[NoahECampbell]

I mean this isn't actually a large problem, at least in programming where I am familiar with a lot of trends. It is very common for people to immediately sign off for the day the minute their work day/shift is over and not do anything else after. If people want to do that then sure they can, but they also trade off the ability to earn raises and promotions by doing the bare minimum. Getting a work-life balance is important absolutely, but the answer is also not to only work the bare minimum you have to in order to get paid, especially in fields like software development where your job is not to write code, but to deliver a product that currently requires code to be written. When something breaks in software development, you don't wait 12 hours for someone to get back on shift, someone does need to be on that as soon as possible, since if that happens with something as important as say google or AWS, it breaks the infrastructure of most things, certainly most important things, on the internet.

[lopis]

Please, enough with this mentality. You don't need to work overtime or sacrifice your work-life balance to grow and earn raises or bonuses. For anyone reading that is working in a company that works like this, just know that there's a better world out there. Your brain can't focus for 12 hours a day no matter how much you try to convince yourself, and the more you push it the worse. It's ok to be paid to be on-call, but that's totally different than working extra hours for free to earn your CEO a big fat bonus.

[NoahECampbell]

I did say work-life balance is important, but also you are not being paid to sit at a desk for a few hours a day. If you work more then you should get paid more, I never said anything about working more for free, so please stick to what I was actually saying? Also try reading a book called Stolen Focus regarding the human brain's ability to focus, which is diminishing due to people actually not working on expanding their focus

[lopis]

> If you work more then you should get paid more

Yes but the habit of working overtime in companies often leads to others feeling like their are "just doing the bare minimum" as you say. Working 8 hours and being productive throughout the week is not the "bare minimum". Companies that encourage people to work overtime are usually toxic places to work on that see jobs as a privilege instead of a partnership. In my workplace we strive to make sure that people don't over do it, regardless of being paid. You can't be on-call forever, and you can't work overtime forever. That's just not healthy and sets bad examples to juniors.

Thanks for the book recommendation, although that's missing the point.

[nobsthrow]

You are a 2nd-year CS student.* You have never worked as an engineer. You do not understand what the real world is like. Please stop waxing about shit you don't know a la /r/cscareerquestions.

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36344172

[distcs]

They may be 2nd year CS student but the world they experience is not any less real than ours who have been in the industry for 10-20 years.

You may disagree with them and that's fine. There is a sort of generation gap obviously and our opinions would differ from theirs. That's fine too.

But what is really unacceptable to me is how you dismiss their viewpoint because they are a 2nd-year CS student! What if they were not a 2nd-year CS student and still believed the same things?

Please be better than this. Comments like yours make these threads a terrible reading experience!

Also http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html

> Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.

[pedrosorio]

> But what is really unacceptable to me is how you dismiss their viewpoint because they are a 2nd-year CS student!

> Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem

This is not really about authority. An outsider can have good ideas. A person who has no experience and no knowledge of the subject will usually spout nonsense as seen on this thread.

If someone was talking about how child birth doesn't need any sort of pain medication because the experience isn't that painful, wouldn't you want to know if they had actually given birth at least once?

Concretely, reading what a person who has never worked a full time job (much less had to juggle having a family and a full time job), has to say about work-life balance is pointless.

Reading their thoughts on how not working overtime precludes raises and promotions is a waste of time.

Watching as they finish their rant by appealing to a sense of duty that every software engineer must have because "if Google or AWS goes down, it breaks everything" when the people responsible for these systems are a tiny minority of all software engineers...

Come on. If OP was not a 2nd year CS student, I would have been surprised.

[tristor]

No, his comment is spot on. A 2nd year CS student doesn't know jack shit about working in a professional capacity, and should not be sharing terrible advise that leads to burn out that other people may follow because they too don't know shit about working in a professional capacity.

Advice carries accountability, and if you don't have the necessary experience to carry advice, it is much better to shut your trap than to reveal your ignorance. The type of inclusive coddling you are doing does not improve the world, it makes everything worse and socially penalizes people for speaking the truth. /You/ are the person who should re-consider your comments.

[distcs]

So you think it is ok to dig up someone's past threads and show that they are 2nd year CS student to discount their point?

If their point is incorrect or wrong, why can't they be discussed on its own? Why is it necessary to discuss the person?

May I suggest reading DH1 of http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html?

> Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders.

There are many others who are engaging with the arguments this young person made without bringing their age or professional status into question. That's a healthy debate. What is happening in this subthread is not!

[nobsthrow]

I think the internet would be a much better experience if every person online had generic details about themselves attached to their handle; e.g. age, ethnicity and nationality, parents' net worth and income, employment history or lack thereof, etc. So just like in real life, I could easily dismiss the strong opinions of others who do not have the experience necessary to form any educated opinions on which they speak.

Yes, there is no truth, and no one's reality is less "real" than others -- but children are known to talk confidently (dare I say arrogantly) about things which they know not, when they think there are no consequences. Therefore, I would like to be able to easily filter out their opinions, so as to improve my reading experience, and that of others.

If they were not a 2nd-year CS student, they would either be: very early into their career and lucky, willfully naive or privileged, or simply a malicious and adversarial person. Atleast a child can be taught to act properly.

[JohnFen]

> I think the internet would be a much better experience if every person online had generic details about themselves attached to their handle; e.g. age, ethnicity and nationality, parents' net worth and income, employment history or lack thereof, etc.

I strongly disagree.

> So just like in real life, I could easily dismiss the strong opinions of others who do not have the experience necessary to form any educated opinions on which they speak.

And this is why. In evaluating an opinion, it doesn't really matter what the person's background is. Experts can have wrong or crazy opinions and laypeople can have correct ones.

What matters is how solid their arguments for their positions are.

[distcs]

I disagree with their comment too. I too believe their comment is way too much wrong. I disagree with them. But I would not go so far as creating a throwaway account (like you did) just to do dig up their past threads to find out that they are only a 2nd year CS student. It does not matter to me that their views (which are diametrically opposite than mine) came from an experienced pro or a 2nd year student. What matters to me is that their views are opposite of mine. That can be expressed without digging up their past threads.

[throwaway675309]

It's not an ad hominem attack, a second year CS student is highly unlikely to carry the experience of years working in the industry in order to be able to answer this question with any degree of reliability. Calling them out on this is spot on, and I'm getting really tired of people attempting to deflect or whinge about toxicity because an certain argument doesn't sit well with them.

[distcs]

> It's not an ad hominem attack, a second year CS student is highly unlikely to carry the experience of years working in the industry in order to be able to answer this question with any degree of reliability.

You are literally providing an example of ad hominem attack and yet you are claiming that it is not ad hominem?

Their argument is wrong of course. So you and me are in agreement there. And their argument is wrong on its own merits. That they are a second year CS student is besides the point. Their argument would be very much wrong even if they were a 20 year experienced professional.

[danwee]

> If you work more then you should get paid more

I guess you meant "if you produce more then you should get paid more", right? If so, yes I agree. But if you imply that just by working 25% more hours peer week than my peers I should get paid more, well, that's idiotic (maybe I'm working more because I cannot be as good as others who need less time to do the same?).

At least in IT, working more doesn't necessarily mean to produce (things of value) more.

[robotburrito]

Not that I agree with this sentiment. But you do need to do these things if others are doing so. It’s like weight cutting in combat sports. It only takes one person who does it to force all others to as well.

[danwee]

There is a huge difference between "doing the bare minimum" and working outside of your regular working hours. One can do nothing at all working 10h/day, while another can provide high value working 9-5 (or even less).

Obviously, there are people who work 10h/day and produce high value as well, but it's not a requirement and most sane tech companies out there do not expect that from you.

[mathogre]

From 2010 through 2020, I was working as a mathematician, programmer, analyst, researcher full time on an odd schedule, Tuesday through Saturday. I was also working on a side hustle. I was doing fashion photography as a hobby, with the intention of going full time.

When the work week ended, my photography week began. Work was on its own computer and I never included any work communications in any of my personal devices. When we hit lockdown, everything was done from home. That said, they gave us iPhones for our regular telephone communications.

My time is mine. I earned raises and promotions, and had benefits based on my desires. I worked my schedule. If someone scheduled a meeting during a time when I was off, I would discuss that with the person. If I was needed, I'd attend; otherwise, it was my time off.

Yes we had Outlook, Teams, Slack for communications. I would stay connected during the work week, but when I was off, it was my time. My supervisors had ways to contact me in an emergency, and I let them know it was okay to do so in an emergency.

The fashion work ended, but it was one heck of an adventure! It was my time.

[edu]

You should work hard and be productive during your regular work schedule, not doing that is a breach of contract. But expecting to put more hours than required regularly, it's also a breach in contract.

If you need to be available outside of regulars hours, you must be paid. If something must be up 24/7h, hire more people and set proper work shifts so it's covered.

Raises and promotions should come if you do good work, not if you work longer hours. Which will probably lead to burnout or depression.

When I go to a restaurant and order a hamburger, I don't expect to get a sirloin.

[NoahECampbell]

I never said anything about not paying people for working more?

[bamfly]

> It is very common for people to immediately sign off for the day the minute their work day/shift is over and not do anything else after. If people want to do that then sure they can, but they also trade off the ability to earn raises and promotions by doing the bare minimum.

So, when this happens, the employer is offering more money if the employee continues working? The employer is asking them to do that, and employees are saying "no, thanks" to the extra money?

The way you wrote your whole post really reads like you aren't talking about paid overtime.

[NoahECampbell]

So what you're saying is you made an assumption about what I said, took that assumption and wrapped your entire thing about it without knowing it was true. I recommend taking things at a surface level and not trying to read 50 layers into it

[sezycei]

While I agree with the general gist of what you're trying to communicate, the person you're responding here did no such thing. Take a step back and re-read; they're just following what you're suggesting to one possible natural conclusion. If you don't believe that's what would happen, you can state that without accusing your partner in this conversation of "reading too deep".

[bamfly]

I am reading the surface level, in which your described compensation for overtime work is an advantage at promotion time.

Again: are these workers being offered overtime pay, and refusing it?

[mikrl]

That sounds exactly like something an adversarial participant in the SWE market would say to make me burn out and drop out.

Keep that forked tongue in your mouth!

[NoahECampbell]

I mean if you can't handle working when something breaks, you probably shouldn't be working there in the first place. Work is.....well work.

[mikrl]

I will defer to my employment contract and stated hours of work. You do honour contracts… right?

More people than you think don’t, especially if the other party is less powerful and the jackal thinks they can get away with it.

[bombolo]

Being on call is scheduled and paid.

[daok]

Many places is not. They hang the carrot of bonus, stocks and promotion...

[mjmsmith]

If people work hard in the hours that they're paid for, that is not "the bare minimum".

[NoahECampbell]

If something breaks and suddenly no customer can use the product and its 5pm and the engineers say "Welp sorry, my shift ended a few minutes ago so I'll fix it tomorrow!", that is in fact the bare minimum. If an engineer does that, they can be expected to not be earning any raises for actually doing what they're supposed to do, which is not to sit at a desk for a few hours a day, but to deliver a product

[ricketycricket]

The problem is that you are saying two different things in your replies. On one hand you say that you aren't suggesting that people work for free, and on the other hand you say that people leaving when their shift is over should not be rewarded with raises.

If employees are being paid to stay after 5 or be on call, then their shift isn't over. If they aren't being paid for their time, they absolutely should go home. If the product cannot afford to go down, the company is responsible for keeping paid staff on hand. Expecting people to work beyond the agreed amount and punishing those that don't by removing opportunities for advancement is reproachable. It may be the norm, but it shouldn't be.

[danwee]

If the company doesn't have a decent on-call plan for such issues that happen outside of regular hours, then why on earth should I be the one who has to fix that? The company is not making me a favor by giving me a job, nor I am making a favor to the company either; it's just a regular business transaction and contracts matter. If my contract says 40h/week, then why the company should expect more? If my contract says that I'm getting paid X per week for doing on-call, then sure it's my job to fix shit outside working hours.

If you tell that "you break it, you fix it", I say "agree, but during working hours"

> which is not to sit at a desk for a few hours a day, but to deliver a product

Please, let's be professionals. You work is whatever your contract says (which yes, it usually says "to deliver a product" but it also says "40h/week"... at least mine says so)

[sdf4j]

No. If the product needs to be available 24/7 then is sensible to expect a budget to do that. As in every other industry, you have around-the-sun resources allocated, proper oncall shifts, and whatever other safe net you can think of. Expecting a proverbial engineer to jump and fix things adhoc is poor business planning and fantasy-football level management.

[arkey]

That's why OOH (Out Of Hour) On-call Rotas are a thing.

I work as a SWE and when I'm done, I'm done.

Except one week a month when I have my OOH shift, which is on a voluntary basis in the company I work for. If something breaks during time out of office hours, then it is my responsibility to take care of it. I do, however, get paid quite a nice extra sum just for being on-call.

[ohthatsnotright]

The company should be hiring staff to ensure continuous coverage, not relying on someone who has worked a normal "shift" to work overtime because the company is too cheap to hire the support and operations staff that it needs.

[mjmsmith]

It's 5pm where? If the answer is "anywhere", then the company needs 24-hour coverage in multiple time zones, so there's always somebody on shift.

You seem to be under the impression that there is no level of effort between "sit at a desk for a few hours a day" and "be on call 24 hours a day". I can't imagine why.

[kcb]

The solution to this is proper support chains and on call schedules. Not to have every engineer on call 24/7. If your application is so mission critical, just expecting someone will always pick up the phone is irresponsible.

[catboybotnet]

If you are not paid overtime, then you are not expected to work overtime. Simple as.

If the product is expected to be up 24/7, and there is nobody scheduled after you, it's on management and not you to solve that.

[zerodensity]

It's only the engineers problem if the engineer has signed a contract specifically stating that they have to work overtime in emergencies. If not then it's the company's problem.

[ipaddr]

You are not getting a promotion for working extra hard. Google and Amazon can afford to staff 24 hours a day if the service requires it.

The way you get promotions is through networking. You are better off spending time on the golf course. The next level isn't about working harder throughout the night. That's code monkey thinking. It's about being able to understand and communicate big picture while fitting in personally. The midnight jolt cola sessions leave you tired, sicker looking and sounding crazy to the suits above. Show them you can do the new job don't show them you can do the job of two of you.

[tristor]

The idea that someone who leaves work when their day is over is "doing the bare minimum" is an incredibly toxic mentality, and it leads to burnout but doesn't get you ahead. I know from personal experience. Based on your post history it seems you're still a student and have never worked in a professional capacity. I highly recommend you introspect about this and disabuse yourself of the notion that you will in any way be rewarded for working unpaid overtime, which is exactly what it is when you are in tech.

It's something a lot of people don't realize, but many technical roles are exempt from overtime, even when hourly, /by federal law/ in the US. Most roles are also salaried. You gain no direct benefit from working more hours, and it has many fringe downsides and no upsides. Working unpaid overtime skews capacity planning and budget cycles, and leads to teams which are consistently understaffed and under-resourced without reduced expectations. Being "a hero" is actually bad for yourself, your team, and your company. Now that I'm involved in budget processes, resource allocation, and prioritization much more heavily than I was in the past as an IC engineer, I can see exactly how damaging this behavior is.

In /reasonable/ companies, capacity planning is usually based on trend analysis of past completed story points and sizing, averaged against headcount. Being "a hero" fucks up the average and messes up capacity planning. In unreasonable companies, ignorant managers will happily work you to burnout if it helps them drive a sale and take credit for it without any care for your health and wellbeing. Burn out isn't something you can fix by taking a vacation, it's a serious serious problem that can have life-altering repercussions. I have so many acquaintances over the year in tech that developed substance abuse problems, serious mental health conditions, and in many cases had their lives fall apart because they inappropriately managed their work/life balance and burned out.

You should really reconsider sharing advice when you have never actually had any experience. I realize in your 20s you think you know everything and you're invincible, but I'd posit you consider an alternative, which is that you don't know shit and you too one day will get old and die. Perhaps you should re-prioritize before you pay the toll.