Bitterness, Anger And Betrayal At MySpace
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
Pardon me for being cynical, but just a little personal experience:
BOSS: "There will NOT be a layoff."
REALITY: There was a layoff.
BOSS: "There will be no more layoffs."
REALITY: There were more layoffs.
BOSS: "This will be the last layoff."
REALITY: There were more layoffs.
BOSS: "I will be the next person laid off."
REALITY: He wasn't. Someone else was.
BOSS: "I am instituting 35 hrs. pay for 40 hrs. work."
REALITY: It lasted one pay period before the layoff.
BOSS: "The corporate jet will be the next thing to go."
REALITY: The corporate jet was still in place after the layoff.
BOSS: "Customer XYZ will pay their bill next week."
REALITY: Customer XYZ never paid their bill. Layoff instead.
BOSS: "Finish this project and we're in the clear."
REALITY: The project was finished. Then came the layoff.
BOSS: "Indispensable employees will be spared."
REALITY: No one was indispensable.
BOSS: "We made our numbers. We'll be OK."
REALITY: The SEC and IRS disagreed. We went out of business.
BOSS: "U.S. manufacturing is solid and protected."
REALITY: 400 jobs shipped to Haiti within 90 days.
BOSS: "A layoff will be the last resort."
REALITY: Layoff + executive auto leases still in place.
BOSS: "I will promote you next week."
REALITY: The company newsletter reported his girlfriend getting my job.
BOSS: "Just help me get through this and I will reward you."
REALITY: I helped him get through it. He didn't reward me.
Q: How can you tell if the boss is lying?
A: His mouth is moving.The nice thing about being a consultant is that you do something they like, they pay you. Repeat and rinse. Pretty soon you're out on the street looking for a new gig. If they don't like you, you don't get paid (and you're on the street quicker).
It's a very simple and easily understandable deal. And being on the street is not the end of something or a failure -- it's a chance to go on an even greater adventure.
I even had one government employee who had a high level job at a place we all know tell me "Look. This is easy. You do all the work. Solve all the hard problems. I'll take credit for it."
Sounded good to me. Finished the job early and went on to something else. He's still there doing the same thing.
There are a lot of implied or assumed promises in corporate full-time jobs. It's been my experience that you shouldn't trust any of them -- even from people who are trying really hard to do the right thing. IT is just a business where everything is always changing. It's not like any other business I've ever seen
The only thing that is missing from this Don Draper-esque speech is the "That's what the money is for" line, as that's what consultants are supposed to do.
There is a lack of unions and labor laws.
bye karma.
Suffice it to say though, that you can't summarize the problem and solution in "lack of unions and labor laws". Italy, where I reside, has both, especially the latter, and they are quite detrimental in many ways.
It's a complex issue with many factors, and likely has both regulatory, cultural and economic causes and solutions, some of which are easy to change and some that aren't.
My grandfather, with no education, came from Italy had 3 kids a stay at home wife and a home. I on the hand am very educated and skilled and can barely afford a two bedroom apartment.
Somethings changed.
I've spent a lot of time trying to convince IT people to start a voluntary union for their own benefit. In a word, they are too competitive and naieve to make it happen.
IT employees in general could double their average salaries without resorting to labour laws just by starting voluntary unions and doing a modicum of collective bargaining.
Instead they allow themselves to be divided and conquered and they even hide their salaries from co-workers which benefits no one aside from management.
Ideologically, I am against government-enforced unions.
However I am very much in favour of voluntary unions and there is lots of evidence that they can work especially when they behave in reasonable ways that don't threaten the existence of companies. Some corporations will prefer to hire from unions for a variety of reasons including less variability in work quality and higher morale.
Anyway collective bargaining does not have to be enforced in law to be effective.
The real issue is that the most talented and resourceful people in society tend to be the ones who become owners, and they use their talent and influence to convince IT employees that unions are bad.
The average programmer is stubbornly anti-union for no logical reason - the reason is that he's brainwashed by the strong opinions of industry leaders who don't want to pay him what he's worth.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=QpfonhAfJ6Q_2b96Izwz...
Chart 16 is a breakdown of salaries for StackOverflow users, nearly all of which are so low that a good developer should be insulted to be offered it. Where, on that chart, do you suppose the Union would decide to set my fair salary based on my experience in the trade? 60k? 80k? 100k?
No thanks. I'll stick to the free market.
2. Unions don't have to fit the rigid model you have in your head of the UAW. They can still allow for inequality of pay negotiated on an individual level, but after an initial negotiation on a collective level. Basically you can design the union to still pay higher performers what they are worth and pay low performers a lot less - but with everyone's salaries being increased relative to management.
Maybe not, but let's see some examples that have been significantly better for over 10 years. (And no, teachers unions aren't better.)
I agree that it isn't obvious that unions must necessarily be a disaster in the US, but that's a theory argument and you know what they say about theory and practice....
In other countries there are successful unions in industries and contexts where the government plays little role.
Given that, would you recommend that programmers join unions in the US? If so, why?
The precise form of organization can be grown organically to fit the situation, whether you call it a "union" or just as "association"
The point is that programmers should organize so that they can improve the pay and general standard of life of every programmer and so they can increase the quality and value of every programmers output and the esteem of the profession in general.
Programmers should treat their profession with the same seriousness that Doctors, Lawyers, Psychologists, Actuaries, etc treat their professions. They create professional bodies that stand up for their interests whether it is by lobbying, marketing, bargaining, etc.
How is it that calling something an association will avoid the problems from being a union in the US?
> The point is that programmers should organize so that they can improve the pay
It's poor form to assume your conclusion.
You keep bringing up doctors and lawyers (and you misstate what their professional organizations actually do and overstate their influence), yet your goals for a "programmers association" are more akin to those of teachers unions.
I understand why you want to avoid the comparison with teachers unions, but the only legitmate way to do so is to stop pushing the same thing.
Saying "this will be different" isn't enough. Same means, same ends.
but for professions abused by the industry, they did set up a minimum wage they would agree to accept, raising the overall pay among the entire profession.
and i have no idea what charts 16 does to help you point.
I don't think there's been one situation in my career where an union would have helped me.
> Workers in our industry have enough skill > to get good compensation and benefits.
This is true but I've found that there is a lot of hidden costs to being a salaried employee, in the form of a lot of pressure to "get things done" so other people can benefit (make more sales). If you are part of a revunue sharing program then that's different, but revenue sharing doesn't seem to be that common.
It could just be an organization that exerts power on a wide scale without directly negotiating on behalf of the professional.
Look at the difference between Doctors associations, Lawyer associations, and computer science associations.
The most powerful medical authority is a collective body run by doctors, NOT run by the employers of doctors. This is because doctors as a collective have banded together and decided to take collective power.
Computer scientists on the other hand choose not to do this and so the powerful groups are run by corporate interests.
Who represents the voice of the collective programmer? No one really.
A body of software professionals similar to the AMA would raise salaries and provide many other benefits without having to directly negotiate on behalf of the employees.
One thing it could facilitate for instance would be scientific and wide-scale income information sharing which alone would raise the pay of every single software professional. It would level the playing field in negotiations and allow software professionals to capture more of their own productivity.
i said unions AND labor laws. i also do not agree they should mix. but the former should try it's best to influence the later.
I enjoy consulting too, but it leaves me with the feeling of not building or being part of something for the future... if that makes sense.
If you're running, you can stop every once in a while, sometimes for long enough to get a cup of coffee, and still stay ahead of the guy who set off walking at the same time as you.
Also included in that price tag is the ability to be let go at any time for any reason. In an ironic way, that actually tips the terms further to the site of consulting, since the reality is that salaried employees will also be let go at any time when the company decides to do so.
So yeah, you have to save some money. Fortunately, they give you a lot extra so that you can.
Here's how I'd fix that: start building a set of reusable components which you own the property to and license it to your contractees. If it gets useful enough and you need the money, you might even be able to start charging money for it. Think of whatever you're building as the platform of the future ;)
The part about not being able to slow down or you die? I actually like that part. Technology is always changing, and I like the fact that I'm constantly challenged to find real, solid value in what I'm learning or doing. Keeps me on my toes. Although I freely admit it's not for everybody.
I coast by taking as much time as I want between gigs.
I have family members who are "normal" -- they want a 9-5 job, long-term responsibilities and friendships, and they want to forget all about work when they punch out. The don't want things to change, and they want promises they can rely on for the future. They want somebody else to worry about things changing. I respect that. I'm just not that way. I tell folks that consulting has probably ruined me for life as far as ever being a useful company man.
As you age, you get more experience, but are less able to pound out tons of code, and spend tons of time keeping up with the latest thing.
And also why I now help teams out instead of being the 18-hour code monkey. Still love coding, but you reach the natural limits of these things and have to move on. You also reach the point where you have to start thinking long-term instead of short-term.
EDIT: I'd add that I'd much rather be the guy who knows a dozen different languages and databases, has had experience in a lot of industries, and is used to working hard and saving, yadda yadda -- I'd rather be that guy looking to get into startups than the guy who took the 4-year degree, punched the clock everyday for years, trusted his company to take care of him, and is now wondering where his future went and whom to blame.
This is also one of the big reasons I switched to consulting. I find it a more honest way to work. My career advancement is completely in my own hands and not tied to a specific company. There is no tit-for-maybe-possibly-someday-tat involved.
really.
If put in more work than what your cash salary is worth, then you are investing. And sometimes investors get no return. Invest with caution.
It can also be a rational decision. If you believe the layoffs being imposed on you will cripple the company, it's better to leave the failure to your successor.
You would have to be a singular company to make me trust any promise, explicit or implicit, about monetary or non-monetary compensation which had a time horizon longer than a paycheck cycle. I'm not intending on ever being a salaryman again, but if I were, an American company which even suggested the desirability of a deathmarch would receive a firm handshake and my two-weeks notice immediately. (There are quite a few Japanese companies where I'd actually trust the company to make good on its side of The Offer. It's still not a good offer, but it's at least understandable to me that someone might take them up on it.)
Whereas American corporations haven't had that spirit for a long time (replacing it with a letter-of-the-law attitude) and a number apparently actively seek to exploit their employees' delusions that some might still have that spirit, as this MySpace example perhaps illustrates.
Like I said, it's probably not quite as much as once was but there is no doubt remnants of that still there.
Chris Dixon eloquently articulated the types of work relationships that exist more commonly in the developed world. Broadly, there is the transactional view (as per Jack Welch) or the collective view (eg a startup where you have some equity stake in the company).
To give an example of what companies expect from people (told first hand from people I know personally, or even witnessed myself): you may be asked to work overseas (which most Japanese hate) in a matter of days. That is, the company will tell you: could you please work overseas for one year starting next week ? You can say no, once, if you don't mind having no career in the company. Worse, I have seen the situation where people were given that deal, to be said the day of the depart that no, they won't be needed overseas overall. Note that those people often have wife, children, etc...
The Offer -- which underpins a whole lot of social life here -- goes something like this: if you swear yourself to us body and soul (see my numerous posts about work/life balance here), we guarantee you against most forms of risk. You will receive steady paychecks, predictable raises/promotions, a suite of benefits, and the unwavering loyalty (and social support) of the company until the day you die.
If you're a MySpace engineer that was laid off, hit me up: bpaetzke@leads360.com. I'm a software engineer at a .NET startup in El Segundo, CA that's hiring.
1) I really feel for those guys. Technology is like that: one day you're on top and the next day you're on the street
2) Work as hard as you can at something and never regret it. The only person that can make you feel tricked into working 20-hour days is yourself. Don't do that to yourself.
3) Bitterness isn't going to make it any better. Sucks to hear that, yes, but what you need now most of all is a positive attitude and motivation to go out and kick ass. Might take some time to get that back, but work on that instead of chewing on what some C-level jerk is planning on doing or has done to a company you're no longer with.
Thinking about my comments some, there's probably a very good reason I never had a job as a counselor. Sometimes what folks really need is a beer and somebody to complain to. Sadly, I'm probably not that guy.
Morale: watch out for signs of Stockholm syndrome, because it can be real.
TC--
But, how does that square with the idea of pulling together and making any endeavor work? Is the lesson to only be a founder? Morally, doesn't that mean: never employ anyone?
I don't know, I just feel for those laid off this week. 'Cause is really sucks.
The Gervais principle was defined by Venkat (Venkatesh Rao) in a series of articles published in his blog. They should be well known around here, but here they are for those who missed them. The insight of these essays is amazing, and worth much more than the time it'll take you to read them.
.
__________
The Gervais Principle, Or The Office According to “The Office” --- http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-o...
The Gervais Principle II: Posturetalk, Powertalk, Babytalk and Gametalk --- http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/11/the-gervais-principle-i...
The Gervais Principle III: The Curse of Development --- http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/04/14/the-gervais-principle-i...
The Gervais Principle IV: Wonderful Human Beings --- http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/10/14/the-gervais-principle-i...
.
_________
Related considerations by the same author.
.
The Genealogy of the Gervais Principle --- http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/02/04/the-genealogy-of-the-ge...
Random Promotions and the Gervais Principle --- http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/12/13/random-promotions-and-t...
Conceptual Metaphors (Mashable), Gervais Principle (Fugitive Philosophy) --- http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/01/13/conceptual-metaphors-ma...
Two Interesting Gervais Principle Follow-Ups -- http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/05/06/two-interesting-gervais...
(Like the one we're currently on.)
Sometimes you can just tell a Michael Arrington headline before you even click.