Tech Pros' Struggle For Work-Life Balance Continues (dice.com)

Nerval's Lobster writes: Work-life balance among technology professionals is very much in the news following a much-discussed New York Times article about workday conditions at Amazon. That piece painted a picture of a harsh workplace where employees literally cried at their desks. While more tech companies are publicly talking about the need for work-life balance, do the pressures of delivering revenues, profits, and products make much of that chatter mere lip-service? Or are companies actually doing their best to ensure their workers are treated like human beings with lives outside of work?

Comments

This one's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

"do the pressures of delivering revenues, profits, and products make much of that chatter mere lip-service?"

Yes.

"Or are companies actually doing their best to ensure their workers are treated like human beings with lives outside of work?"

No.

Next.

Re:This one's easy

[rioki]

Fun fact, creating a good work life balance for your employees may actually have a positive outcome to the bottom line. First, motivated workers generally have something like a 10x higher output. Second, when you have a nice place to work, employees are ready to be payed less; generally they tend to favor a better place to work over a higher salary. Third, having a nice place to work will attract talent and retain it. At least for the tech sector, creating a nice place to work is the egoistical approach.

Re:This one's easy

[l3v1]

"creating a good work life balance for your employees"

Well, what I expect from an employer is not to "create" a good work-life balance, but to provide an environment where a day's work can be ended (I didn't say 'finished' on purpose) at the 9 hour mark - unless the employee explicitely wishes to make longer hours for whatever reason - and not have any influence on the out-of-work time at all aside from making it possible to actually have out-of-work time.

"when you have a nice place to work, employees are ready to be payed less"

Yeah, I call BS on that. Most people actually work for a living, and deserve proper compensation for their invested talent and time. A "nice place to work" should not be a perk, but expected, and should not feel as something extra that one should be thankful for.

Re:This one's easy

[slashname3]

Sign on the message board at work: "The beatings will continue until morale improves!"

Re:This one's easy

[david_thornley]

Some people will be willing to give up some compensation to get better working conditions, and some won't. In cases where money isn't that strong a motivator within a certain range, employees may well decide where to work based on working conditions.

You might put it that, if you have a crap working environment, people had better be paid a lot better than other places or you'll lose them.

Re:This one's easy

[mongothesecond]

I think your argument is flawed, as much as I want to agree with it. Like almost everything else, people fall into some bell-curve shaped measurement for any number of traits. Amazon certainly isnt the only company selecting for drive, endurance, capability, and other factors out on one side of the bell curve of a population. At least in the startups I have been part of and seen (mostly in California), there is a clear division between the public relations effort of a company culture, and the fact that results are what matters. You get to have a fun culture that is generous and helpful to its participants as long as the investors think that giving you more rope is going to make them more money. The moment you get past the wild optimism phase, the tone abruptly shifts.

It's not a sound strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

to think about your employees well being. If someone has a meltdown, they're replaceable. Nobody is special. The innovators are the ones who founded the company and you're the chump that has to do the easy part of making stuff function. Anyone could do it but you qualified and made a good impression during the interview.

Now quit your whining, cash in your paycheck, and meet that deadline.

Re:It's not a sound strategy

[Opportunist]

It's time some managers learn that they are much, much easier to replace than most techs. How much experience and training does it take to drive a company into the ground and beg for bailouts?

Re:It's not a sound strategy

[swalve]

And that's why you have to be your own advocate. If they won't tell you what your working hours are when you start the job, don't take it. Once you've put in your time, go home. If you are halfway decent at your job, you don't need to work extra hours.

Re:It's not a sound strategy

[Provocateur]

And last but not least, did the firm bother with composing a mission statement? Did they care to let You --the new employee-- know about it? Or did they skip that and went straight to your work hours? This is the answer to the question, Do they care about you as a human being?

Re:It's not a sound strategy

[RabidReindeer]

If you think debt is a form of slavery, you don't know what a powerful lever debt can be.

Some of the most successful companies, explorations, and other major human works started when one or more person mortgaged themselves to finance their efforts. Virtually no company considers itself prepared to grow until it has an established line of credit.

Getting into a debt you cannot get out of is slavery. For everything else, there's collateral. And insurance.

Re:It's not a sound strategy

[91degrees]

Personal debt is slavery. As you say, business debt is quite a different animal. The debt becomes part of the business, which you can relatively easily divest yourself of. You no longer have the business but you also no longer have the debt.

Of course, personal debt being slavery is a bit of a simplification as well.

Re:It's not a sound strategy

[jellomizer]

On the average the cost to replace an employee is 150% More over a year. Making a culture where people just get kicked out only to be replaced by someone else, who will need to learn how the business operates the written and unwritten rules, knowing what trends will kick in, what breaks more often, isn't economical.

Normally a new employee will need to stayed hired at an organization for 3 years for them to break even. Years 3-5 are critical time to make sure that employee stays that is where you need to make sure you are ready to offer a raise or some other additional benefit, to make sure he doesn't jump ship for a better job.

Now that doesn't mean a company should keep all its jobs. Sometimes the companies focus shifts and you don't need particular jobs, Such as how Netflix is transitioning from DVD mailing to Online streaming. That means those guys who are in the mailroom have their jobs at risk, unless they are able move to a different area which is more to the company's new focus.

However Bad behavior is firing people then replacing them over again, with newer,greener,cheaper employees who will bring a couple of new fresh ideas to the table, however they will need to reinvent hundreds of best practices that had been learned in the past.

Re:It's not a sound strategy

[jellomizer]

Managers are quite aware of that. That is why they may feel the need to push down on the employees to keep their numbers up.
The execs who come up with these performance numbers out of their butts are the real problems.
Their Ego states, because they are so high up that they must be smarter than everyone.
But the organization is so large they cant grasp what is going on, as it is very complex. So they try to make a simple metric so they can spot what is going on.
The problem is this metric needs to be easily calculated and none of that Statistical stuff with margin of error, but a hard and fast number of good or bad.
 

Re:It's not a sound strategy

[david_thornley]

GP said that you need to find out what your working hours are up front, not to make sure it's an 8-hour day. I make it clear in my interviews that I do understand the concept of limited crunch time, and will work longer hours temporarily as actually needed. If they offer me the job after that, I figure they've agreed to reasonable normal working hours. I may have lost some offers because of that, but I really didn't want to work there anyway.

Re:It's not a sound strategy

[Ol Olsoc]

GP said that you need to find out what your working hours are up front, not to make sure it's an 8-hour day.

Might not be a sound strategy if a person demands to know exactly how many hours they will be working. You somehow figure that when they demand that as a condition of working, they aren't demanding a 40 hour week?

Someone asks me that in an interview, it's over, thank you very much.

I make it clear in my interviews that I do understand the concept of limited crunch time, and will work longer hours temporarily as actually needed. If they offer me the job after that, I figure they've agreed to reasonable normal working hours. I may have lost some offers because of that, but I really didn't want to work there anyway.

Yup, and I wouldn't want you working with me either, so it's a match made in heaven. I much prefer professional people who will work to get the task finished. People who have time constraints they place upon their employer should be working non-exempt and punching in and out on a time clock.

Yeah - I worked a lot of extra hours. Along with other people of the same bent. We were a team, and we enjoyed the heck out of it.

Re:It's not a sound strategy

[blue9steel]

People who have time constraints they place upon their employer should be working non-exempt and punching in and out on a time clock.

There is a difference between being flexible and willing to put in extra hours as truly necessary and just being taken advantage of.

Re:It's not a sound strategy

[Ol Olsoc]

People who have time constraints they place upon their employer should be working non-exempt and punching in and out on a time clock.

There is a difference between being flexible and willing to put in extra hours as truly necessary and just being taken advantage of.

Sure. Problem I see is way too many slashdotters think that putting anything other than a bare minimum is being tasken advantage of.

I worked a lot of hours, had a lot of fun, went to a lot of interesting places, met a lot of interesting people, went to a lot of meetings - the least fun part - but still worthwhile as a learning instrument, and was paid pretty well. Then got to retire 10 years early at 55 on my own terms. If that's being taken advantage of, sign me up.

Re:It's not a sound strategy

[blue9steel]

I worked a lot of hours, had a lot of fun, went to a lot of interesting places, met a lot of interesting people, went to a lot of meetings - the least fun part - but still worthwhile as a learning instrument, and was paid pretty well. Then got to retire 10 years early at 55 on my own terms. If that's being taken advantage of, sign me up.

I'm glad your anecdotal experience worked out well for you, but that has nothing to do with the broader situation.

Re:It's not a sound strategy

[xanthos]

"Now quit your whining, cash in your paycheck, and meet that arbitrary deadline".

FTFY.

Re:It's not a sound strategy

[micahraleigh]

"too many slashdotters think that putting anything other than a bare minimum is being tasken advantage of."

Slashdotters want to work 20 hours a week. Managers want them to work 55 hours a week.

The problem is people looking at superficial metrics. A lot can be accomplished in 40 hours when you're not thinking about hours, perceptions, etc.

Re:It's not a sound strategy

[micahraleigh]

Interesting strategy on the 3 years. So how do you address the "critical time" if most tech workers don't make it to 2?

Re:It's not a sound strategy

[Ol Olsoc]

I'm glad your anecdotal experience worked out well for you, but that has nothing to do with the broader situation.

Its anecdotes all the way down.

Re:It's not a sound strategy

[TranquilVoid]

It's partially a zero-sum game. If everyone worked as many "lot of hours" as you, then chances are you wouldn't have been able to retire at 55.

Re:It's not a sound strategy

[Ol Olsoc]

It's partially a zero-sum game. If everyone worked as many "lot of hours" as you, then chances are you wouldn't have been able to retire at 55.

His eyes wide open!

Everything is relative. And I'm not even telling people this is how they should act. Merely a little bit about effort, attitude, and rewards. There is enough laziness and fear that someone may take advantage in most people, that I'm not even worried about sharing this knowledge. Most think my approach to work and career is stupid. Good for them. I'm certain that they reap the rewards of their smarter outlook. I dunno, most of the posters here seem pretty miserable, or brag how they only work 40 hours a week as if it were the core of their job.

To your accurate point of the concept of the effect being destroyed if everyone did it - a restaurant analogy

I am a big tipper, as in a really big tipper. And I almost never get bad service. The same with my wife. In the places we frequent, our drinks are often ready when we enter the dining area. We're not overly demanding, we're pleasant, we respect the staff, and we tip big.

Now if everyone did that, it would destroy the effect. In the meantime, I'm taking advantage of it.

But just like my approach to career and my work habits, I know that will never happen. Most people simply cannot comprehend it.

Re:It's not a sound strategy

[david_thornley]

I am task-oriented, and want to get it done well. I really can't function on any other basis.

If there's things that come up occasionally that require me to work extra hours, I understand that and will do so. If the job normally requires extra hours, I'm not interested.

Moreover, if the development job typically requires in excess of 45 hours a week, the employer is not getting its money's worth. After that point, employees tend to burn out and are overall less productive. Moreover, suppose you have a scheduling issue and need some extra work. If people are normally working 40 hours a week, they can usually work much longer for a short time. If they're normally working 60 hours a week, they're tired and additional hours are just going to make the situation worse.

Re:It's not a sound strategy

[Ol Olsoc]

I am task-oriented, and want to get it done well. I really can't function on any other basis.

If there's things that come up occasionally that require me to work extra hours, I understand that and will do so. If the job normally requires extra hours, I'm not interested.

Moreover, if the development job typically requires in excess of 45 hours a week, the employer is not getting its money's worth.

Odd. My employers had no issues with my productivity. I didn't specifically get paid for working OT, but I made much much more than the other employees in my department. Most had your outlook

After that point, employees tend to burn out and are overall less productive.

Especially if you feel very put upon. For the most part, I felt rather appreciated. I also rode through the occasional downturn while some folks got themselves a lot more free time.

Regardless, just my outlook and attitude, seemed to work very, very well for me.

By the way, given that I retired at 55 on my own terms, and that typically people retire at around 67, that's roughly 24 thousand hours - assuming 2 weeks of vacation per year - I won't work - that many will.

Re:It's not a sound strategy

[swalve]

I'm in a similar position, but I get my work done in the allotted time. I've just noticed that a vast majority of people who work long hours do a hell of a lot of fucking around.

Re:It's not a sound strategy

[Ol Olsoc]

I'm in a similar position, but I get my work done in the allotted time. I've just noticed that a vast majority of people who work long hours do a hell of a lot of fucking around.

And people who can't work over 40 hours are often lazy. Spare me the innuendo. You're amazing productivity wouldn't work if you had my job. Very often the work came in at 1655, and was due at 0800. Or I was in a remote field test, where things happen when they happen. Or the meeting I was in started early, and ended late.

Oddly enough, a fair number of co-workers always had a reason they couldn't come in early or leave late, or go on field testing. Car pooling, making dinner for the husband, so there were even times I took over their tasks to get them finished. I'm not certain that counts as their productivity. I was probably a dillemma for some as well, because while they might dislike me making them look bad by comparison, my willingness to get things done sort of kept them out of problems at times.

I've noted before, when downturns came, and people had ot be cut, it wasn't the highest paid guy in the group, but the person who was so productive they never worked more than 40 hours? Gone.

Re:It's not a sound strategy

[swalve]

So you are bragging about being the whipping boy.

Re:It's not a sound strategy

[Ol Olsoc]

So you are bragging about being the whipping boy.

No. I'm merely offering an alternative to the almost universal Slashdotter opinion that you dare not work more than 40 hours.

The scientists and engineers I worked with were right there with me in most cases, except whne I was preparing something in a real panic for the director. And despite slash dotters view of the suits as sociopaths, most aren't, and when I made the big guy look good, I look good, and that has its rewards.

Maybe I come from a different world, maybe the almost universal slashdotter is a wage worker, with a fear that any extra time is a violation ot their dignity and human rights.

We were professionals, doing professional work and research. And it doesn't always conform to a time clock punch.

And "whipping boy"? Oh dear, not even remotely. Not a whipping boy, not a house boy. The only thing my employer took advantage of was my abilities. Probably something you and many wouldn't understand, I'm beginning to believe. It does seem like an impediment to upward mobility, to be frank.

But I'm curious. When slash dotters brag about how no one will take advantage of them and make them work more than 40 hours a week, and I offer an alternative viewpoint, its so curious how many people take this as a personal affront. I worked hard, was well respected, and was well compensated, and had a rather nice career. Why that's aa apparent personal problem with some people is worth investigating.

Re:It's not a sound strategy

[david_thornley]

There's always exceptions to every rule that involves humans. Most people can't work extended hours for a long time and still be as productive.

Work-life balance thrives where it is prioritized

[i work on computers]

I've had three employers: one Fortune 500 company and two 50 employee consulting companies. At the big company, I worked 50-60 hours/week in a high stress environment, but the work was exciting and I really enjoyed it.

At the two smaller companies, it is rare that I would work over 41 hours/week. I've never done it in 6 months at my current company. I think it is easier for small consulting companies to offer a balance like this because our clients won't pay for more than 40 hours/week except under exceptional circumstances, and our company does a great job being realistic about timelines so we almost always deliver on time.

You can find work-life balance, but you have to look for it and prioritize it in you job search. I would probably make 10-20% more had I stayed at the large company, but the relaxed hours are worth it to me.

I'll also note that this is in the Midwest, where all you tech people from the coasts complaining about not finding jobs should move.

Reminder: This is a Dicevertisement

[RyoShin]

Just a friendly reminder that Nerval's Lobster is a Dice shill account, and posts articles for Dice.com. Oh, and that editors either refuse to, or are banned from, putting a disclaimer that Dice.com is owned by Dice Holdings, Inc., the parent company of Slashdot, as they once would when posting a link to "sister" sites prior to being purchased by Dice.

Re:Reminder: This is a Dicevertisement

[Marginal Coward]

Kindda makes you wonder who the financial genius at Dice was that decided to buy Slashdot just for the privilege of posting ads for free. Unless, of course, these things are really just a gimmick to move all those unforeseen Slashdot losses into a different accounting category: "Eureka! We'll just write the losses off as advertising!"

Re:Reminder: This is a Dicevertisement

[RyoShin]

Bitching about the source is a little silly

Not when the source holds a status of privilege above other sources and the connection is not disclosed.

My personal problem isn't Slashdot having articles linking to Dice, or even using a shill account; it's the refusal to post a disclaimer about sharing a parent company. /.ers cry foul over any article where the author has a potential conflict of interest and does not disclose it; why should we do any different when Slashdot editors post a Dice story?

Re:Reminder: This is a Dicevertisement

[RyoShin]

I think Beta was actually their attempt to monetize Slashdot, but the community reaction was so horrendous (and rightfully so, IMO) that they had to cancel it, which is why they're looking to sell off Slashdot. These Dicevertisements are just a little side action for them, for whatever ads I'm sure they have plastered over their own page.

Re:Reminder: This is a Dicevertisement

[RyoShin]

I'm talking about when it was owned by Geeknet. Any time they posted a link to, say, SourceForge, they would mention that SourceForge and Slashdot are both owned by the same company.

Re:Reminder: This is a Dicevertisement

[RyoShin]

You have a problem with Nerval's lobster don't read it's postings

I didn't; I just saw "Nerval's Lobster" and made my post. While you know about Nerval's Lobster, and I know about Nerval's Lobster, there are many who don't, especially newer users. Therefore, I do what Slashdot editors will not.

Incidentally, you seem to be rather pissed about my comment. Why did you not take your own advice and simply not read it? :)

Re:Reminder: This is a Dicevertisement

[Ol Olsoc]

Incidentally, you seem to be rather pissed about my comment. Why did you not take your own advice and simply not read it? :)

Au contraire, mon frere, I'm not pissed, I'm agitation engineering with someone who is posting AC caliber stuff while using an ID.

I have no intention of not reading your stuff, it gives me mirth - showing me someone to make fun of for their pettyness.

Now to drop to seriousness for a moment, if the posts from Nerval's Lobster were the self serving stuff posted by say, Microsoft shill propagandists, maybe there is a reason to take umbrage.

But this? Work-life balance for tech pros? Hardly even qualifies as clickbait, such as the Women in STEM stuff.

I hope you are a pretty old fellow, since people tend to get crankier in their old age. If you aren't old, I forsee a future of chasing those consharned teenagers off your lawn in your golf cart, while shaking your cane at them. Drive careful now.

Re: Reminder: This is a Dicevertisement

[Ol Olsoc]

astroturfing,

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Reminder: This is a Dicevertisement

[tehcyder]

editors either refuse to, or are banned from, putting a disclaimer that Dice.com is owned by Dice Holdings, Inc.

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that pretty self evident because of the names? If Dice Holding Inc was called Randomnoun Inc, then fair enough.

Re:Reminder: This is a Dicevertisement

[RyoShin]

Yeah, I was just making sure the relationship was clear (that /. is owned by DHI, not by Dice.com)

I wonder

[khelms]

I wonder if someday "going Amazon" will be part of our vocabulary.

Work-Life Balance Isn't Profitable

[Irate Engineer]

1) Hire new STEM worker, reset pay scale to minimum.

2) Drive worker to burnout in two years or so, worker leaves/commits suicide/has heart attack.

3) PROFIT!!

4) Start process again at 1)

Keeping employees around that expect periodic raises and sensible work-life balance will never increase profit margins in the short term. Only companies concerned about the long term and brain drain (and few are) will do anything to change this. Most just want billable hours.

Re:Work-Life Balance Isn't Profitable

[Opportunist]

That works as long as you don't need to train your staff. But, well, you know how managers are. "Burger joint, IT security consulting, I can manage anything, what's the difference anyway?"

Re:Work-Life Balance Isn't Profitable

[Ol Olsoc]

That works as long as you don't need to train your staff. But, well, you know how managers are. "Burger joint, IT security consulting, I can manage anything, what's the difference anyway?"

That should be marked insightful or informative.

Modern business and elsewhere now wants MBA's as managers. No experience needed in the working field. My last manager had absolutely no idea about what I did, and very little about my co-workers. During one of our meetings I told him that I could bullshit him into anything, and he'd have no idea ifI was being truthful or not.

He was a nice enough guy, but having no idea about how or what we did was a disaster.

Re:Work-Life Balance Isn't Profitable

[Irate Engineer]

That works as long as you don't need to train your staff.

Yes. However, in a lot of places, "training" is a terse statement to the worker to "figure it out [dumbass, or get fired]*" All that "self-motivated, quick learner" BS in the job description, remember? "Training" == "stressed out monkeys Googling shit like their next meal depended on it."

*The bit in square brackets is rarely said aloud, because HR, but there is a special low frequency managerial growl that gets this across quite succinctly.

Re:Work-Life Balance Isn't Profitable

[Provocateur]

And Mr. I ate an Engineer do you hate gotos so much that you forget we really start counting at 1 (one). See your step 4 to get more confused.

Re:Work-Life Balance Isn't Profitable

[Provocateur]

The bit in square brackets is rarely said aloud, because HR, but there is a special low frequency managerial growl that gets this across quite succinctly.

If you know this quote, you know what it's talking about:

Third prize is you're fired

Re:Work-Life Balance Isn't Profitable

[jellomizer]

This is what I was taught in Business School.
Employee turnover cost 150% more to replace then to keep. So you will break even if you replace a $125k with a $50k assuming that the new guy is capable of doing the work. The period of burnout means you will not be able to recoup your costs, as you are just paying the employee to be trained to work for your competitor.

I don't know where a lot of companies went to business schools to get their MBA. But I went to an accredited one that focused a lot on ethics, and long term planning.

Re:Work-Life Balance Isn't Profitable

[david_thornley]

I worked for a Director once who didn't understand the first thing about software, and it worked well. He knew what he didn't know, and trusted us to know that instead of him.

Re:Work-Life Balance Isn't Profitable

[david_thornley]

There's a book called Peopleware, by DeMarco and Lister. In one chapter, they had a quiz for managers: what is your turnover, and how much does it cost you to replace someone? At the end of the chapter, they said that if the manager actually answers both questions, they pass.

Re:Work-Life Balance Isn't Profitable

[Opportunist]

That can work if, and only if, the manager knows that he doesn't know the subject and concentrates on his strengths, i.e. getting the stuff his people need.

If such a person insists in micro managing his people, it's time to start reading job ads.

Re:Work-Life Balance Isn't Profitable

[Ol Olsoc]

I worked for a Director once who didn't understand the first thing about software, and it worked well. He knew what he didn't know, and trusted us to know that instead of him.

Well now, that's a different kettle o'fish. If a person knows what they don't know - that's a basis for a constructive work relationship. I had a similar relationship with my director(s), and the folks directly below him and the department heads.

It's when you get an MBA who is clueless, but doesn't think they are - that the problems develop.

What does the contract say?

[__aaclcg7560]

As an I.T. support contractor for the last ten years, my contracts prohibits me from working overtime. I'm only allowed to work from Monday through Friday, during regular business hours. Which is fine with me.

Re:What does the contract say?

[Jack Griffin]

I've been around IT a bit, and found the demands vary greatly between industries. I don't like working much, so over time have maneuvered myself into what I consider the one of best work-life balance roles, in one of the least demanding industries.
I now work Mon-Fri, two days from home each week. Supposed to be 9-5 but quite often start late and finish early, and have long lunches.
Fuck working, it's for chumps.

Re:What does the contract say?

[Ol Olsoc]

As an I.T. support contractor for the last ten years, my contracts prohibits me from working overtime. I'm only allowed to work from Monday through Friday, during regular business hours. Which is fine with me.

We have that too, except we're only allowed to charge for 40 hours. How much we work is a "gray" area.

Re:What does the contract say?

[Oligonicella]

I billed the number of hours I worked. I never had to work over forty hours. "You realize that will be time and a half." always stopped any request for more.

Re:What does the contract say?

[__aaclcg7560]

My contract is black-and-white with no grey areas. If I worked overtime without authorization, I will get fired.

Re:Example must be set by team leads / managers

[Opportunist]

If your company has a "first to leave is a slacker" culture, don't expect me to show up before noon.

I refuse to work beyond shift

[Anonymous Coward]

If I'm hired to work days, which is all I will take, I work from the minute I start until the minute it's time to leave. I don't work for free. I'd rather be an hourly worker because they will not be so quick to take advantage of you. Currently I'm salaried, but my boss knows I'm 8-5, no nights, no weekends. I might work a special event if I get a comp day. My time is valuable, I'm in my 40s so I know how the game is played, and I do push back when pushed. I do my job, they like the results, so no one messes with me when it's time to find warm bodies to work odd events. My time at home is more valuable. I cannot hit the rewind button. The time I have with my children can never be given back to me.

Re:I refuse to work beyond shift

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it interesting that 8-5 is getting quite common as being considered regular work hours, and used as an example of what's considered reasonable when compared to the bullshit that a lot of other people have to work with. It's interesting to me specifically because I still work the typical, old-fashioned 9-5 hours, with no sign of that changing any time soon (I don't live in the US).

To me, the fact that companies have managed to scrape in that extra hour at the beginning and make it seem typical is a good example of how if you change things very slowly, very quietly, then people won't notice the reduction in free time (and ability to sleep in a bit) until it's too late. It's only an extra hour per day, sure, but incremental changes like this will be seen as ridiculous compared to what people used to find acceptable.

Re:I refuse to work beyond shift

[AmiMoJo]

It's interesting that this post is currently at +4 Insightful. Here is a guy who puts his family first and refuses to do overtime, yet still expects to be paid properly for his time and won't take any crap. All well and good, except that people complain that women who want to avoid overtime so they can see their families are not working as hard and thus don't deserve to be paid as well.

It's just just an anecdote. there is data showing that after having children men's income tends to rise and women's tends to fall. With men it's seen as them being mature and no-nonsense, both attractive qualities that command higher wages, while with women it's seen as compromising their career and forcing colleagues to pick up the slack.

We should all be more like this AC, and treat a willingness to do 60 hour weeks as a negative quality. It's basically self-harm, or like selling a kidney.

Okay guys, mob bomb away...

Re:I refuse to work beyond shift

[radish]

I actually wouldn't want to be hourly. The reason is, my work (and that of my employees) is measured by success, by what we do and what we produce - not by how long it takes to do so. Paying by the hour is, in my view, rewarding slowness. My workplace gives me the flexibility to work when/wherever I need to - yesterday for example I took the morning to go to an event at my kids school. Had I been on some 9-5 hourly rate that would have cost me $$$, as it was, no big deal.

I literally Do. Not. Care what hours my staff work, with the exception that if I notice someone overdoing it (which is a temptation for younger engineers) I'm gonna talk to them about it. We agree on the work that's going to get done in advance, and as long as people are pulling their weight it's all good.

Re:I refuse to work beyond shift

[Lorens]

Here is a guy who puts his family first

Hmmm . . . you may be right, of course, but actually I cannot see anything the GP post that indicates the author's gender!

Re:I refuse to work beyond shift

[toddestan]

Used to be that 9-5 included your lunch and other breaks. At some point employers managed to change lunch to unpaid for white collar workers while still expecting you to be at your desk for 8 hours so now it's 8-5 (or 9-6). For a lot of blue collar jobs, especially when there multiple shifts, it's still an 9-5 or a similar eight-hour block (for first shift).

ha

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the "core values" of my company is work/life balance but you wouldn't know it looking at the IT department.

A lot of it is driven by the engineers themselves.

[Shados]

Yes, companies sometimes push employees too hard. Lately in engineering though, you can punch the CEO in the face and he/she'll say "Sorry, please don't quit", with the current market. Obviously not true of all IT positions, but in engineering, it almost is.

So there's really no reason to screw over your work life balance, aside for maybe a pager rotation for emergencies (but the company should have a level 2 or 3 support to handle he common cases...I guess those guys work/life balance is fucked. Sorry)

Engineers however, are arrogant as fuck, and want to be at the top of the food chain, so a couple of them will willingly fuck over their work life balance. Then they'll get promoted for it (which is a problem with the company...but its hard to say no to someone who delivered twice as much for the same pay, even if he/she screwed over their life over it).

Then, people will feel they have to do this to compete. And thus, the New York Times Pseudo-Amazon is born.

Employers should not reward those people, and other engineers should NOT worship them. You don't need a union to make things reasonable, but please for god's sake, don't encourage your peers who do that shit.

Re: Why is the title in red?

[Ol Olsoc]

Hey AC's

When a story is first posted, it's in red. Now be good boys, and take your blood pressure meds.

Re:Incompetence & inexperience

[Opportunist]

The only EFFICIENT way to make up for lack of skill and experience is gain skill and experience. Working long hours will not get you jack. Working long hours gets you tired and worn out, and neither is good if you plan to gain skill and experience.

If you lack skill and experience, get a job that allows you to set enough time aside to gain that skill and experience. Because yes, you may learn a thing or two on the job, too. But it's inefficient. At a job, you usually do the same things over and over (especially if you're not in the "skilled and experienced" personnel group), because you have to do routine work, too. Routine work does not let you learn anything new.

Don't let anyone bullshit you into "oh, you'll learn that while working, just tack on a few more hours and you'll learn faster". Bullshit. Learning requires doing what's necessary to learn. Not what's necessary to get work done.

Re:Work-life balance thrives where it is prioritiz

[Anonymous Coward]

> worked 50-60 hours/week in a high stress environment

That doesn't sound very high stress. That still gives you plenty of time to do personal things. Comeback when you work Seattle "hundreds" for a few months.

Re:Work-life balance thrives where it is prioritiz

[Bengie]

I also live in the midwest. 40 hour weeks are the norm. I've only recently started to have to work weekends. About 2 hours on Saturday or Sunday, then I get a full day floating paid vacation time. I have to work another 2 hours next Saturday, so I'm taking a work day off before the Christmas holiday.

Re:Oh, muh feelz !

[PopeRatzo]

What the f*ck is that bullshit ? Who cares about "work/life balance" in a world where you know that as some point you always get downsized, and you have to scramble finding another job while your savings dwindle to zero.
Another piece of "muh feelings!" bullcrap to catter to the "women in STEM" affirmative action hires demographic ?

I think I'm starting to understand why you're the one who always gets downsized.

Re:A lot of it is driven by the engineers themselv

[killfixx]

It's not just engineers. I work in education and there are two of those people I can think of off the top of my head. Both of them gave tons of free time to the company to get promoted and now everyone else is held to their standard.

Already have my resume out.

Re:Work-life balance thrives where it is prioritiz

[StormReaver]

I'll also note that this is in the Midwest, where all you tech people from the coasts complaining about not finding jobs should move.

I think you're an H1-B Visa loving CEO of a midwest company looking to reduce your payroll expenses, because you've just invited a whole bunch of tech people to flood the midwest. If that were to happen, midwest tech wages would plummet.

If you're really who you claim to be in this posting, then you are actively sabotaging your ability to have a work/life balance.

Re:Work-life balance thrives where it is prioritiz

[KermodeBear]

I work for a company with about 250 employees, and it is rare that I work more than 45 hours a week. Our managers will tell people, "Go home, you've worked enough today," and when you go on vacation, "Don't check your mail or anything, you're on vacation, the rest of us are here and can handle any emergencies while you're gone."

My company has a TON of problems: Product owners make promises to clients we can't keep, our release process changes from product to product, logging is inadequate at best, requirements are often vague, and we have to deal with way too many terrible contractors from India, but unless there is a major emergency at least you won't be overworked.

Make sure projects are planned

[manu0601]

Quote from TFA

If we can make sure projects are planned and time is allocated for the right tasks, we can really improve balance.

Good joke!

A solution

[leed_25]

It is really easy to solve this problem. Hire more tech workers.

Re:A solution

[Provocateur]

That's like saying, Throw more money at the problem

Re:Example must be set by team leads / managers

[phantomfive]

No one wants to be the first to exit at the end of the day.

I am always happy to be the first one to leave at the end of the day. We shouldn't be unduly affected by peer pressure.

I can get away with it because my work is good, and I work hard during the hours I'm at work. If a company prefers "sitting in a seat" over "doing quality work," then I can find a better company.

Re:Work-life balance thrives where it is prioritiz

[Oligonicella]

Nawh. He knows they won't move here, the salaries aren't as high as on the coasts. People on the coasts just look at the number, not the overall cost of living.

Re:Oh, muh feelz !

[Oligonicella]

Only a fool will sacrifice their personal life for work. That, or a person with no personal life to begin with.

I've watched a few die this year

[rsilvergun]

the only way to get ahead is to kill yourself. That's cause nobody trains, and if you want a new, better paying job you have to either get another degree (good luck while your working a full time job, in real life (tm) nobody does that unless their ftj is a cake walk) or get hands on experience. Nobody will hire to train or even to polish. They can just go crying to congress for more fully trained H1-Bs... So you work two jobs hoping to get the next one and hoping the raise you get makes up for the 20 years without raises that weren't eaten up by inflation.

Re:Work-life balance thrives where it is prioritiz

[TapeCutter]

Office boys don't know much about hard work. When I was a young bloke I worked the fishing boats in Bass Straight (the notorious stretch of water that separates Tasmania from mainland Australia). Pay was ok if the weather allowed you to get three trips into two weeks, but working conditions were brutal, 70+ hours straight with a 30min break every 5hrs, it was not unusual to have visual and auditory hallucinations toward the end of the trip due to lack of sleep.

That was 1980-81, long before I got a decent education, I now work for as a "senior software engineer" for a Japanese multi-national, 40hr week, 3 out of 5 days working from home, lots of autonomy, six figure pay pack, and a great deal of institutional respect for old farts with decades of experience.

Even if I wanted to go back to fishing boats my aged body would be unable to handle the conditions.

Little boxes, little boxes

[GrantRobertson]

Little boxes made of ticky-tacky.

(Yes, it's actually relevant. Google it.)

Re:Work-life balance thrives where it is prioritiz

[redmid17]

This is basically my experience, but after my fortune 500 experience the two consulting companies were 150+ (one was smaller when I started). 40 hours a week or more was expected - at least 80% billable -- but that was countered by higher pay, more WFH flexibility, and more widespread responsibilities.

As a post-doc researcher, I have good balance

[blind biker]

My context is widely different from a US-living IT worker: I live in Finland and am a post-doc researcher in a field related to chemistry. I work very close to exactly 40 hours/week, even though sometimes I could get away with less. It's just that I really enjoy what I do. But even so, I never let myself work more than 40 hrs/week because family.

Re:Work-life balance thrives where it is prioritiz

[jafiwam]

Nawh. He knows they won't move here, the salaries aren't as high as on the coasts. People on the coasts just look at the number, not the overall cost of living.

Does your software license cost less in Nowhere Idaho? How about your car, health insurance and kids college tuition? No? The F250 isn't sold for 75%off in Kansas vs Houston? So what is cheaper? Land, and... what exactly?

Sure, your housing may be cheap, but... you're not in an interesting city - which is fine if you don't like a city lifestyle, but otherwise its not a plus and you've already lost on every other material factor mentioned.

Granted, Houston's not an interesting city, but I'm not there either :D

Land, rent, property taxes, many types of consumer goods, vehicles (lot easier to run a clunker with no emission laws), insurance are all cheaper.

I think you are underestimating the difference in property and rent. Around here, even the difference between college town and middle of nowhere is 900 - 1500 a month. That's a whole stinking mortgage out in the boonies, and then some. Where I live now in NYC would cost 3500 to 5000 per month to rent. I pay 870. Even if you assume cost of car vs walking in that, it's still outrageous to be in NYC.

Re:Work-life balance thrives where it is prioritiz

[serviscope_minor]

If you're really who you claim to be in this posting, then you are actively sabotaging your ability to have a work/life balance.

It's kind of sad that you believe everyone is so viciously self-interested as you make out. Most people actually aren't and will happily do things for the greater good even if the eventual outcome is worse for themselves.

Re: Why is the title in red?

[Ol Olsoc]

Sumpin's wrong with your setup then. For me, a brand new story is white text on a dark red border, after that, it's white on green, and black story text.

Re:Example must be set by team leads / managers

[jellomizer]

Normally I was the first to leave, but I was also the first to get there. My projects are on time, and the quality is up.

Re:Work-life balance thrives where it is prioritiz

[sdinfoserv]

I have just the opposite experience. I moved from the Midwest to the cost (Seattle). The famous 'work ethic' of the midwest means that to get ahead I regularly worked 70+ hours per week. Sure, I got ahead, was paid REALLY well - but it cost me my first marriage and most of the friends of my youth. The good old boys club and women glass ceiling are very much alive and well in the Midwest. I have had several IT jobs from public, private, manufacturing, consulting, and even took public company private.... At the end of the day the truth is that if your name isn't over the door, you are a disposable commodity. You're a tool to be used for ownership profit. At one company literally, the CEO would say, 'well, that's nice, but what have you done for me today?'.

Re:Work-life balance thrives where it is prioritiz

[jellomizer]

Most of those problems are not your fault. Having you go home early is to make sure you don't get stressed out due to poor efforts of others.

Re:Here's what my employer said...

[jellomizer]

McDonalds is hiring, but so is your biggest competitor who would love to get their hands on a trained employee with insider knowledge.

Re:Example must be set by team leads / managers

[Ol Olsoc]

If your company has a "first to leave is a slacker" culture, don't expect me to show up before noon.

I wouldn't expect you to show up at all.

Re:Work-life balance thrives where it is prioritiz

[khallow]

So what is cheaper? Land, and... what exactly?

We don't need to go any further. The cost of your home is dependent on the price of the land. The cost of everything you purchase locally is dependent to some degree on the price of the land, including most of the things you mentioned.

a city lifestyle

One pays quite the premium for that lifestyle.

Paid Time Off (PTO)

[Anonymous Coward]

I earned 19 hours of PTO after working one year. They subtract PTO when I visit the doctor, but do not add PTO when I work nights and weekends performing database updates or testing web updates. Also my cheapskate employer requires all "managers" (those who get paid salary) to work every other Saturday for 5 hours, without earning PTO, to the tune of ~120 hours a year worth of essentially free labor.

Re:Example must be set by team leads / managers

[swillden]

If your company has a "first to leave is a slacker" culture, don't expect me to show up before noon.

Don't expect me to show up at all.

I've had a few interviews over the years with companies who felt that such a "work ethic" was important. I declined their offers. Were I to accidentally allow myself to be hired by one such, I'd be around just enough to avoid getting fired until I had found another job.

Of course, these days I refuse to consider any position that doesn't allow full-time telecommuting and that pretty much eliminates any concern about face time-based evaluation of my "slacking".

Re:Example must be set by team leads / managers

[david_thornley]

I'm usually among the later to leave. That's because I'm usually among the later to arrive. Worst part is that all the good parking spots can be taken when I get in.

Re:A lot of it is driven by the engineers themselv

[swillden]

Engineers however, are arrogant as fuck, and want to be at the top of the food chain, so a couple of them will willingly fuck over their work life balance. Then they'll get promoted for it (which is a problem with the company...but its hard to say no to someone who delivered twice as much for the same pay, even if he/she screwed over their life over it).

I suppose I resemble that remark, probably including the arrogance, though I don't care about being at the top of the food chain. I just like what I do, and really feel it's important and makes the world a better place, so I sometimes work extra hours to get stuff done. On the other hand, I sometimes work a bit less, and I usually feel no compunction about dropping what I'm doing for a while for family-related activities, or to go out for a hike in the summer or skiing in the winter.

I'm posting mainly to make the point that work/life balance isn't some fixed thing that is demarcated by a specific number of hours per week. It's not the case that if you work one minute more than 40 hours in a week you've "screwed" your life. It's about your total quality of life. If you enjoy what you do for work, a few extra hours may be personally rewarding, completely unrelated to what your company or peers want from you. On the other hand, everyone needs time away, and family time will likely have a greater impact on your short- and long-term happiness.

Balance is a dynamic thing.

Re:Work-life balance thrives where it is prioritiz

[david_thornley]

I've worked in the Midwest all my life, working 40-hour weeks. Well, there was that testing gig where I worked long hours, but it wasn't as intense as software development and I was getting paid hourly, and really needed the money. I minded long hours a lot less when the meter was still running.

Re:lip service

[pnutjam]

I doubt your app is solving world hunger. Your users can wait afew days for an update to their photo app.

Re:Example must be set by team leads / managers

[tehcyder]

If your company has a "first to leave is a slacker" culture, don't expect me to show up before noon.

I don't think you understand how it works. Anywhere with that attitude will also have a "last to arrive is a slacker" culture too.

Re:Work-life balance thrives where it is prioritiz

[quantizationnoise]

Knock yourself out, 40 hours is what most people are paid for so anything more than that is just reducing your hourly rate.

Re:Oh, muh feelz !

[david_thornley]

It can be a good investment, provided it's limited in duration. I work in order to have a personal life, and am aware of my priorities.

Re:Work-life balance thrives where it is prioritiz

[tehcyder]

My work-life balance was to work 70 hours a week for fourteenteen years then retire. YMMV. Work is for suckers.

When I was younger I preferred to work as little as possible and enjoy myself as much as possible.

Working's much easier when you get a bit older and more settled, there is no longer the opportunity or desire to be partying four or five days a week.

Who wants to retire at forty with no memories or experience of anything much except working?

Re:Example must be set by team leads / managers

[Opportunist]

You can have me early or late. Pick one.

Sorry, but IT security is a pretty specialized field, with lots of demand and very few people able to offer the skill set needed. In other words, "my way or the highway" means that people will go travel elsewhere.

Work-life balance?

[whitroth]

In the US, back in the old days, folks who worked on-call got a fixed amount for that time - I think 10% was common - and the on-call hours were fixed, and you were off call the rest of the time.

Oh, sorry, that was when unions were strong, and about 25% of the working population were in them.

But we're techies, we don't need unions, we *love* being on call 24x7x365.25 from work, and love dropping whatever we're doing to respond, and not getting anything more for all of this, and not having any off-time. We *adore* the egoboo of being told "whatever it takes", and gladden the hearts of management that we're such suckers, we live to work for their profits, rather than working to live for ourselves.

No, no, we don't need unions.

                    mark "there are two kinds of Republicans and
                                            libertarians: millionaires, and suckers"

Re:Oh, muh feelz !

[micahraleigh]

A subtle but inexpressible difference between surviving and living.

Re:Work-life balance thrives where it is prioritiz

[tendrousbeastie]

Not at all - it makes perfectly rational sense if the marginal benefit of an extra few dollars is greater than the marginal benefit of an extra hour of free time.

For example, if I'm saving for a deposit on a mortgaged house purchase then an extra 15% on my salary might be great even if it comes with a 25% increase in my working hours.

Re:Work-life balance thrives where it is prioritiz

[cthulhu11]

Having to have most of one's food shipped in would be a real drag.

Re:Work-life balance thrives where it is prioritiz

[i work on computers]

In 5+ years I've never experienced anything like this. Maybe you need to look at yourself and your position and figure out where the real problem is.

Companies say one thing....

[MoarSauce123]

.... but do not often act upon it. They may honestly encourage to have folks not work long nights and weekends, giving employees a stern talk that do anyway. But next planning meeting the backlog to be tackled for upcoming release makes it quite evident that with the resources available the work cannot be done in the time available. And then add the 80/20 program to it where 20% of the time is intended to be used for being creative and innovative. That leads to employees being stressed, frustrated, angry and unmotivated dragging down productivity. The work will take the time it needs. If management wants to get stuff done quicker then make decisions faster and give employees better tools. It does not even need more people.