I understand, and I think that you're right that we probably mostly agree with each other. I just have a few nits to pick.
>if you want to take this offline I think my email is in my profile
Your account appears to be a throwaway and doesn't contain an email address.
>My only caveat is that if another team member needs your help in office hours, you need to be able to talk to them and help them.
What are "office hours"? Unfortunately, this is tantamount to an ordinary dictated work schedule. If you can't say "Hey, I'll get to this in [some period of time > 30 mins and I would say the only schedule expectation should be attendance at specific, pre-planned meetings, barring emergency needs. If you have a colleague that needs a video chat or real-time communication and you're not able to run into each other naturally, I would say it should be scheduled, just like anything else. As long as time can be made within 24 hours, I don't think there's a big issue there. Even in remote environments (and I've been a full-time remote worker for over 10 [non-consecutive] years), extemporaneous meetings are too often a distraction and a drain on productivity.
I understand that's a lot of freedom to give employees and that not all of them can handle it. In those cases, I would suggest the privilege be removed in specific instances rather than assuming that no employee can handle this responsibility.
>If you're "at work" but really you're on hacker news - as I am right now - then I'm not getting "quality" brain time.
I've always encouraged my subordinates to spend a (paid) hour or two every so often reviewing the industry news in trade outlets like HN. Staying abreast of industry developments and engaging with the discussion about them as they emerge makes everyone a much more effective programmer. I wouldn't say it's not quality brain time.
Tech employees are knowledge workers. Expanding their knowledge is absolutely beneficial to you and its importance shouldn't be discounted.
Obviously, 7 out of 8 hours per day is excessive.
>They'll spend 3 days writing a post function, not because it took 3 days but because thats how much time I seemed to agree with in the estimate.
While I agree that laziness is a potential explanation for this type of behavior, there are several other factors that can cause it, like an employee's feeling that their input isn't considered trustworthy or valuable. In the real world, please don't discount potential explanations that aren't laziness, especially if the employee has a good track record at other employers.
>who cares, the lying on the timesheet issue is the only problem and I'll cover for them the best I can if they get caught.
First, most employees who do this work aren't going to be filling out a timesheet. Are you talking about contractors? I'm confused why they're not paid a regular salary.
Second, sometimes you just have to understand that there's a translation barrier here and what the HR dept really means when they ask to affirm a 40-hour work week is "Did you honestly provide the expected amount of value to the company this week?", to which the truthful answer is "Yes." (This is especially true if you're monopolozing a chunk of time known as "office hours" and demanding that people be available within that timeframe -- I would say that should count as paid even if they don't have anything to respond to. You're still consuming their availability.) While people may be entering a literal value that isn't commensurate with the literal reality it appears to represent, the intent and spirit of the question has been correctly fulfilled. Thus, it's improper to call this a "lie", especially when, as already discussed, the 40 hours put in by conventional office workers are so clearly half-hearted, even resentful.
Other than this, it sounds like we're in pretty good agreement.