[throwaway991199]

Wow, remind me not to hire you for a job then.

As an employer I am paying you to put my work ahead of yours.

I am paying you to be productive so that with the collective production of the employees, the company can outmaneuver the competition.

This lackadaisical approach and work-ethic means that, of course the mile high task list will always be there. It'll never ever get done!

[dang]

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12347100 and marked it off-topic.

[brightball]

If you believe you are hiring him for that reason, then I see why you felt the need to use a throwaway.

You're buying his time and experience for agreed upon hours. You don't have the ability to make him put your work ahead of his anymore than you have the ability to make him put your work ahead of his family, personal life, education or retirement savings.

In discussions like this I tend to fall on sympathizing with employers because until you've taken the risk, hired and managed people you don't fully appreciate just how hard it is or how difficult it is to keep people happy.

What you're describing is closer to buying his life - which would be an understandable arrangement from a business partner but not an everyday employee.

[randyrand]

Of course, you're forgetting the most important part!

People get paid for all sorts of reasons. If you are being paid specifically to put work in front of your hobbies, then that is your job! Think database uptime employees who are paid to get up in the middle of the night to fix a bug, etc. Heck, I even paid a friend to eat a shoe once; you can pay people to do all sorts of things. Paying someone to put work in front of hobbies is hardly novel or extreme.

Of course, this should be clear in the job description!!

[praptak]

"If you are being paid specifically to put work in front of your hobbies"

...then it is most probably illegal in quite a lot of countries. Labor codes exist for a good reason. Most people are a) employees b) not willing to put life ahead of work and c) not willing to be forced to by competition from desperate/workaholic co-workers.

Database uptime employees work shifts, so even they should not be forced to put life before work.

[randyrand]

I suspect you are wrong about legality, but lets put that aside.

Do you think it's reasonable to expect a CEO to put work in front of hobbies?

[johnnyhillbilly]

Not as a goal in itself, no. In the case of real priorities, yes. In the case of apparent priorities, no.

Nevertheless, how numerous are CEOs compared to other employees?

[rhizome]

By whose authority are you imagining that expectation is enforced?

[lsc]

Pager jobs at smaller companies are often not on shifts. Larger companies are usually much more realistic about it. Larger companies tend to give you shifts, along with the better compensation and more realistic expectations, at least in my experienice.

Legally, as an exempt employee, at least in California, my employer is in the clear. Hell, I believe they do it to hourly workers, too. I have worked in the computer industry my whole life, but I am told that it is not uncommon for minimum wage jobs to insist you come in at unexpected hours to cover unexpected events.

[Retric]

Sir, you have clearly been trolled. Don't feed the trolls.

[corobo]

Sometimes a troll is worth replying to if it gets a discussion going. The troll no longer needs to be a part of the discussion.

[djsumdog]

Wow, you're a terrible employer then.

I've worked at a lot of IT companies, doing developer, sys admin, dev ops .. I've run the spectrum from health insurance to credit card processors -- very little of the work I've ever done is fulling or contributes to society in any significant way (except maybe the University I worked for briefly).

My personal work matters way more than any of the crap I get paid for. That being said, I write good code. My stuff has solid test cases, good design and readable code. I learn from code reviews and try to give good feedback. I generate good work and get it done in a reasonable amount of time. But I don't do over time. I don't work over 40 hours a week. I will not work on the weekends. If you work at a hospital, I can see how being on-call could be important. Any other job, and it's just money you're losing.

Just become my employer doesn't come first, doesn't make me a bad employee. If anything it makes me a better person because I have a life.

[ianai]

I think 40 hrs/wk is plenty of effort for a job. It's called full time for a reason and there are only so many hours a day. It's also why the US DOL has that law about mandatory time and a half. If you need more hours out of someone then you're probably understaffed. Increasing the number of people employed is definitely a good idea.

[artursapek]

Even working 8 hours a day, at full concentration, is nearly impossible.

[corobo]

I hope your employees are mentioning this sort of thing on Glassdoor and the likes so we never accidentally get hired by you!

> As an employer I am paying you to put my work ahead of yours.

As an employer you're paying me because I have the skillset required to do whatever your thing is and the bills that require me to work.

I might enjoy the work, don't get me wrong, but I'm primarily here because you either can't or don't want to do what I've been brought on to do and I can and will do it in exchange for money. I'll even consider signing a non-compete if the money part is enough.

> I am paying you to be productive

Correct. Stop there. The rest is waffle.

> Wow, remind me not to hire you for a job then.

Gladly! What company was it you're hiring for?

[gingerrr]

It's a good indicator of your management style that you won't even publically forward your opinion without a throwaway.

Nobody wants to work for a coward.

[riskable]

> Nobody wants to work for a coward.

I dunno. There's advantages to having a boss that's a huge pushover...

Boss: "We need this done by the end of the week!"

Employee: "That's just not possible. These sorts of things take research and most importantly, time."

Boss: "Oh. I see. Two weeks OK?"

Employee: "At least a month. Maybe two."

Boss: "But that's too long!"

Employee: "Nine women can't make a baby in a month!"

Boss: "Oh alright. You've got until the end of the quarter."

[sbuttgereit]

Right... then later when "the Boss" talks to his boss...

Big Boss: "Why haven't you delivered the product yet? I was expecting it midweek?"

Boss: "Well, uh, the team you see... well, they don't think they can deliver... and... "

Big Boss: "If your team can't get this done on the timeline this company needs, get a new team. If you can't do that, then I guess I need a new manager."

Boss: "Yes sir, I see your point."

[Later, with employee]

Boss: "I thought I could give you till the end of the quarter, but we need it tomorrow. Oh yeah, and there's extra requirements now."

Employee: "But you...."

Boss: "I've been overruled and just couldn't push back. You know how it is. Have a good... productive night."

[crazypyro]

Yup, this is exactly what happens. Basically the same as the "make whoever is in front of you happy until the big boss puts his foot down" anti-management pattern. It can work for periods if the big boss knows what hes doing and respects the employees, but otherwise, destined for disaster.

[jharger]

You don't want a complete pushover, though, otherwise nothing ever gets done while your team is busy playing video games all week. What you want is a reasonable boss!

[blackflame7000]

Additionally, pushover bosses won't stand up for you when Scope creep starts to happen. Before long you will have 20 new change requirements to do in the last few days because someone decided they like the old-old way. (ie the code you just tore apart to appease their previous request)

[jharger]

What's worse is having a boss that's a pushover in one direction. From above, it's always whatever upper management wants, and to his team, it's do it now or you're fired.

[_asummers]

You want someone who makes you justify your estimates, so you don't run wild, but is also willing to be like "yeah that really is gonna take 3 weeks longer, go do good work, I'll get you the cover".

[RankingMember]

>As an employer I am paying you to put my work ahead of >yours.

Maybe you're an employer in a 3rd world country so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but no worthwhile employer in the US would even pretend to expect that.

[randyrand]

In my experience, most do.

In Japan it's even common to expect an employee to move in a weeks notice for up to a year at a time.

[RankingMember]

Keep in mind I said "worthwhile". :)

I wouldn't tell anyone how to value their time, but I certainly wouldn't tolerate an employer telling me what I could focus on during off-hours.

[randyrand]

Well it's certainly worthwhile to the Japanese people that work at these jobs for decades. Otherwise they would not continue to do it.

[eisrep]

Worthwhile probably isn't the best word to use here. Most do it because it is expected of them. Some people thrive with this mindset and others are SOL.

The work culture in Japan is a very extreme case and can't be used to prove that this type of behavior is common in other parts of the world. I would say the majority of companies in the US and in Europe do a reasonable job of respecting the personal lives of their employees--more so if they are part of a union.

[coldtea]

>Well it's certainly worthwhile to the Japanese people that work at these jobs for decades. Otherwise they would not do it.

Being conditioned to do something, or being forced to do something to feed yourself because few other job opportunities exist outside Japan's corporate world, are not the same as "certainly worthwhile".

Except, of course, in the sense that not getting homeless or starving is worthwhile.

[randyrand]

> not getting homeless or starving is worthwhile

Do you not consider those worthwhile!? That's like the best example of worthwhile there is!

What point are you making?

[hordeallergy]

If you hadn't used a throwaway you wouldn't have to be reminded because people could simply avoid your company.

[throwanem]

> As an employer I am paying you to put my work ahead of yours.

While I'm at the office. You want me to dedicate my entire life to your business instead of mine, that costs more than you can afford.

[whizzkid]

No no no my friend. You are paying your employees to work under the employment agreement that you both signed.

> I am paying you to be productive so that with the collective production of the employees, the company can outmaneuver the competition

Your employees may be so productive on a project that has no future which at the end will not help the company at all. It is you who should steer the ship for competition. I think you are confusing being a lazy employee with what he/she is saying.

[blackflame7000]

For someone who knows absolutely nothing of the OP's circumstances, you sure are confident in asserting he is overpaid and under-worked.

[coldtea]

>Wow, remind me not to hire you for a job then.

Who told you the parent was interested in working for you and your random company in the first place?

>As an employer I am paying you to put my work ahead of yours.

Nope, employees compensate people for doing specific work for them. Not for "putting their work ahead of their personal life/family/or whatever".

As long as they get their money's worth (and more, since they obviously pay employees less than the value they get out of them, unless the company is merely breaking even), and the job gets done, then they don't get a say in anything else about their employees personal time. Unless they are shitty employees, in which case, let their companies crash and burn.

[carlisle_]

Just to pile on to the hate you're getting, you're the type of manager that couldn't earn my respect in a game of checkers, let alone at work.

[echelon]

s/put my work ahead of yours/put my work ahead of your personal life/ is what you're coming across as saying. In real life, there is, and always should be, balance. An employee devoted entirely to work will burn out and perform suboptimally, sometimes dramatically so.

[findK]

You should be working collectively with your team and "outmaneuvering" the competition, instead of posting 3rd grade managerial comments.

[blackaspen]

"I put all my genius into my life; I put only my talent into my works." -- Oscar Wilde.

[kentt]

I do the same as the parent. I'm at my best in the morning and someone has to get my second best. The best part of my day is working on personal projects or spending time with my wife in the morning. Work get's my second best when I show up at 9.

If I'm passed over for a promotion because of this, meh. I think I'm doing way better than the guy gives his best to his work and what's leftover to himself and family. Additionally, I've found I do better at work anyway because the rest of my life is order and I show up already having accomplished things and on a roll.

[hehheh]

I always put my employer's work ahead of my work. Please let me know where I can submit my resume, I have skills I think you'd find useful.

[passwordreset]

Beautiful!

[mgr86]

on one hand this feels like sarcasm, on the other hand he used an account with the name throwaway.

[rhizome]

It's a bit telling about the median sensibilities here that so many responded earnestly.

[galdosdi]

Not if you're only paying for 8 hours. If you want full control you have to pay for all 24.