21–30 of 52 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which tech companies are both making a lot of money and still allowing remote work?
Which one isn't?
Which tech companies are profitable, pay in the same range as those 6 and are still allowing fully remote work?
In this environment, I wouldn’t move to any company that’s not profitable. Not that profitability prevents layoffs. I definitely wouldn’t hang my hat on “equity” in a non public company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. The real adaptation is more aggressive management with a short trigger to pip someone or fire them. Better and more engaged line managers solves the problem.
which moves back to the problem of companies not being able to retain talent because employees are now feeling pressured and getting "burnt out"...
I think that it's ok, if they can do that much work. I mean everyone can take two or three jobs even without remote jobs. Though with remote working it is easier to do two or three jobs if they are similar and you can send same work to both companies. It's not a problem before it's about copyright.
And if your employment contract -- like nearly every employment contract -- explicitly says "you will devote 40 hours a week to this role; and you will not take on outside obligations without giving written notice to the company" -- Is still "ok"?
Non competes in Canada and the EU are generally not enforceable but you see them regularly. Why should this line be any different.
Edit: which -> why
This entire argument is simple. If you’re a manager and you hire someone, you trust them to do the job you want doing. If you don’t trust them to do the job, don’t hire them. If you don’t trust anyone, then you have trust issues and probably shouldn’t be a manager and should instead go and work on yourself. If someone betrays your trust or doesn’t perform the job adequately: fire them. If someone performs the job ade…
It's not that simple unfortunately. Some jobs have onboarding, which can last for weeks or even months. While in theory you can figure out if you're being screwed by an employee during onboarding, it would make the entire process a living hell for the employee. So most of the times you go with "they're new, they're learning, let's keep them for X months". If the person decides to slack it off after onboarding than yo…
I think that is a risk with hiring regardless. Both sides have an information gap.
I joined a place and within a week realized it was a disaster and I didn't want to work there. If the company had informed me half the teams had quit / was in the process of quiting I would not have joined. It's not like I could go back and get my old job
This entire argument is simple. If you’re a manager and you hire someone, you trust them to do the job you want doing. If you don’t trust them to do the job, don’t hire them. If you don’t trust anyone, then you have trust issues and probably shouldn’t be a manager and should instead go and work on yourself. If someone betrays your trust or doesn’t perform the job adequately: fire them. If someone performs the job ade…
It's not that simple unfortunately. Some jobs have onboarding, which can last for weeks or even months. While in theory you can figure out if you're being screwed by an employee during onboarding, it would make the entire process a living hell for the employee. So most of the times you go with "they're new, they're learning, let's keep them for X months". If the person decides to slack it off after onboarding than yo…
It sucks being a manager and pumping tons of time trying to get someone up to speed and not knowing if they just need more investment and support that will pay off or if they aren't reciprocating effort and working other jobs.
After being burned, my default is little compassion and investment in full remote employees. Ill train in office employees because I have more confidence I'm not wasting my time.
This is on top of the fact that multiple employment usually requires directly lying to your manager and coworkers, inflating task difficulty, or creating problems for others to slow the overall pace of a project.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which one isn't?
Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Apple, Netflix Which tech companies are profitable, pay in the same range as those 6 and are still allowing fully remote work? In this environment, I wouldn’t move to any company that’s not profitable. Not that profitability prevents layoffs. I definitely wouldn’t hang my hat on “equity” in a non public company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not that simple unfortunately. Some jobs have onboarding, which can last for weeks or even months. While in theory you can figure out if you're being screwed by an employee during onboarding, it would make the entire process a living hell for the employee. So most of the times you go with "they're new, they're learning, let's keep them for X months". If the person decides to slack it off after onboarding than yo…
it would be one thing if dishonest employees simply underperformed, but they also often suck up other people's time. It sucks being a manager and pumping tons of time trying to get someone up to speed and not knowing if they just need more investment and support that will pay off or if they aren't reciprocating effort and working other jobs. After being burned, my default is little compassion and investment in full r…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if your employment contract -- like nearly every employment contract -- explicitly says "you will devote 40 hours a week to this role; and you will not take on outside obligations without giving written notice to the company" -- Is still "ok"?
I think it is. Employers love to include whatever they can in a contract. Non competes in Canada and the EU are generally not enforceable but you see them regularly. Why should this line be any different. Edit: which -> why
Because it most definitely is not about non-compete agreements in the usual (post-employment) sense.
You understand that, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Apple, Netflix Which tech companies are profitable, pay in the same range as those 6 and are still allowing fully remote work? In this environment, I wouldn’t move to any company that’s not profitable. Not that profitability prevents layoffs. I definitely wouldn’t hang my hat on “equity” in a non public company.
I think all of them still allow full remote. Unfortunately not everyone gets that anymore, in spite of the pandemic showing that WFH was fully efficient.
I work at AWS. But my position “cloud consulting” was always designed to be fully remote even pre-Covid. I was assigned to a “virtual office” when I was hired.
If they had changed that, there would have had to have been a long conversation about compensation increase. I agreed to my compensation explicitly because it was fully remote in a lower cost of living area.
I still honestly would have only stuck it out until the job market improved.
Do you know what employees doing two jobs really is? Either savvy optimization of time or outright management failure. If you "get away with it", either: 1) your manager is not tracking and managing your time/productivity properly, or, 2) you're actually fit for purpose, the company is happy with your output, it meets expectations for what they pay and things are totally normal. Nobody is obliging these companies to…
If you have a multi-stage dev pipeline-- say with a user-testing, audit, or compliance phase somewhere in there-- it can become the bottleneck. If you have devs who can potentially push through N story points per sprint, but then it goes to {user testing, audit, compliance, QA, etc} that taps out at smaller M points, there's a lot of slack in the system.