I won't apply. I guess that's common sense.

But I think this trend needs to be called out and discussed. I want to have the possibility of working healthy hours like I currently do at my current workplace for many more years to come. But if this trend becomes pervasive in the industry, I would lose this possibility.

Completely agree about the trend.

All I am saying is most startups advertise and pay for 40 hour workweeks while expecting much more. They are the problem - call them out - not this company! Because false advertising about expected work hours is what really kills you - you don't have the "common sense" choice of not applying because you wont even find out until 3 months into the job!

In contrast, deeplearning.ai, by being honest about what they truly expect they really are doing a huge service to candidates.

Ethical considerations and actual productivity hits aside - unless properly paid, the company is opening itself up for lawsuits. EA was sued for working salaried workers beyond 50 hours a week.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com