The Art of Thinking Long-Term Even When Money Is Running Out

Post by duxup » Thu, May 30, 2019, 2:26 PM UTC

mieseratte wrote: post #35

freetime2 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know that a 3-month temporary offer is really necessary. In California at least, where employment is "at-will", you can fire an employee at any time for almost any reason. My expectation when accepting a job offer is that if I am not successful in my role, I will be fired. Most jobs I have worked even have an official "probation period" for new employees where you have a set of goals you need to accomplish in…

> I don't know that a 3-month temporary offer is really necessary. In California at least, where employment is "at-will", Yeah, in an at-will state you might as well consider the "trial" period to be in place no matter what. If things don't work out well they'll just toss your ass to the curb. Maybe if you're lucky like me your boss will have a soul and give you some amount of severance at least.

Post by gregknicholson » Fri, May 31, 2019, 8:38 AM UTC

andrewstuart wrote: post #22

freetime2 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think developers should even necessarily explain that this is what they are doing, because then they have to ask permission to do it. In my experience, it pays to be open with product managers and QA about what you are working on, how you are implementing it, what the risks and benefits are, etc. For example, it helps QA to focus their testing efforts on the areas that are most likely to be broken by a refa…

You make good points and I tend to agree with you. On the other hand I remember on some projects there being real (HUGE) pushback from the client about doing anything that wasn't implementing features exactly as they define and "are paying for". As soon as you declare that you are doing something "optional", it gets political, people start talking about it, it escalates to project manager, their bosses boss etc and t…