| >I can name 10 people on there who work in tech and actively try to do the least they can get away with at jobs so, "doing their job?". They aren't paid nor incentivized to put 100% into work. >or work multiple jobs secretly if there's no moonlighting clause, I don't see the issue. The company doesn't control what I do outside of work. >If you're in software and are being honest you know we are not being paid for our output. it's not a software issue, it's a "salaried worker" issue. And that's part of the issue. If you get your work done in 60 hours a week, no one bats an eye (and sotware has specific exemptions from overtime pay). If you get it done in 20, you just get 20 more hours of work. You are not relieved for overtime, but are still expected to give 40 hours of work for being "too fast". The structure is flawed unless your company has a profit sharing program or something (90% of workers are too insignifigant in company impact for most stock options to matter). >No, we aren't being paid for output, we are being paid for being as productive as we can (sustainably) for the generally accepted hours (9-5 or whatever your company says), and continually improving our skills. If I wasn't laid off every 2-3 years, I may actually believe that. But it's become clear these days that the company does not care about growth nor retention. If I'm kicked out in a few years regardless of performance, what's the point? They are just draining my time and labor and giving nothing extra in return for "excellent performance". They may even punish me for it. You get what you pay for. And some things matter more than raw salary. Companies can complain about "trust" all they want, but they sure as hell burned their trust with me. It's a two-way street. if you want my full productivity, incentivize it instead of punishing me for doing exactly what you asked to do. |