Hacker News Reader

Comment by toss1 | Hacker News Reader

Seems like proper dogfooding

The "it wasn't part of the job description" engineer would be on my short list for reevaluation. In a dynamic org, change is constant, and stick-in-the-mud complainers like this range from underproductive to actively toxic. If it's just an isolated bad day, fine, but if it's an underlying 'not-my'job' attitude, then they're likely better employed elsewhere.

This practice should be pretty standard, as well as flexible roles & responsibilities, mentoring/interning, etc. to spread & grow knowledge as much as possible.

View on HN

That's a nice way to say "Do what I tell you regardless of what we agreed your role would be or I fire you".

Talk about toxic, this kind of garbage is why workers need strong labor laws and unions protecting them.

Great idea. The law should read like the employee cannot be fired if asked to do something not specified in their job description when hired. /s

Maybe we should have laws as well to protect companies from rogue employees do things outside of their job descriptions.

Where I'm from (western europe) we have this, but unironically.

Imagine the horror not having to worry over not being able to pay your mortgage or rent whenever your boss or some power tripping middle manager decided they want you to start juggling bowling pins while riding a unicycle while you were hired to develop software.

Won't someone please think of the poor employers? /s

How are tech salaries in Western Europe compared to the US?

There are pros and cons. How would you hire someone at a startup? Do you specify they can only write code for the website and then if you need their help with something else they just say "not in my job description"? Eventually you'd just get contracts that have laundry lists of vague responsibilities to get around this and it would just wind up like standard terms of service for websites/electronics where people just sign and take the job. Too much money at stake to not do it and for little gain.

We have a justice system based on reasonable interpretation by judges, which is a bit less "strict" literal interpretation of contracts. Mine says "Software development", some collective bargaining agreements have more specific descriptions (to prevent under paying of employees by classifying them as lower salaries jobs).

As a start-up you'd hire contractors which you'd pay a much higher fee for, as these wouldn't have the labor protections of employees.

Salaries for contractors are I guess similar to the US maybe a bit lower, for salaries employees definitely lower than the US (for tech at least).

But then again my rent is cheaper, and my insurances are cheaper too, I get PTO and unlimited sick-days, stuff like that. At the end of the day, if I want to make more money and not have many protections (like in the US) I'd become a contractor. (which does come with some strings attached to prevent employers from hiring normal employees like contractors).

You have a choice over here for both models essentially.

> We have a justice system based on reasonable interpretation by judges, which is a bit less "strict" literal interpretation of contracts.

We as in all of Western Europe or for a specific country? What are some examples you've seen where the US has "strict", literal interpretations of contracts that are unreasonable as it relates to employment/the topic at hand? Off the top of my head the only thing that comes to mind immediately is maybe non-competes but I think that's an issue of leverage and not really a contractual issue, and even so it's risky for companies to enforce except for key employees.

> As a start-up you'd hire contractors which you'd pay a much higher fee for, as these wouldn't have the labor protections of employees

Isn't this just sidestepping the protection? And without needing to do an exhaustive list what are the labor protections? I assume there are like a minimum number of paid days off/holidays/vacation, exact job you'll do (though this is still vague to me how it's handled practically) and some protections around being fired/how you are fired?

Is there a big protection for tech workers I'm missing?

> But then again my rent is cheaper, and my insurances are cheaper too, I get PTO and unlimited sick-days, stuff like that. At the end of the day, if I want to make more money and not have many protections (like in the US) I'd become a contractor. (which does come with some strings attached to prevent employers from hiring normal employees like contractors).

My "rent" (mortgage in this case) is pretty cheap and so is my insurance. I work remote for a great company, get PTO, and take it as you need it sick days and stuff like that too. Of course rental rates in certain markets (NY, SF, etc.) are much higher, as is compensation. $250k-$300k for many tech workers. I think that probably compensates for the higher costs though who knows what'll happen with the post-pandemic labor market (2024-2026 or so).

It's an interesting topic, I think a comment could't accommodate all the differences between the labor markets.

I'll say this much, our justice systems in western Europe (with the exception of the UK) are based on civil law you could find more about this on Wikipedia to find sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

When it comes to contractors, yes they have less rights (at-will employment, no PTO, no sick-days etc. etc. etc.) So yes it does side-step labor protections but it's more expensive, also in my country at least contractors are required to get disability insurance and not everyone can be considered a contractor. If a judge finds that a contractor actually more resembles an employer (so not being independent of the company hiring), they will retro-actively be considered an employee. (This has happened with Uber drivers for instance)

Some of the protections employees enjoy over here are:

- Not being fired unless the labor board approves (which required documentation from the employees, and them to follow strict labor rules).

- At least 4 weeks PTO.

- Up to 2 years of continues sick-days, (with a doctors note) (after which you'd get fired and get social security)

- After being fired you'd get 1 month of continued salary for each year you were employed, until you find new work

- Paid Maternity/paternity leave

- The right to bargain for a collective bargaining agreement which allows for additional minimum rights/salaries to be applied to all workers within a field

- The right to ignore your boss after hours unless additional consideration (salary) is offered and time schedules are agreed upon

- The right for employees to have a employee-board whenever there's at least 50 employees within a company/org

- The right for employees to keep their jobs if they become disabled (if possible, judged by the labor board not the employer)

When it comes to costs/salaries, I reckon it'd highly depend on the region/job market/sector.

Thanks! I think there are some good things here for sure. I think I'd have to really sit down and go over these to better understand the trade-offs but I wasn't aware of a few of these like the right to have 2 years off continuously for sick days.

> When it comes to costs/salaries, I reckon it'd highly depend on the region/job market/sector.

I do want to bring this conversation back to make sure we're still talking about tech workers per my original comment.

> I'll say this much, our justice systems in western Europe (with the exception of the UK) are based on civil law you could find more about this on Wikipedia to find sources

Thanks for the link. I really like the common law approach myself. It's interesting that you noted that common law was based on strict contract interpretations (which I think you noted in a negative context since one was considered reasonable but the other wasn't) but then at the same time common law tends to be more predictable (according to the article) versus civil law since case precedence acts as law. I guess it depends on your interpretation of reasonable. As an American I'd want the law to be applied equally no matter who you are, but that's my culture and lens. I also like that it's flexible and, again noted by the article, able to cope with social changes better. With respect to contracts I think I prefer to enforce what was written - how else do you know what the contract is then?

Funny how in your world the bad manager from your example would be difficult to fire as well.

So? They're employees too, I can handle a bad manager, I can't handle being fired over some bullshit. That manager has a mortgage too, you know?

It's nothing personal, it's business.

Don’t most job descriptions already include “and other duties as assigned”?

Most offer letters in the US have a line that includes "other duties as required" or similar. Job descriptions are generally extremely broad.

>>That's a nice way to say "Do what I tell you regardless of what we agreed your role would be or I fire you".

No, it is specifically NOT that.

It is exactly what I said, expecting people to have a "Can Do / put your shoulder to the wheel / solve the problem" attitude, and to be flexible about how it gets done. Especially in a development situation (vs production that's been static for years).

If the company failed to make clear at the beginning that it was a dynamic and changing environment, and that Can Do attitude is expected, then yeah, it is their fault.

But even in relatively staid environments, a "not my job" attitude can become toxic and contagious in a hurry. Then, it may not be far before no one has a job.

I'm strongly pro-union and pro-workers getting a larger slice of the economic pie. But I also recognize that the "not my job" attitude and over-constraining work rules is an enormous part of what lead to the demise of unions. Of course you don't want plumbers doing electrical work and vice-versa, but when a plumber or manager cannot toss a stray shovel onto the truck without a foreman/union/mgt meeting being called for stepping over the line (literally seen it happen), that's beyond unsustainable.

Sounds like a great way to end up even more short handed in a tight labor market, especially when there are plenty of other employers who aren't going to make similar demands. "My way or the highway" isn't a great policy when you need them much more than they need you.

It is not a "my way or the highway"; it is expecting a "can do" attitude (and yes I understand that "my way or the highway" is toxic).

Attitudes of "Can Do", "Solve the problem", "How do we get better than our competition" are pretty much the polar opposite of a "not my job" attitude.

It is one thing to see in a low-level position, where a certain percentage of it is expected. But in a responsible position like serious software development, it's a red flag for lack of engagement. I've also seen it turn into an actively undermining the company attitude, which is toxic for everyone. I'd look for it to get fixed fast, or they're on the short list for "we don't really need to pay you to come here anymore" attitude.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com