> Just give me some JIRA ticket and let me read books while I get my job done in 1-2 hours a day.
Aren't we all (normal and decent people) doing this already?
Aren't we all (normal and decent people) doing this already?
The worst places for me are precisely those where you can get by with 1~2h of work a day because no one cares and the company's culture does not value the time and skills of his workers.
This is a pretty common attitude. That is, "I'm able to pick better workplaces than you are".
It implies you have control over the other people that work at the company. And unless you're the CEO, you don't. You cannot with any certainty tell what a work environment is like in the interview stage.
You can job hop a half dozen times until you find a good fit. And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. But framing it as: "I pick better work environments than you" is an attitude I'd really like to see disappear. It ignores just how much of a role luck plays.
Interesting counter argument.
> Those people just switch jobs until they're satisfied, there is no "controlling other people"
This is exactly what I said in my comment, if you take the time to read it.
> wisely chooses his employers to not end-up in such environments
to
> implies you have control over the other people that work at the company
instead of just assuming they'll just leave?
Do you agree that a work environment/culture is defined by the people who are a part of it?
Do you think that during the interview stage, an employer can characterize the work environment as different than it is in reality?
If you say yes to both of these, then I don't understand the disconnect.
Maybe I can summarize another way:
- It's not possible to really know what a work environment is like until you actually start working there. To deny this is to deny that other people at the company play a role in the work environment. Since you don't have control over other people, you don't have control over the work environment.
- Therefore, characterizing a decision to accept employment at a particular employer, as evidence of one's own superior ability to predict what the work environment is like is... misguided?
Job hopping until you find a work environment that fits is a good idea. But this is trial and error. It's not the result of a superior ability to sniff out work cultures before accepting employment.
My last question is: how did this line of reasoning offend you so deeply to suggest that I'm projecting insecurity?
You're either a troll or have a reading comprehension issue. I think it's the latter.
Not necessarily. It's "I'm less willing to stay at a bad workplace than you are".
Maybe it was bad when I picked it. Maybe it became bad after I was there for a decade. Maybe it became bad quickly; maybe slowly. Whatever. When I realize that it's become a bad place to work, I'm not "quiet quitting", I'm putting my resume on the street. I'm not desperately taking the first offer - I'm trying to find something better, not just something different - but as soon as I have a good offer, I'm gone.
> wisely chooses his employers to not end-up in such environments
It's more about not applying to certain jobs, or cancelling the process after the first red flag.
> You cannot with any certainty tell what a work environment is like in the interview stage.
Sure I can. But I might have been at it for a decade or two longer than you have. Folks on HN talk about the warning signs and red flags in interviews all the time, and from my perspective they're mostly right.
edit: removed unfinished sentence
- Can I tell what the actual point of the job is from the job description? Does it describe what their services are in service to?
- How many non-technical, non-domain experts will I speak with before I'm talking engineer to engineer?
- How jazzed are the interviewers about speaking with me, in the moment? Are they interested in the details of earlier projects? Are they curious about me, or just running down a list of questions?
- Do they use leetcode or similar? There are a lot of really good reasons for a company to use leetcode in their hiring process, but none of those reasons are particularly good for me, as an employee.
- Do their interview questions make sense, given their context? E.g are they quizzing me on recursion from an environment where recursion wouldn't be a particularly great idea?
Even for something as simple as deciding to "go shopping" tomorrow, there is some probability that it does not happen. But it is still my decision to do so.
The only way to never fail is to never try. But it means you will never win either.
I have a friend who can only bear to work at places that provide meaningful work and aren't toxic environments. He finds "bullshit jobs" psychological corrosive and he will quicky become depressed if he finds himself at one. He will go six months to a year between jobs, and will leave a job quickly if it turns out it doesn't meet his criteria.
On the flip side when he finds something he likes he works 60+ weeks and never less than everything he can to the job. He burns bright and generally leaves after two years, repeating the process.
Most people aren't like this. They will work just enough at a job that is just good enough. It's not about being better, it's about taking a different approach to finding and retaining a job.
You can ask. Don’t tell me it’s impossible if you haven’t even tried
Seriously though, don’t you feel bad by not pulling your weight? Someone has to get your work done.
That's often the problem, in that it doesn't truly matter if the work got done
The premise of a working contract being that you have to work in exchange for a salary...
There's so many angsty takes in this thread, I'm actually pretty shocked.
Working "hard" is an investment in yourself. You don't always have to be soley running on the SCRUM treadmill - you can learn other things that are valuable to the business. Ideally you'll also be smart and chose wisely for things that set you up better career-wise too.
But the idea that one would treat their employer as some kind of chump that deserves the minimal possible output they can extract from you? That sounds like a great way to pigeonhole yourself into a lacklustre and short career. Not to mention a really unfulfilling life. You spend so much time at work, why not try to find work you enjoy for an employer that isn't crap? I get that many jobs are soulless - but we're still in the drivers seat and we typically have a lot of choices (especially these days).
What makes it "my work"? That is for management to decide, is it not?
If they want more than that, employers should pay significantly more than their competitors for those services, or significant stock bonuses tied to departmental efficiency, or some other add-on compensation that incentivises increased productivity.
That’s fine for those who knowingly make that decision, but there are consequences.
But first I’m not suggesting 60 hours I have never worked a 60 in my life. But a solid 30-45 goes a long way, which shouldn’t be radical but some people here are advocating for 5-10 hour weeks…
There maybe a certain type of job (“middle management”?) where “golf” gives you an edge, but for companies with engineering tracks to the top, you need to demonstrate performance and be able to deliver and show impact. Some of that takes “politics” but you also can’t play politics in 5-10 hours either.
If you're that productive, why not charge by the hour at a very high rate? "work done that the position requires" is a very low bar of performance, to me it sounds like you're not honouring your part of your employment agreement.
I'm not suggesting you have to have your butt in a seat for $X hours a day, but if you're really that disenchanted with your job - why would you not pursue some other line of work that you find more rewarding?
We're all on salary. Unless whatever I'm working on is going to boost my options enough to make it worth my while (it won't), there's no reason to break my back.
Why should I bust my ass, just to get an extra percentage point on my yearly raise? I can work 30 hours a week and get 4%, or 60 hours and get 5%. The math just doesn’t make sense unless you’re working for a company you either founded, have significant equity in, or there’s some kind of profit sharing mechanism that actually results in a substantial amount of money.
I've known many such in my career. They weren't fooling anybody. Everybody knew who they were. When they'd get laid off or were passed over for a raise they were always baffled and outraged.
It doesn't matter that the slacker's peers know exactly what is going on. They're too busy doing their own work, and if they complain about it to Manager B, they won't be believed.
If you’re fast and working remote, you can still achieve seemingly normal output while reclaiming much of your time
I had to spend another week and a half reworking things. I got it to work well enough, but it would've gone smoother if he hadn't been involved at all. The result was crap.
PS. I love TheDailyWTF!
Punching in premade tickets for 2 hours a day sounds like you’re already dead.
I've seen a few places turn into "feature factories" where this is the day-to-day.