Comment by quadrifoliate | Hacker News Reader

Comment by quadrifoliate | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> a simple thing that the handbook doesn't talk much about is "when to quit", let alone when and how to engage in concerted action with other team members, and what the risks/benefits of that are.

That may be because often trotted out as a convenient solution to any sort of wrongdoing by a lot of privileged people who themselves have their pick of jobs in US companies.

It's a convenient null hypothesis that could be the substitute for any remedy in this guide. Harassed by your boss? Quit. Company you work for is engaging in wildly illegal stuff? Quit. Facing racism? You guessed it.

That's not to say that quitting is not a convenient and probably the easiest option for a lot of people. I have used it myself. It's just not the one this guide is meant for.

So I think that asking for a "when to quit" part of this guide would be like asking for a "when to know you should just give up and buy a new car" section in a car repair manual [1]. But if you want a lot of people to be good at repairing cars, I would hazard that including a "when to quit and just buy a new car" section wouldn't be high on your list of things to add.

As for the concerted action bit, I have to agree - adding them would be good. My guess is that it would be unionization lite, and those are a non-starter in the US for a million reasons.

--------------------

[1] I have to admit I am not particularly clear on this point in reality, because I have never seen a car repair manual. Ouch. Anyone here who has actually seen one? Make me eat my words!

I can't resist this bikeshed, but you've written the Maximum Hacker News aside of the week. I have several car factory service manuals. They do not include cost benefit analyses on when to remove a vehicle from service. Instead, they are full of flow charts on how to diagnose problems. Each flow chart ends with a "If nothing failed a test, but the symptom persists, replace the entire part/assembly."

The goal is to pinpoint which piece of an assembly might have failed and only repair or replace that one piece. eg bad wiring harnesses, a single controller in a complex system such as antilock brakes, a single fuse, etc.

The decision whether to keep attempting to repair an ailing car, or stay in a role that supports a company doing "wildly illegal stuff" is beyond what tech writers can determine for you--even given thousands of pages of information in dozens of PDFs.

This kind of aside is what keeps me here, so I'll thank you for it :)

> Each flow chart ends with a "If nothing failed a test, but the symptom persists, replace the entire part/assembly."

I suppose this kind of does refute my point a little bit. Maybe the Tech Worker Handbook should have rules of thumb on when to quit – e.g. if the estimate for legal fees is going to be more than 1% of your salary, evaluate if makes more financial sense to quit your job and look for a new one instead.

Of course, circumstances differ wildly between individuals, so anything more than a rule of thumb is not possible.

"Change your company or change your company" is an oft-repeated phrase that pairs up with the suggestion in the car repair manual nicely.

That is a compelling takedown to somebody's comment, but it's not responsive to mine; I'm not saying quitting is the only remedy to problems at giant tech companies, only that it is an important remedy.

One way you know that my comment doesn't make the point you're arguing against is that you managed to agree with it in the last sentence of your own rebuttal.

I don't really view mine as a rebuttal or takedown either.

I'm simply offering what I think is a compelling reason for them to not include instructions in this guide to the important remedy that you describe, i.e. quitting. Citing the fact that the "Just quit" advice tired shibboleth is sort of a broadside against our profession in general, not your comment in particular. I did think about including a disclaimer about this, but decided not to.

It's quite possible that you and other commenters think it's not compelling; let me know why!

“Just quit” seems to be a much broader response of people to ill feelings about employment and not distinctive to tech workers. An example is the broad cultural impact of David Allen Coe’s “Take this Job and Shove It” [0] which went on to be recorded in diverse genre’s (country, punk, rap), a movie, Simpsons plot and a snowclone.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_This_Job_and_Shove_It

The simplest way to defang your criticism of "just quit" is to say that people who aren't privileged enough to quit and land in a comparable role elsewhere simply shouldn't quit. The people who do have that privilege, though, should indeed consider it. There are a lot of them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com