Hacker News Reader

Comment by frenchy | Hacker News Reader

Would you mind explaining why? I have no problem working overtime if the conditions necessitate, but an employeer with these sorts of opinions is something that I would try hard to avoid.

View on HN

Because I want to hire people that are invested, not wage slaves. If you're counting every hour, then you're already clocking in and out, and you're probably either a) always looking for a better opportunity or b) the kind of person that wants to be comfortable and taken care of. I find that in the case of either, I get burned.

If you want people to act like they're invested, the most straightforward solution is to make them actually invested: include equity, options, or profit-sharing as a portion of the compensation.

If I'm being compensated straight salary, I'm not invested, and I'm not going to be working heroic hours or making sacrifices, no matter what my employer might wish for.

See, even if I had that, I wouldn't be working more than 40 hours per week. I have a wife and kid, and I value my home life greatly. I wouldn't put in a 50+ hour work week because that takes away time from the rest of my life. I would make sure I get everything that needs to be done in those 40 hours. If you have good estimates then there should be no need to work more than 40 hours a week. If you are making estimates based on more than 40 hours a week, then you're doing it wrong.

Well then, you should probably incentivize them with generous equity in the company, right? Without it, why should they work so hard just to make you richer?

And here is a truism: Even people who are 'invested' in their jobs are looking for something better, with 'better' being defined as more pay/equity, flexible hours, meaningful work, etc.

If you want to employ someone who is just as invested in the company as you are, then you should compensate them just as well as you are.

The only way I would ever be "invested" rather than a wage slave is if I own the business, or it's work that I truly cared passionately about - saving lives, saving the world. Most paying work isn't like that at all.

You don't want employees who are interested in better opportunities?

What kind of employees do you want, then? Loyal ones? In my experience, the most loyal employees are also the least productive.

This threw up a bit of a red flag for me: "the kind of person that wants to be comfortable and taken care of". Wouldn't that person be more productive?

Likewise, I tend to think that the ass-in-the-seat 40+ hour workers tend to correlate with the "always looking for a better opportunity" workers.

I'm talking about the kind of person that wants to work 9/5 and retire with a watch. The baby boomers that are now struggling to find jobs and the millenials that are more concerned with self-discovery than in making a contribution and earning their wages.

You want someone you can easily cheat, in other words. Someone who isn't looking after their own interests, and will gladly sacrifice their own time for no additional reward? Someone with no personal sense of identity, whom you can manipulate like a puppet on a string?

Would you expect your HR or finance people to not work only 9-5?

So people with occupational aspirations and a desire to be happy are somehow unworthy of working for your company?

What about the sort of person that needs to make sure their child is picked up from day care?

I don't care about little things like that as long as they aren't abused (you aren't really picking up your child from day care). I don't care when a person works as long as they contribute according to their role.

... and as long as it's more than 40 hours a week?

No. As long as they don't expect to clock an exact 40 every week. If we just finished a sprint and things are going well, I'm happy to tell people to go home or take a break.

If we're in a sprint, or shit hits the fan, or revenue is down, or anything else that requires hands on deck, I expect people to complete the task, even if it means more than 40 hours.

...even if it means leaving their kids at daycare.

A sprint with "hands on deck" to finish wordpress themes?

There are plenty of businesses making things that, if they stopped making them, would not stop the world from turning. The point is, it's a business, who is likely competing against many other businesses that would be all-to-happy to scoop up their market share. I don't agree that employees should be expected to consistently work more than 40 hours week after week. I do agree that when situations arise in business that requires full and focused effort of entire departments or the whole company, the managers/owners first better come to the employees, with hat-in-hand, and discuss why this is important for the company and the team before issuing their mandatory overtime decree.

I assume that your employees have worked at least one week with over 60 hours. Would you accept them working only 20 hours another week? Why should employees donate extra time to a for profit project if you can't do the same.

If a situation arise because of bad planning an employe are expected to donate their time, but if an employee finish the sprint early the company will find something extra for them to do.

Can you elaborate about "you aren't really picking up your child from day care"? I believe that if you aren't age- and gender-discriminating, then it should be that a noticeable percentage of your workforce do leave every single day at no later than exactly X'o clock to pick up their kids from daycare, and that is how it should be.

If I'm comfortable and taken care of, that also means I'm LESS likely to look elsewhere. But it doesn't mean I'm just gonna slack off and take advantage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com