Got put on corrective action for refusing to stay until 1am . For the second night in a row.
Company was in a bad part of town. Most of the people were just goofing off anyway. Wiped computer. Went home and emailed that I quit.
I’m not giving up time with kids and getting shot so boss can meet a deadline.
Right, every time I felt trapped working on a problem into the evening became MUCH more easy to resolve the very next morning after a good night's sleep and the ability to seek outside help/resources from others who are also at work at that time
I have a family and a life outside of work, and I can’t count how many all nighters I have pulled in 35+ years of my career. Sometimes you need to do them. Of course I was raised in a generation that believed it was in our best interest that our company’s were successful…
I've never done an "all nighter" in 30+ years and never will. I value my time and if a company is expecting such a commitment then they're taking liberties with understaffing projects.
What was the crisis this time? There was zero mission or purpose here. Bow down and kiss the liege's ring. Thats all that this was. There was not one iota of reason for this forced display of loyalty, nothing pressing that couldnt have been done like a reasonable part of business. The jerking people is the point.
Liquid equity implying you could turn it into cash, so equivalent to good salary? Regular compensation is indeed a sufficient driver for employees to want their employer to be successful.
Having a stake in a business doesn’t just mean owning stock looking for future growth. Wanting the business to still be alive this time next year is also a future outcome that can be embraced by anyone who draws a salary.
So you are the owner of the company? I was raised to put "our family" as a priority, and that means working for money, but doesn't include working like crazy and not getting compensated for it because it's in the best interest of "our company".
I used to love all nighters but as a single dad of a young child, either I leave for school pickup or the police pick me up. If an employer did this to me, I’d be out of a job, and they’d be looking to hire someone else, that will likely cost them more and deliver less…
To keep a company alive vs shuttering it? Seems like it’s something that these folks are willing to do for the organization and Musk. They chose to stay despite an offer to go voluntarily with a severance package. Who does that? Can we give these SWEs the benefit of the doubt that they are intelligent enough to make a decision that is in their best interest?
I honestly do not understand why it’s getting the hate here, it’s like the least controversial thing he has done. Although I guess it’s on par for the cadre of folks with Musk derangement syndrome on here.
They’re burning the midnight oil to save a company that is suffering from fatal wounds that were largely self-inflicted.
The details of the severance package weren’t known until after they had agreed to stay. You also need to consider that many people are attached to a specific job and are strongly opposed to leaving due to specific benefits they might struggle to find elsewhere. Besides the H1B situation that many have wondered about, there are also things like health insurance. Depending on one’s health situation—particularly with children—you may be concerned about finding a new position at a company with a similar health plan before your severance runs out. COBRA is expensive.
Yes, I attribute my belief that it’s important for the company helping me via my compensation to feed, cloth, and shelter my family to be successful to my upbringing. I mean I don’t recall my parents ever saying “When you start working, do as little as possible because screw them they dont deserve your best effort.”
Are you implying that contributing to your company’s success isn’t important? I mean I have helped multiple companies to be successful and by many measures this has provided me success as well. I am pretty sure there is a correlation there.
I'm implying that the success of your company does not automatically transfer to you by osmosis. These employees are not going to see any additional payoff for staying to 1AM. Even if this exercise did somehow improve Twitter's profits, that money is going to Musk, not to them. If they are paid the same salary, work 80 hours a week instead of 40, and Twitter does well as a result, what have they gotten? A 50% hourly paycut.
So, some week down the line they may only work 20 hours and as salaried employees will likely still get the same paycheck that they did for doing 80 hours. By your logic I guess they wouldn’t deserve that 50% extra comp they received for the hours they didn’t work, correct? I’d say it’s a safe bet that almost all have happily cashed that paycheck for likely years and I’d wager at least 50% didn’t work 2080 hours in the last 12 months.
Exempt employees drawing a salary are pretty much paid on an expect end result more than some arbitrary # of hours the employee works. Hours are meaningless.
> Exempt employees drawing a salary are pretty much paid on an expect end result more than some arbitrary # of hours the employee works. Hours are meaningless.
"Exempt" is company-speak to make you think your hours worked are not tied to compensation. Try tell a lawyer or structural engineer the same and they'd laugh at you.
In my experience, the most chaotic companies that were fire fighting all the time tried to pull this "there is this deadline and it has to be finished by X or else we die".
The successful companies on the other hand, are planning ahead and taking setbacks into account. Work was done properly so no crazy firefighting. They also don't burn out their employees.
Sure, but in this specific case you kind of have to assume that Twitter wasn’t on fire already and was well planned and addressing setbacks. I think a fair metaphor could be that there was a bunch of folks enjoying the warmth the flames on the tree in front of them, but ignoring the blazing forest around them.
I think in that case creating a deadline of “we need to put this fire out before it consumes the entire forest” and motivating a bunch of smokejumpers hop in and bust their ass to save the forest isn’t a bad thing.
”I can’t do this because I have to be with my family in the evenings.”
”This sort of thing wouldn’t work for me due to commitments I’ve made outside work.”
”I personally wouldn’t do this.”
What you said instead is pretty packed in terms of a guns-blazin’ take which, while understandable here, reminds me of something much less constructive: how often I encounter people who share your sentiment at my current workplace.
Specifically, the tone with which you say it is what rings true. “We” instead of “I”, refuse-to instead of decline-to, poking at a lack of family or social life, and the need to tell everyone about a personal preference — reasonable in your case, in the context of a discussion, although I note yours is a top level comment so not exactly a reply to anything anyone here has said.
I think I understand the anger. Some people can’t take part in extra curricular work stuff, or want to express solidarity that would normally be expressed through a union, or feel that an employer who tolerates and even encourages work-outside-of-work is immoral and must be challenged.
These are valid feelings. They probably indicate being in the wrong field (bleeding edge knowledge work) or the wrong sized company (small, highly remunerated, with high growth expectations.) Neither of these apply to Twitter.
> Some people have families and a life outside of work. We sure as heck ain't staying until 1am for anybody.
I agree, I wouldn't stay till 1am for anybody... but if the world's richest man just bought the company I worked for, then personally came to work with us through the night... I would definitely consider it (also not an Elon fan btw)
I’m not giving up time with kids and getting shot so boss can meet a deadline.