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

The Burnout Machine

unionize.fyi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 695 posts

Re: The Burnout Machine

#591

Post by futureshock »

dkarl wrote: post #540

I have a hard time with this pitch because I've watched people burn out working alongside me, on the same team, for the same boss, on the same problems, for entirely personal reasons. I've also been in shitty situations with shitty bosses that caused me a lot of stress, and it's hard to point to any clear lines that were crossed. I haven't heard any proposed union rule that would protect me in those situations, just…

Strong worker protections can help in all kinds of situations. Case in point, I have a friend in Switzerland. He burned out and had a panic attack at work. The reasons were plausibly personal, but work stress always takes its toll as well. Switzerland has very strong worker protections and with a doctor’s approval he was able to take 6 paid months off while he recovered from the burnout. That was years ago and he has been back to work productively ever since.

We recognize physical impairment such as a broken leg but seem to have very little sympathy for the mental and emotional wellbeing of others.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#592

Post by jjmarr »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #543
nekochanwork wrote: post #530

I am an engineering manager for a large team of developers. Part of my job is to estimate the cost and potential revenue of big projects. I have a spreadsheet of everyone's salaries (including bonus compensation, other perks). I've done the math at my own company: average developer salary is approximately $100k. Our largest teams have 10 developers, so about $1M in labor costs. These teams work on projects that bring…

>> We literally earn $1,000,000 for every $100,000 developer salary. Start your own company, hire the developers for $200,000, double their income and get rich.

Tech CEOs will do anything to reach FAANG market caps and revenue except pay FAANG-level salaries.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#593

Post by billy99k »

nekochanwork wrote: post #530

I am an engineering manager for a large team of developers. Part of my job is to estimate the cost and potential revenue of big projects. I have a spreadsheet of everyone's salaries (including bonus compensation, other perks). I've done the math at my own company: average developer salary is approximately $100k. Our largest teams have 10 developers, so about $1M in labor costs. These teams work on projects that bring…

The alternative is to start your own company or start consulting. I've been doing this for over a decade and make great money compared to a salaried employee.

Doing this has also made me realize that development is only a small part of the overall process.

Most developers just want to code.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#594

Post by billy99k »

thom__ wrote: post #28

Awesome to see something like this on HN. As we keep working for less pay, more hours, the constant threat of layoffs, and business leaders frothing at the mouth to replace us all with AI, it's important to remember that we aren't powerless as workers. It's also important to remember that your relationship to the higher-ups is adversarial. They want to get as much productivity out of you for as little pay as possible…

Startups are risky and unionizing won't force them to keep you employed. In fact, it will create an environment of less startups and more large companies with less choices for the employee.

Union heavy countries like Sweden have almost no startup scene and wages are normalized (ie: almost all the same across white collar industries).

Re: The Burnout Machine

#595

Post by collingreen »

ever1337 wrote: post #550
Nemi wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is overly simplistic. I don’t fault you for it, but it shows a lack of understanding how a business functions. There is a lot of overhead that goes into running a business, as others have mentioned. Taxes. Rent. Utilities. Licenses. Certifications. HR, testers, project managers, product managers, people managers, directors, marketing, customer service, sales, C suite, and on and on. I know right now you might be…

And yet you still turn a profit at the end of the day, i.e., money that's not going to 'overhead'. Let's not kid ourselves. Your interest as the owner is to maximize that profit and minimize expenses, and our interest as workers is to maximize our wage and minimize your profit.

I don't agree that the worker's interest is or should be in minimizing company profit - this is a very zero sum approach that doesn't really cover companies that aren't stagnant or dying.

I agree with your general point that a business CAN increase profit by reducing costs, including by reducing employee compensation (and there are lots of shortsighted, greedy people out there) but increasing revenue instead is often much more significant and, in theory, can increase both employee take home and company profit.

A business is a mechanism to turn labor and other resources into revenue and often aligns with paying for more expensive talent in order to provide more valuable revenue. Businesses that are failing or stagnant can't grow revenue anymore and have to cut costs instead.

I don't think the imbalance between workers and companies is in a zero sum, adversarial relationship. I think the imbalance is in who gets to decide what to grow and what to cut (which is one place where collective bargaining helps a great deal).

Re: The Burnout Machine

#596

Post by h2zizzle »

SR2Z wrote: post #584
h2zizzle wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As it should be. No, this is just the (insane) status quo. Ideally, however, businesses exist to carry out a mission (beyond making money). Part of this mission is supporting the livelihoods of employees; part of it is giving a return to investors; part of should be some social net good (maybe within a larger societal context, if not unilaterally). Much as "maximizing" the price at which you sell yourself (ick) ofte…

> Ideally, however, businesses exist to carry out a mission (beyond making money). I mean, sure, but the defining difference between a business and a nonprofit is making money. It's important for companies to provide value to society but the way we measure that is by how much they earn. Despite several hundred years of people trying to come up with better ways to do this, this is the only one that seems to work.

Non-profit organizations are often colloquially called "non-profit businesses" in recognition of the fact that they are organized and operate as any other business would - in developing business plans, filing with the IRS, hiring employees, minding balance sheets, etc - except in ways related to their purposely not seeking a profit (though revenue is another matter).

>but the way we measure that is by how much they earn

Again, it's a flawed heuristic. Military contracting is wildly profitable. Value to society is questionable.

>this is the only one that seems to work.

Analysis of the subtle successes of social democracies and "Gross National Happiness" are just two examples that put the lie to this myth.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#597

Post by DrillShopper »

echelon wrote: post #424
DrillShopper wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you got a 10 figure exit then you're not working class.

I'm such a scatter brained dumbass sometimes. I meant "near 8 figures". I'm nowhere near "three commas" of wealth. I was emotionally responding to these pro-union comments between work and can't simple math. I still can't fathom the headspace of people wanting to do less and be entitled to more while the rest of the world is catching up and offering a better value. The lasier we get, the less likely we'll be picked t…

> I also can't reason about why people think this is about money rather than building cool shit.

I'm working to make money to pay my mortgage, put food on the table, save for retirement, and build a better life for my small family. That is the motivation that keeps me showing up.

If I want to build cool shit then I'll do it on my own time. Unfortunately, not everyone can build a startup.

The fact that you think a union only exists to "drag (you) down" speaks a lot about you.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#598

Post by Xmd5a »

collingreen wrote: post #595
ever1337 wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet you still turn a profit at the end of the day, i.e., money that's not going to 'overhead'. Let's not kid ourselves. Your interest as the owner is to maximize that profit and minimize expenses, and our interest as workers is to maximize our wage and minimize your profit.

I don't agree that the worker's interest is or should be in minimizing company profit - this is a very zero sum approach that doesn't really cover companies that aren't stagnant or dying. I agree with your general point that a business CAN increase profit by reducing costs, including by reducing employee compensation (and there are lots of shortsighted, greedy people out there) but increasing revenue instead is often…

>I don't agree that the worker's interest is or should be in minimizing company profit - this is a very zero sum approach

You misunderstood the post you're replying to. Workers vs CEOs (not companies).

Re: The Burnout Machine

#599

Post by snowAbstraction »

billy99k wrote: post #594
thom__ wrote: post #28

Awesome to see something like this on HN. As we keep working for less pay, more hours, the constant threat of layoffs, and business leaders frothing at the mouth to replace us all with AI, it's important to remember that we aren't powerless as workers. It's also important to remember that your relationship to the higher-ups is adversarial. They want to get as much productivity out of you for as little pay as possible…

Startups are risky and unionizing won't force them to keep you employed. In fact, it will create an environment of less startups and more large companies with less choices for the employee. Union heavy countries like Sweden have almost no startup scene and wages are normalized (ie: almost all the same across white collar industries).

Why do you think that Sweden has almost no start up scene?

According to this crunchbase data [1] it has a lot per capita.

[1] https://news.crunchbase.com/startups/countries-most-startup-...

Re: The Burnout Machine

#600

Post by SR2Z »

h2zizzle wrote: post #596
SR2Z wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ideally, however, businesses exist to carry out a mission (beyond making money). I mean, sure, but the defining difference between a business and a nonprofit is making money. It's important for companies to provide value to society but the way we measure that is by how much they earn. Despite several hundred years of people trying to come up with better ways to do this, this is the only one that seems to work.

Non-profit organizations are often colloquially called "non-profit businesses" in recognition of the fact that they are organized and operate as any other business would - in developing business plans, filing with the IRS, hiring employees, minding balance sheets, etc - except in ways related to their purposely not seeking a profit (though revenue is another matter). >but the way we measure that is by how much they e…

> Again, it's a flawed heuristic. Military contracting is wildly profitable. Value to society is questionable.

It's not questionable at all but if you don't already see that I'm not interested in arguing it with you.

> Analysis of the subtle successes of social democracies and "Gross National Happiness" are just two examples that put the lie to this myth.

GNH is cope from the Dragon King of Bhutan to justify the poverty and ethnic cleansing of his nation in the international community. The Nordic countries all have very high per-capita GDP.

If you wanna call my claim a myth, citing a few metrics which correlate really well with GDP is not very convincing.

Post reply on HN