Comment On Difficult Personality

If I am not showing up for works someday, I will no tbe having a job tomorow.

I see what you did, there:

Clearly, there's only one supplier, blessed by a state-policed and state-enforced monopoly on these products: -

Wet Water (TM)
Zappy Electricity (TM)
Flammable Gas (TM)
Burny Coal (TM)
Ironic Iron (TM)
See-Through-Glass (TM)
The Horseless Carriage (TM)
The Telephonic Communicator (TM)
The Difference Engine (TM)
The Interwebs Browser (TM)

And BRAWNDO THE THIRST MUTILATOR(TM)

tldr; ahole manager micromanages out coffee breaks as waste of development time, then says to spend an entire afternoon mopping.

The whole mopping thing seems to be sticking point. What hasn't been mentioned is that it depends on the relationship between the boss/workers and the corporate culture. If you are being held to no coffee breaks because they waste time, have a review where you get dinged for missing targets because you are doing tasks that fit in the "any other duties asked" clause of the employment agreement, or are treated poorly, then no way -- don't mop the damn floor.

If everyone at the company is pitching in to keep things running, you are not going to be held to working unpaid overtime to make up for the time lost mopping, or in general the relationship/culture is a good one, then pick up the damn mop.

I'm a doctor. Guess what? I mop the floor after a case when I need to (the tech is gone or otherwise busy). It's actually somewhat relaxing -- it is relatively mindless, safe (no sharps with the mop!), has concrete results, and best of all involves no paperwork. It also means I am done with the case, can change out of my sweat soaked scrubs, get a hot drink, and go home (so that I can start the paperwork). Quadruple win for this special snowflake.

- Amorpho

[quote user="In the money"][Quote]TRWTF is that there's an innate assumption in these comments that people can just afford to quit a job because it sucks without first having another job to go to. [/quote]

Unless you are just starting out, or have recently had a major disaster, one should have at least six months living cash on hand..with nine to twelve months preferred.

People think this is difficult, or "impossible" but it is actually quite easy to build up this type of buffer.[/quote]I didn't know "In the money" was Clark Howard! Welcome to WTF Clark!

Guys, I've got some bad news. Alex passed earlier this morning, and we're trying to work out what to do with his funeral arrangements. I will post something on this site when I know more.

Please keep his family in your thoughts.

Remy Porter:

Guys, I've got some bad news. Alex passed earlier this morning, and we're trying to work out what to do with his funeral arrangements. I will post something on this site when I know more.

Please keep his family in your thoughts.

What did he pass? Was it bad gas? Because hearing about his cookouts I'm sure he can pass some major gas after that!

Dave:

Nagesh:

ubersoldat:

New blood gets mop duties.

OMG, so epic!!! Now run!!!

Wow I don't believing this at all. In India we have cleaning crew coming in every day twice to clean floor and carpet. Is this America or some other god forsaked country?

Hey, here in Uhmerrca we have a cleaning-crew caste as well, only they speak Spanish instead of Hindi. Unlike India though, our untouchables are at the top of the heap, not the bottom.

Wow,you are simply stuck in 1980 or 1970. Untouchability is dead. We are all touching each other now. Do not let any newspaper tell you any lies.

Your Name:

You know, come to think of it, why not have a small coffee machine at each desk, for greater time efficiency? It's not like they're expensive nowadays.

Because then you can't micromanage them about taking breaks or their usage of company caffeine.

Yetiman Jetty:

Your Name:

You know, come to think of it, why not have a small coffee machine at each desk, for greater time efficiency? It's not like they're expensive nowadays.

Because then you can't micromanage them about taking breaks or their usage of company caffeine.

When the firm I worked for once was bought out by an American outfit, there was talk that CCTV was going to be installed in the bathrooms so as to make sure no employee was slacking off.

ObiWayneKenobi:

You don't ask nobility to do the job of a peasant.

I think it's more a matter of the way one is asked to do something outside of their normal job. A polite "Can you please help out" verses an insane "You VILL comply!" can make all the difference in the response a manager gets.

Matt Westwood:

Yetiman Jetty:

Your Name:

You know, come to think of it, why not have a small coffee machine at each desk, for greater time efficiency? It's not like they're expensive nowadays.

Because then you can't micromanage them about taking breaks or their usage of company caffeine.

When the firm I worked for once was bought out by an American outfit, there was talk that CCTV was going to be installed in the bathrooms so as to make sure no employee was jacking off.

FTFY

s73v3r:

Jay:

You seem to have missed Adam Smith's point. He didn't say that all business owners are infinitely wise and intelligent. What he said was that in a free market, the businesses that are better run tend to prosper -- "better run" meaning able to produce quality products at a low price, retain highly-qualified employees, etc. -- and the businesses taht are poorly run tend to fail, thus freeing up resources to be made available to the better-run businesses. If ALL business owners were geniuses, most of what AS said would be irrelevant.

In real life, even in an ideal free market, the poorly-run businesses do not instantly fail because they rarely have absolute zero productivity. It is not a matter of some companies are 100% good and others are 100% incompetent. Markets are complex, so it takes time to shake out what works and what doesn't.

In Richard's scenario, when the government intrudes in the marketplace, it could theoretically help speed up the process of shifting resources to the more efficient businesses. But to do that, two conditions must be true:

(a) Politicians and government officials understand this particular industry better than the people who are actually working in it or consuming it's products. Government people tend to just take it for granted that one man who studied law in college and has spent his whole life in politics, and who just spent a few weeks (or a few hours) reading about the latest ideas in, say, how to produce energy, now knows more about it then the collective knowledge of a thousand people who have been actually doing it 40+ hours a week for decades. Oh, and that magazine article he read that he is basing all his decisions on was probably written by an academic who has never done any of this in real life either.

(b) We must assume that the government's goal is to improve efficiency or productivity. But of course 90% of the time that isn't the government's goal. The real goal is to pay back campaign contributors, or buy votes for the next election, or, at absolute best, to pursue some utopian scheme of how the politician wishes the world really worked. Like

You mention that the "better run" businesses would prosper, because "better run" means being able to produce more products at a lower price, and retain better talent. But that can often be at odds with one another. Depending on what market you're in, often price is the only thing that consumers really care about. Thus, the one that can produce things cheapest will win, or at least have some significant market share. A lot of companies feel that treating their workers like shit allows them to make things cheaper.

I don't believe your assumption A is valid in the least. There's a reason Congress tends to hold lots of hearings on things.

As for B, I don't think perfect efficiency should be a concern to the government. China is pretty God damned efficient, but I don't think you'll see anyone here, at least who's not a member of the 1%, who would want to have labor conditions like China's. Government should care more about making things better for the people than caring about efficiency.

I once read a transcript of an interview with Henry Ford about 100 years ago. The reporter began by noting that Ford Motor Company was now paying the highest salaries of any manufacturing company. Ford replied, What? No. We don't pay the highest salaries, we pay the lowest. The reporter was surprised, and quoted the hourly wage Ford was then paying. (I think it was something like $8 a day, but that was good pay back then.) Oh, Ford replied, you're counting dollars per hour. But what I'm concerned about is dollars per car built.

The point being: From the company's point of view, they want to get the most productivity per dollar paid. If you pay low wages and have lousy working conditions, the only people you'll get will be those who can't find anything better. If you make the job more attractive, people will want to work there, and you can take your pick of the best qualified people. Plus morale will be higher.

Of course there are limits. If a fast food place offered $100 an hour to people making hamburgers, they could surely get the best hamburger flippers in the country, but they'd probably still quickly go broke because even the most productive hamburger flippers couldn't produce $100 worth of hamburgers per hour.

The trick -- again, from the company's point of view -- is to find the salary, benefits, and working conditions that give the most bang for the buck. Of course this is no different from any spending decision. When I buy a car, I don't buy the cheapest piece of junk I can find at the used car lot to save money, nor do I buy the most expensive luxury model to get top quality. I look for some reasonable trade-off between price, features, and quality. A company hiring employees does the same.

There are, of course, companies that are stupid about this and try to pay their employees dirt and work them like slaves. Such companies rarely prosper.

But bear in mind that what you consider being treated like dirt, others might consider a great job. Like, some people will gladly work in horrible conditions for sufficiently high pay. Others would say no way, I wouldn't do that for a million dollars. Some people are quite happy to do mindless, repetitive tasks, when that also means they don't have to take any responsibility for decisions. Etc.

snoofle:

ObiWayneKenobi:

You don't ask nobility to do the job of a peasant.

I think it's more a matter of the way one is asked to do something outside of their normal job. A polite "Can you please help out" verses an insane "You VILL comply!" can make all the difference in the response a manager gets.

That too. I'm more inclined to lend a hand if it's a "Hey, can you pitch in to help Bob clean the break room after the company party?" than a "Part of your weekly duties will be to clean the toilets so Mr. Smith can save money on a cleaning crew."

ObiWayneKenobi:

That too. I'm more inclined to lend a hand if it's a "Hey, can you pitch in to help Bob clean the break room after the company party?" than a "Part of your weekly duties will be to clean the toilets so Mr. Smith can save money on a cleaning crew."

I want that head so clean and squared away that the Virgin Mary herself would be proud to go in there and take a dump.

Remy Porter:

Guys, I've got some bad news. Alex passed earlier this morning, and we're trying to work out what to do with his funeral arrangements. I will post something on this site when I know more.

Please keep his family in your thoughts.

This was actually funny the first couple of times you posted it.

wonk:

ObiWayneKenobi:

That too. I'm more inclined to lend a hand if it's a "Hey, can you pitch in to help Bob clean the break room after the company party?" than a "Part of your weekly duties will be to clean the toilets so Mr. Smith can save money on a cleaning crew."

I want that head so clean and squared away that the Virgin Mary herself would be proud to go in there and take a dump.

Sacriledge, I'm sure the Virgin Mary never had to take a dump! That was part of the miracle of the whole event I am sure.

Partly as a troll and partly not (yes, I know I'm doing that wrong) I would argue that no great nation has been built without slavery or an overworked, underpaid lower class. Granted, there are plenty of downfalls of nations/leaders caused by the uprising of the slaves/working class through history. Most the turmoil in 'merka could arguably be the working class rising against "the man". However, one can see great wonders of the world which were built on the backs of slaves for a wealthy manager.

Ben Jammin:

Partly as a troll and partly not (yes, I know I'm doing that wrong) I would argue that no great nation has been built without slavery or an overworked, underpaid lower class. Granted, there are plenty of downfalls of nations/leaders caused by the uprising of the slaves/working class through history. Most the turmoil in 'merka could arguably be the working class rising against "the man". However, one can see great wonders of the world which were built on the backs of slaves for a wealthy manager.

Our problem is not that we have a lower class, slaves, serfs or whatever you want to call them, but rather the way we view them as something not worth our effort.
There is a fantasy series out there that poses a new way to look at these people, the peasants of society, they are proud and treated with respect even though they are not wealthy because they are "the back upon which a city is built". It is all about attitude.

ffelthc what:

Personally, I wouldn't have the slightest problem with cleaning the office. You're getting paid developer money to wander round with a mop daydreaming on Friday afternoon, resting up for the weekend, instead of trying to cudgel a last bit of work out of your tired brain at the end of the week? Sounds great to me. It's not like there's suddenly going to be a rush surprise clean-up job keeping you at your desk all evening.

I _like_ writing code. I _hate_ mopping.


You should consider a new career if those words are interchangeable for you.


captcha: ideo -- If you ask me to mop instead of coding, then it's IDEos Amigos!

KattMan:

the peasants of society, they are proud and treated with respect even though they are not wealthy because they are "the back upon which a city is built". It is all about attitude.

The problem is there are buttloads of "backs" running around with little to do except breed more "backs" which further reduces their value due to supply and demand, which they never seem to understand because they didn't pay attention in school.

What's in short supply is the "brains" upon which a city is also built.

Ayn Rand covered this rather nicely. There was a deep impassible canyon. There it stood for centuries, in the midst of abundant resources and unemployed labor. Neither of those did anything. Then one brain came along and created a bridge. Everyone for miles around benefited from the goods which could now cross, and the savings in travel time vs. going around.

Of course, the masses hated the brain for his success, revealing their lack of vision, and maneuvered to take him down. Seeing this, the brains decided to go on strike and withdraw their services from society, which proceeded to collapse. But at least then everyone was equal -- equally suffering in the muck. So there was that.

Amorpho:

I'm a doctor. Guess what? I mop the floor after a case when I need to (the tech is gone or otherwise busy). It's actually somewhat relaxing -- it is relatively mindless, safe (no sharps with the mop!), has concrete results, and best of all involves no paperwork. It also means I am done with the case, can change out of my sweat soaked scrubs, get a hot drink, and go home (so that I can start the paperwork). Quadruple win for this special snowflake.

- Amorpho

The issue here isn't that developer X doesn't want to help everyone else clean up. It's that developer X is being treated like a servant and forced to do work that someone else is getting paid to, after being scared out of leaving his desk for coffee.

The equivalent would be the Dean of Medicine punishing you for going into surgery instead of mopping the floor for Doctor B.

Jerry:

KattMan:

the peasants of society, they are proud and treated with respect even though they are not wealthy because they are "the back upon which a city is built". It is all about attitude.

The problem is there are buttloads of "backs" running around with little to do except breed more "backs" which further reduces their value due to supply and demand, which they never seem to understand because they didn't pay attention in school.

What's in short supply is the "brains" upon which a city is also built.

Ayn Rand covered this rather nicely. There was a deep impassible canyon. There it stood for centuries, in the midst of abundant resources and unemployed labor. Neither of those did anything. Then one brain came along and created a bridge. Everyone for miles around benefited from the goods which could now cross, and the savings in travel time vs. going around.

Of course, the masses hated the brain for his success, revealing their lack of vision, and maneuvered to take him down. Seeing this, the brains decided to go on strike and withdraw their services from society, which proceeded to collapse. But at least then everyone was equal -- equally suffering in the muck. So there was that.

You libertarian simpletons have completely misinterpreted what I said. Please go back to school.

Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand's Ghost:

You libertarian simpletons have completely misinterpreted what I said. Please go back to school.

Ayn Rand.

Would you care to elaborate? Or have you lost your writing skills since becoming dead and now all you can do is call names?

MrBester:

Googled "lumbergh", still no wiser. You want to make up new gerunds, fine. Just use something those who aren't USians might have a cat in hell's chance of understanding.

"Googled"? I entered that term into a search engine and I'm still dumb as a dog turd. You want to invent new verbs? Fine, but at least use something so those of us whose head is (literally) buried in a cow's arse might have a better-than-John Wayne Bobbit's penis's chance of understanding.

FOAD...You have the caste system. Poor f**ks have to make money in India any way they can.

>Wow I don't believing this at all. In India we have cleaning crew coming in every day twice to clean floor and carpet. Is this America or some other god forsaked country?[/quote]

@Ben: Switzerland
@Katt: Minbari Worker Caste

I don't clean my own house and I'm sure not gonna clean yours.

MrWorser:

MrBester:

Googled "lumbergh", still no wiser. You want to make up new gerunds, fine. Just use something those who aren't USians might have a cat in hell's chance of understanding.

"Googled"? I entered that term into a search engine and I'm still dumb as a dog turd. You want to invent new verbs? Fine, but at least use something so those of us whose head is (literally) buried in a cow's arse might have a better-than-John Wayne Bobbit's penis's chance of understanding.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/google

I guess the joke's on you.

Jerry:

KattMan:

the peasants of society, they are proud and treated with respect even though they are not wealthy because they are "the back upon which a city is built". It is all about attitude.

The problem is there are buttloads of "backs" running around with little to do except breed more "backs" which further reduces their value due to supply and demand, which they never seem to understand because they didn't pay attention in school.

What's in short supply is the "brains" upon which a city is also built.

Ayn Rand covered this rather nicely. There was a deep impassible canyon. There it stood for centuries, in the midst of abundant resources and unemployed labor. Neither of those did anything. Then one brain came along and created a bridge. Everyone for miles around benefited from the goods which could now cross, and the savings in travel time vs. going around.

Of course, the masses hated the brain for his success, revealing their lack of vision, and maneuvered to take him down. Seeing this, the brains decided to go on strike and withdraw their services from society, which proceeded to collapse. But at least then everyone was equal -- equally suffering in the muck. So there was that.

Neocon BS

MrWorser:

MrBester:

Googled "lumbergh", still no wiser. You want to make up new gerunds, fine. Just use something those who aren't USians might have a cat in hell's chance of understanding.

"Googled"? I entered that term into a search engine and I'm still dumb as a dog turd. You want to invent new verbs? Fine, but at least use something so those of us whose head is (literally) buried in a cow's arse might have a better-than-John Wayne Bobbit's penis's chance of understanding.

Oh good fucking grief. The first fucking hit when I entered lumbergh was Wikipedia's page on Bill Lumbergh. What are you, shit-for-brains?

Anon:

TRWTF is that the begin part about trying to get a meeting with Bill seemed to be completely unrelated to the rest of the story. Seriously, WTF?!?

+1

I didn't even had to look at the author, once can smell Remy Porter contributions.

Zapp Brannigan:

Richard:

Robyrt:

This is why the musicians' union mandates a quick break every 90 minutes: that's about the amount of time you can expect full productivity from people before they start getting bored or squirrelly.

If it truly makes people more productive overall, the union wouldn't have to mandate it. The employers would require it, in their own self interest.

If employers weren't sometimes their own worst enemy, unions wouldn't be needed.

-1
Actually, unions are the reason why employers can act this way.

Matt Westwood:

MrWorser:

MrBester:

Googled "lumbergh", still no wiser. You want to make up new gerunds, fine. Just use something those who aren't USians might have a cat in hell's chance of understanding.

"Googled"? I entered that term into a search engine and I'm still dumb as a dog turd. You want to invent new verbs? Fine, but at least use something so those of us whose head is (literally) buried in a cow's arse might have a better-than-John Wayne Bobbit's penis's chance of understanding.

Oh good fucking grief. The first fucking hit when I entered lumbergh was Wikipedia's page on Bill Lumbergh. What are you, shit-for-brains?

Incidentally, I've just been googling, and it turns out there appears to be a considerable prejudice against people who use googling as a means of gaining knowledge. Why the fuck should that be? Why is it more honourable and worthy to know what you do from having gained your knowledge out of a book?

I suppose there's a parallel from the age of Caxton:
A: "Did you know that Saint Augustine said that ... (yadayada)"
B: How do you know that? When did *you* get to speak to Saint Augistine? Oh, *I* know (mocking tone): you read it out of a book."

Bollocks.

All hail the information revolution. Nobody has the tiniest excuse to be ignorant about anything if they have an adequate bandwidth. All you stupid-and-proud-of-it fuckwits can eat my shit.

MrBester:

Googled "lumbergh", still no wiser. You want to make up new gerunds, fine. Just use something those who aren't USians might have a cat in hell's chance of understanding.

Are you allowed to work in IT without having seen Office Space? I thought that was codified as an international standard by the UN. - Remy

i think i've seen it two weeks ago and i did not recognize the reference.

Mr Keith:

@Ben: Switzerland

Think again. Switzerland used cheap italian labor to build the Gotthard tunnel. Around 200 of them actually DIED building it.

freakpants:

Mr Keith:

@Ben: Switzerland

Think again. Switzerland used cheap italian labor to build the Gotthard tunnel. Around 200 of them actually DIED building it.

Poe's Law, I know, but also: Switzerland - got rich from the plundered gold...

Matt Westwood:

I suppose there's a parallel from the age of Caxton:
A: "Did you know that Saint Augustine said that ... (yadayada)"
B: How do you know that? When did *you* get to speak to Saint Augistine? Oh, *I* know (mocking tone): you read it out of a book."

Bollocks.

All hail the information revolution. Nobody has the tiniest excuse to be ignorant about anything if they have an adequate bandwidth. All you stupid-and-proud-of-it fuckwits can eat my shit.

There's no need to go back to the age of Caxton. The term "book-smart" is to this day occasionally used here as a pejorative.

Don:

Nagesh:

ubersoldat:

New blood gets mop duties.

OMG, so epic!!! Now run!!!

Wow I don't believing this at all. In India we have cleaning crew coming in every day twice to clean floor and carpet. Is this America or some other god forsaked country?

Erm what's the difference between the two??

One is a large former British colony with a broken economy that is full of underpaid programmers, the other is a large former British colony with a broken economy that is full of underpaid programmers.

I really can't see how you could get them mixed up.

Jerry:

Ayn Rand's Ghost:

You libertarian simpletons have completely misinterpreted what I said. Please go back to school.

Ayn Rand.

Would you care to elaborate? Or have you lost your writing skills since becoming dead and now all you can do is call names?

Ayn Rand was a wanker and so are you.

PedanticCurmudgeon:

Matt Westwood:

I suppose there's a parallel from the age of Caxton:
A: "Did you know that Saint Augustine said that ... (yadayada)"
B: How do you know that? When did *you* get to speak to Saint Augistine? Oh, *I* know (mocking tone): you read it out of a book."

Bollocks.

All hail the information revolution. Nobody has the tiniest excuse to be ignorant about anything if they have an adequate bandwidth. All you stupid-and-proud-of-it fuckwits can eat my shit.

There's no need to go back to the age of Caxton. The term "book-smart" is to this day occasionally used here as a pejorative.

I agree. Also, the biggest problem with the information revolution is that all the no talent twits with enough bandwidth spend their time posting pictures of stupid shit they did on social networks and looking up mixed drink recipes, instead of actually trying to learn something.

wonk:

ObiWayneKenobi:

That too. I'm more inclined to lend a hand if it's a "Hey, can you pitch in to help Bob clean the break room after the company party?" than a "Part of your weekly duties will be to clean the toilets so Mr. Smith can save money on a cleaning crew."

I want that head so clean and squared away that the Virgin Mary herself would be proud to go in there and take a dump.

Sir, yes, Sir!

Jerry:

Ayn Rand's Ghost:

You libertarian simpletons have completely misinterpreted what I said. Please go back to school.

Ayn Rand.

Would you care to elaborate? Or have you lost your writing skills since becoming dead and now all you can do is call names?

Look like you have been troled. Ayn Rand is dead and she write one book called Fountainhead. Full of erotic writings.

A Concerned Citizen:

Don:

Nagesh:

ubersoldat:

New blood gets mop duties.

OMG, so epic!!! Now run!!!

Wow I don't believing this at all. In India we have cleaning crew coming in every day twice to clean floor and carpet. Is this America or some other god forsaked country?

Erm what's the difference between the two??

One is a large former British colony with a broken economy that is full of underpaid programmers, the other is a large former British colony with a broken economy that is full of underpaid programmers.

I really can't see how you could get them mixed up.

You're funny guy and full of wit sayings.

Amorpho:

tldr; ahole manager micromanages out coffee breaks as waste of development time, then says to spend an entire afternoon mopping.

The whole mopping thing seems to be sticking point. What hasn't been mentioned is that it depends on the relationship between the boss/workers and the corporate culture. If you are being held to no coffee breaks because they waste time, have a review where you get dinged for missing targets because you are doing tasks that fit in the "any other duties asked" clause of the employment agreement, or are treated poorly, then no way -- don't mop the damn floor.

If everyone at the company is pitching in to keep things running, you are not going to be held to working unpaid overtime to make up for the time lost mopping, or in general the relationship/culture is a good one, then pick up the damn mop.

I'm a doctor. Guess what? I mop the floor after a case when I need to (the tech is gone or otherwise busy). It's actually somewhat relaxing -- it is relatively mindless, safe (no sharps with the mop!), has concrete results, and best of all involves no paperwork. It also means I am done with the case, can change out of my sweat soaked scrubs, get a hot drink, and go home (so that I can start the paperwork). Quadruple win for this special snowflake.

- Amorpho

Seriously, you missed the whole fucking part about the place having an actual cleaning crew on staff. There is no reason to "pick up the damn mop".

Mathew:

Zapp Brannigan:

Richard:

Robyrt:

This is why the musicians' union mandates a quick break every 90 minutes: that's about the amount of time you can expect full productivity from people before they start getting bored or squirrelly.

If it truly makes people more productive overall, the union wouldn't have to mandate it. The employers would require it, in their own self interest.

If employers weren't sometimes their own worst enemy, unions wouldn't be needed.

-1
Actually, unions are the reason why employers can act this way.

No, they're not. Only someone completely ignorant of labor history prior to the advent of unions would think something like that.

DonaldK:

Nonsense.

A boss that micro-manages but then have his developers clean the office?

No, totally believable. Inside the mind of Frank, "Efficiency"=="Doing what I say"

Richard:

Robyrt:

This is why the musicians' union mandates a quick break every 90 minutes: that's about the amount of time you can expect full productivity from people before they start getting bored or squirrelly.

If it truly makes people more productive overall, the union wouldn't have to mandate it. The employers would require it, in their own self interest.

Except that's not how the real world works. Employers often fail to realise that productivity can be increased this way.

They crunch numbers that say if you can build a car in an hour, you can build 8 cars a day. If you discovered you could build two cars in 90 minutes provided you got a 20 minute break then there's a clear potential to increase efficiency. Now go convince your employer.....I'm sure they'll decide that this means you can build a car in 45 minutes, so you'll do 10 a day....

Richard:

Zapp Brannigan:

Richard:

Robyrt:

This is why the musicians' union mandates a quick break every 90 minutes: that's about the amount of time you can expect full productivity from people before they start getting bored or squirrelly.

If it truly makes people more productive overall, the union wouldn't have to mandate it. The employers would require it, in their own self interest.

If employers weren't sometimes their own worst enemy, unions wouldn't be needed.

Let's imagine two companies, Acme and Bozhead. They make the same product. Acme arranges the pay, breaks etc. to maximize employee happiness and productivity. Bozhead is run by a-holes.

1. Wouldn't the best employees gravitate toward Acme?

2. Wouldn't that leave Bozhead staffed mostly by losers?

3. Wouldn't Acme's happier smarter more productive employees be able to produce more product at a lower price than the grumpy Bozhead losers?

4. Wouldn't Acme succeed and Bozhead fail?

So why do we see so many Bozhead companies? There must be something interfering with the natural, necessary process that allows Bozheads to fail.

A. Bailouts (taxpayer funded).

B. Gargantuan bewildering regulations (enforcement taxpayer funded) that present a huge barrier to entry, ensuring that once Bozhead gets a foothold in a particular market, Acme can never come along and challenge them.

C. "Intellectual property" laws (enforcement taxpayer funded) that ensure no two companies can sell the same product, thereby eliminating competition and preserving a-hole companies.

Can anyone start to see a theme here?

Several other factors too:
D. Managers will still be convinced that their slave driving will work - and employees who are too scared, incompetent or lazy to move on

E. Nagesh's who are happy to work the sub-standard conditions because it means they can call themselves IT professionals despite their (relative) lack of ability

As an interesting side note, the likes of google often struggle to keep quality IT Talent, despite their perceived easy workplaces....I wonder why that could be - perhaps being able to do your own thing simply doesn't present enough of a challenge -> Or perhaps it allows people to realise they'd be better off using their talents for their own gain. No matter how well an employer treats you, your work will always be worth more money that what you're getting....

s73v3r:

ffelthc what:

Anon:

TRWTF is that the begin part about trying to get a meeting with Bill seemed to be completely unrelated to the rest of the story. Seriously, WTF?!?

Oh, wait, it started with him trying to setup a Friday meeting, and then he couldn't because he had the Friday mop-and-slop. So he lost an entire Friday and part of Monday.

I should really read more carefully.

I understood that Bill wasn't willing to spend time educating the newbie until after the Friday afternoon cleaning session, because the chances were so high it would be wasted time when the newbie didn't come back on Monday.

Personally, I wouldn't have the slightest problem with cleaning the office. You're getting paid developer money to wander round with a mop daydreaming on Friday afternoon, resting up for the weekend, instead of trying to cudgel a last bit of work out of your tired brain at the end of the week? Sounds great to me. It's not like there's suddenly going to be a rush surprise clean-up job keeping you at your desk all evening.

1). I'm guessing there are developer tasks that would be a far better use of my time on Friday afternoon.

2). It's entirely possible that there are some fires that need to be put out, but because of the idiotic cleaning requirement, now you have to wait til the end of the day, and sacrifice your Friday night to fix it.

3). Frank already pays a cleaning crew.

4). I fucking hate cleaning. I hate doing it. I do it at home because if I don't, no one else will, and I'd rather not live in filth. But at work? When others are already being paid to do so? It's not in my job description, and had I known that it would be a requirement, my salary requirements would have just shot up $25k.

Ya what?

By that logic the cleaners (who would have to clean more often than just a Friday Afternoon) should be qetting paid somewhere near $250K? (4 hrs a week for $25K = 40hrs for $250k)...

I hate cleaning too but I don't see how a greater pay-check is warranted in this sort of a case - I would think a dev's salary for a cleaner is already high enough....

Anyway, I thought the American way was to do a half-assed job in such situations....

I don't think it's arrogance at all. Managers are supposed to organise and facilitate the needs of their direct reports, and part of that is giving direction. If you take the attitude that you're the boss and can tell people what to do, then you're probably not a very good manager and I doubt anyone really likes working for you.

I'm highly paid but that's because I'm highly skilled and in demand. If you fire me I'll just find another (probably better) job and you'll be left understaffed and searching for a replacement. I wouldn't tolerate an employee who refuses to do the work they were hired to do. But asking a developer to play janitor is laughable.

I think it's also worth pointing out that I am mostly paid for what I know and not what I do. So if my boss wants me to do work outside of my technical skills then I'll need to be compensated for that. In this situation, I would not mop floors unless I was paid a janitor's wages in addition to my regular salary.