[pdonis]

> Why aren't people paid a full time salary for the work they're expected to do instead of the time they sit at a desk?

If the work you are expected to do is fixed--your boss can't come to you with an ad hoc assignment that's not in some formal job description--then you're not an employee, you're an independent contractor. (And that means the corporation no longer has to worry about things like your health care and retirement benefits.)

The real value proposition for having an employee vs. an independent contractor is that the work the employee is expected to do is not fixed--your boss can come to you as an employee with an ad hoc assignment that's not in any formal job description and expect you to do it. In other words, the belief the article describes, that paying someone a full time salary as an employee means the company owns their time, is actually mistaken (even though I think it is very common among corporate managers and executives). What you're actually paying them for is being able to give them ad hoc new jobs to do as the company's environment and needs change, and not have to go through the hassle of writing up a new contractor's statement of work and negotiating a new price. The only justification you need to give an employee a new ad hoc assignment is "this is going to help the company".

[whateveracct]

Exactly - full-time is about paying someone for availability more than hours of focused labor. It just so happens that being available remotely looks way different (and is generally more leisurely) than in-office availability.

Having slack is key to being an effective business. And slack is literally people not being at max utilization 40 hours a week.

[thatguymike]

Moreover: in the high skilled tech teams we’re mostly talking about, the expectation is that you as a team member are helping to identify and drive the work itself. Reporting issues, looking for opportunities, talking to users and partners, etc. That requires soft skills, relationships, and active engagement. The idea that you’re hired just to do the obvious things which are easier from home (churn out code, not much else) seems strange to me for most modern tech workers.

[proc0]

The real value prop of having a full time employee, is you own their full time focus five days a week. It's not about practicing a trained skillset, or providing expertise ONLY, it's also about owning part of the business, managing other employees, and deep understanding of the product and how to market and deliver it to the user.

I'm not saying that's good or bad, however it is definitely not clearly stated-- not in schools, universities or in job descriptions. Society tells your for decades you're supposed to specialize and then get paid for that skill, yet most companies are expecting so much more.

[pdonis]

> you own their full time focus five days a week

That is the kind of "ownership" that the article is describing, but I don't think it's actually true. Even employees sitting in a office aren't focusing full time on the business for every single minute they are in the office.

That's why I phrased it instead in terms of assignments and how specific the definition of the job is, as compared with an independent contractor. You might not be focused on the business every single minute of your nominal working hours--but your boss can come to you in any one of those minutes and basically redefine what your job is. That's what the company "owns" if you are an employee. And that can happen just as easily if you're remote.

> it's also about owning part of the business

But employees, unless they are also stockholders, don't own any part of the business. And even in cases where employees do own stock on paper, their ownership share is so tiny that it arguably does not provide any meaningful motivation.

[proc0]

Yeah I agree with that. It's about owning your "main" focus. Being late one day and having the excuse that you had to do another job would not be ok, yet you can give many other typical excuses regarding family or dealing with life in general.

> But employees, unless they are also stockholders, don't own any part of the business. And even in cases where employees do own stock on paper, their ownership share is so tiny that it arguably does not provide any meaningful motivation.

Right, even though you don't own the business, it seems the expectation is still to behave in a way that you do. That is at least rewarded, if not punished by not promoting and/or having a negative review because you don't have the "soft skills".

[neon_electro]

Don't forget equity agreements that effectively prevent you from owning anything unless a "liquidity event" happens.