Hacker News Reader

Comment by hw | Hacker News Reader

First of all, if your manager is any good, (s)he will already have replacements in the pipeline, given the musical chairs nature of the industry.

Second, why aren't you already at a different job that pays you more instead of hanging that over your manager's head?

Third, don't underestimate how many other good developers that are out there, looking for the next job. It might not require 6 months of training for the next person, who could be as competent, or even more than the person that's being replaced.

I'm not sure what kind of company you work for, but 6 months of training is ridiculously long, unless there is a lot of institutional knowledge that's siloed amongst a small subset of employees - which should never happen in the first place, if your manager was any good.

View on HN

> Second, why aren't you already at a different job that pays you more instead of hanging that over your manager's head?

There's also value in being able to work on the same project over time and see it evolve, feel like you own features, etc.

There's value in staying at the same company because you don't have to move, change your commute, switch healthcare providers / doctors, etc.

I think the attitude of "well, just quit, don't make any attempt to see if you can improve the current place" is toxic. Yes, there are some places you really should quit. No, the fact that you could quit and make another $10k, but having to switch doctors and find a new daycare along the new commute, and potentially work on things less aligned with your interests... Those things have value too.

Most developers aren't mercenaries trying to find the most money. We're looking for a balance of a lot of money and a good work environment and work/projects we like.

> replacements in the pipeline

Depends on the company. Some still want to grow at a faster pace than they can hire.

> instead of hanging that over your manager's head

You are correct that this in not actually something you say to your manager. This is the thought that should be in your head. The real conversation needs to be constructive.

> 6 months of training is ridiculously long

I didn't mean training, I meant "to become as productive as you". My point is that the employee has the advantage on new hires: you instantly get full pay, but still need to ramp up your productivity.

> This is the thought that should be in your head. The real conversation needs to be constructive.

Agreed on that. If your manager isn't doing his/her job, or just wants quick outs of 1:1s, that conversation needs to be had instead of the status quo

On training, I have seen companies where it just takes a few months for a new hire to get anything done. Silo-ed institutional knowledge, spaghetti codebases, too much emphasis on processes and meetings, no proper new-hire onboarding, etc. Those are usually red flags. But yes, I wouldn't expect a new hire to be completely as productive as a seasoned employee even after a few months, but should be enough to get going.

> I'm not sure what kind of company you work for, but 6 months of training is ridiculously long, unless there is a lot of institutional knowledge that's siloed amongst a small subset of employees - which should never happen in the first place, if your manager was any good.

At Google there's an expectation that you won't be 'productive' for 6 months after joining, though that's not surprising considering how different everything is.

That really means 6 months till you are completely ramped up, at full productivity. If you are actually not productive, not producing anything of value, for 6 months...

How are these things actually measured or scaled?

Likely its all relative to your co-workers and your managers experience with the employees who have come before you.

I’ve been in companies where they stayed early it would be 1.5 years before I could meaningfully contribute. A big red flag.

And your comment about silo’d orgs was spot on in this case

Reply on news.ycombinator.com