131–140 of 170 posts
I want to write and learn good coding for myself. While the boss would be just as happy with crappy code as good code, as long as he sees that project percentage increase, it just makes me happier to do it right as much as possible, even if I spend my own time on it.
Here is something I don't understand: How does one effectively deliver on a project while writing crappy code? Doesn't trying to do that result in the codebase becoming so confusing that you don't know how to add things to it without breaking other things?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does democracy give employees "control of their own life"? In any organization of appreciable size, your vote doesn't matter. Capitalism gives employees control; your life has changed immediately after you exercise your option to exit. Voting simply doesn't. It's also potentially very harmful, due to the principal/agent problem. Every agent (employee) has the incentive to loot the company, build empires, and prot…
> But such things are of course very bad for organizations. I'd say the ideals of a worker cooperative is that the workers _are_ the organization. The organization is a means to an end for all workers benefit. Not the other way around as is usually the case in a totalitarian capitalistic one. And yes you're right, Capitalism gives you as much control giving as any totalitarian system, quitting/exile. As the goal of w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've worked for this company! Recently even. We also had those wonderful quarterly AND yearly reviews that don't accomplish anything other than give management a way to fire.
AKA performance review theater!
I'm glad I no longer work there, but at the same time I mostly worked with really great people.
This article is wrong. Why is it wrong? It talks about fulfilling work and a great boss as if it's the ONLY thing that employees look for. BY common sense what employees look for is a huge multitude of factors combined together part of which includes "Free lunches, more vacation time, latte machines --- and don't forget a ping pong table." It is stupid to discard all of these things as inconsequential when the employ…
Not all jobs can offer growth. It's in everybody's best interests if you just move on from such jobs once you outgrow them. I spent two and a half years at my current job maintaining a legacy codebase. I looked for, and explored, growth opportunities at that job. In the end, I had to find them myself. Nobody at the company could really put in the effort it would have taken to keep me fulfilled, so I did it myself. I…
Problem is, no one offering those jobs is willing to say so up front. There are plenty of people who would have no problem taking such a job, knowing it's only for a few years, and then moving on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I firmly believe that anybody can grow at any job. It's nice when the company can help you do that, but your own growth is your responsibility, and nobody else's. I'm not talking about personal growth. I'm talking about growth in benefits, like salary or working environment. People leave companies or learn new skills to get more benefits. The company needs to provide better benefits, continuously, or the employee le…
> The company needs to provide better benefits, continuously, or the employee leaves. This smacks of entitlement. The employee won't necessarily leave, there are many reasons why they wouldn't. There's a whole world of jobs out there that aren't tech, these fields don't have the luxury of an expanding industry propping up salaries, providing a social ladder. Even in tech, I don't see anything wrong with the decision…
No, it doesn't. To say so is to ignore reality. Business is constantly demanding more growth, more revenue, more profit. Is it honestly that surprising that those who are making that happen be expected to share in that when it does happen? And is it honestly a problem that the employee goes and finds someone who is willing to give them those things if their current employer won't?
>There's a whole world of jobs out there that aren't tech, these fields don't have the luxury of an expanding industry propping up salaries, providing a social ladder.
Good for them. I'm in tech, and I do have that, so I will take advantage of it. To not do so would be foolish.
>Even in tech, I don't see anything wrong with the decision to keep the same compensation, and turn over staff every few years.
Now who's the one who sounds entitled?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This smacks of entitlement. Employees should feel entitled. They generate 99% of our GDP while 50% of that GDP goes to the top 1% of the population. The capitalist employer / employee relationship is designed to screw over the employee. The word "entitlement" is a classic guilt tripping technique used by either employee or employer. Ignore it, because as an employee you will never get a high enough salary that can t…
You know what keeps real employees satisfied at their jobs, not just the entitled ones that expect the good life to just come to them? A sense of purpose. The feeling that what you do matters . The feeling that at the end of the day, you've accomplished something. Something worth giving 1/3 of your life towards. You're hiding your greed behind classist nonsense. You don't want a sense of purpose, you just want that p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why can't you vote on the strong vision? Voting will aggregate the value functions and solve your problem. Democratic cooperative doesn't mean that everything has to be voted on. It can have hierarchy, if employees find such arrangement useful; the point is that you have a (collective) right to overrule it.
Strong visions can be arrived at collectively -- but it requires trust, not voting. If I have 10 people, and 7 vote A and 3 vote B, then A should be the collective "strong vision". The thing is, those three people that voted for B still think that B was the best approach, because nothing has worked to change their mind post-vote. It's exactly equivalent to your boss coming and telling you to take out the trash, when…
I don't disagree, but now you seem to claim something else. Originally you just wanted a strong vision with goals, regardless whether the employees agree. Now you want buy-in too.
And there is also principle of subsidiarity. If people strongly disagree on the vision, they can come to some compromise where they realize each vision in their own domains. (As John Carmack put it: "if you are not sure, explore both solutions".)
It's pretty simple: If they don't care about me, why should I care about their product? I'll still come in and do the job, but why should I put in extra effort?
Funny thing missing from this thread: Money. Doesn't anyone work for money anymore? You know, that stuff that allows you to survive day to day? I guess it just sounds better to say that you go to work to "change the world" or "fulfill a lifelong passion" or "grow your career". Saying you're in it for money is crass. If I want personal fulfillment or engaging projects or ping pong, I can do that outside of work, AND I…
Because after a while, more money doesn't motivate. Most of us are making levels of money where an extra $10k or so isn't really going to make as much of a difference in your day to day life as some of these other things.