Difficult Personality

  • Nagesh 2012-04-10 09:02
    Very important for management to prescent before subordinetes.
  • NPSF3000 2012-04-10 09:03
    LAME FRIST!

    AKISMIT!
  • anon 2012-04-10 09:07
    The real WTF isn't this company. The real WTF is not walking out on day two.
  • FrostCat 2012-04-10 09:15
    anon:
    The real WTF isn't this company. The real WTF is not walking out on day two.


    Or else, walking out instead of mopping the floor.
  • Steve The Cynic 2012-04-10 09:15
    The alleged problem caused by developers customising their desktops (no automatic familiarity with the layout on a colleague's machine) is trivial to solve, of course. Roaming profiles have their problems, especially if you have a mix of Windows versions - profiles rarely roam cleanly in this case - but they are the best solution to this problem.

    All of which assumes (1) a Windows-based network, (2) an NT-style domain, and (3) a semi-competent admin. Of course, the admin is probably Frank, but that's just one more reason to go.
  • Smug Unix User 2012-04-10 09:32
    Run. Grab your belongings and leave. Things will only get worse.
  • csrster 2012-04-10 09:36
    A highly-educated friend once got a job designing exhibits for a science museum. On the first day they handed her a mop "because of budget cuts". It was also her last day.
  • ubersoldat 2012-04-10 09:37
    New blood gets mop duties.

    OMG, so epic!!! Now run!!!
  • Nagesh 2012-04-10 09:45
    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?
  • Raplh 2012-04-10 09:45
    Roaming profiles are Windows' lame attempt to kludge around a pathetic problem that springs from their own failure to do it The Right Way like any mature OS did 30 years ago. (Hint: data can travel at the speed of light. There is no need for it to "roam".)

    But even without them, how the hell would one developer's desktop have any effect on what another developer saw?

    Methinks the WTF runs deep here. And the "F" clearly stands for Frank.
  • the beholder 2012-04-10 09:48
    FrostCat:
    anon:
    The real WTF isn't this company. The real WTF is not walking out on day two.


    Or else, walking out instead of mopping the floor.
    This. I would be somewhat annoyed by a boss micromanaging coffee breaks when I'm out of a resource - knowledge, in this case - I need to do my job. I would be extremely bored by a freaking 4 hour-long design meeting, in which 3 hours are purely about things that do not concern me now or in a near future, but that's still within acceptable boundaries. I would also hate to go through said 4-hour long meetings without as much as a 5 minutes break, but I still wouldn't jump the boat yet.

    But the cleaning part? It's too much stupidity to bear
  • Don 2012-04-10 09:48
    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??
  • Anon 2012-04-10 09:49
    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.
  • Your Name 2012-04-10 09:52
    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.
  • PiisAWheeL 2012-04-10 09:53
    Serves me right for expecting a better end to that story... :( Oh well.

    Thats the kind of workplace where you are a soldier. You do what is told and never volunteer for anything.
  • M 2012-04-10 10:01
    What The Frank?


    Capcha: wisi - I wisi never have to work for Frank.
  • Matt 2012-04-10 10:06
    You people and your customized desktop backgrounds make me sick. Creating new folders and organizing your files differently. You all think you're a bunch of special little snowflakes, don't you?
  • Robyrt 2012-04-10 10:09
    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.
  • DonaldK 2012-04-10 10:15
    Nonsense.

    A boss that micro-manages but then have his developers clean the office?
  • Anon 2012-04-10 10:22
    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.


    Wow! Passive-aggreive much? Editing my psts for me intead of repling is a bit underhandd. And my oiginal pont stands. It sudnly switches from talking abou Bill to taling about Frnk without explation.
  • ffelthc what 2012-04-10 10:24
    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.
  • pitchingchris 2012-04-10 10:30
    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.


    True, but you'll have to stretch your legs sometime
  • operagost 2012-04-10 10:31

    "What's happening?"

    It's spelled, "Whaaaaaaaaaaats happening."
  • Blinky 2012-04-10 10:41
    Yeah, this is definitely not in California, labor law violations like that would get Frank sued into the Stone Age.

    But yes, the RWTF is why is anyone working for this fool.
  • ObiWayneKenobi 2012-04-10 10:44
    This is standard operating procedure in a startup where the boss/grand poobah thinks he's God. And the response (i.e. quitting) is SOP too, although usually anyone with a clue doesn't wait a week they do it the second day.
  • ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL 2012-04-10 10:57
    lumberghed
    Um, yeaaaaaah, Alex, I'm going to have to ask you to post a WTF report on Thursdays now.

    Oh, oh, and I almost forgot. Ahh, I'm also gonna need you to go ahead and post one on Saturday and Sunday, too.

    (And I think Remy really should've cornified "lumberghed".)
  • frits 2012-04-10 10:57
    You know who else wanted to be a special little snowflake? Hitler
  • hatterson 2012-04-10 10:58
    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.

    In reality, normal people would see that their job is terrible and immediately begin looking for a new job while trying to milk the old job for all the pay you can. That pretty much seems like what Steve did.
  • Mr Glass 2012-04-10 10:59
    Mopping the floor is weird and extremely uneconomical, but a nice break from the dev work. Four hour long meetings every week, however - that'd really kill me!
  • MrBester 2012-04-10 11:00
    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
  • Nagesh 2012-04-10 11:01
    Nagesh:
    ubersoldat:
    New blood gets mop duties.

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


    In India we have cleaning crew coming in every day twice to clean floor and carpet.


    Lier, idiot. Even untouchables will not come by-weakly.
  • Richard 2012-04-10 11:01
    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.
  • Paul Neumann 2012-04-10 11:07
    Yeah, I got nothing ....

    The article was the troll today. I'm calling BS. What's on deck for tomorrow?
    Dear Penthouse, I never thought something like this would happen to a loser like me, but...
  • John 2012-04-10 11:08
    Other than the mop that sounds suspiciously like a previous employer.

    Although they insisted on 9-6 working with zero flexibility.
    I was rather glad when I got to sit in several meetings thinking "I don't care, 'cos you're getting my notice soon" while he was thinking that my few days off (clearly interview days off) hadn't panned out right for me ;)
  • Zapp Brannigan 2012-04-10 11:08
    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.
  • Emil Vikström 2012-04-10 11:15
    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 agree. Especially when there's almost nothing to clean since the hired cleaning crew did most of the work! Sounds like the perfect deal for a Friday afternoon at work :-)
  • Someone 2012-04-10 11:20
    FrostCat:
    anon:
    The real WTF isn't this company. The real WTF is not walking out on day two.


    Or else, walking out instead of mopping the floor.


    TRWTF is not hitting Frank with the mop.
  • Frank 2012-04-10 11:22
    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.


    Are you stupid? They are goddamn developers, and I want them to develop, not drink coffee at their desk.
  • Frank 2012-04-10 11:23
    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.


    You are hired. Join us next Friday.
  • B00nbuster 2012-04-10 11:28
    csrster:
    A highly-educated friend once got a job designing exhibits for a science museum. On the first day they handed her a mop "because of budget cuts". It was also her last day.


    I'm astonished by the arrogant attitude here. As a highly paid individual, when your boss gives you a mop you do that cleaning work. It's his decision.

    I'd fire people with such an attitude just because of their sheer arrogance. If you are too good to wield a mop, you're certainly not good enough to develop my software. People like this can certainly not be trusted to do the dirty work when things take the wrong turn.

    Now I admit that you should spent 95% of your time developing, but it's just no attitude to be too good for any kind of work. I'd fire such arrogant pricks immediatelly.

    OH YEAH, YOU'RE SO ROCKSTAR DEVELOPERS. WHY NOT HAVE TWO BARELY DRESSED WOMEN WHO FEED YOU A COCKTAIL AFTER EVERY LINE OF CODE? ARROGANT ELITISTS.
  • Remy Porter 2012-04-10 11:36
    I honestly had a hard time with this article largely because of what you're saying. My first job was the sort of place where you were expected to do anything that needed doing. The job description for every position included a line "And any other duties assigned."

    At the same time- that was a summer camp, and not exactly a highly professional environment. Nowadays, if my boss asked me to sweep up, I wouldn't get pissy about it, but I'd have to seriously wonder why they're putting an expensive IT resource on scut work like that- that sort of resource misallocation is the sure sign of something wrong.
  • itsmo 2012-04-10 11:46
    Not a bad troll.

    However, let be clear - Frank is a cunt.
  • Someone 2012-04-10 11:46
    B00nbuster:
    csrster:
    A highly-educated friend once got a job designing exhibits for a science museum. On the first day they handed her a mop "because of budget cuts". It was also her last day.


    I'm astonished by the arrogant attitude here. As a highly paid individual, when your boss gives you a mop you do that cleaning work. It's his decision.

    I'd fire people with such an attitude just because of their sheer arrogance. If you are too good to wield a mop, you're certainly not good enough to develop my software. People like this can certainly not be trusted to do the dirty work when things take the wrong turn.

    Now I admit that you should spent 95% of your time developing, but it's just no attitude to be too good for any kind of work. I'd fire such arrogant pricks immediatelly.

    OH YEAH, YOU'RE SO ROCKSTAR DEVELOPERS. WHY NOT HAVE TWO BARELY DRESSED WOMEN WHO FEED YOU A COCKTAIL AFTER EVERY LINE OF CODE? ARROGANT ELITISTS.


    I hope you are being sarcastic, because otherwise I am astonished by your stupidity. If I were your boss, I would ask you to work as a sex worker or a hired gun, because it is my decision, and as per your own principles, you must accept it.
  • Myself 2012-04-10 11:48
    OH YEAH, YOU'RE SO ROCKSTAR DEVELOPERS. WHY NOT HAVE TWO BARELY DRESSED WOMEN WHO FEED YOU A COCKTAIL AFTER EVERY LINE OF CODE? ARROGANT ELITISTS.


    Sounds good to me.


    No, really, in most parts of the world developers are far to expensive to do cleaning work.
  • ih8u 2012-04-10 12:00
    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.


    If the individual employees made themselves worth something more than just another ___, they could negotiate their own terms or leave for a better employer.

    I work hard to be not just another developer ... that's why I'm reading / posting to this ... at ... work
    ...
    gotta go.
  • blueg3 2012-04-10 12:00
    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.


    You want to make up new adjectives, fine, but the internationally-accepted term for people from the US (in English) is "American".

    I kind of doubt that you actually searched for it. The top hit is a Wikipedia page (a good start) that clearly explains the character.

    In English, technology, and business, "adapting" words to other parts of speech is standard, well-known practice. Hence, lumbergh (v.): to do something in the fashion of Lumbergh.
  • geoffrey, MCP, PMP 2012-04-10 12:04
    "...we can't afford to waste a minute of time just because you needed to be a special little snowflake."

    I can't argue much with Frank's logic here. I have said this, verbatim, before.
  • Peter 2012-04-10 12:05
    B00nbuster:
    csrster:
    A highly-educated friend once got a job designing exhibits for a science museum. On the first day they handed her a mop "because of budget cuts". It was also her last day.


    I'm astonished by the arrogant attitude here. As a highly paid individual, when your boss gives you a mop you do that cleaning work. It's his decision.

    I'd fire people with such an attitude just because of their sheer arrogance. If you are too good to wield a mop, you're certainly not good enough to develop my software.


    I get paid $50/hr. That's about 5x what cleaning crews make. If you want to pay me to mop, I'll do it, but don't expect me working weekends to make up for it.
  • Nagesh 2012-04-10 12:10
    Waht? Moping is half the responsibilty in IT job. Other job is dust and keep cattle out of server room.
  • KattMan 2012-04-10 12:15
    B00nbuster:

    OH YEAH, YOU'RE SO ROCKSTAR DEVELOPERS. WHY NOT HAVE TWO BARELY DRESSED WOMEN WHO FEED YOU A COCKTAIL AFTER EVERY LINE OF CODE? ARROGANT ELITISTS.


    Wait you mean most of us don't have barely dressed girls feeding us at our desks? I negotiated up, they aren't dressed at all.
  • Richard 2012-04-10 12:18
    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?
  • D-Coder 2012-04-10 12:21
    B00nbuster:

    OH YEAH, YOU'RE SO ROCKSTAR DEVELOPERS. WHY NOT HAVE TWO BARELY DRESSED WOMEN WHO FEED YOU A COCKTAIL AFTER EVERY LINE OF CODE? ARROGANT ELITISTS.

    You mean... you don't?
  • Jellineck 2012-04-10 12:28
    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.


    That is not a productivity issue. There are physical limitations to the amount of time you can play. Pull too many 8-10 hour sessions without any kind of breaks and you'll be lucky to be able to continue your career.

    Hell, you'll be lucky to be able to hold that mop.
  • Mason Wheeler 2012-04-10 12:38
    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.


    You're assuming that employers are 1) rational and 2) well-informed. You really should know better than that...
  • Dave 2012-04-10 12:40
    Seriously? I'd have stopped Frank right in the middle of whatever and announced that I just got a very urgent GFY memo.

    Frank, of course, wouldn't know what that is and when he asked, the reply would have been a very simple, yet painfully audible, rendition of what GFY stands for.
  • Mr Glass 2012-04-10 12:41
    I kind of agree, I've never understood why it's so horrible to sometimes do something different than your job description. To stack boxes or whatever once in a while is just fun, and if done in groups, quite social. However what I don't like is people who think that you should work non stop and I the same tempo. Some days, I end up doing almost nothing. Other days, I do a weeks worth - that's just how it is. What I spend time on shouldn't be their concern, as long as I deliver -- which I do, and more often than not beyond what is expected.

    Having a boss that understands this is what really makes the difference when deciding where to work.
  • Dave 2012-04-10 12:44
    This must - MUST - not apply to drummers. Drummers don't understand the concept of "stop playing", especially if people are talking, tuning, or, I dunno, breathing.

    Then again, I've never played with people professional enough to have a union.
  • radarbob 2012-04-10 12:54
    I think we're missing the dripping irony here... The boss rails against breaks because he thinks they crush productivity; yet he has them mop the floors.

    The boss of course is just a OCD control freak with no concept of how to run a slave galley.
  • corroded 2012-04-10 12:58
    B00nbuster:
    csrster:
    A highly-educated friend once got a job designing exhibits for a science museum. On the first day they handed her a mop "because of budget cuts". It was also her last day.


    I'm astonished by the arrogant attitude here. As a highly paid individual, when your boss gives you a mop you do that cleaning work. It's his decision.

    I'd fire people with such an attitude just because of their sheer arrogance. If you are too good to wield a mop, you're certainly not good enough to develop my software. People like this can certainly not be trusted to do the dirty work when things take the wrong turn.


    If it's not in my job description, and I don't want to do it, you can fucking well ask someone else... or do it yourself. Since you're a manager, clearly, you're probably the most useless twat in the building, so why don't you mop.

  • Paul Neumann 2012-04-10 13:19
    Richard:
    <snip />

    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?
    Richard makes a valid point. It's all these damn taxpayers making our lives difficult. I've got half a mind to use my Medicaid card to ride the bus down to the Dept of Workforce Services and protest after I get my unemployment check. Maybe after this bucket o' chicken and the Rosie ODonnel show...

    (Where's the postman with my Social Security check?! I WANT DOMINOES!!)
  • geoffrey, MCP, PMP 2012-04-10 13:20
    corroded:
    B00nbuster:
    csrster:
    A highly-educated friend once got a job designing exhibits for a science museum. On the first day they handed her a mop "because of budget cuts". It was also her last day.


    I'm astonished by the arrogant attitude here. As a highly paid individual, when your boss gives you a mop you do that cleaning work. It's his decision.

    I'd fire people with such an attitude just because of their sheer arrogance. If you are too good to wield a mop, you're certainly not good enough to develop my software. People like this can certainly not be trusted to do the dirty work when things take the wrong turn.


    If it's not in my job description, and I don't want to do it, you can fucking well ask someone else... or do it yourself. Since you're a manager, clearly, you're probably the most useless twat in the building, so why don't you mop.



    I'm sure that team-player attitude has gotten you really far in life.
  • DaveK 2012-04-10 13:23
    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?
    Yes, it's the very obvious chip-on-your-shoulder. Asshole bosses aren't assholes because government makes them that way, they're assholes because they are assholes and they like being assholes. Stop blaming society for their character defects.

    And the reason that Bozhead companies are still around is because Acme can't go on expanding forever and as long as most firms are Bozheads and few are Acmes then most people apart from the lucky few will have to get jobs with Bozhead companies. And then the fat smug complacent self-regarding Bozhead CEOs will pat themselves on their fat smug complacent self-regarding backs and tell themselves that the company is thriving because of their asshole management technique.

    Very many decisions in business are made based not on the nice rational Adam-Smith-ian principles that you imagine them to be, but on irrational and emotional grounds as a result of vanity and self-delusion by egotists who think of themselves as some kind of Nietzschean supermen.

  • Bob Dole 2012-04-10 13:24
    B00nbuster:
    I'm astonished by the arrogant attitude here. As a highly paid individual, when your boss gives you a mop you do that cleaning work. It's his decision.


    Miss the point much?

    It's perfectly reasonable to ask engineers to help out with tasks that fall outside their professional training and responsibility when help is needed, however setting aside regular time for your "highly paid individuals" to arbitrarily perform menial tasks is called being a d-bag. Especially when there is already specific staff to do the work. The only motivation for this is to demean your staff and aggrandize your own ego. Period.

    Your staff must really go to bat for you with such a myopic view.
  • English Man 2012-04-10 13:34
    Something's wrong here. No way Frank would allow someone to be hired without being there to do an interview himself.
  • JLC 2012-04-10 13:41
    KattMan:
    B00nbuster:

    OH YEAH, YOU'RE SO ROCKSTAR DEVELOPERS. WHY NOT HAVE TWO BARELY DRESSED WOMEN WHO FEED YOU A COCKTAIL AFTER EVERY LINE OF CODE? ARROGANT ELITISTS.


    Wait you mean most of us don't have barely dressed girls feeding us at our desks? I negotiated up, they aren't dressed at all.


    That's just unsanitary.
  • Nagesh 2012-04-10 13:59
    You're all ginoring me and it's because of my stealer acount :(. Dont be haters everybodies!
  • Nagesh 2012-04-10 14:00
    Nagesh:
    You're all ginoring me and it's because of my stealer acount :(. Dont be haters everybodies!

    I'm meking valid points also!
  • KattMan 2012-04-10 14:00
    JLC:
    KattMan:
    B00nbuster:

    OH YEAH, YOU'RE SO ROCKSTAR DEVELOPERS. WHY NOT HAVE TWO BARELY DRESSED WOMEN WHO FEED YOU A COCKTAIL AFTER EVERY LINE OF CODE? ARROGANT ELITISTS.


    Wait you mean most of us don't have barely dressed girls feeding us at our desks? I negotiated up, they aren't dressed at all.


    That's just unsanitary.

    It's all good. I'm naked from the waist down myself.
  • Sociopath 2012-04-10 14:10
    B00nbuster:
    csrster:
    A highly-educated friend once got a job designing exhibits for a science museum. On the first day they handed her a mop "because of budget cuts". It was also her last day.


    I'm astonished by the arrogant attitude here. As a highly paid individual, when your boss gives you a mop you do that cleaning work. It's his decision.

    I'd fire people ... (snip trolling) ...

    I'd take the mop, start mopping the floor, slip on the wet floor, and sue the company and my boss personally, for the injuries I sustained while being asked to do something outside of my job description that I had no experience doing and wasn't trained to do.

    We'd probably settle out of court for ten times my annual salary, plus my legal expenses. Or, I'd own more than half of the company and "fire" the boss. Either way, I'm not too arrogant to take advantage of this asked-to-mop thing. It could be quite lucrative.

    But, if you want to mop the floor, be my guest. I love to put dirty footprints on newly mopped floors.
  • Franz Kafka 2012-04-10 14:11
    Richard:

    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?


    Dick, that's not how IP laws work.
  • Matt Westwood 2012-04-10 14:30
    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.

    So the brand new graduate turns up to work on the first day and was introduced into the office of the managing director.
    "Ah! You're our new hire!" beamed the boss, coming out from behind his desk to shake hands warmly with the new boy. "I've been waiting for you to turn up - I've got a job for you to do."
    The boss led the new boy down the stairs into the basement where he handed him a broom. "I want you to give the floor a jolly good sweeping."
    "But I'm a university graduate!" bleated our hapless hero.
    "Oh dear me, I never realised," said the boss, obviously discomfited. He stood awhile in thought. "Tell you what, give me the broom, I'll show you how it's done."
  • Audrius 2012-04-10 14:41
    geoffrey, MCP, PMP:
    corroded:
    B00nbuster:
    csrster:
    A highly-educated friend once got a job designing exhibits for a science museum. On the first day they handed her a mop "because of budget cuts". It was also her last day.


    I'm astonished by the arrogant attitude here. As a highly paid individual, when your boss gives you a mop you do that cleaning work. It's his decision.

    I'd fire people with such an attitude just because of their sheer arrogance. If you are too good to wield a mop, you're certainly not good enough to develop my software. People like this can certainly not be trusted to do the dirty work when things take the wrong turn.


    If it's not in my job description, and I don't want to do it, you can fucking well ask someone else... or do it yourself. Since you're a manager, clearly, you're probably the most useless twat in the building, so why don't you mop.



    I'm sure that team-player attitude has gotten you really far in life.


    But he has a valid point. If it is not in my job description - I do not do it. I had too many examples where being "team player" adds additional responsibilities outside of your job description. If company is nice, team and especially management staff are good lads then yeah I could *help* with something different. Making it mandatory, especially it it is coming from the individuals like Frank, and you obeying it does not make you *the* team player.
  • da Doctah 2012-04-10 15:02
    The charred remains of what dental records were able to identify as Frank's body were found Monday morning in the break room. And there was much rejoicing.
  • herby 2012-04-10 15:20
    Frank is why BOFH's were invented.

    Now where is the elevator shaft?
  • geoffrey, MCP, PMP 2012-04-10 15:22
    Audrius:
    geoffrey, MCP, PMP:
    corroded:
    B00nbuster:
    csrster:
    A highly-educated friend once got a job designing exhibits for a science museum. On the first day they handed her a mop "because of budget cuts". It was also her last day.


    I'm astonished by the arrogant attitude here. As a highly paid individual, when your boss gives you a mop you do that cleaning work. It's his decision.

    I'd fire people with such an attitude just because of their sheer arrogance. If you are too good to wield a mop, you're certainly not good enough to develop my software. People like this can certainly not be trusted to do the dirty work when things take the wrong turn.


    If it's not in my job description, and I don't want to do it, you can fucking well ask someone else... or do it yourself. Since you're a manager, clearly, you're probably the most useless twat in the building, so why don't you mop.



    I'm sure that team-player attitude has gotten you really far in life.


    But he has a valid point. If it is not in my job description - I do not do it. I had too many examples where being "team player" adds additional responsibilities outside of your job description. If company is nice, team and especially management staff are good lads then yeah I could *help* with something different. Making it mandatory, especially it it is coming from the individuals like Frank, and you obeying it does not make you *the* team player.


    Do you think Bill Gates or Steve Jobs hid behind their job descriptions through their careers? This is what separates the wheat from the chaff. The wheat only acknowledges one universal job description for any job -- "I do work my employer needs; my employer pays me."
  • B00nbuster 2012-04-10 15:24
    Sociopath:
    B00nbuster:
    csrster:
    A highly-educated friend once got a job designing exhibits for a science museum. On the first day they handed her a mop "because of budget cuts". It was also her last day.


    I'm astonished by the arrogant attitude here. As a highly paid individual, when your boss gives you a mop you do that cleaning work. It's his decision.

    I'd fire people ... (snip trolling) ...

    I'd take the mop, start mopping the floor, slip on the wet floor, and sue the company and my boss personally, for the injuries I sustained while being asked to do something outside of my job description that I had no experience doing and wasn't trained to do.

    We'd probably settle out of court for ten times my annual salary, plus my legal expenses. Or, I'd own more than half of the company and "fire" the boss. Either way, I'm not too arrogant to take advantage of this asked-to-mop thing. It could be quite lucrative.

    But, if you want to mop the floor, be my guest. I love to put dirty footprints on newly mopped floors.


    lol, you're probably American. Won't work in most of the world. Only in insane America it's possible to sue people for that much. Plus, in other countries, you'd be expected to be able to perform such simple tasks, even if you weren't trained for them. Because, you know, other countries expect that people aren't mindless, stupid zombies.
  • B00nbuster 2012-04-10 15:26
    Audrius:
    geoffrey, MCP, PMP:
    corroded:
    B00nbuster:
    csrster:
    A highly-educated friend once got a job designing exhibits for a science museum. On the first day they handed her a mop "because of budget cuts". It was also her last day.


    I'm astonished by the arrogant attitude here. As a highly paid individual, when your boss gives you a mop you do that cleaning work. It's his decision.

    I'd fire people with such an attitude just because of their sheer arrogance. If you are too good to wield a mop, you're certainly not good enough to develop my software. People like this can certainly not be trusted to do the dirty work when things take the wrong turn.


    If it's not in my job description, and I don't want to do it, you can fucking well ask someone else... or do it yourself. Since you're a manager, clearly, you're probably the most useless twat in the building, so why don't you mop.



    I'm sure that team-player attitude has gotten you really far in life.


    But he has a valid point. If it is not in my job description - I do not do it. I had too many examples where being "team player" adds additional responsibilities outside of your job description. If company is nice, team and especially management staff are good lads then yeah I could *help* with something different. Making it mandatory, especially it it is coming from the individuals like Frank, and you obeying it does not make you *the* team player.


    Yeah, I agree that it shouldn't be that way. But if it's necessary, under whatever circumstances, and you bitch about it, that's a minus on your bonus imho.
  • Born Texas Proud 2012-04-10 15:53
    You guys have it all wrong. Start up here, and you can get mop work done for below minimum wage.
  • Richard 2012-04-10 16:14
    DaveK:
    Asshole bosses aren't assholes because government makes them that way, they're assholes because they are assholes and they like being assholes.

    I agree. Government doesn't make them that way. Government stands in the way of the good, and protects the bad, allowing them to prosper even though they're assholes.
    DaveK:
    And the reason that Bozhead companies are still around is because Acme can't go on expanding forever

    Why not? If they're making a better product at a lower price, what's stopping their expansion? (Hint: usually it is the government protecting the incompetent somewhere.)
    DaveK:
    Very many decisions in business are made based not on the nice rational Adam-Smith-ian principles that you imagine them to be, but on irrational and emotional grounds as a result of vanity and self-delusion by egotists who think of themselves as some kind of Nietzschean supermen.

    Again, I agree. The puzzle is why so many irrational decision makers thrive. (Hint: usually it is the government protecting the incompetent somewhere.)


  • Nagesh 2012-04-10 16:16
    Richard:
    DaveK:
    Asshole bosses aren't assholes because government makes them that way, they're assholes because they are assholes and they like being assholes.

    I agree. Government doesn't make them that way. Government stands in the way of the good, and protects the bad, allowing them to prosper even though they're assholes.
    DaveK:
    And the reason that Bozhead companies are still around is because Acme can't go on expanding forever

    Why not? If they're making a better product at a lower price, what's stopping their expansion? (Hint: usually it is the government protecting the incompetent somewhere.)
    DaveK:
    Very many decisions in business are made based not on the nice rational Adam-Smith-ian principles that you imagine them to be, but on irrational and emotional grounds as a result of vanity and self-delusion by egotists who think of themselves as some kind of Nietzschean supermen.

    Again, I agree. The puzzle is why so many irrational decision makers thrive. (Hint: usually it is the government protecting the incompetent somewhere.)


    DaveK, take own advise and stop promoting own coments.
  • ObiWayneKenobi 2012-04-10 16:17
    Mr Glass:
    I kind of agree, I've never understood why it's so horrible to sometimes do something different than your job description. To stack boxes or whatever once in a while is just fun, and if done in groups, quite social. However what I don't like is people who think that you should work non stop and I the same tempo. Some days, I end up doing almost nothing. Other days, I do a weeks worth - that's just how it is. What I spend time on shouldn't be their concern, as long as I deliver -- which I do, and more often than not beyond what is expected.

    Having a boss that understands this is what really makes the difference when deciding where to work.


    Simple: It's insulting to a trained professional to ask them to do "grunt work" that is typically performed by unskilled and uneducated laborers.

    You don't ask nobility to do the job of a peasant.
  • s73v3r 2012-04-10 16:22
    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??


    More missiles, and more Reality TV.

    And some kick ass natural beauty, with a huge range of variety in terms of terrain and biome.
  • Sociopath 2012-04-10 16:26
    B00nbuster:
    Sociopath:
    I'd take the mop, start mopping the floor, slip on the wet floor, and sue the company and my boss personally, for the injuries I sustained while being asked to do something outside of my job description that I had no experience doing and wasn't trained to do.

    We'd probably settle out of court for ten times my annual salary, plus my legal expenses. Or, I'd own more than half of the company and "fire" the boss. Either way, I'm not too arrogant to take advantage of this asked-to-mop thing. It could be quite lucrative.

    But, if you want to mop the floor, be my guest. I love to put dirty footprints on newly mopped floors.


    lol, you're probably American. Won't work in most of the world. Only in insane America it's possible to sue people for that much. Plus, in other countries, you'd be expected to be able to perform such simple tasks, even if you weren't trained for them. Because, you know, other countries expect that people aren't mindless, stupid zombies.


    I like you B00nbuster. I'd like to be your employee.
  • s73v3r 2012-04-10 16:31
    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.
  • s73v3r 2012-04-10 16:33
    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.


    Because employers ALWAYS do what is right out of their own "self interest". There's never any kind of micromanaging asshole employers like the ones in the story, right?
  • Richard 2012-04-10 16:35
    s73v3r:
    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.


    Because employers ALWAYS do what is right out of their own "self interest". There's never any kind of micromanaging asshole employers like the ones in the story, right?
    Asked and answered, your honor.
  • s73v3r 2012-04-10 16:36
    B00nbuster:
    csrster:
    A highly-educated friend once got a job designing exhibits for a science museum. On the first day they handed her a mop "because of budget cuts". It was also her last day.


    I'm astonished by the arrogant attitude here. As a highly paid individual, when your boss gives you a mop you do that cleaning work. It's his decision.

    I'd fire people with such an attitude just because of their sheer arrogance. If you are too good to wield a mop, you're certainly not good enough to develop my software. People like this can certainly not be trusted to do the dirty work when things take the wrong turn.

    Now I admit that you should spent 95% of your time developing, but it's just no attitude to be too good for any kind of work. I'd fire such arrogant pricks immediatelly.

    OH YEAH, YOU'RE SO ROCKSTAR DEVELOPERS. WHY NOT HAVE TWO BARELY DRESSED WOMEN WHO FEED YOU A COCKTAIL AFTER EVERY LINE OF CODE? ARROGANT ELITISTS.


    I'm fucking shocked by your feelings of entitlement toward your employees. Just because you say something does NOT mean you get it that way. I don't give a fuck if the boss said I should clean; it's not in my job description, and I don't want to do it.

    Bosses do not have total control over their employees. Anyone who thinks they do or should is someone who needs to be busted down to assistant night manager at a Denny's.
  • s73v3r 2012-04-10 16:38
    ih8u:
    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.


    If the individual employees made themselves worth something more than just another ___, they could negotiate their own terms or leave for a better employer.


    So a bunch of people banding together to bargain is perfectly good and ok when they call it a "company", but when others band together for better bargaining power and call it a "union", then that's not ok?
  • file minion 2012-04-10 16:41
    Richard:
    DaveK:
    Asshole bosses aren't assholes because government makes them that way, they're assholes because they are assholes and they like being assholes.

    I agree. Government doesn't make them that way. Government stands in the way of the good, and protects the bad, allowing them to prosper even though they're assholes.
    DaveK:
    And the reason that Bozhead companies are still around is because Acme can't go on expanding forever

    Why not? If they're making a better product at a lower price, what's stopping their expansion? (Hint: usually it is the government protecting the incompetent somewhere.)
    DaveK:
    Very many decisions in business are made based not on the nice rational Adam-Smith-ian principles that you imagine them to be, but on irrational and emotional grounds as a result of vanity and self-delusion by egotists who think of themselves as some kind of Nietzschean supermen.

    Again, I agree. The puzzle is why so many irrational decision makers thrive. (Hint: usually it is the government protecting the incompetent somewhere.)


    yeah, that makes sense because privatization always works so well

    captcha : secundum - from lastum?
  • s73v3r 2012-04-10 16:44
    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?


    Your entire premise is based on an ideal world, that quite frankly does not exist. Therefore, any conclusions you draw from your little experiment are not valid. It is NOT "government interference" that is the problem here. For instance, if Bozhead is still able to produce a cheaper product, odds are they're going to enjoy quite a bit of sales, simply because many consumers only care about things being cheaper. Therefore, they can still stay in business.

    You're also assuming that it is completely painless and that there are no obstacles to overcome in trying to go from one company to the other. That is false; those obstacles exist. Because those obstacles exist, it is conceivable that not all of the good employees will be able to go to Acme. This might be an unwillingness to move, this might be social anxieties on behalf of the workers, a resistance to change, etc.

    "Government Interference" is NOT the problem you're looking for in this situation.

    CAPTCHA: causa - "Government Interference" is not the causa these issues.
  • s73v3r 2012-04-10 16:48
    geoffrey, MCP, PMP:
    Audrius:
    geoffrey, MCP, PMP:
    corroded:
    B00nbuster:
    csrster:
    A highly-educated friend once got a job designing exhibits for a science museum. On the first day they handed her a mop "because of budget cuts". It was also her last day.


    I'm astonished by the arrogant attitude here. As a highly paid individual, when your boss gives you a mop you do that cleaning work. It's his decision.

    I'd fire people with such an attitude just because of their sheer arrogance. If you are too good to wield a mop, you're certainly not good enough to develop my software. People like this can certainly not be trusted to do the dirty work when things take the wrong turn.


    If it's not in my job description, and I don't want to do it, you can fucking well ask someone else... or do it yourself. Since you're a manager, clearly, you're probably the most useless twat in the building, so why don't you mop.



    I'm sure that team-player attitude has gotten you really far in life.


    But he has a valid point. If it is not in my job description - I do not do it. I had too many examples where being "team player" adds additional responsibilities outside of your job description. If company is nice, team and especially management staff are good lads then yeah I could *help* with something different. Making it mandatory, especially it it is coming from the individuals like Frank, and you obeying it does not make you *the* team player.


    Do you think Bill Gates or Steve Jobs hid behind their job descriptions through their careers? This is what separates the wheat from the chaff. The wheat only acknowledges one universal job description for any job -- "I do work my employer needs; my employer pays me."


    When it's for assholes like Frank? Fuck yeah that's the attitude. I'm not going out of my way for that little shit.
  • Joseph 2012-04-10 16:51
    TRWTF is that I had to read 42 comments before any of you mentioned Office Space!!! Are you kidding me right now? This wasn't obvious as soon as "Bill Lumbergh" was named?? My God people, what is wrong with you?!
  • Nagesh 2012-04-10 16:51
    geoffrey, MCP, PMP:
    Audrius:
    geoffrey, MCP, PMP:
    corroded:
    B00nbuster:
    csrster:
    A highly-educated friend once got a job designing exhibits for a science museum. On the first day they handed her a mop "because of budget cuts". It was also her last day.


    I'm astonished by the arrogant attitude here. As a highly paid individual, when your boss gives you a mop you do that cleaning work. It's his decision.

    I'd fire people with such an attitude just because of their sheer arrogance. If you are too good to wield a mop, you're certainly not good enough to develop my software. People like this can certainly not be trusted to do the dirty work when things take the wrong turn.


    If it's not in my job description, and I don't want to do it, you can fucking well ask someone else... or do it yourself. Since you're a manager, clearly, you're probably the most useless twat in the building, so why don't you mop.



    I'm sure that team-player attitude has gotten you really far in life.


    But he has a valid point. If it is not in my job description - I do not do it. I had too many examples where being "team player" adds additional responsibilities outside of your job description. If company is nice, team and especially management staff are good lads then yeah I could *help* with something different. Making it mandatory, especially it it is coming from the individuals like Frank, and you obeying it does not make you *the* team player.


    Do you think Bill Gates or Steve Jobs hid behind their job descriptions through their careers? This is what separates the wheat from the chaff. The wheat only acknowledges one universal job description for any job -- "I do work my employer needs; my employer pays me."

    geoff, you are obviose trol. In word of others, FOAD.

    Ha!
  • Jay 2012-04-10 16:52
    DaveK:
    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?
    Yes, it's the very obvious chip-on-your-shoulder. Asshole bosses aren't assholes because government makes them that way, they're assholes because they are assholes and they like being assholes. Stop blaming society for their character defects.

    And the reason that Bozhead companies are still around is because Acme can't go on expanding forever and as long as most firms are Bozheads and few are Acmes then most people apart from the lucky few will have to get jobs with Bozhead companies. And then the fat smug complacent self-regarding Bozhead CEOs will pat themselves on their fat smug complacent self-regarding backs and tell themselves that the company is thriving because of their asshole management technique.

    Very many decisions in business are made based not on the nice rational Adam-Smith-ian principles that you imagine them to be, but on irrational and emotional grounds as a result of vanity and self-delusion by egotists who think of themselves as some kind of Nietzschean supermen.



    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
  • s73v3r 2012-04-10 16:53
    Richard:
    DaveK:
    Asshole bosses aren't assholes because government makes them that way, they're assholes because they are assholes and they like being assholes.

    I agree. Government doesn't make them that way. Government stands in the way of the good, and protects the bad, allowing them to prosper even though they're assholes.

    Not in the least. Government has nothing to do with them staying assholes. It's just that way too few companies are good companies, so people are stuck at the asshole companies because they still need to eat. This would happen EXACTLY THE SAME under your "free market utopia". I'm sure there are asshole bosses in Somalia, too.


    Richard:
    DaveK:
    And the reason that Bozhead companies are still around is because Acme can't go on expanding forever

    Why not? If they're making a better product at a lower price, what's stopping their expansion? (Hint: usually it is the government protecting the incompetent somewhere.)

    Again, you're making the assumption that Acme has a lower price. That's not valid at all. Odds are, Bozhead has the lower price, because they treat their employees like shit, and pass the savings onto you.


    Richard:
    DaveK:
    Very many decisions in business are made based not on the nice rational Adam-Smith-ian principles that you imagine them to be, but on irrational and emotional grounds as a result of vanity and self-delusion by egotists who think of themselves as some kind of Nietzschean supermen.

    Again, I agree. The puzzle is why so many irrational decision makers thrive. (Hint: usually it is the government protecting the incompetent somewhere.)

    No. Again, you have absolutely no fucking evidence that the reason for these assholes thriving is government interference. None at all. You are drawing faulty conclusions based on irrelevant assumptions. Stop perpetuating this retarded meme until you have some cold hard data to back it up.
  • Jay 2012-04-10 16:54
    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 it truly makes people more productive overal, the unions would be fighting it tooth and nail.
  • s73v3r 2012-04-10 16:55
    Richard:
    s73v3r:
    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.


    Because employers ALWAYS do what is right out of their own "self interest". There's never any kind of micromanaging asshole employers like the ones in the story, right?
    Asked and answered, your honor.

    Not answered to any satisfaction. Your reasoning is completely faulty, and based on the faulty and incorrect assumptions that all people are perfectly rational.
  • Jay 2012-04-10 16:58
    Back in the bad old days, secretaries or other relatively-low paid people made coffee, tidied up files, and other such menial tasks, so that the higher-paid people could concentrate on their work. But today that is considered insulting and demeaning to secretaries, so now we have people being paid $50 an hour to make coffee and shop for paper clips.

    On the flip side, nobody can really be productive for 8 or 9 straight hours a day with no breaks. So I usually don't mind taking a break from programming to do some menial work, just to clear my head.
  • s73v3r 2012-04-10 17:01
    Jay:
    DaveK:
    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?
    Yes, it's the very obvious chip-on-your-shoulder. Asshole bosses aren't assholes because government makes them that way, they're assholes because they are assholes and they like being assholes. Stop blaming society for their character defects.

    And the reason that Bozhead companies are still around is because Acme can't go on expanding forever and as long as most firms are Bozheads and few are Acmes then most people apart from the lucky few will have to get jobs with Bozhead companies. And then the fat smug complacent self-regarding Bozhead CEOs will pat themselves on their fat smug complacent self-regarding backs and tell themselves that the company is thriving because of their asshole management technique.

    Very many decisions in business are made based not on the nice rational Adam-Smith-ian principles that you imagine them to be, but on irrational and emotional grounds as a result of vanity and self-delusion by egotists who think of themselves as some kind of Nietzschean supermen.



    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.
  • shadowman 2012-04-10 17:07
    As a general rule, anyone who uses the word "snowflake" in that context usually has their head up their ass. Likely belongs to the Misaimed Fandom of the movie Fight Club.
  • In the money 2012-04-10 17:07
    [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. [/Unquote]

    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.
  • Richard 2012-04-10 17:08
    s73v3r:
    Richard:
    Asked and answered, your honor.

    Not answered to any satisfaction. Your reasoning is completely faulty, and based on the faulty and incorrect assumptions that all people are perfectly rational.
    Nope. Just that the irrational ones will lose out to the rational ones over time, unless an external force steps in to protect the losers.
  • A Gould 2012-04-10 17:10
    Remy Porter:
    The job description for every position included a line "And any other duties assigned."


    I actually treat that line as a minor warning flag when I see it in a job description. The reason is that if the company does any sort of performance-based compensation, work that falls into that bucket is best-case worthless to you, and worst-case actively harmful to you. After all, if you're measured on meeting a deadline, but you've been "other duties"'ed into mopping floors for four hours, you know that if you're two hours overdue they won't credit you mopping time. (I haven't been mopping floors, but I have missed out on bonuses because my boss had me doing everything *but* what I was measured on. And the boss that's all for "versatility" and "agile" when he needs something done becomes terribly by the book when there's money to be handed out.)

    In the same way you're not supposed to have a misc. file (because *everything* ends up in it), you should try not to have a "miscellaneous" category on your job profile.
  • A Gould 2012-04-10 17:12
    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.


    Unless you're running plumbing to each desk, you'll still be running back and forth for water to feed the coffee maker. (I have a press at my desk, but I don't really save time - I just get better coffee.)
  • Richard 2012-04-10 17:15
    s73v3r:
    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 think we're forgetting that this thread began with Robyrt's claim that musicians would be more productive if their employers treated them better. "More productive" == "Can produce more output for the same cost, or the same output for lower cost".
  • shadowman 2012-04-10 17:39
    Joel Spolsky wrote an interesting article that mentioned a slightly-new breed of young Silicon Valley startup entrepreneurs that are trying to be the next Steve Jobs. So they have basically adopt some of SJ's less-regarded traits, i.e. the rude, no-nonsense, arrogant personality, etc.

    Also control-freak psychopathic management style -- this may or may not be really emulating Jobs, but it's what they perceive. I guess the thought is that if they adopt those traits, then they too will have the same success.

    High-level cargo-culting.
  • B00nbuster 2012-04-10 17:56
    s73v3r:
    B00nbuster:
    csrster:
    A highly-educated friend once got a job designing exhibits for a science museum. On the first day they handed her a mop "because of budget cuts". It was also her last day.


    I'm astonished by the arrogant attitude here. As a highly paid individual, when your boss gives you a mop you do that cleaning work. It's his decision.

    I'd fire people with such an attitude just because of their sheer arrogance. If you are too good to wield a mop, you're certainly not good enough to develop my software. People like this can certainly not be trusted to do the dirty work when things take the wrong turn.

    Now I admit that you should spent 95% of your time developing, but it's just no attitude to be too good for any kind of work. I'd fire such arrogant pricks immediatelly.

    OH YEAH, YOU'RE SO ROCKSTAR DEVELOPERS. WHY NOT HAVE TWO BARELY DRESSED WOMEN WHO FEED YOU A COCKTAIL AFTER EVERY LINE OF CODE? ARROGANT ELITISTS.


    I'm fucking shocked by your feelings of entitlement toward your employees. Just because you say something does NOT mean you get it that way. I don't give a fuck if the boss said I should clean; it's not in my job description, and I don't want to do it.

    Bosses do not have total control over their employees. Anyone who thinks they do or should is someone who needs to be busted down to assistant night manager at a Denny's.


    Well, regardless of the fact that you are a no hire anyway, that'd be a minus on your yearly bonus.

    In the contracts in my country, the employers mostly write in job descriptions: "blabla to work as a Software Developer and to conduct any other just and reasonable tasks". And trust me, wielding a mop is a just and reasonable task for anyone. For the boss as well as for the employees. I wouldn't ask any employee for anything I wouldn't do myself. And if I can wield a mop and you bitch about it...well, minus on your bonus.
  • Coyne 2012-04-10 18:18
    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.


    Well, Frank isn't providing them, because that would waste money and time (taking fingers off of keyboard to drink). Bringing your own would be a violation of the workspace personalization policy.
  • PRMan 2012-04-10 18:36
    Frank:
    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.


    Are you stupid? They are goddamn developers, and I want them to develop, not drink coffee at their desk.


    But I want them to mop the floor...
  • PRMan 2012-04-10 18:43
    English Man:
    Something's wrong here. No way Frank would allow someone to be hired without being there to do an interview himself.


    If he did all those interviews himself, he wouldn't have time to run around the building and make everyone's life miserable.
  • Max 2012-04-10 18:58
    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.


    NEVER use the musicians union as an example of anything good. I played with the Adelaide Symphony Orchestra. We were on a train to Alice Springs (about 9 hours) for a tour when they had to stop the train because of a union stipulation that the musicians need to be stationary for their meal breaks. Hate to think what would have happened if we were flying.
  • Audrius 2012-04-10 19:19
    geoffrey, MCP, PMP:
    Audrius:
    geoffrey, MCP, PMP:
    corroded:
    B00nbuster:
    csrster:
    A highly-educated friend once got a job designing exhibits for a science museum. On the first day they handed her a mop "because of budget cuts". It was also her last day.


    I'm astonished by the arrogant attitude here. As a highly paid individual, when your boss gives you a mop you do that cleaning work. It's his decision.

    I'd fire people with such an attitude just because of their sheer arrogance. If you are too good to wield a mop, you're certainly not good enough to develop my software. People like this can certainly not be trusted to do the dirty work when things take the wrong turn.


    If it's not in my job description, and I don't want to do it, you can fucking well ask someone else... or do it yourself. Since you're a manager, clearly, you're probably the most useless twat in the building, so why don't you mop.



    I'm sure that team-player attitude has gotten you really far in life.


    But he has a valid point. If it is not in my job description - I do not do it. I had too many examples where being "team player" adds additional responsibilities outside of your job description. If company is nice, team and especially management staff are good lads then yeah I could *help* with something different. Making it mandatory, especially it it is coming from the individuals like Frank, and you obeying it does not make you *the* team player.


    Do you think Bill Gates or Steve Jobs hid behind their job descriptions through their careers? This is what separates the wheat from the chaff. The wheat only acknowledges one universal job description for any job -- "I do work my employer needs; my employer pays me."


    OK, I can give you a good example why people like Frank should never get anything that is not in your job description. My friend was working in a truck dealership, his hob was to take and deliver new/repaired/etc truck to and from companies client. His boss asked if he could maybe wash one of the trucks before delivering it. Allright, no problem, job done. Then the second time came, the third and suddenly it was as if it was his job to do. He refused once and that wasn't met nice. During the long period in that company he got lots of nice "promotions" without actually getting any pay rise and or new/updated job contract signed.

    What I want to tell you is that this: it is nice an all to be a good person and help your colleagues and do out-of-job type of support. But company is not a person, the point lots of people tend to forget. In this story company=Frank. If he does not have people skills that is his problem, someone needs to tell him to f***-off. The worst thing you can do to others is to not point them their shortfalls. No bitching or anything like that...
  • M 2012-04-10 21:44
    Wow, the corporate apologists are coming out of the woodwork today. F--k Frank and anyone who thinks any boss has the right to behave that way.

    I'm a damn good developer and I make more than enough money to fund a lifestyle I enjoy. I'm good because I use my mind. Yes, I am a special little snowflake, so suck it all you mindless drones. I've trained long to do what I do and I don't want to mop floors. It's not about being elitist - I don't want to do neuro-surgery either - it's about doing what I WANT TO DO. It's as simple as that. Life is too short to do things you don't want to just to boost someone's ego, or bottom line.

    Work is a team activity and productivity is highest when team members have mutual respect for each other. People like Frank are a liability. I've had great jobs, and bad ones. I've even worked with people like Frank before (I'll get to that in a bit).

    I move on from jobs after a while(even good ones), when I feel I can't learn anything new, as I get bored quickly otherwise. I work for money, but also for my own education and occasionally even my own entertainment. It's my life and I'm not about to waste it on someone else's bulls--t. When faced with someone like Frank, my reaction would depend on my mood and what other jobs are available at that moment. I'm ALWAYS looking at potential jobs. Anyone who isn't is giving away too much of their power.

    I can think of two instances in the last 15 years where I had to deal with someone like Frank. In one case, he took over from a previous manager who was good. After he screamed out his little tirade about how things 'were going to change' to us, I simply quit and walked out the door in the middle of the day, saying my goodbyes to coworkers as I went. I was in a good mood that day. Another time both a manager and the company owner REALLY pissed me off. I played the good little soldier long enough to set several things in motion so that the day I did walk out, not only did the manager get fired a day later, the entire company went under six months later. I didn't do anything illegal, I just set them up to fail in the best possible passive-aggressive manner.

    Good developers are good because they are smart and creative. Don't let the drones convince you of anything different.
  • raptek 2012-04-10 22:30
    Holy shite that Frank guy sounds like A-class assburgers case. I've had the misfortune to meet a few in work setting
  • Dave 2012-04-11 02:02
    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.
  • Anonymous Penguin 2012-04-11 03:30
    Yes, "American" is the perfect term for people from the US, since everyone knows that America contains only one country and the rest of the double continent is uninhabited.
  • jumentum 2012-04-11 03:40
    No need for elevators. He slipped on the freshly mopped stairs.
  • oheso 2012-04-11 03:46
    B00nbuster:

    OH YEAH, YOU'RE SO ROCKSTAR DEVELOPERS. WHY NOT HAVE TWO BARELY DRESSED WOMEN WHO FEED YOU A COCKTAIL AFTER EVERY LINE OF CODE? ARROGANT ELITISTS.


    You mean I have to let Tina go? Naomi and Roxanne will miss her very much.
  • dkf 2012-04-11 03:53
    Anonymous Penguin:
    Yes, "American" is the perfect term for people from the US, since everyone knows that America contains only one country and the rest of the double continent is uninhabited.
    The preferred terms are Merkin or (if referring to someone from south of the Mason-Dixon line) Yankee.
  • Tony Kollias 2012-04-11 04:20
    Wow....this company should have been great in countries where democracy is flourishing...like China ! HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA *trollface*
  • itsmo 2012-04-11 04:25
    geoffrey, MCP, PMP:
    Audrius:
    geoffrey, MCP, PMP:
    corroded:
    B00nbuster:
    csrster:
    A highly-educated friend once got a job designing exhibits for a science museum. On the first day they handed her a mop "because of budget cuts". It was also her last day.


    I'm astonished by the arrogant attitude here. As a highly paid individual, when your boss gives you a mop you do that cleaning work. It's his decision.

    I'd fire people with such an attitude just because of their sheer arrogance. If you are too good to wield a mop, you're certainly not good enough to develop my software. People like this can certainly not be trusted to do the dirty work when things take the wrong turn.


    If it's not in my job description, and I don't want to do it, you can fucking well ask someone else... or do it yourself. Since you're a manager, clearly, you're probably the most useless twat in the building, so why don't you mop.



    I'm sure that team-player attitude has gotten you really far in life.


    But he has a valid point. If it is not in my job description - I do not do it. I had too many examples where being "team player" adds additional responsibilities outside of your job description. If company is nice, team and especially management staff are good lads then yeah I could *help* with something different. Making it mandatory, especially it it is coming from the individuals like Frank, and you obeying it does not make you *the* team player.


    Do you think Bill Gates or Steve Jobs hid behind their job descriptions through their careers? This is what separates the wheat from the chaff. The wheat only acknowledges one universal job description for any job -- "I do work my employer needs; my employer pays me."


    Hi Jeff - I know this is a troll but here we go anyway. What you are describing is not being a team player - it's called Stockholm Syndrome (GoogleTM it)
  • Kempeth 2012-04-11 04:34
    B00nbuster:
    OH YEAH, YOU'RE SO ROCKSTAR DEVELOPERS. WHY NOT HAVE TWO BARELY DRESSED WOMEN WHO FEED YOU A COCKTAIL AFTER EVERY LINE OF CODE? ARROGANT ELITISTS.

    I realized pretty soon that I simply couldn't handle so many cocktails. So I had to find other things for them to do. From "The Guild" I got the idea of a personal hand masseuse. I also watched "Password Swordfish".

    I work very hard these days. But I'm also very exhausted at the end of the day...
  • L. 2012-04-11 05:31
    Steve The Cynic:
    The alleged problem caused by developers customising their desktops (no automatic familiarity with the layout on a colleague's machine) is trivial to solve, of course. Roaming profiles have their problems, especially if you have a mix of Windows versions - profiles rarely roam cleanly in this case - but they are the best solution to this problem.

    All of which assumes (1) a Windows-based network, (2) an NT-style domain, and (3) a semi-competent admin. Of course, the admin is probably Frank, but that's just one more reason to go.


    Devs+windows=fail
  • L. 2012-04-11 05:37
    the beholder:
    FrostCat:
    anon:
    The real WTF isn't this company. The real WTF is not walking out on day two.


    Or else, walking out instead of mopping the floor.
    This. I would be somewhat annoyed by a boss micromanaging coffee breaks when I'm out of a resource - knowledge, in this case - I need to do my job. I would be extremely bored by a freaking 4 hour-long design meeting, in which 3 hours are purely about things that do not concern me now or in a near future, but that's still within acceptable boundaries. I would also hate to go through said 4-hour long meetings without as much as a 5 minutes break, but I still wouldn't jump the boat yet.

    But the cleaning part? It's too much stupidity to bear


    Meh . when someone asked me why I was outside smoking I told them I was busy thinking about the software design and just had a great idea - which was actually true.

    Apart from that, I woudldn't ever work with the company provided mouse and mousepad to begin with - and would leave if anyone insisted I did so /

    The only reason you wouldn't jump the boat is if you're stuck between hammer and anvil - I'm not and I don't think i'll ever be, after all there are IT jobs aplenty and I can do most of em quite nicely.
  • L. 2012-04-11 05:38
    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.


    "squirrelly", thanks you made my day.

    BTW I am quite often fully focused for hours on end, and I believe that happens to most devs - now I might have issues after 15 minutes of meeting but w/e who cares.
  • L. 2012-04-11 05:41
    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.


    Personally, I accept the lowly dev wage for only one reason : because I have fun developing . There's no way I'd do boring stuff for that price if I can avoid it, and I can - yeah I'm a lucky asshole and I love it.
  • L. 2012-04-11 05:44
    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.


    Nah . else they'd have to require decent oxygen flow, happiness @ work, etc. etc. - google seems on the right track but they aren't there yet
  • L. 2012-04-11 05:50
    B00nbuster:
    csrster:
    A highly-educated friend once got a job designing exhibits for a science museum. On the first day they handed her a mop "because of budget cuts". It was also her last day.


    I'm astonished by the arrogant attitude here. As a highly paid individual, when your boss gives you a mop you do that cleaning work. It's his decision.

    I'd fire people with such an attitude just because of their sheer arrogance. If you are too good to wield a mop, you're certainly not good enough to develop my software. People like this can certainly not be trusted to do the dirty work when things take the wrong turn.

    Now I admit that you should spent 95% of your time developing, but it's just no attitude to be too good for any kind of work. I'd fire such arrogant pricks immediatelly.

    OH YEAH, YOU'RE SO ROCKSTAR DEVELOPERS. WHY NOT HAVE TWO BARELY DRESSED WOMEN WHO FEED YOU A COCKTAIL AFTER EVERY LINE OF CODE? ARROGANT ELITISTS.

    yeah that sounds like a good plan .. why don't you go get lotsa moneys, pay my expensive rockstar dev rate just to tell me those lines after .. sounds good to me.

    Real Rockstar devs are worth their arrogance, and much much more, learn to take advantage of their weaknesses (attitude and such)and you'll make much more out of it.

    Thirdly, devs are not higly paid individuals, owners and CEO's are.
  • L. 2012-04-11 05:54
    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?


    Google is the latest fastest growing IT company in the world, it has achieved that mostly by going the Acme route, by going with young ideas rather than the usual old senile management way, and showed that it works.

    Only a matter of time before employers start following after google and several others show the way.
  • L. 2012-04-11 05:58
    JLC:
    KattMan:
    B00nbuster:

    OH YEAH, YOU'RE SO ROCKSTAR DEVELOPERS. WHY NOT HAVE TWO BARELY DRESSED WOMEN WHO FEED YOU A COCKTAIL AFTER EVERY LINE OF CODE? ARROGANT ELITISTS.


    Wait you mean most of us don't have barely dressed girls feeding us at our desks? I negotiated up, they aren't dressed at all.


    That's just unsanitary.


    Nah . drug lab workers aren't dressed at all and it's all medical sanitary . more or less.
  • L. 2012-04-11 06:01
    Audrius:
    geoffrey, MCP, PMP:
    corroded:
    B00nbuster:
    csrster:
    A highly-educated friend once got a job designing exhibits for a science museum. On the first day they handed her a mop "because of budget cuts". It was also her last day.


    I'm astonished by the arrogant attitude here. As a highly paid individual, when your boss gives you a mop you do that cleaning work. It's his decision.

    I'd fire people with such an attitude just because of their sheer arrogance. If you are too good to wield a mop, you're certainly not good enough to develop my software. People like this can certainly not be trusted to do the dirty work when things take the wrong turn.


    If it's not in my job description, and I don't want to do it, you can fucking well ask someone else... or do it yourself. Since you're a manager, clearly, you're probably the most useless twat in the building, so why don't you mop.



    I'm sure that team-player attitude has gotten you really far in life.


    But he has a valid point. If it is not in my job description - I do not do it. I had too many examples where being "team player" adds additional responsibilities outside of your job description. If company is nice, team and especially management staff are good lads then yeah I could *help* with something different. Making it mandatory, especially it it is coming from the individuals like Frank, and you obeying it does not make you *the* team player.


    Geoff has successfully trolled you, good stuff.

    Teamplayer is a word employers and bosses like to use to define work-slaves, the kind of idiot who will accept anything because he thinks he owes the company everything.

    Also, don't feed the trolls goddamit !
  • L. 2012-04-11 06:09
    s73v3r:
    Jay:
    DaveK:
    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?
    Yes, it's the very obvious chip-on-your-shoulder. Asshole bosses aren't assholes because government makes them that way, they're assholes because they are assholes and they like being assholes. Stop blaming society for their character defects.

    And the reason that Bozhead companies are still around is because Acme can't go on expanding forever and as long as most firms are Bozheads and few are Acmes then most people apart from the lucky few will have to get jobs with Bozhead companies. And then the fat smug complacent self-regarding Bozhead CEOs will pat themselves on their fat smug complacent self-regarding backs and tell themselves that the company is thriving because of their asshole management technique.

    Very many decisions in business are made based not on the nice rational Adam-Smith-ian principles that you imagine them to be, but on irrational and emotional grounds as a result of vanity and self-delusion by egotists who think of themselves as some kind of Nietzschean supermen.



    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've read this way too much in these comments. The price as the only thing consumers care about ?

    HAVE YOU LEARNED NOTHING ?

    seriously, all those people buying iPhones, samsung Galaxies, Philips TV's, Scottex, Mars, Coca-Cola, etc. etc.

    The main thing consumers care bout is making the "right" purchase, and oftentimes this is directed by brands and advertising.
  • L. 2012-04-11 06:16
    M:
    Wow, the corporate apologists are coming out of the woodwork today. F--k Frank and anyone who thinks any boss has the right to behave that way.

    I'm a damn good developer and I make more than enough money to fund a lifestyle I enjoy. I'm good because I use my mind. Yes, I am a special little snowflake, so suck it all you mindless drones. I've trained long to do what I do and I don't want to mop floors. It's not about being elitist - I don't want to do neuro-surgery either - it's about doing what I WANT TO DO. It's as simple as that. Life is too short to do things you don't want to just to boost someone's ego, or bottom line.

    Work is a team activity and productivity is highest when team members have mutual respect for each other. People like Frank are a liability. I've had great jobs, and bad ones. I've even worked with people like Frank before (I'll get to that in a bit).

    I move on from jobs after a while(even good ones), when I feel I can't learn anything new, as I get bored quickly otherwise. I work for money, but also for my own education and occasionally even my own entertainment. It's my life and I'm not about to waste it on someone else's bulls--t. When faced with someone like Frank, my reaction would depend on my mood and what other jobs are available at that moment. I'm ALWAYS looking at potential jobs. Anyone who isn't is giving away too much of their power.

    I can think of two instances in the last 15 years where I had to deal with someone like Frank. In one case, he took over from a previous manager who was good. After he screamed out his little tirade about how things 'were going to change' to us, I simply quit and walked out the door in the middle of the day, saying my goodbyes to coworkers as I went. I was in a good mood that day. Another time both a manager and the company owner REALLY pissed me off. I played the good little soldier long enough to set several things in motion so that the day I did walk out, not only did the manager get fired a day later, the entire company went under six months later. I didn't do anything illegal, I just set them up to fail in the best possible passive-aggressive manner.

    Good developers are good because they are smart and creative. Don't let the drones convince you of anything different.


    Way too serious for TDWTF comments, but this one deserves to be featured / saved - nice ;)
  • corroded 2012-04-11 06:35
    Audrius:
    geoffrey, MCP, PMP:
    corroded:
    B00nbuster:
    csrster:
    A highly-educated friend once got a job designing exhibits for a science museum. On the first day they handed her a mop "because of budget cuts". It was also her last day.


    I'm astonished by the arrogant attitude here. As a highly paid individual, when your boss gives you a mop you do that cleaning work. It's his decision.

    I'd fire people with such an attitude just because of their sheer arrogance. If you are too good to wield a mop, you're certainly not good enough to develop my software. People like this can certainly not be trusted to do the dirty work when things take the wrong turn.


    If it's not in my job description, and I don't want to do it, you can fucking well ask someone else... or do it yourself. Since you're a manager, clearly, you're probably the most useless twat in the building, so why don't you mop.



    I'm sure that team-player attitude has gotten you really far in life.


    But he has a valid point. If it is not in my job description - I do not do it. I had too many examples where being "team player" adds additional responsibilities outside of your job description. If company is nice, team and especially management staff are good lads then yeah I could *help* with something different. Making it mandatory, especially it it is coming from the individuals like Frank, and you obeying it does not make you *the* team player.


    I assist until people take the piss, or take me for granted. I help others out all the time here... but its my choice after all. If I hid behind my job description for everything, I'd definitely not be a sysadmin now as well as a developer.

    There is a difference between used as a doormat by your boss, which I'm frankly astonished so many people are happy to do.

    It's a two way street, just because your boss tells you to do it, you don't have to. I choose the things that better myself, and never had make the choice to mop the floor or not... there is always something for me to do that is good for the business over mopping a floor, and there is probably a PA somewhere surfing youtube.
  • Hatshepsut 2012-04-11 06:37
    Max:
    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.


    NEVER use the musicians union as an example of anything good. I played with the Adelaide Symphony Orchestra. We were on a train to Alice Springs (about 9 hours) for a tour when they had to stop the train because of a union stipulation that the musicians need to be stationary for their meal breaks.


    That rule probably came about for groups travelling by bus. Touring is hard going, and stopping for a meal (and a piss) rather than having a soggy sandwich in a cramped bus seat is quite a reasonable measure.

    As for stopping a train to apply this rule: I don't believe it. When and where (specifically) did this happen?

    Hate to think what would have happened if we were flying.


    Boom-tish.

  • Hatshepsut 2012-04-11 06:46
    Anonymous Penguin:
    Yes, "American" is the perfect term for people from the US, since everyone knows that America contains only one country and the rest of the double continent is uninhabited.


    I agree with the sentiment, but, well, there's only one country with "America" in its name. There are at least two with "United States" (or translation thereof). So "American" is arguably more valid than "USian".

    But I do prefer "Merkin".

  • fixed 2012-04-11 07:24
    FrostCat:
    anon:
    The real WTF isn't this company. The real WTF is not walking out on day two.


    Or else, walking out instead of mopping the floor.

    Mop the boss's computer. It's not your job to start making up exceptions to his orders.
  • I see what you did, there 2012-04-11 07:31
    Franz Kafka:
    Richard:

    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?


    Dick, that's not how IP laws work.


    "Dick" is right.

    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)

    ad nauseam
  • fixed 2012-04-11 07:40
    Richard:

    <snip snip snip>
    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.

    But without these laws, a person or small company would come up with a great idea and nothing would stop Google or Apple just walking off with it and continuing development with an almost unlimited budget.
  • I see what you did, there 2012-04-11 07:40
    s73v3r:
    Richard:
    s73v3r:
    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.


    Because employers ALWAYS do what is right out of their own "self interest". There's never any kind of micromanaging asshole employers like the ones in the story, right?
    Asked and answered, your honor.

    Not answered to any satisfaction. Your reasoning is completely faulty, and based on the faulty and incorrect assumptions that all people are perfectly rational.


    Please reboot your Irony Detector.

    BTW, "self interest" has many facets.

    Trade these freely and let me know the rational balance: -

    Job stability | security | satisfaction | potential
    Current salary | potential salary | risk of no salary
    Short commute | nice office | hot co-workers | long day | Friday off

    etc.
  • I see what you did, there 2012-04-11 07:53
    fixed:
    Richard:

    <snip snip snip>
    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.

    But without these laws, a person or small company would come up with a great idea and nothing would stop Google or Apple just walking off with it and continuing development with an almost unlimited budget.


    My primary objection is to the uber-BS assertion that patents & copyright are "enforcement taxpayer funded". Nikola Tesla would probably disagree.

    Objection #2 is the utter-BS asssertion that, "no two companies can sell the same product". Plainly they can and do.

    Sure, I like the idea that IP can be protected. If anything, it should be state enforced, so Joe Q Public doesn't have to sue Google (or Apple sue Microsoft...) and run out of money before the 10+ years in court are through.
  • Anonymous penguin 2012-04-11 08:17
    Hatshepsut:
    Anonymous Penguin:
    Yes, "American" is the perfect term for people from the US, since everyone knows that America contains only one country and the rest of the double continent is uninhabited.


    I agree with the sentiment, but, well, there's only one country with "America" in its name. There are at least two with "United States" (or translation thereof). So "American" is arguably more valid than "USian".

    But I do prefer "Merkin".



    Dagnabbit, I hadn't noticed that. Oh well, at least Merkin et al rolls off the tongue better than USAian would.
  • default_ex 2012-04-11 08:17
    I'm confused...

    Was this a software development company, or the stage for some modern sitcom?
  • RainyRat 2012-04-11 08:17
    blueg3:
    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.


    You want to make up new adjectives, fine, but the internationally-accepted term for people from the US (in English) is "American".

    I kind of doubt that you actually searched for it. The top hit is a Wikipedia page (a good start) that clearly explains the character.


    I'll go you one better; with the dictionary extension for Chrome (or Iron, in my case), all you have to do is highlight the word, and...

    "William Lumbergh, commonly named Bill Lumbergh, or referred to as just Lumbergh, is a fictional character portrayed by Gary Cole in the 1999 film Office Space..."
  • Katie 2012-04-11 08:26
    Made me laugh! So many bleep bleep bosses out there and I have had my share of similar mentalities. Nice to see someone was smarter than me, not to stick around to take the abuse for years to come.
  • Katie 2012-04-11 08:28
    I don't think that was the point of the story....... it's just an end to a joke. No analyzing needed.
  • ObiWayneKenobi 2012-04-11 08:28
    In real life the reason why the companies run by assholes still exist is because they do just enough to break even, and settle for mediocrity. So while "Acme" is doing great financially, "Bozhead" is just chugging along and putting on a front enough to still get named to Inc 500 and "best companies to work for" and things like that, despite the fact that it's run by idiots. So for all intents and purposes Bozhead appears successful due to smoke and mirrors and marketing BS.

    THIS is the major problem with capitalism. All it takes to run a business is enough money to pump into it to stay in business. I've seen it first hand (see previous WTF "Hot Water Costs Money") where the company lost money every year for ten years and only stayed in business because the owner had enough money to put that much back into the business to even things out.
  • Katie 2012-04-11 08:33
    Yes, Very special indeed! That is what really makes the world go round. Controlling AHoles are a dime a dozen, since everyone has one.
  • Katie 2012-04-11 08:37
    All that negative and demeaning structure in jobs is nothing more that CONTROl issues by very self centered OCD personalities that aren't getting laid.
  • Gail 2012-04-11 09:04
    What kind of developers are these lunatics? This is the craziest story I have ever read. None of it makes sense.
  • Nagesh 2012-04-11 10:00
    If I am not showing up for works someday, I will no tbe having a job tomorow.
  • ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL 2012-04-11 10:40
    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)
  • Amorpho 2012-04-11 11:16
    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
  • Paul Neumann 2012-04-11 11:24
    In the money:
    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.


    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.
    I didn't know "In the money" was Clark Howard! Welcome to WTF Clark!
  • Remy Porter 2012-04-11 11:42
    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.
  • KattMan 2012-04-11 11:46
    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!
  • Nagesh 2012-04-11 11:57
    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.
  • Yetiman Jetty 2012-04-11 12:28
    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.
  • Matt Westwood 2012-04-11 12:35
    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.
  • snoofle 2012-04-11 12:37
    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.
  • Paul Neumann 2012-04-11 12:51
    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
  • Jay 2012-04-11 13:12
    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.
  • ObiWayneKenobi 2012-04-11 13:13
    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."
  • wonk 2012-04-11 13:22
    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.
  • PedanticCurmudgeon 2012-04-11 13:34
    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.
  • KattMan 2012-04-11 13:34
    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.
  • Ben Jammin 2012-04-11 13:56
    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.
  • KattMan 2012-04-11 14:07
    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.
  • AN AMAZING CODER 2012-04-11 16:05
    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!
  • Jerry 2012-04-11 16:12
    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.
  • AN AMAZING CODER 2012-04-11 16:13
    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.
  • Ayn Rand's Ghost 2012-04-11 16:30
    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.
  • Jerry 2012-04-11 16:34
    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?
  • MrWorser 2012-04-11 16:42
    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.
  • tom 2012-04-11 19:11
    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]
  • Mr Keith 2012-04-11 22:55
    @Ben: Switzerland
    @Katt: Minbari Worker Caste
  • Louis 2012-04-12 01:27
    I don't clean my own house and I'm sure not gonna clean yours.
  • MightyM 2012-04-12 03:04
    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.
  • itsmo 2012-04-12 04:48
    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
  • Matt Westwood 2012-04-12 05:33
    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?
  • Mathew 2012-04-12 05:35
    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.
  • Mathew 2012-04-12 05:39
    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 2012-04-12 05:40
    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.
  • freakpants 2012-04-12 05:50
    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.
  • freakpants 2012-04-12 05:56
    Mr Keith:
    @Ben: Switzerland
    Think again. Switzerland used cheap italian labor to build the Gotthard tunnel. Around 200 of them actually DIED building it.
  • I see what you did, there 2012-04-12 07:44
    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...
  • PedanticCurmudgeon 2012-04-12 09:03
    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.
  • A Concerned Citizen 2012-04-12 09:50
    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.
  • Einstein's Ghost 2012-04-12 09:52
    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.
  • PiisAWheeL 2012-04-12 10:07
    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.
  • Mainframe Web Dev 2012-04-12 12:29
    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!
  • Nagesh 2012-04-12 14:31
    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.
  • Nagesh 2012-04-12 14:33
    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.
  • s73v3r 2012-04-12 15:06
    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".
  • s73v3r 2012-04-12 15:10
    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.
  • Mr.Bob 2012-04-12 17:24
    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"
  • Bjelke 2012-04-12 19:26
    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....
  • as 2012-04-12 19:43
    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....
  • 563 2012-04-12 20:14
    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....
  • bob 2012-04-12 20:52
    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.
  • lol 2012-04-12 20:53
    Max:
    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.


    NEVER use the musicians union as an example of anything good. I played with the Adelaide Symphony Orchestra. We were on a train to Alice Springs (about 9 hours) for a tour when they had to stop the train because of a union stipulation that the musicians need to be stationary for their meal breaks. Hate to think what would have happened if we were flying.
    It is a powerful union that can stop the Ghan just for the muso's. I take it they are not normally playing on the train, then?
  • jim 2012-04-12 20:59
    L.:
    the beholder:
    FrostCat:
    anon:
    The real WTF isn't this company. The real WTF is not walking out on day two.


    Or else, walking out instead of mopping the floor.
    This. I would be somewhat annoyed by a boss micromanaging coffee breaks when I'm out of a resource - knowledge, in this case - I need to do my job. I would be extremely bored by a freaking 4 hour-long design meeting, in which 3 hours are purely about things that do not concern me now or in a near future, but that's still within acceptable boundaries. I would also hate to go through said 4-hour long meetings without as much as a 5 minutes break, but I still wouldn't jump the boat yet.

    But the cleaning part? It's too much stupidity to bear


    Meh . when someone asked me why I was outside smoking I told them I was busy thinking about the software design and just had a great idea - which was actually true.

    Apart from that, I woudldn't ever work with the company provided mouse and mousepad to begin with - and would leave if anyone insisted I did so /

    The only reason you wouldn't jump the boat is if you're stuck between hammer and anvil - I'm not and I don't think i'll ever be, after all there are IT jobs aplenty and I can do most of em quite nicely.
    When someone asked me why I was outside smoking I replied that it was because they didn't let me smoke inside....
  • Mathew 2012-04-13 02:31
    s73v3r:
    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.


    Actually, I have a very good knowledge of that history - It was the time when worker's standard of living grew at the fastest pace in history. this abruptly stopt when unions took over. you're just a socialist/fascist troll.
  • Stew 2012-04-13 11:07
    Mathew:
    Actually, I have a very good knowledge of that history ... you're just a socialist/fascist troll.


    And we have a loser. Sorry, your second statement completely belies the first. What you've done is about the equivalent of calling him a religious/atheist troll. Thanks for playing though.
  • Shagen 2012-04-13 11:32
    DonaldK:
    Nonsense.

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

    To me, Remy posts are kind of like the stories in religious texts: great stories that teach you things, that are not necessarily intended to be taken literally. Also unicorns could probably gore you pretty bad if they wanted, so be careful.
  • lolwtfbbq 2012-04-14 07:50
    B00nbuster:
    csrster:
    A highly-educated friend once got a job designing exhibits for a science museum. On the first day they handed her a mop "because of budget cuts". It was also her last day.


    Now I admit that you should spent 95% of your time developing


    hmm, lets see. 4hrs cleaning = 5% of my time. That means I'm working an 80 hr week? no, thanks.
  • lolwtfbbq 2012-04-14 08:01
    blueg3:
    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.


    You want to make up new adjectives, fine, but the internationally-accepted term for people from the US (in English) is "American".

    I kind of doubt that you actually searched for it. The top hit is a Wikipedia page (a good start) that clearly explains the character.

    In English, technology, and business, "adapting" words to other parts of speech is standard, well-known practice. Hence, lumbergh (v.): to do something in the fashion of Lumbergh.


    1/10
    Complain about someone not googling a term they don't understand, then fail to do it yourself.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=USian

    used especially in internet based writing, used to indicate that someone or something is of the United States of America. This is contrasted with "American," which technically means someone or something belonging to North or South America, including such disparate places as Guyana, Mexico, and Canada.
  • Emperor Norton 2012-04-14 11:29
    Jay:

    On the flip side, nobody can really be productive for 8 or 9 straight hours a day with no breaks. So I usually don't mind taking a break from programming to do some menial work, just to clear my head.


    And if you do it with others, it can actually do a lot to put you in a different frame of mind, and you might solve some other problems together that *are* related to your regular work.

    At least that's what I've found. I love storage cleanout days.
  • Dewk 2012-04-16 14:34
    You make the faulty assumption that it takes a great idea to get a patent.

    You additionally make the faulty assumption that even if a person or small company came up with a great idea that Google or Apple wouldn't sue them to bankruptcy for obscure patent infringements just to get their hands on this great idea.

    All IP laws do is prevent innovation and competition.
  • Dewk 2012-04-16 14:38
    In the meantime, while you were mopping, you could have seen another patient or two and made several hundred dollars more for you company. Instead, you sacrifice the business in order make yourself *feel* like a team player. Any competent manageer would look at you as unfit for making any business level decisions and definately feel the need to micromanage you.
  • Dewk 2012-04-16 14:42
    Re: "you can take your pick of the best qualified people.". That of course assumes that your company isn't unionized. Once the union is there, the quality of one's work is a non-issue.
  • Nagesh 2012-04-17 11:06
    Our H.R Management agrees. We pay rate and expect everyone to complete regular hours of work. Some people do it in half time and some people take twice time.

    Rule is same. Nobody go home till work is completed.
  • Mathew 2012-04-18 03:17
    Stew:
    Mathew:
    Actually, I have a very good knowledge of that history ... you're just a socialist/fascist troll.


    And we have a loser. Sorry, your second statement completely belies the first. What you've done is about the equivalent of calling him a religious/atheist troll. Thanks for playing though.


    better to be a loser than a lamer.
  • Mathew 2012-04-18 03:20
    Mathew:
    Stew:
    Mathew:
    Actually, I have a very good knowledge of that history ... you're just a socialist/fascist troll.


    And we have a loser. Sorry, your second statement completely belies the first. What you've done is about the equivalent of calling him a religious/atheist troll. Thanks for playing though.


    better to be a loser than a lamer.


    And actually no, fascism and socialism is about the same. As a starting point, read the 25-Punkte-Programm - fucking loser.
  • Jason 2012-04-18 05:26
    So why didn't Steve check his job description then sue Frank to teach him a lesson in how to treat employees correctly?
  • The Mr. T Experience 2012-04-18 11:18
    Mathew:

    better to be a loser than a lamer.
    Your nerdspeak means nothing to me, nawmean? Now punch yourself in the face and save me the trouble.
  • Mathew 2012-04-19 05:22
    The Mr. T Experience:
    Mathew:

    better to be a loser than a lamer.
    Your nerdspeak means nothing to me, nawmean? Now punch yourself in the face and save me the trouble.


    Or you could send some one from the Schutzstaffel over.
  • Stew 2012-04-20 19:36
    Mathew:
    And actually no, fascism and socialism is about the same.


    Ha ha, that's like buying a suit off Savile Row and buying one in Sears and calling both stores tailors. You're one of those John Birchers, aren't you? There's unabashedly good free-market republicanism and then there's everything else, and it's all basically the same: bad and scary.

    If guess if you define socialism and fascism as "things I really don't understand but find scary," I can see why you see them as being basically the same. That's fine, I guess, though astonishingly ignorant. I just wouldn't be so eager to go around and show off my stupidity as evidence of actually knowing or understanding anything. But it's your life, you do what you want. :-)
  • anonymous 2012-04-20 23:59
    Every human being wants to feel important and appreciated.

    The majority of IT shops I've seen had a dysfunctional management which leads me to the idea that it's not worth it to be a programmer. You will be mismanaged, and (ab)used.

    Study a Master's and become a manager, team lead, or the boss of your own IT shop.
  • brinksman 2012-04-21 01:08
    After reading a bunch of 'job' and then seeing:

    > That pretty much seems like what Steve did.

    The name parsed as 'Steve Jobs'. And I was like, ... but, but he was Sick!
  • Mathew 2012-04-23 07:57
    Stew:
    Mathew:
    And actually no, fascism and socialism is about the same.


    Ha ha, that's like buying a suit off Savile Row and buying one in Sears and calling both stores tailors. You're one of those John Birchers, aren't you? There's unabashedly good free-market republicanism and then there's everything else, and it's all basically the same: bad and scary.

    If guess if you define socialism and fascism as "things I really don't understand but find scary," I can see why you see them as being basically the same. That's fine, I guess, though astonishingly ignorant. I just wouldn't be so eager to go around and show off my stupidity as evidence of actually knowing or understanding anything. But it's your life, you do what you want. :-)


    You can
    1) Suck my dick
    2) Read 'Bracher, Karl Dietrich Zeitgeschichtliche Kontroversen um Faschismus, Totalitarismus, Demokratie'.
    3) Stop pretending people are ignorant just because they are educated.
    4) Swallow, Bitch!

    I don't see the link to Bircher here, you fucking moron. I don't even know that asshole. You're one of those Joe Goebbels, aren't you?
    Goin around, doing your PR-shit. Why don't you fuckface go and read a book for once?
  • Sayer 2012-06-12 13:28
    KattMan:
    B00nbuster:

    OH YEAH, YOU'RE SO ROCKSTAR DEVELOPERS. WHY NOT HAVE TWO BARELY DRESSED WOMEN WHO FEED YOU A COCKTAIL AFTER EVERY LINE OF CODE? ARROGANT ELITISTS.


    Wait you mean most of us don't have barely dressed girls feeding us at our desks? I negotiated up, they aren't dressed at all.


    If all they're doing is feeding you, you're not making proper uses of the resources.
  • Sayer 2012-06-12 13:51
    PiisAWheeL:
    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.


    That's a problem with *people*.
  • ccj 2013-03-01 10:36
    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?


    In India we have cleaning crew coming in every day twice to clean floor and carpet (necessary because of all the roaming magic cows). Is this America or some god-forsaken country like India? FTFY and FU

    captcha: 'genitus' I am Genitus, f***er of worlds! Fear my mighty manhood!