Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On Being Indispensable

sofuckingagile.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 296 posts

Re: On Being Indispensable

#191

Post by kubanczyk »

at_a_remove wrote: post #5

In an age where loyalty between employer and employee is long in rear window (if it wasn't just a useful fable from the get-go), all you are left with are the grim permutations of game theory, all wary glances and knife edges barely concealed. Being indispensable is the closest thing you have to security, and as for "stopping learning," well, most companies want you to do that in your off-time, anyway. Throwing that…

You do write beautiful prose here, at least comparing to an average HN comment.

Re: On Being Indispensable

#193

Post by rmah »

galangalalgol wrote: post #172
cesaref wrote: post #144

I worked for a european investment bank for a number of years, and they had a policy that every year, every employee (without exception) was required to take 2 weeks holiday as a contiguous block, and during that time, their access to the company was removed, so no email access, no remote login, keycard access to the office removed etc. They basically ran the 'suspend this person from the organisation' script and res…

That is brilliant! In the US it isn't that unusual to find companies that don't even offer 2 weeks vacation in total though.

The US financial industry has almost the exact same contiguous time off requirement for the same reasons.

Re: On Being Indispensable

#194

Post by pc86 »

kaba0 wrote: post #132
CapitalistCartr wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Principles are a luxury not afforded the poor masses.

If you are indispensable, then surely you have quite a leverage.

No.

Scenario: There is a project your boss is wholly responsible for. You, from a technical perspective, are absolutely indispensable to the success of said project. Maybe it's a small team, or everyone is overloaded, but you can draw a direct line between you quitting (or doing a bad job) and your boss getting called out or potentially fired.

Your boss, however, is not indispensable to their boss, nor is this project indispensable to the larger department. You ask for your raise because of your leverage. Your boss might be worried and try to get it for you. Their boss, not caring about this project that much in the broader context of their work, laughs and says no.

You can absolutely be critical to the success of a project, and even important to your boss's future, but have no real leverage over your situation. That's absolutely a reason to leave but it doesn't mean you'll be able to squeeze any more money out of the place before you do.

Re: On Being Indispensable

#195

Post by LanceH »

jaywalk wrote: post #189
galangalalgol wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is brilliant! In the US it isn't that unusual to find companies that don't even offer 2 weeks vacation in total though.

Come on. Outside of the lowest-level hourly positions, you're not going to find any US company that doesn't offer at least two weeks vacation.

Sadly, there are too many companies that offer zero PTO in the first year.

Re: On Being Indispensable

#196

Post by pc86 »

iamacyborg wrote: post #184
goodpoint wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because human beings are not coin operated robots?

So they should do unpaid emotional labour for free?

If you equate smiling at someone, or just being generally courteous, with "emotional labor," you need to make an emergency appointment with your therapist.

Being a good human being more often than not (occasional bad moods notwithstanding) should be a non-functional requirement for any job where you interact with other people. I have no problem with anyone, in any role, getting fired simply for being an asshole. The world would be a happier and better place for it.

Re: On Being Indispensable

#197

Post by goodpoint »

iamacyborg wrote: post #184
goodpoint wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because human beings are not coin operated robots?

So they should do unpaid emotional labour for free?

Many types of emotional interaction are meaningful and true only when they are unpaid. Some big examples: friendship and love.

For employees not to be rude to customers as part of basic work requirements.

But putting on a false smile and feigning warmth to get a tip is a very different thing.

It's quite common and accepted in the US. But also seen as soulless and emotionally manipulative in many other cultures.

Re: On Being Indispensable

#198

Post by wpietri »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #176
hinkley wrote: post #10

In the spirit of the old saying, "the two happiest days of a boat owner's life are the day they buy a boat, and the day they sell it." The best advice I got starting out was, "be indispensable." The best advice I got four years later was, "don't be indispensable." In a growing company, the indispensable people may find themselves being left holding the bag while new initiatives are undertaken. I very quickly learned…

"My Company would be fine without me" also means you can take vacation, medical appointments, heck even weekend (crazy concept!). "Being Indispensable" can also mean two years of no physical or mental time off; it was not fun! I am currently lucky that all my layers of higher management understand that if my team can function effectively without me for a period of time, that means I'm doing my job well . I was able t…

> "My Company would be fine without me" also means you can take vacation, medical appointments, heck even weekend (crazy concept!).

This is so worth it! A decade ago, I was the technical cofounder of a still-small startup. For a while, it was just me and my co-founder. But when we got signs of product-market fit, I hired a team of developers. We set it up so the default was pair programming with frequent pair rotation, with a lot of other tweaks to make it very collaborative.

This paid off in a lot of ways, but for me the biggest came when my mom got sick. I had to fly across the country and stay for weeks at a time to help her and coordinate her care. I was worried things might grind to a halt. But because every commit to the code base involved at least two people, it was fine. There were things I understood better than others, but there was nothing that was a scary mystery that nobody had touched.

When I left the company, it was the same deal. We were on good terms, so they were welcome to call. But they rarely if ever did! It was great to pop in now and again and see them just chugging ahead.

Re: On Being Indispensable

#199

Post by tomcatfish »

jaywalk wrote: post #189
galangalalgol wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is brilliant! In the US it isn't that unusual to find companies that don't even offer 2 weeks vacation in total though.

Come on. Outside of the lowest-level hourly positions, you're not going to find any US company that doesn't offer at least two weeks vacation.

The federal government gives 0.5 days leave per every 2 weeks worked. Note that that implies 0.5*(52/2) = 13 days possible to accrue in a year.

I think showing the feds do it should sway you pretty far away from your above position. If not, I'm curious what evidence could be provided that would.

Re: On Being Indispensable

#200

Post by jlund-molfese »

rmah wrote: post #193
galangalalgol wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is brilliant! In the US it isn't that unusual to find companies that don't even offer 2 weeks vacation in total though.

The US financial industry has almost the exact same contiguous time off requirement for the same reasons.

Can you provide a source or examples? Asking out of ignorance—I've worked in insurance and currently work for a US-based financial services company, but haven't heard of this practice before.
Post reply on HN