I can’t work the hours I did in 2020 again yet struggling to see how to avoid it
twitter.com
twitter.com
The excuse I always hear is that if they don't work that hard, they'll get fired and replaced with someone who does. I'm sure that's true for some jobs, but a) it's likely very few of them, and b) why would you want to work for/with people who have so little respect for you and your health in the first place?
Sure, promotions might come less often and raises might be smaller, but that's a trade off you can consciously make: more money, or better health and family/friend relationships. And you also set an example for your peers: if they start complaining about their health or about burnout, you can show them that it's a problem that can be solved. And the more that people do this, the more people will realize it's possible and the right thing to do.
And yes, there are some who live paycheck to paycheck, hold multiple jobs, will take any job they can get, and don't have much choice. I'm not talking about people like that... though that is another conversation that should be had more often; no one should have to be stuck in a situation like that, but so many are! And yes, there's unfortunately sexism and racism involved; I expect women and POC will get looked upon less favorably if they set stronger boundaries than white men will. But I don't see that as an argument to destroy your health.
Received this email outside of my standard working hours (ET)? That means I’ve chosen to do some work at this time; it’s not an expectation that you do the same.
As someone prone to working odd or odd hours, I’ll often preface slack or email messages I send with a bold ‘not urgent’ or similar, in the hope that the recipient will feel comfortable ignoring it until their working hours.I think if more people clearly set response time expectations, off hours messages would read as less of an intrusion, even to people with fewer firm boundaries.
I have no work mail or chat on my private devices and actually move all incoming mail to a temp imap folder which I don’t sync to my phone or laptop. Then a cron job moves it to my inbox between 8 and 8.
Yes, it’s 2am in India. Yes, I want the whole thread to be in one tool. No, I don’t want to notify the person until they’re at their desk.
Slack does have a suppress notifications setting that the recipient can set. That doesn’t help when they haven’t set it.
90% of the emails I send are because this feature is missing.
I think it's a phenomenon similar to the whole 'panopticon' idea: I'm pretty sure not picking up the phone will be fine, but because of the not knowing for sure I still often end up letting the interruption happen. We humans prefer removing uncertainty to an irrational degree, I guess?
On a couple occasions I came in at a reasonable time only to have missed an extra-early meeting or call that someone scheduled at 7:00pm the night before. A polite "yeah I didn't see the email until 8 this morning" seems to send the message "what the fuck were you thinking" without any complaints from anyone. They learn, and hopefully question they own constant availability.
I've heard it said that in the U.S., the only reliable way for a non-union worker to get real protection from abuse is to personally hire a labor attorney.
There's no need to involve anyone else.
I work with people from different time zones and people who like to keep different schedules, some waking up very early or working very late, and I myself wake up pretty late. It just doesn't make sense that I should demand people message according to my schedule, but I'm also not going to wake up early or work late to match theirs.
The easiest way to clear this up is to just talk to your manager and get on the same page about what is expected.
Some of the reasoning I've heard from these employees is that they believe they're the only one who can solve an issue. They're the ones who jump on it when it comes up during the regular day so if it re-appears they feel the need to jump on the grenade - explaining to them that other people can (and will) fix the problem helps, though it usually takes a few go arounds to get the point.
There are times I'm on call, and I'll be pretty pro-active. Even if I don't get paged but major events are going on, I'll be keeping an eye on them. On the other hand when I'm off call? Unless someone picks up a phone and calls me, it's not even on my mind.
Have you ever been in situations where you really are the only person who can solve the issue? Or, at least the only one who can solve it a) in a reasonable time frame and b) without creating multiple other problems?
I've been in those situations before - not all the time, but it's happened. First time I sort of liked it - seemed like a bit of 'prestige'. But then ... I took a 3 day vacation. Flew hours away. Checked in to hotel. Light on the phone in the room was beeping with a message to call the office, because there was a bug no one could figure out. Even though I was at a 'big company', I was (literally) the only person on the project, and couldn't have 6 hours away without the world crashing down. Really poor management on everyone's part.
I've been in a couple other situations since then where I'm the only person who can do X, and I recognize it, and lobby for someone else to be able to step in. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I've also had a couple of situations with competent team mates who all started before me, and had a wide diverse set of skills, supported each other, and I was not expected to be some sort of 'superhero'. I appreciated those environments more as an older person who's previously experienced the 'superhero' environments.
These "many other people can do what you do" teams I've been a part of have been nice, but also comparatively rare.
Whatever else can be said. I went on a week cruise with zero stress about work.
Knowledge was so well spread around that no one was a point of failure. Several of us were the best for specific issues, but our pair would then get better at it.
Yes, those setups are often best - for people and for the business - "no one point of failure". It also seems harder for businesses to commit to paying for that redundancy, at least up front.
I admit I haven't really done this for a while--though I came close last year. But TBH, I'll keep vaguely in touch these days when I conveniently can and deal with anything that's urgent or really can't wait. (Like I did an interview from a B&B room that really needed to be done--an then wasn't used of course.)
IMO, a lot of people put way too much pressure on themselves to be available 24/7/365 who don't need to. And if that really is the expectation maybe they should look someplace else unless it's their company or something something really special to them.
Everyone is (usually) an adult, just talk it out and build that understanding.
I wouldn't mention that not taking care of their health would reflect poorly on their performance review. In fact I wouldn't want them to think about the performance review. The goal is for them to rest, recharge, and not get burnt out,
I know you are trying to be considerate, but please do not ever assume people “are not taking care of themselves”, even if true. In the US, there is always a deeper story to it. Generally speaking 50% of the American population has a pre-existing condition. 30-50% of Americans avoid some medical care yearly due to the cost of care.
The third leading cause of death is believed to be preventable medical errors (caused by the for-profit nature of our system: our doctors and nurses have excellent training), and the vast majority of these victims likely had pre-existing conditions. We just don’t attribute “preventable medical error” as a cause of death on US death certificates like we should. See: https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139
Also, the system is not designed to ensure the health of the populace, even if you are “rich” and “have good insurance” and “can afford to pay for healthcare with insurance coverage”. Pretty much every other industrialized and developed country is outpacing us in longevity.
The system is not meant to prevent disease and it is very ineffective at it. It profits on the already sick. It really is a grotesque system. For more info on this (and the previous 2 paragraphs consult the publications on http://healthdata.org
According to the book, “Dying for a Paycheck”, the fifth leading cause of death in the US is overwork: https://www.baltimoresun.com/health/bs-hs-workplace-cause-de...
When your health insurance is tied to your work, you are screwed if you have a pre-existing condition.
This is why I will never work in the US, as a dual US|EU citizen with 2 rare immune mediated neurological diseases affecting my peripheral nervous system plus type 1 diabetes (autoimmune and insulin dependent). The neurological diseases are in remission, but I have to take a certain blood product, administered in a certain way, in large quantities, for life. It is known as subcutaneous immunoglobulin. It is far easier to access this is western/Northern European countries than the US, too.
My higher ups were shocked when I presented them with >540 hours of overtime accumulated from mid March to September.
Not that I didn't more than once tell it in different video meetings with my team lead as well as managing directors.
But they only reacted shocked when there was a paper trail. Before that telling them that I would run up to that amount of overtime did nothing.
that's a lot of people mate. Over half of the workforce doesn't have a degree, half doesn't have any or barely any savings and cannot cover a few hundred bucks emergency, and if you have at least one kid or a family member who is dependent on you good luck. Most people cannot risk forgoing even a month without a salary, including a lot of white collar workers even with an undergraduate degree or similar.
The particular person here runs a charity for inmates, and if you're self-employed or own a business in a sense ironically enough you have even less control over your schedule because you can't just dial the numbers down and people depend on you, in this case both workers and clients.
I agree, but I think my point still stands even if it doesn't apply to everyone, or even a majority of people.
> The particular person here runs a charity for inmates, and if you're self-employed or own a business in a sense ironically enough you have even less control over your schedule because you can't just dial the numbers down and people depend on you, in this case both workers and clients.
This is a manifestation of the same problem of not setting boundaries. People only depend on you if you agree to take them on as clients. It might be heartbreaking to have to make those kinds of decisions when it comes to something like working with inmates, but I do believe you'll help a smaller number of inmates much more effectively if you're well-rested and take care of your health. And, again, that actually is entirely within your control. You can certainly choose to help more people at the expense of your health, but that may not be the best decision for yourself (or the people you're trying to help) in the longer run. But it's still a choice.
I include myself in this
We are in the middle of a once in a century pandemic that's pushing many healthcare systems, and lots of the involved people, to the maximum of their limits and often even past those limits.
In that context it seems a bit tone-deaf to make the problem out as people just not wanting to "leave the fast track/go to B league", as for many HCW these are not even realistic options or prospects because there's really not that much of a career ladder/B league for occupations like nurses and others in the sector.
This is something that took me 1.5-2 decades to figure out. My first "worst project" was around 2007 and it was hell. It cost me a lot (health, it became a large factor in losing a good relationship). I couldn't see the forest from the trees. I couldn't say no to the sleazy sales manager who would ignore me all week only to become my best friend for a 60 second conversation every Thursday: "Maaaate! Can you work Saturday?"
The wounds were very expensive but after some time to heal became something to laugh at, lightly. When someone in a room full of developers at 9 PM snaps and says, "This is the worst project I've ever been on!" half the room will immediately agree, only for the the other half to grin politely and disagree. "Really?!" At best sharing these stories can be a bonding exercise. Some of the anecdotes are now quite funny jokes.
Then a decade past my worst ever project and it was happening all over again! Only this time I was cognisant of the machinations around me. While being older might mean more capable, it also means we can't do the same long hours any more. The absolute worst thing was I saw it coming. I gave my manager (who had all the authority) unambiguous advice to avoid this project. After it went bad they needed me. I said no, but then they weren't asking and suddenly I was involved. Deeply. Drinking after work was no longer 2 beers on a Friday, but 2-4 every day at our desks (but after 8 PM when the place was mostly abandoned). Other negatives I was putting up with for the $$$ also broke the threshold (mostly the insane daily travel, but the place was generally a crap client site all round).
I'd work hard to the deadline then be done with it. January became February, March, then April. I was burnt out. I quit before it was done and became the bad guy. I didn't care. I never wanted to see any of these clowns ever again.
I went overseas for a year without working. Didn't work for another year after returning, and very casually waited for the right, quite different, role to come through my jokingly tiny social network.
I worked with a POC who the CEO told me point blank to give them extra leniency with regards to them not performing their duties (an ongoing complaint of mine) because a "diverse face" on the pitch deck helped us raise money.
My underlying point was that it's too broad to say that you'll be negatively discriminated against for setting strict boundaries. Some (more progressive) places will let you get away with more based on your ethnicity or gender.
So, it sounds like the CEO is using this person of color in order to earn a certain credibility and get more money from investors.
And, maybe this person of color is either, a) working hard, but not very experienced yet/able to complete their tasks. Or, they are wrongfully neglecting their duties/have no interest in doing their job. Or, some other nuanced situation, I don't know. You believe they are benefiting though.
But either way, exactly what is your point? To be honest, reading this, it seems like you are biased against people of color, and you view this situation as evidence that all people of color do not work hard/are given unfair advantages in life, and therefore, your bias is warranted. In other words, you appear to believe in a common racist trope. To you, it is true, based on this story.
Or, you are not biased against people of color, and simply think it unfair that this person, regardless of their ethnicity, is being given a free pass on not doing their work. If the latter, isn't your CEO partly in the wrong here? They are capitalizing on the identity of this person of color, which shouldn't matter, by your logic.
You judged me guilty of all of that because I provided an anecdote that some companies bias positively (not always negatively) towards people based on their race and/or gender? Do you expect me to respond and defend myself against each accusation? Because you don't have the right to pressure that from me, especially as an anonymous throwaway account.
What do you think this anecdote means? What do you think about this situation?
I think that you want people to draw a conclusion from this story.
Yes, that conclusion is exactly what I already said, which I worded very precisely: "some companies bias positively towards people based on their race and/or gender". So we should not automatically assume, as the person I was replying to suggested, that someone will be biased against because of their race or gender for affirming work boundaries.
You reading into that to try to sniff out hints of racism and prejudice says more about your motives and your intentions here than it does mine.
>You believe these companies "bias positively". Which may or may not be true.
I didn't say "these companies", I said "some companies." And "some companies" is true, because I have personal experiences at "some companies" that show backroom positive biases towards employees and interview candidates, without their knowledge, explicitly because of their identity (both race and sex).
You seem to disagree that my experiences are valid, and if they are valid, that I must be sexist or racist for even sharing them.
I would not consider the scenario you described to be positive bias. It's still negative, and it still hurts the employee in question, even if they still get to draw a paycheck for a time. It's just a... different... kind of bias than the kind I mentioned.
> So we should not automatically assume, as the person I was replying to suggested, that someone will be biased against because of their race or gender for affirming work boundaries.*
My original comment didn't suggest that we should automatically assume that, just that it was a possibility. And I'd still expect my possibility to be more likely and pervasive than the scenario you described.
What I disagree with is that there is such a thing as 'biasing positively'. People seek to build diverse teams. In my opinion, your colleague wasn't necessarily being done a favor if it happened they were performing poorly and didn't have a good feedback loop. Your CEO may have been profiting from this situation at the long-term expense of your colleague.
I just don't think we should be biasing our judgments of a person's value or competency based on their sex or race though, and unfortunately, I have a few experiences that point to conscious decisions in that direction. I'm not saying you are making this argument, but if there is an argument that "we need conscious decisions to counterbalance the unconscious biases," then I really wholeheartedly disagree with that approach. Like you suggested, we're not doing people favors when we shield them from honest feedback about their output.
Saying no has nothing to do with unprofessionalism, it has to do with the fact that there are finite number of hours in a day and there is a limit to what a person can do. That limit can be different for each person, but it will always be there.
If you get blamed or shamed for not being able to do more work, just insist. There is no shame in this.
Also, working more does not necessarily translate into career progression. And if your job security depends on working an insane amount of hours, unless you are being compensated properly and understand the long-term health implications of what you are doing, just look for another job.
What happens if you get a RSI injury such as carpal tunnel syndrome? or some other kind of health issue? If it's bad enough, that's it, your ability to work is over. If they already do not care about your work/life balance and your health, their reaction will surely be "hey, the typing machine on desk #3 broke, please get a new one".
It is fine to be professional, but don't drink the Kool-Aid, look after your health and your best interest. If you want to be able to work until retirement, you need a sustainable lifestyle.
Also remember that one day you will change jobs, and when you do it is likely you won't see your close friends at work anymore. But nevertheless you will have to live with the implications of neglecting your family and friends, or looking in the mirror one day and realizing you are old and you wasted your youth making other people rich for no reason.
Obviously, people with physical offices still put in work from home, but it feels much easier to time-box activities when there is a clear distinction between hours spent at work and hours spent at home.
With full remote, the physical boundaries between work and home disappear. It no longer feels safe to tell someone you'll follow up on something when you're back in the office tomorrow morning, because now technically you're always in your office.
I dealt with this problem a lot with high achievers on remote teams (pre-COVID). Certain personality types will always aim to please, never pass up an opportunity to shine, and have trouble saying no to requests. Combine those personality traits with a high-achiever mentality and you have a recipe for disaster.
This was especially problematic in new university graduates who had spent the first two decades of their lives getting straight As on arbitrary, time-limited school work. Drop them into open-ended work environments where the project scope and duration is a moving target and they struggle to pace themselves. Their old techniques of powering through work at 100% effort until it's done are no longer sustainable in the face of a never-ending supply of additional work.
Managers should, of course, be aware of these situations and work to intervene. However, employees also need to take some share of the responsibility for closing feedback loops with their managers. Some people are so afraid of disappointing anyone or appearing weak that they'll deliberately hide any signs that they're struggling or overworked. It's critically important that both managers and employees work together to keep feedback loops open and honest. As a manager I wish I could read everyone's minds and adjust accordingly, but it's extremely difficult when employees are actively working to hide these things from their employers. Side note: It's so much easier to manager people who were formerly managers themselves because they're so much better at communicating these things, having seen both sides of the table.
I've been working remote for many years; started out part time remote in 2010 and been full time since about 2016 (across 5 different companies since). What you're saying has never been true for me.
I average 40 hours a week. If I go over 8 hours one day, I'll do less hours the next. I have no problem telling my manager or anyone else that I'll follow up tomorrow. I don't give them excuses, I just simply state "I'm signing off, I'll follow up in the morning" once that clock hits my 8 hour mark.
You (the royal "you") are in control of your own destiny when it comes to setting these boundaries. If your company is truly forcing you to do this, it's time to look elsewhere. Don't blame it on remote work. This is not a remote problem, this is a problem between you and your company.
"If there's literally nothing fun and social to do, I might as well work" has been the calculus for me for hundreds of hours of extra work in 2020. I'm not even upset (at my company) about it; in some ways, it was nice to have something to stave off some of the boredom and I'd honestly rather work than watch some mindless television programming.
Without a pandemic, but with remote work, I still have team beer-league sports to play, dinners/BBQs with friends, social events relating to the kids, etc.
Best thing I did was move back in with family.
If instead most of my interactions with people are on important matters, then they see my time as important. Setting boundaries and saying no to more trivial requests generally increases the respect people show.
Do you feel pressured from needing to work longer to meet expectations set by other people in the same role? Don't be. If your manager or anyone else in charge has a problem with your productivity then the first thing they're going to do is ask you about it. What things are forcing you to work these extra hours? Is it deadlines? A backlog of work? Did they overestimate your skill level? Talk about it. It might turn out that you actually are in over your head, but you're in the job and you're making the company money. Not every manager is evil and most are accommodating. You might be able to get training/help, perhaps a lower salary and therefore lower expectations/responsibilities. Yeah it might suck to lose some money, but you know what sucks to lose more? Your health.
Firing people is pretty expensive and a last resort for a company, you're almost never at risk of being fired. So long as you're not punching people in the face when you meet them and you're doing your work at an acceptable level then you're most likely okay. The people that get fired are those who are really really shitty and do nothing. Any reasonable worker will have domain knowledge and other skills that are invaluable and will take a long time for new hires to pick up.
Any company which effectively forces you to over work, even after discussing it, is not worth working for. Software devs are lucky in that the market is full of jobs. Other people might not be so lucky, but in that scenario the first thing you should be doing is gradually reducing hours and looking for a another job.
Pick a random day in the past year - I'd love to hear her argument as to why the work she did on say July 13th was so important and time sensitive that it couldn't have been delayed 12 hours so she could spend a little time with her family.
People who will throw something together are heroes, but very often the result is complete crap that has enormous costs if it gets adopted as a standard. I'm being only slightly facetious asking, how much has humanity been set back due to the fact that less than two weeks was spent inventing Javascript? Maybe they should have spent an extra week or two on it and saved millions of person-years down the road [ h/t the recent repost of https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death... ]
At the same time, my own psychological makeup made me vulnerable to trying to meet those unrealistic expectations, and that's on me. It took decades to really figure out what's going on, and ultimately it's a matter of acceptance rather than actionable change, although change is possible. With so much of our capabilities and challenges being unconscious, I continue to marvel at the miracle that anything gets done at all.
The author of this piece lists CEO as a title. Sadly, if she wants to reduce the workload and expectation of her staff, she’ll need to lead by example. I wholly expect her to be able to do so, and it will only make her employees happier.
Nothing wrong with doing that with some of your time, and as you point out, you wouldn't want to do that with all of your time.
Being smart about how you trade time for money is where it's at - like achieving financial independence.
Sometimes that might mean trading a lot more time for money upfront so you can reap the dividends of that investment later.
Work is not always a loss, people may actually prefer it over other obligations (eg. running after your small babies).
I agree with your overall point, albeit I'd restrict it to work done for others.
Some work done for others is a calculated stepping stone to the opportunity you want. I've done just that over five years to get out of data science and into the job (now small business) I run.
Planning is vital.
All part of my long term plan to financial independence that I'm slowly, sometimes painfully, executing.
I could also lose them in a split second if I became too ill to keep up the hectic long hours.
I am fortunate to be a dual US|EU citizen, but if I was not, I would try to become a citizen of (Republic of) Ireland, which is part of the EU, so you are also conferred EU citizenship in addition to being an Irish citizen. This gives you the right to live/work/retire in over 30 countries, including all of the EU and EEA countries. Additionally, if you have citizenship from the Republic of Ireland, you are allowed to live/work/retire in the UK, due to a longstanding common agreement. If you are of Irish descent and are a direct blood relative (even great-great-great grandparent) of someone born in Ireland, you can become an Irish citizen in 3 years of living there if you provide the birth records. Also, if you are under 30(?) Americans can get a 1 year working holiday visa. Tech workers can get a job easily through the Irish skills shortage list.
There's no way next year will be as frantic. And to be fair to our HR team, they did regularly warn people to take time off and not burn out.
My work/life balance depends (or depended) on physical boundaries: Being at home gave some distance, then traveling gave me some more. In 2020, it's been difficult to separate work from non-work.
Separate devices, separate rooms if possible, go on a 30 min walk after you closed your company devices for the day.
These last 9 months have been awful and have me seriously considering looking for another job. Everything is suddenly urgent and high-impact, being on-call until late every night with real (potentially deadly) consequences if you mess up.
I don't know your situation but it's almost certainly not functional to be on call every night. People just don't function without rest and being on call tends to occupy a fair bit of mental and stress bandwidth.
But yeah, it's not something I can deal with much longer.
Part of what I forgot to express here is that the work is important, and I do care deeply about my coworkers - I've been at this job for 6 years, and half of my team has been there since I started. In some ways, it makes it better, because I can be proud of what we're doing. But it also makes it harder to take time off or set those boundaries, because I know that every day I'm not on call, somebody else has to be. Every day that I'm not doing work delays improvements and makes the rest of the team's lives harder.
I try very hard to stop my normal workday at 8-9 hours and to not put in extra time on the weekends, but it's difficult to balance my own needs with both the needs of my co-workers and also with the demands of the work we're doing.
I need at least 2-4 work hours a day without someone yapping at me so I can figure out what to type into the computer next. My best work is done while biking or jogging.
I’ve also found that most people working >> 8 hours produce substandard work during deadlines. Their crunch time usually delays product launches.
I've also stopped accepting the 8 AM meeting requests that get fired off at 3 AM same-day from the subcontinent. It takes some resetting of expectations, but it's a far healthier and more professional set of ground rules.
Take some time off!
Edit: Downvotes? In a forum supposedly filled with “entrepreneurial” minded individuals? Whatever... at least explain yourselves.