Hacker News Reader

Comment by acqq | Hacker News Reader

Thanks. I'm from Europe, therefore really needing some explanations (to the opposite direction of the title subject of explaining European logic to the non-European readers):

> Overtime is a sign that something has gone terribly wrong

Why are there environments which don't think that the "overtime is a sign that something has gone terribly wrong?" How come that workers don't try to stand to their rights? Specifically:

> you're expected to work 50-60 hours a week

How come, if you sign the contract for e.g. 40 hours? The only thing workers are selling are their work hours, why do they accept to waste 25-50% of that?

At least Scott Adams gets it:

http://dilbert.com/strip/2011-12-19

View on HN

The American professional mindset is that you are hired for a role, and a good employee does what it takes to do that role. There are different rules (in California) for professionals who plan their own work and/or supervise others versus those in a service role, but the details are pretty meaningless... the effect is: if you're a professional you do what it takes to make the project succeed and make a good impression.

Combine this with another American trait, optimism, and you end up with over-ambitions projects that genuinely underestimate the effort and underestimate the resources, meetings that last twice as long because the first half was spent eating bagels and talking about something unrelated (oops!), and problems where everyone sincerely believes "we'll be able to solve later", and you end up with mad-dash, please delay your vacation, oh can you come in on Saturday, overtime. I also forgot to mention that you get bonus points for being the first one at work and that last one to leave, even if you're taking an awful lot of reddit breaks.

To Europeans it seems insane, to Americans it's funny but normal. The inverse also applies, it has taken me a long time to adjust to a detailed level of planning based on FTEs, make project plans that include unforeseen absences, and actually truly worry early on in the project.

I'm not quite sure most Americans find it 'funny' but rather do these things more so out of fear. Fear of job loss, fear of missed advancements, fear of missing out, etc. This also seems to explain why Americans as a whole take so little vacation time even when they are entitled to take time off [1].

[1] http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workpla...

This is just it - worker protection in the Netherlands is much better than in the US or UK; an employer can't just fire someone, for one. An employee cannot work for more than X hours a week - and if it's requested to work overtime or odd hours, the employer has to pay for it (up to 200% if working Sundays).

And if there weren't laws and worker inspections and whatnot in place already, people would go on strike - and that usually has a major effect, like nationally crippled transportation (of any sort) or rapid accumulation of trash.

Which TBF makes me a bit depressed about the Americans. Have all the Walmart employees unionize and go on strike - there's nothing the management can do, not even enforce their 'you cannot unionize' contract thing, if everyone goes against them.

Some people are afraid pushovers TBF. And the employers slowly turned them into that, by making them poor.

> there's nothing the management can do

On the contrary. Walmart's policy to date has been to simply close the store:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0210-13.htm

They got in trouble for that one, so now they at least pretend to have other excuses:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/union-walmart-shut-5-stores-over...

Part of it is that the most of the Walmart employees probably couldn't afford a prolonged strike. The company would hire scabs and wait them out. And the news would portray those people as being "entitled" and "whiny". In America, it's seen as if businesses are allowed to do everything they want, and if you don't like it, then you should quit. Even if what the business is doing is illegal.

> worker protection in the Netherlands is much better than in the US or UK

I don't think you should lump the UK with the US on this one. You can't "just fire someone" in the UK, most employees can't work more than 48hrs/week, paying extra for overtime is standard, 28 days holiday is minimum¹ and taking it is normal, if you're ill you don't need to use a holiday day, etc.

The new-ish government website is a bit of a mess for linking to whole sections, but anyway: https://www.gov.uk/browse/working

¹ That legal minimum includes public holidays.

In the Netherlands, strikes are actually rare when compared to surrounding countries, although there has been a small uptick recently.

the UK has FAR better worker protections than the US. These two countries should not be mentioned in the same sentence when it comes to worker protections.

as a Brit working in the US, I realise fear of losing healthcare is critical.

Well, I'm American and it sure seems insane to me, so I choose not to participate, and that's that.

It really is that simple.

Don't believe it is the companies forcing workers to do it as it is my experience that most, but not all of course, American men would rather be "working" then dealing with child raising.

it's not that simple.

For situation when you'll hear from management that they don't see you as engaged as others I guess your answer would be to just leave, it's that simple.

Thing is not everyone can easily change jobs. And it's not only a matter of (un)sufficient professional skills. (Less money outside of corp. environment or even number of jobs in particular location (and moving is also not on a plate sometimes))

Enjoy your chance not to participate but it's not really that simple

I choose not to participate, and that's that.

You know what, that's it. People complain all day long, but in the end it is just a choice. Nobody is being held at gun point and being asked to work long hours. Instead people make financial choices that they must now assume by working under terrible conditions, then they go home to complain about it.

While somewhat true, it's pretty bad that you basically have to just roll over and accept it if you want to own a house in an area not in economic crisis. You can live as frugally as you want, but a half-million-dollar mortgage sucks up a lot of income.

I've been seriously considering getting a really really really nice few-year-old RV (one of the 50' bus ones with expanding sides) as my home in order to opt-out of the housing stupidity and apartment renting game. It'd be nice to be able to own my home after just a few years paying the equivalent of what I currently pay for Bay Area rent. I'd still have to pay e.g. National Parks for staying the night, but I'd much much rather have my money go to them vs the slim land owners and apartment places here.

Agreed.

As for the second point, I would strongly recommend against an RV as your primary home. It is very likely to negatively affect your social life and could get into the way of a lasting romantic relationship. Perhaps (and this is just a guess) you would be better off employing your skills and time to make more instead of attempting to save more.

Just because a literal gun isn't used doesn't mean there isn't force involved. If you're not going to be able to pay rent without that job, then that is definitely force.

Sure you could be forced temporarily, but not indefinitely. If the situation persists, it must be somewhat you allowing it.

Note: I am not speaking of extreme cases here. There are definitely situations where some people find themselves in a vicious circle, but I assume that is the minority of cases.

It most definitely is not the minority of cases.

That's a very... nice way of putting it. One thing I've come across is employers who talk about having "unregulated hours" - you can come and go as you please as long as the work is done! Quickly, you discover that there's always work to be done. If you're done with client work and it's only 3pm, we have some internal stuff you could be working on. What if client work comes in at 4pm? Guess you need to stay later to get it done.

This is what inevitably ends up happening to me. Granted, I do get to go home at 5pm most days, but right now as the busy season is winding down, I find I have more time for duties I have had to let slide. Oh wait, nope, the big boss feels that those duties aren't as important as this pile of stuff he was going to do, but gosh darn it, he needs more time to browse Youtube! So I end up with a stack of BS that's above my pay grade while he fucks off in his office all day. Mean time, my actual duties stay on the back burner, and my other boss rides my ass about that and doesn't want to hear about what I've been forced to do by our big boss.

And they wonder why I'm looking for another job.

Those first two American workplace traits won't work well unless you include a third American workplace trait: They're far less subservient to their bosses, if they have bosses at all. Not like how the project is being done? You're expected as an employee to just take control and do it the way you think is better, asking for forgiveness later if needed.

Many top US tech companies truly have no direct bosses at all now, e.g. some kind of peer reviews system combined with whatever measurable results if available, replacing bosses. I suspect that this totally flat approach is only possible for very top-level best employee-quality companies though, as a single bad behaving person can really screw up the peer-review system.

Side note: In the US there's a strong split between "professional behavior" and "personal behavior". In (most?) of Europe that split in personality seems to be nearly non-existent, or even frowned upon. Each person is expected to have only 1 personality. So don't get confused that there's just 1 behavior culture in the US, there's at least 2 that every professional has.

Your comment above also applies to the UK, I would suggest. Your probably need to add "Continental" in front of "European".

That may be the case in the City (I have images of interns jumping from City skyscrapers in the back of my mind...) but not in the general labour market in my experience. Generally speaking, unless you've committed to something, screwed up, or contracting (£$£$), then you generally leave at the end of your shift or working day. However, I am genuinely intrigued why you think this - could you elaborate? Maybe I'm overworking without even knowing it.

I do work in an investment bank, but it's not a case of interns throwing themselves out of windows. It's more a case of "I'm a professional, and I gave my word I would complete X by a certain date, and if all that takes is a couple of extra hours then I will stay and complete it, rather than be unreliable."

Maybe down south, but I've never experienced anything like that up North.

Definitely down south. Not as bad as the US but very similar. Compared to the rest of Europe it sucks!

Deleted comment

As a Dutch person I was under the impression that the Dutch society is less hierarchical than the American society. Perhaps somebody who has worked in both countries can shed some light on it?

I don't think you can compare the US to Europe as a whole either, the workplace dynamic in southern Italy is completely different than in Norway.

My experience is that the Dutch are among the most 'anarchic' people I know. Everyone has an opinion on everything, and bosses try to just be 'one of the guys', and avoid exerting their authority overtly, as it's likely to backfire. Obviously this doesn't apply to all jobs, but I've experienced it a lot.

Americans, but to a lesser degree people from other nationalities too, tend to be much more authoritarian and are less inclined to hide the hierarchies.

I've experienced Dutch bosses struggle with 'being bosses' in Germany, as their 'flat' approach confused their employees. I've also had German bosses try to be 'one of the guys' in Holland, but not quite pulling it off (to sometimes hilarious effect).

I find this all fascinating that resonates well with me. I used to work in Germany but found them too formal and official in both working and personal relationships. Perhaps I should have tried it in the Netherlands.

Oh yeah. After three years I learned to appreciate the Germans to an extent, but I could never shake the feeling that, as a 'group', they're a bit like the boring, responsible, often humorless older sibling to the Dutch.

Both 'groups' have their own pros and cons though, to be fair. The Dutch can be horribly rude and argumentative...

>> The Dutch can be horribly rude and argumentative...

As a Russian, so can I. It can be a useful trait under circumstances, but I generally try to keep it in control.

If I get an idea to work in Europe again, I'll pay closer attention to the Dutch opportunities. It's important for the people to "click" on a cross-cultural level in order to work well as a team, and I'm afraid I didn't click nearly enough back in Germany.

Anyway, no culture is perfect. We're supposed to learn from each other and work on our bad sides as recognized in others and by others.

In my experience the Dutch get along pretty well with Russians. The main sources of 'conflict' I've noticed usually have to do with the fact that the Dutch like to rub their 'liberalness' in other people's faces, and many Russians I've met tend to be a bit more conservative/traditional in their values.

That said, my experience is also that it's more bark than bite. We love arguing and we love telling others our views unasked, but in practice we tend to be pretty, uh, pragmatic about our beliefs. We're essentially a country of merchants/salesmen, we have been for a long time, and getting into real arguments over beliefs is not good for business. It's something I both love and hate about our culture.

(This is generalizing, of course, but I've been shocked to find out more and more how strong a 'culture' can be, even on a national level.)

My dutch manager has a nice anecdote about how he worked in France and got in trouble when he walked to the labs and talked to the analysts there to get an idea of a project. The Project leader felt extremely bypassed and pissed. In Holland, if you would be pissed you would be considered a dick. Surely if your project members can't be trusted to know things about their project and to be positive about you, you should be fired.

In my company our group leader is judged by all employees every year and we openly discuss what we don't like about his management style. He earns a lot of respect by listening and changing or defending why he doesn't change.

The best managers find a perfect balance between competitive behavior, ego, humbleness and the ability to delegate and trust employees. Yes, the silicon valley eagerness is rewarded and encouraged but you really won't get anywhere if you are a dick. Guess that would make a dutch Steve Jobs impossible. Perhaps it is why we don't have a silicon valley equivalent.

Nations under dictators are effective but they are only nice places to be when she/he is benevolent.

I can understand why the Project leader felt slighted. It's their job to know the status of the project and to present that. If someone comes in and bypasses them, you're kinda saying that they're not needed.

He just wanted to get a feel for the problems of the project and the people. What lives in the project, what are the people like.

I guess your reaction illustrates my point nicely I don't even consider this "bypassing". Why not feel proud of your project members? To feel bypassed is saying your are the preferred person for all communication, surely anyone can decide for themselves who they want to talk to. Would you feel afraid they say bad things? Then you are not a good leader. If you are a good leader your team makes you look good. That's how I'd see it. If someone talks to your team he probably has a reason, why even think anything about it?

You might be selling hours. I'm selling value.

When I was hired, I said "I'm going to make X happen - this will give you Y competitive advantage over competitors Z1, Z2, and will generally do what I can to increase shareholder value". I made no promises about hours worked, and my employer isn't paying attention to that.

I "stand to my rights" when dealing with the police, government and other hostile parties - my employer and I have a collaborative relationship. We create value together and share in the proceeds. If the terms (the vast majority of which cannot be explicitly stated in a contract) no longer are mutually agreeable, we'll separate.

For most people they are doing generic work for a company. If you finish a task they give you another. There is an infinite amount of work to do. Therefore for the majority of people your statement means little. The employer would like them to work all hours to deliver more value. Every hour you work over 40 hours per week is a win for them and they are insatiable.

So how many hours per week do you actually work and is there any number of hours stated in your contract? I need these two variables to be able to reason about your claims.

Nothing is stated in my contract, and I don't carefully track my hours. I'd guess between 35 and 55. So I guess you can't reason about my claims.

Thanks. Can the other side of your contract complain if you simply don't come to work on some days? If they can complain then I believe you must have something specified, when not hours, then days.

Most Americans in salaried positions are not signing any kind of contract, and certainly not one that talks about hours.

I agree.

It's mainly semantics, but "shareholder value" sounds a bit narrow for me.

I would say the goal would be to improve the employer's idea/product/business. Or even a step further: society as a whole. Although shareholder value is the consequence in many cases, I personally wouldn't be motivated if I worded the goal of my collaborative relationship like that.

Also, while money is a useful result of this relationship, creating progress/improvement is the awesome part.

Because you have guys CEOs like Elon Musk or Steve Jobs that think it's okay to publicly flagellate their employees for missing work to witness the birth of their child.

And unfortunately those brilliant, but cruel, geniuses have inspired an entire segment of unskilled managers and bosses who now think that by cargo-culting dickheadedness they can rise to the top.

The rest of the country can't wait for the bubble to pop in Silicon Valley so we can stop hero-worshipping assholes...

I don't think it's Silicon Valleys fault. I see the same philosophy in every industry in every city in the US.

Americans don't have contracts. Instead, we suffer this weird thing called "at-will employment"[1].

[1] -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

The most insightful answer for me, thanks a lot!

If it's really common that:

"an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish 'just cause' for termination), and without warning"

then that explains the motivation of the workers to really please the bosses.

Is it really so common and easy to lose the job "just so"?

>Is it really so common and easy to lose the job "just so"?

That very much depends what the market conditions are in your industry. In good times, even bad bosses will try to act professional, and good bosses are often downright humane. In bad times, there's always someone up the org chart to take the blame so the boss doesn't look like a jerk.

But "no reason" firings are comparatively uncommon. That's really more of a legal classification for, "I fired her because I find her tone-of-voice insubordinate."

We still have ~1 Netherlands worth of union employees:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

(not a high percentage overall though)

I've never had a "contract" with an employer which specified the number of hours I was to work in a week. At most tere might be a verbal agreement on "core hours" in the office to be available for meetings, but there was certainly no upper limit on the number of hours to be worked and no concept of overtime.

This idea of a detailed employment contract is something I've only heard about from europeans, and I'd love to see what the contracts look like. Generally employment in the USA is "at-will" and either party can terminate the arrangement at any time for any (or no) reason, without further obligations.

Well, one, in America, workers don't have rights to stand up for. If you say no to working unpaid overtime, you're labeled "Not a team player" and fired.

Employers get away with it due to a mix of fear of being fired, and a bunch of people who act happy to give up their lives for the company.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com