[kcplate]

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…

[sys_64738]

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.

[not_the_fda]

I did all nighters early in my career only to have management go in a different direction when we were done.

It ain't worth it and shows lack of leadership. I now have cash on hand to walk out on all nighters and death marches.

[rektide]

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.

[lotsofpulp]

> I was raised in a generation that believed it was in our best interest that our company’s were successful…

Unless I was given a ton of liquid equity for it, I would not assume it was in my best interest.

[gorgoiler]

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.

[kcplate]

But would you still do it without the cash?

[koonsolo]

> our company

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".

[_yb2s]

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…

[stouset]

I have 20 years in startups and this is not normal.

[kcplate]

Twitter has been a product for literally 16 years, pretty sure it’s not a startup.

[stouset]

And doing this for an established company owned by one of the richest people on Earth is… supposed to make this better?

[kcplate]

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.

[stouset]

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.

[Imnimo]

It's interesting that you naturally attribute this belief to upbringing rather than an actual justification.

[kcplate]

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.

[Imnimo]

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.

[kcplate]

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.

[sys_64738]

> 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.

[kcplate]

> "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.

Uh, no. “Exempt” is a legal definition created by a bunch of politicians to exempt people from the FSLA. Basically it means that certain roles can be tied to an expected outcome and not a specific hourly pay guideline. And specifically in the state of California, SWEs can be classified as exempt allowing their employer to require them to work whatever number of hours that are necessary to achieve an outcome.

Since California is also an “at will” state, the employee is free to leave the arrangement.

[koonsolo]

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.

Just my experience of a 43 yo developer.

[kcplate]

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.