Why I Don't Do Unpaid Overtime and Neither Should You • Hacker News Board

Re: Why I Don't Do Unpaid Overtime and Neither Should You

#111

Post by mattmanser » Tue, Feb 28, 2012, 2:27 PM UTC

grellas wrote: post #48

The U.S. has a strong free enterprise foundation and its laws reflect this. Freedom of contract remains the rule even though it is much criticized in some circles and has been hedged considerably over the years. In employment, the old rule was that you could pretty much fire anyone at will for any reason and, if you did, you incurred no legal consequence. This is pure freedom of contract. In time, this unrestricted f…

There are two problems with your wall of text.

Firstly your comparison to lawyering is disingenuous, lawyering has the partnership model, you take a load of young naive idiots, you dangle this partnership jackpot in front of their noses and then you work them to the bone doing dull and even pointless work that you bill your clients many $$$s an hour for while the partners take the bulk of that money home. Lots drop out, some make partner, the cycle repeats. It's a 'jackpot' industry.

Programming is not that way, there's a massive demand for programmers, there's not a massive demand for young lawyers.

The second problem is your belief that working long hours = working 'exceedingly hard'.

There's a massive body of evidence that working past 35-40 hours per week that you're actually less productive in the medium to long term past about a month, it's bad for your health and the whole scenario feeds on itself in a horrible vicious cycle as employees who decide to 'opt out' of it get punished with no promotions and lower raises, perhaps even fired.

You see posts like yours trotted out when anyone puts their hand up and says 'hey, why are we working these long hours?'. Worse still in the UK, where a lot of companies also have this ridiculous culture, we have contracts in place specifying the amount of hours to be worked but they are just ignored. The employer is wilfully and knowingly breaking the contract and often lying to prospective employees in the interviews. But what can you do, you took the job and you can't have too many jobs in the last 2 years as people will begin to wonder.

But we have to protect startups and free enterprise right. Because all managers and CEOs know exactly what they're doing and have been taught that creating a culture of long hours rapidly creates pointless busy work zombies where everyone's losing.

And that's where you're argument falls flat on its face. Turns out we're not actually training any managers they just wing it and one of the intuitive fallacies everyone subscribes to is that more hours at the desk means more hours of production that somehow putting more hours means you're working 'exceedingly hard' instead of the truth which is 'exceedingly inefficiently'.

Perhaps it is time for government to step in as the free market's quite obviously failing at it as they refuse to listen to the scientists and worse are totally ignorant about studies done 100 years ago.

Re: Why I Don't Do Unpaid Overtime and Neither Should You

#112

Post by tptacek » Tue, Feb 28, 2012, 2:29 PM UTC

mefistofele wrote: post #12

Many industries are forbidden, by law, from unpaid overtime. The law specifically exempts the software industry from this requirement. Like so many other things about the culture here, this issue seems to come down to the US being afraid of its own shadow. We're the greatest country on Earth... we say so all the time. But to change the law and forbid unpaid overtime for the software industry, something that will make…

The software industry is not uniformly exempt from overtime.

Re: Why I Don't Do Unpaid Overtime and Neither Should You

#113

Post by tptacek » Tue, Feb 28, 2012, 2:41 PM UTC

mattmanser wrote: post #111

grellas wrote: post #48

The U.S. has a strong free enterprise foundation and its laws reflect this. Freedom of contract remains the rule even though it is much criticized in some circles and has been hedged considerably over the years. In employment, the old rule was that you could pretty much fire anyone at will for any reason and, if you did, you incurred no legal consequence. This is pure freedom of contract. In time, this unrestricted f…

There are two problems with your wall of text. Firstly your comparison to lawyering is disingenuous, lawyering has the partnership model, you take a load of young naive idiots, you dangle this partnership jackpot in front of their noses and then you work them to the bone doing dull and even pointless work that you bill your clients many $$$s an hour for while the partners take the bulk of that money home. Lots drop o…

You're not arguing with Grellas so much as cherry picking sentences out of his comment and howling at them in isolation. If we extract the signal from your comment --- that partner-track law careers are problematic, that working unreasonably hard is a bad idea for employer and employee alike --- from the emotion, we find a series of arguments that Grellas himself likely agrees with.

In some cases I can guess that he agrees with your underlying argument because he's written comments to that effect in the past (for instance, you can use the search bar at the bottom of the page to find out some of what he thinks of partner-track law). In others, unfortunately, I can guess that he agrees because the very comment you're replying to says that he does.

I think I speak for a lot of people on HN when I ask that you not berate one of the more uniquely valuable contributors to HN for writing "walls of text". He writes differently than you and I; longer, yes, but also much more carefully and considerately. I have never, ever seen him address someone else on HN the way you just did him.

Re: Why I Don't Do Unpaid Overtime and Neither Should You

#114

Post by campnic » Tue, Feb 28, 2012, 2:41 PM UTC

orblivion wrote: post #94

urbanjunkie wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I don't believe that most such employees see their work as "slavery" when they have to work excessive hours. I think they see it as career development" That made me laugh. "Top executives" typically have compensation packages that, to some degree, directly tie their compensation to the overall company performance. Thus, the harder they work, the more likely it is that the company will perform to or above expectation…

Would they keep their job if they refused to work more than 40 hours? Is there a 40 hour a week job out there that pays and furthers their career comperably? If not, I don't know what to call it other than career development.

The problem I see with many of these lines of thought are that they grossly over simplify the effects of situation and environmental factors. Even if there exists a comparable job with better hours, its existence doesn't always make it a viable alternative. Is being stuck in a mortgage or with a sick spouse license for an employer to demand you work 70 hours a week?

Re: Why I Don't Do Unpaid Overtime and Neither Should You

#115

Post by joering2 » Tue, Feb 28, 2012, 2:41 PM UTC

mseebach wrote: post #80

alan_cx wrote: post #53

I don't know much about US employment law, and what I do know, I don't like. But what I do know is this: No employer has ever, ever given me free money, and I have never expected it. There for, I have never ever given an employer free time, and never ever will. To do different is insane. It lowers one's worth since the deal is an exchange of money for time. It makes the employer think your free time is theirs to expl…

So, I agree with the point made in another comment about this not being so much about overtime, but about crap jobs. But: > the deal is an exchange of money for time It's not really, no. It's an exchange of work for time. If you're doing an exchange of time, you'll be punching in and out, and the boss worrying about your "butt in seat" productivity metric is reasonable. It doesn't necessarily follow that you should w…

> No employer has ever, ever given me free money, and I have never expected it. There for, I have never ever given an employer free time, and never ever will.

This is a top-notch comment to me, Alan! Printed and pinned to my wall!

> It's not really, no. It's an exchange of work for time.

I agree with Alan. When it comes to basics, you do exchange your time for whatever it is employer wants you to do. Other worlds: you wouldnt be able to do any job for an employee if you wouldnt be asked by him, wouldnt have tools, wouldnt represent the company, etc. Of course quality of work is important, so does work etiquette and preferably stable family status. But again, this all boils down to an exchange: time for money.

> If you're doing an exchange of time, you'll be punching in and out

I'm sure "productivity metrics" did not exist before first employee started working. Its was a byproduct of how to deal with lazy workers, just like seat belts are answers to the fact that people had car accidents.

He will not punch in out because then he is fired, regardless how much time or knowledge he has to "share".

Re: Why I Don't Do Unpaid Overtime and Neither Should You

#116

Post by batista » Tue, Feb 28, 2012, 2:44 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #110

batista wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of the points you're arguing with follow from my comment. Huh? You specifically said in your comment that: " a qualified employee will simply quit an abusive job and sell their skills to a more reasonable employer ". This is exactly what I addressed.

No, it clearly isn't. You used a series of terms that I didn't that changed the meaning of what I said, then argued against that instead of what I actually said.

Well, what you said is "qualified guys can quit and shop around".

You might not have meant that "thus average guys are ok to suffer unpaid overtime", but I didn't argue against what you "actually said" or "meant to say", I argued about what the above stance implies.

And, yes, for a lot of people, it implies "and screw the average guy".

Re: Why I Don't Do Unpaid Overtime and Neither Should You

#117

Post by Klinky » Tue, Feb 28, 2012, 2:44 PM UTC

BadassFractal wrote: post #14

cletus wrote: post #7

This is a rant that's a bit all over the place. The author points out a lot of exceptions (eg working at a startup or somewhere where you might get something out of it). If you take out all those exceptions, you basically end up with the crap jobs. The real problems with a crap job isn't the unpaid overtimes... it's that it's a crap jobs . The fact is though, you get as much out of pretty much anything in life as you…

I agree that if your own health and that of your family didn't depend on your employer liking you, true at-will employment would be a lot more realistic. Right now many people are afraid of rocking the boat too much or to stand up for themselves because in case they get fired they might go bankrupt in case of an accident (I think realistically it might not be as dramatic, I think COBRA retroactively applies to whatev…

What if you have a chronic illness that will never allow you to be "healthy" regardless of what lifestyle choices you make? Additionally COBRA allows you to pay the full unsubsidized cost of your insurance, not your normal subsidized premiums. As far as employer culture, that is something you really do not understand fully until you've been on the job for awhile. You could very well end up in a worse position than the one you left. You can't just say "I don't like it here, so I am going to go over there for awhile, if it doesn't work out then I'll come back'. No. It's a risk & the risk is your livelihood & possibly your health. All are reasons people don't just bail when the job starts going downhill.

Re: Why I Don't Do Unpaid Overtime and Neither Should You

#118

Post by tptacek » Tue, Feb 28, 2012, 2:45 PM UTC

batista wrote: post #116

tptacek wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it clearly isn't. You used a series of terms that I didn't that changed the meaning of what I said, then argued against that instead of what I actually said.

Well, what you said is "qualified guys can quit and shop around". You might not have meant that "thus average guys are ok to suffer unpaid overtime", but I didn't argue against what you "actually said" or "meant to say", I argued about what the above stance implies. And, yes, for a lot of people, it implies "and screw the average guy".

Here you've used the word "imply" to suggest that any words you choose to put in my mouth must also have been in my head. But, of course, no.

Re: Why I Don't Do Unpaid Overtime and Neither Should You

#119

Post by campnic » Tue, Feb 28, 2012, 2:53 PM UTC

bdunbar wrote: post #91

Tichy wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really understand the logic, because it seems to me that as long as they pay taxes in the US, they are just as "socialist" as, say, Germany with their health insurance. What is the difference if you build roads for the common good or buy health insurance for the common good. Also I don't understand how capitalism makes health care tied to employment. In theory shouldn't there be health insurers who are willin…

In theory shouldn't there be health insurers who are willing to ensure you just as long as you pay your rates? There are, in actual fact, insurance companies in the US that will do this. Some make it a business to cater to self-employed folks who don't have company insurance. It's been a while since I thought about this, but (IIRC) the 'private companies pay for insurance' deal got started in World War II, as a perk.…

I think it's the convenience.

I think its because employers for large companies get the only reasonable health care rates in the country. If you work for a large employer and you have a way as an individual to get comparative coverage for the same cost ignoring any pre-existing conditions, I'd love to hear it.

Re: Why I Don't Do Unpaid Overtime and Neither Should You

#120

Post by tptacek » Tue, Feb 28, 2012, 2:57 PM UTC

campnic wrote: post #114

orblivion wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would they keep their job if they refused to work more than 40 hours? Is there a 40 hour a week job out there that pays and furthers their career comperably? If not, I don't know what to call it other than career development.

The problem I see with many of these lines of thought are that they grossly over simplify the effects of situation and environmental factors. Even if there exists a comparable job with better hours, its existence doesn't always make it a viable alternative. Is being stuck in a mortgage or with a sick spouse license for an employer to demand you work 70 hours a week?

Look at it from a mechanically rational perspective. Your protagonist has a mortgage and a family and we're on a tech message board so let's stipulate that this is a technology worker making the average wage for, say, a programmer in Grand Rapids, MI. That's $73,000 (before benefits), or $35/hour for 40 hour weeks.

You ask, "is being stuck in a mortgage with a sick spouse license for an employer to demand 70 hours a week?". Well, at 70 hours a week, our protagonist is effectively being paid $19.78 per hour. That's almost $2 higher than the average income of employees in Grand Rapids, MI.

What you're effectively asking is, should it be lawful for employers to pay people less based on their situation?

On the one hand, there are plenty of circumstances where it clearly isn't lawful to do that. For instance, you can't pay people less because they're of Indian origin, or because they practice Judaism, or because they're female.

On the other hand, the circumstances of individual employees play into compensation decisions all the time in every job. You are effectively being paid less because of circumstances mostly out of your control any time you take a job outside of San Francisco or New York; the premium earned by technology workers in San Francisco exceeds cost-of-living adjustments significantly.

So where do you draw the line? Is the line "you can't be paid less because of illnesses in your immediate family?" I'd agree with that rule, but how often does it really come into play?

For what it's worth, speaking on behalf of an employer: we don't like 70 hour weeks. We work hard to keep them from happening and, for the most part, people get out the door here in time for dinner (it's hard to say, because some people stroll in the door just in time for lunch). Making people work overtime here, paid or not, is a bad idea because it makes it hard to retain talent. I'd like to think that if there was an economic rationale for overtaxing our team, we still wouldn't do that because it's immoral... but my morals haven't been tested on this issue, because it would be irrational of us to coerce people into working overtime.