Hacker News Reader

I got my break working for a startup that went big, but without any equity. The CEO asked me to work on his next startup, and I did so.

I worked every hour, of every day for over a year to try and make things successful. It was never enough, and I felt like a failure regularly. It destroyed my personal life, and I still feel like there are ramifications from it.

Finally they questioned the hours I was billing, from the minor level of pay + equity, they didn't feel the output was enough. I quit on that point, having given so much, and then to have to defend myself.

It was a disaster, that in some small part ruined my life. I mean, I'm fine. Life is great, but it took some measure of life out of me.

They ask me to come back regularly, and I always say no. They have twice said they'd give me more equity with no strings attached just because of the work I had done, and then never said anything about it again.

I have no idea if the equity will ever amount to anything, but I learned my lesson. It just isn't worth it, under any respect. Sacrificing for some dream that isn't in your hands is a fools errand.

They can talk about whatever millions they want to from your equity. It can never make up for the destructive aspects you do to yourself to obtain it.

> Finally they questioned the hours I was billing

So you were getting an hourly rate--not salary?

It seems to me that the moral of the story is that the work is done by people, so taking care of your people actually matters. And it is basically contained in this line:

That dev team has consistently deployed great feature after another at an incredible rate.

I very much appreciate you leaving this comment.

Work output is one thing, but it cannot be the only morale of this story. Surely there is also some intrinsic value in creating a friendly workplace, independent of economical success. It's also a story about how to realize those values.

Sure, as an employee, all that stuff matters.

But I'm not going to try to convince an employer that they should care about such things out of the goodness of their hearts. I'm perfectly happy to argue that an employer should care about such things because it enhances the bottom line for the business.

When I started my corporate job, I met the only remaining living founder of the three brothers that started the company. He said something about wanting the company to be good to me and take care of me so I would take care of it.

One of the other new hires was from California. She was surprised at how warm this Southern gentleman was. She was used to the coldness and callousness of the California social climate in business circles.

I was born and raised in the Southern city where this comment was founded. I think people not looking out for their people are fools cutting their own throats.

You don't have to care about me in a "love thy neighbor" sort of way. But you should care that running me ragged if I work for you fundamentally harms your business.

Oh, the often neglected powers of rested brains!

I got two takeaways:

The early hires (especially engineer #1) can have a huge influence on the culture. I think that's important to note both for founders and for prospective early employees.

> devs have only worked longer than a 40 hour week maybe 5 times total.

> That dev team has consistently deployed great feature after another at an incredible rate.

This second takeaway, that being disciplined about working hours is a boon to productivity, is generally supported by what few studies [1] have been done on productivity versus working hours.

[1] I believe most of, especially the early ones, have specifically studied industrial/factory output, including an early-1900s experiment showing that reducing working days from 9 hours to 8 hours actually increased output.

I think the restriction on working hours ensures that management is more conscious about spent labour too. We have this (often true) stereotype of bad leads wanting employees to overwork and I would bet that’s because they assume that the team can “passionately” do more.

When I’ve seen good projects complete on time, I remember seeing my producer comb the milestone tasks asking herself “can this deliver value and be feasible”, rather than making a marathon for other people to run.

If you want the 40 hours and treat like a human not a code producing robot I found the best way is to work as a techie for a none-tech company.

I handle the internal ERP and related software (android terminals, sandblast machines etc)

I get to work on varied problems in multiple languages where my contribution is immediately visible and then go home at 5pm.

It's glorious, I'll give up programming as a career rather than go back to 60hr+ weeks.

This is a good point. Not even tech but being one of few fluent programmers is a good position.

Completely agree. Just understanding paradigms and being willing/able to read documentation goes a long way at non-tech companies.

Was that Silicon Valley? I learnt certain places have certain “culture” of work. I worked in Connecticut as a programmer for many years and it actually compares with your description. Only some people wanted to stay longer. We had CEO coming out of his office around 5:10 and yelling “router down in two” thats how much time it took him to get to closet next to front door to turn internet off. Nobody had right to turn it back on. Same in the am. You cam before boss that always showed up 9:05, you had no net to work on.

Then I moved on to New York city and noone came after 8am or left before 9pm. Was nightmare. CTO told me once: “if you have family to attend to, don’t work here”.

This is a good way to work. I am hugely skeptical about places that have a culture of crazy long work weeks from a pure productivity standpoint.

When we 'rebooted' Sensory Networks (our regex company a while back) we held to a 'regular hours only' policy and I think we did pretty well with it. We did get to a decent acquisition (esp. for a niche product) and importantly we were able to keep progressing the product technically. I suspect that 60-70 hour work weeks lead to a lot of technical debt that will require more 60-70 hour work weeks to pay back.

> will require more 60-70 hour work weeks to pay back.

Except if 60-70 hour workweeks created the debt in the first place, subsequent ones can be expected to create even more, rather than (net) paying any back.

Perhaps a better remedy would be 1.5x-1.75x as many 40 hour workweeks. If so, that could easily be more years than the average engineer's tenure, which can add its own challenge.

Oh no. I hope you find another time in your life where you’re treated as well as you were then.

What is so hard about saying no to overtime? Just turn off the computer and go home.

I’m a junior-ish programmer at a software company. I usually stick to a 40-hour week, but I know other juniors (plus seniors!) that voluntarily do 60 and I know that they’ll likely end up advancing faster than me. The leads usually come to them first and give them the most interesting work.

I’m okay with it, as what’s important to me isn’t 100% related to the work I do and this job is a great resume bullet, but I know that the market for employee merit doesn’t stop at 5pm.

Social pressure is a pretty big motivator for most people. I find that customers are the big driver, if they're willing to wait (accept delays, don't bring the deadline in when it's been agreed) then I really feel no pressure at all to work overtime.

When the customer is screaming down the phone at your grand-boss that you've failed to deliver and they have very little context for that and ask you if you can work extra to make them happy you're in an awkward position.

The common thread is your boss, not your customer. A good boss is worth everything.

A good boss would push back on unreasonable customer demands and spend time figuring out what went wrong. A good boss will help prevent it from going wrong the next time. A good boss will help you figure out what needs to be done right now and what can be scheduled so it’s not just a constant “P1 emergency”

If you are the sole person responsible for the main feature of a startup, and it isn't completed, you know that the only thing you can do is put every hour you have into it to try and make it work.

That is what is so hard.

> you know that the only thing you can do is put every hour you have into it to try and make it work

This, of course, illustrates, why it's difficult: when one knows something that happens to be false.

That's why it's important to have these kinds of discussions here, even they appear to surface concepts that may seem obvious to some people. To other people, it's important to read/hear that perspective, lest "tunnel vision" or an "echo chamber" takes hold.

Sure, if they are compensated for their extra work in some way. Otherwise it is just free work, one could even say it is unprofessional.

Forcing someone to work overtime against their will is still a big no-no even in most hostile work environments.

Why can’t you go back? Did you move?

Haha, I could go back, except for maybe my pride. I only left for what I thought was a good opportunity personally. (still up for debate on whether it was or not). I don't hate my current job, but my current employer has reached out to most devs on my old team and I've made sure to contact them and explain that it's a huge mistake to leave.

Life is still good. My schedule is still fantastic, but I am missing that certain something where I felt like my personal goals were very closely aligned with my company's goals. I still might go crawling back and beg for my job back sometime though.

We call it a "boomerang" where I work, and it's not a sign of failure-- it's something we celebrate. We get a lot of boomerangs who leave for a year or two and then come back to work with us again. It's the highest form of flattery when they like us so much they come back. :)

My previous company hated it. The leaders perceived those who leave as disloyal and always felt deeply insulted whenever someone left. For instance, I run into them at conferences every year and they don’t even acknowledge my presence, even though I was on really good terms with them when I worked there. It’s pretty bizarre.

The leaders of that company set up a shitty culture that is not going to create an loyalty. It's honestly not surprising that their is a childish banishment mentality after you left.

If a leader feels insulted because a person left it was for the best that person left. That company needs to fire the leaders as it will only end up with a very toxic culture.

In my old company (consulting), they actually like it a lot. People leave and then return with new experience and a few things that can be learned from.

Good story. Thanks for sharing.