"This attitude always confused me - just because I'm salaried doesn't mean my employer gets carte blanche with my life" - what attitude? The attitude that if you don't think your company's demands are reasonable you can quit?
Who says they get 'carte blanche' to manage your life? You make choices, live with your decisions or make changes. It's that simple.
It's simply a matter of degrees. I have many more responsibilities and time commitments than the contractor appears to have, and yes I very likely am compensated far more than he/she is. It doesn't change the fact that I planned for this in my contract negotiations, and the contractor did not.
BTW, 'Assmasher' is from a very very old issue of Dragon magazine where there was a runty dwarf with a giant warhammer who was named 'Assmasher.' It has stuck with me since then (I found that hilariously funny as an 8 year old for some reason.) It has been a handle from BBS through now. Out of context it is a bit 'unfortunate' as a nick;).
Well, I hate to disabuse any fantasies out there but I'm the CTO of a *small* software company;). I get paid well, but not in any way comparable to a board level position at a large (or even mid sized) company. I get to spend time in the board room. I get to be the software architect. I get to be the principal engineer. Apparently this job is about lots of 'opportunity' - LOL.
I wasn't always the CTO of a company, and I have been in the 'on call' support position when a very large company bought a smaller company I was the architect for. These responsibilities were added w/o any recompense. It was only for a transitional 1 year period though. I have been on call support at other times as well (especially early on in my career) and it was something I expected in moderate doses.
The issue the contractor in the article appears to have is that he/she negotiated a contract that stipulated they were paid for in office work but that they would not be paid for out of office work.
BTW, I certainly wouldn't put up with someone yelling at me at work, or a CEO doing it to me in public (my current CEO and I have heated discussions (we don't shout though) but we always manage to differentiate our work relationship from our personal relationship.) I doubt I'd put up with a CEO screaming at me in private either unless I felt I deserved it for some reason (i.e. login: root password: *** cd / rm -rf)
"Ever seen the Dilbert where the boss offers an incentive payment for every bug fixed" - One of my favorites followed by the one where Dilbert meets a new guy and asks "Are you a contractor or just mildly retarded?"
I don't think it's ridiculous, it's simply a matter of degree, and let's not forget this is a contractor who signed a contract. I'm just trying to point out that you can't sign a contract that stipulates that you do not get paid for out of office work and then complain that you don't get paid for out of office work...
Why should I be disregarded because I'm the CTO of a small software company? I simply mentioned that in order to point out that I have a whole range of responsibilities outside of engineering and my day to day functions that require me to work or be prepared to work basically 365 days a year.
I wasn't always a CTO, I was a software architect before, a senior software engineer before, a software engineer before, and my very first job as as support for a virtual reality product (this was the entrypoint for engineers into the company.) When a company I worked at was purchased by a very large multi-national corporation I also found myself in a 3rd tier support role where I was on call 24/7/365 for a year (part of the transition.)
Why do you say they apparnetly want to add a new obligation 'for free'? It simply sounds like the contractor agreed to a contract and didn't realize his/her commitments or else is unhappy about that decision now.
Agreed, but the issue appears to be a contractor who accepted a contract that stipulated they would be paid for 40 hours a week 'in the office' and would have to be on call when 'out of the office' and they feel they should be getting paid overtime. They simply appear to have made a mistake in their contract negotiations.
I'm sorry if you received the impression I said being salaried had to do with hours, I didn't say that and didn't intend for it to be interpreted that way.
It holds true even if you're simply given the added responsibility without a change of position. Don't like your position at your company? Renegotiate or leave. You're not entitled to some sort of 'automatic pay' increase just for being on call.
I'm the CTO of a small software company. My board can, and often does, call me at all hours of the day and night. I find myself spending quite a few Sundays or Saturday nights flying out early to meet with the board prior to important 3rd party meetings, I don't get paid extra for this, but I certainly considered this possibility before accepting the position and I made sure that my compensation package reflected these 'hardships.'
In addition, as you've pointed out above, specific types of positions tend to come with 'on call' responsibilities, it is unusual for someone to suddenly get saddled with the expecatation that they should be 'on call' outside normal business hours (although it does happen, and has happened to me.)
It, as usual, comes down to the simple fact that when you negotiate a salary you need to base your acceptance upon the possibilities not just what's down on the job description because those job descriptions are rarely written by people who know what they're talking about (sadly.)
If you are salaried, you accepted a position for fixed pay, fixed pay for all the responsibilities of that position (usually.) If you're hourly, you should be paid for the time you're in action during your on call period. If being 'on call' is seriously intrusive to your everyday life then you should discuss, before accepting the position, whether or not that results in some form of recompense (monetary or otherwise.)
Presuming he/she is salaried, you can't complain about it after accepting the position. You can attempt to re-negotiate your employment contract or quit.
Of course, any defense will lead to the warhead vs. armor race as the pirates adjust (for example shrouding their props to avoid coiling, or welding steel plates over critical areas to prevent.50 cal long rifle shots) versus commercial ships purchasing 20mm weapons. It's surprising given the monies involved that some of these ships don't carry them already. There must be some law against them arming.
The sheer arrogance of thinking they could even remotely deserve the legislated ability to affect my personal electronic device so that they can offer me more 'goods' and 'services'? This kind of arrogance makes me want to pirate movies just to hurt the MPAA in some fashion. Don't like that I can watch your movies on an analog device? Then don't put your movies into a medium that supports analog devices. You can't change the playground because you'd like to play there ONLY if they removed something you didn't like. What a bunch of utter pricks.
Oh, I make software so I'd like the federal government to legislate and enforce requirements on computer manufacturers to allow my software to be able to disable your HDD, USB/Firewire/SD slots, and any memory that I find suspicious so that I can offer users more 'goods' and 'services' - because I obviously couldn't do so otherwise...
"The approach will not be easy. You are required to maneuver straight down this trench and skim the surface to this point. The target area is only two meters wide. It's a small thermal exhaust port, right below the main port. The shaft leads directly to the reactor system. A precise hit will start a chain reaction which should destroy the station."
I agree. How many times have you actually taken a laptop inside a theater though? (I wouldn't want to just out of the inconvenience personally, but in theory I could need to.)
I can certainly understand that, and it certainly is a scenario where someone would be annoyed by not being able to carry in their laptop (presuming you didn't have a car there at the time - if ever), but as I was saying to other, this seems like an isolated case. I don't care if people bring their laptops into the movie theater (as long as they don't use them, lol), but in typical Slashdot fashion people tend towards hyperbole (like the op.)
Where I live we have trains, bus, and a great transportation system. I don't need a car either, I walk. I have never seen anyone bring a laptop to a movie theater, ever. So much for sarcasms [sic].
Not really. I have lived in the UK (Liverpool) and Italy (Palau, and Roma) and I currently reside in the US and I walk to a theater here in the city whenever I see a film (unless the film I want to see is only playing elsewhere.) In Liverpool proper we mostly drove/took public transport to a common area to eat/drink/socialize before walking to the theater but in Italy we always walked start to finish. I have never, not once, seen someone carrying a laptop to any theater. That's certainly not to say it doesn't happen, but for people to suggest this is a serious inconvenience seems to be stretching things a bit, don't you think?
I don't think I'm particularly self-center in my thinking, my experiences (having lived/worked around the world) simply suggest this is a non-issue. I can understand that this will annoy some people, but my *feeling* is that this number is low.
I'm sure we can all think of *theoretical* cases where you'd be forced to bring your laptop, but to be totally honest I have never seen anyone with a laptop at a movie theater - and I walk to a theater in the city often.
Ooh, good point leading to a reason (I should have thought of) that I WOULD use a laptop in a theater for (although I wouldn't really because it would be impolite in the extreme) - when forced to watch the latest chick flick...
"give me an example of Flash animation that can't be done better in hardware accelerated CSS3" - Um... Weren't you talking about HTML 5? Or have you turned this into "any supported browser technology" means that browser apps are better than Java or Flash for applications? LOL. How many browser even support CSS3? How long has it been out? Anyhow, if you want an example of Flash animations that can't be better done in hardware accelerated CSS3 (you do realize that flash is hardware accelerated both at the composition layer and on several platforms at the GPU level, right?) which browser would you like me to pick apart? ALL of them are missing large portions of SVG support (just as an example.)
Objective-C being portable? Good God, why would anyone want that? Webkit browers making HTML5 portable? Well, let's just hope the absolute impossible happens and there's one base browser renderer out there future, eh? LOL. Browser fragmentation is getting worse, and a plugin (sadly) is actually a better solution to combatting such fragmentation.
"Sooner your decrepit old technologies" - Wow. First, they're not mine - I'm a software engineer and architect, they're just tools in a toolbox, whatever best fits the problems now and in the future. Second, how is Flash, Java, or anything "not HTML5" decrepit?
People like yourself always overlook two of the most important things in software engineering (probably because you're a programmer and not a software engineer) - the tools available and the talent pool. You think developers should be completely satisfied with Apple and the App store because if you don't like their incredibly restrictive policies, you can use what you consider to be a vastly superior technology - HTML5 (and CSS3 though you kind of lump them together.) Who cares if each browser implements canvas differently, supports video differently, supports AND renders SVG differently. That's not important. Who cares if there are exponentially more Java and Flash developers out there, much more mature and stable tools and IDEs, debugging procedures, testing suites, et cetera. That doesn't matter, because you're cool like that.
Slashdot Mirror
That's exactly what I would recommend if he's in the position to do so. He is unhappy with his decisions, he needs to either renegotiate or move on.
"This attitude always confused me - just because I'm salaried doesn't mean my employer gets carte blanche with my life" - what attitude? The attitude that if you don't think your company's demands are reasonable you can quit?
Who says they get 'carte blanche' to manage your life? You make choices, live with your decisions or make changes. It's that simple.
It's simply a matter of degrees. I have many more responsibilities and time commitments than the contractor appears to have, and yes I very likely am compensated far more than he/she is. It doesn't change the fact that I planned for this in my contract negotiations, and the contractor did not.
BTW, 'Assmasher' is from a very very old issue of Dragon magazine where there was a runty dwarf with a giant warhammer who was named 'Assmasher.' It has stuck with me since then (I found that hilariously funny as an 8 year old for some reason.) It has been a handle from BBS through now. Out of context it is a bit 'unfortunate' as a nick ;).
Well, I hate to disabuse any fantasies out there but I'm the CTO of a *small* software company ;). I get paid well, but not in any way comparable to a board level position at a large (or even mid sized) company. I get to spend time in the board room. I get to be the software architect. I get to be the principal engineer. Apparently this job is about lots of 'opportunity' - LOL.
I wasn't always the CTO of a company, and I have been in the 'on call' support position when a very large company bought a smaller company I was the architect for. These responsibilities were added w/o any recompense. It was only for a transitional 1 year period though. I have been on call support at other times as well (especially early on in my career) and it was something I expected in moderate doses.
The issue the contractor in the article appears to have is that he/she negotiated a contract that stipulated they were paid for in office work but that they would not be paid for out of office work.
BTW, I certainly wouldn't put up with someone yelling at me at work, or a CEO doing it to me in public (my current CEO and I have heated discussions (we don't shout though) but we always manage to differentiate our work relationship from our personal relationship.) I doubt I'd put up with a CEO screaming at me in private either unless I felt I deserved it for some reason (i.e. login: root password: *** cd / rm -rf)
Agreed.
"Ever seen the Dilbert where the boss offers an incentive payment for every bug fixed" - One of my favorites followed by the one where Dilbert meets a new guy and asks "Are you a contractor or just mildly retarded?"
I don't think it's ridiculous, it's simply a matter of degree, and let's not forget this is a contractor who signed a contract. I'm just trying to point out that you can't sign a contract that stipulates that you do not get paid for out of office work and then complain that you don't get paid for out of office work...
Why should I be disregarded because I'm the CTO of a small software company? I simply mentioned that in order to point out that I have a whole range of responsibilities outside of engineering and my day to day functions that require me to work or be prepared to work basically 365 days a year.
I wasn't always a CTO, I was a software architect before, a senior software engineer before, a software engineer before, and my very first job as as support for a virtual reality product (this was the entrypoint for engineers into the company.) When a company I worked at was purchased by a very large multi-national corporation I also found myself in a 3rd tier support role where I was on call 24/7/365 for a year (part of the transition.)
Why do you say they apparnetly want to add a new obligation 'for free'? It simply sounds like the contractor agreed to a contract and didn't realize his/her commitments or else is unhappy about that decision now.
Agreed, but the issue appears to be a contractor who accepted a contract that stipulated they would be paid for 40 hours a week 'in the office' and would have to be on call when 'out of the office' and they feel they should be getting paid overtime. They simply appear to have made a mistake in their contract negotiations.
I'm sorry if you received the impression I said being salaried had to do with hours, I didn't say that and didn't intend for it to be interpreted that way.
It holds true even if you're simply given the added responsibility without a change of position. Don't like your position at your company? Renegotiate or leave. You're not entitled to some sort of 'automatic pay' increase just for being on call.
I'm the CTO of a small software company. My board can, and often does, call me at all hours of the day and night. I find myself spending quite a few Sundays or Saturday nights flying out early to meet with the board prior to important 3rd party meetings, I don't get paid extra for this, but I certainly considered this possibility before accepting the position and I made sure that my compensation package reflected these 'hardships.'
In addition, as you've pointed out above, specific types of positions tend to come with 'on call' responsibilities, it is unusual for someone to suddenly get saddled with the expecatation that they should be 'on call' outside normal business hours (although it does happen, and has happened to me.)
It, as usual, comes down to the simple fact that when you negotiate a salary you need to base your acceptance upon the possibilities not just what's down on the job description because those job descriptions are rarely written by people who know what they're talking about (sadly.)
...salaried or not.
If you are salaried, you accepted a position for fixed pay, fixed pay for all the responsibilities of that position (usually.) If you're hourly, you should be paid for the time you're in action during your on call period. If being 'on call' is seriously intrusive to your everyday life then you should discuss, before accepting the position, whether or not that results in some form of recompense (monetary or otherwise.)
Presuming he/she is salaried, you can't complain about it after accepting the position. You can attempt to re-negotiate your employment contract or quit.
...rifle = no pirates.
Of course, any defense will lead to the warhead vs. armor race as the pirates adjust (for example shrouding their props to avoid coiling, or welding steel plates over critical areas to prevent .50 cal long rifle shots) versus commercial ships purchasing 20mm weapons. It's surprising given the monies involved that some of these ships don't carry them already. There must be some law against them arming.
The sheer arrogance of thinking they could even remotely deserve the legislated ability to affect my personal electronic device so that they can offer me more 'goods' and 'services'? This kind of arrogance makes me want to pirate movies just to hurt the MPAA in some fashion. Don't like that I can watch your movies on an analog device? Then don't put your movies into a medium that supports analog devices. You can't change the playground because you'd like to play there ONLY if they removed something you didn't like. What a bunch of utter pricks.
Oh, I make software so I'd like the federal government to legislate and enforce requirements on computer manufacturers to allow my software to be able to disable your HDD, USB/Firewire/SD slots, and any memory that I find suspicious so that I can offer users more 'goods' and 'services' - because I obviously couldn't do so otherwise...
Bastards... Complete and utter bastards...
"The approach will not be easy. You are required to maneuver straight down this trench and skim the surface to this point. The target area is only two meters wide. It's a small thermal exhaust port, right below the main port. The shaft leads directly to the reactor system. A precise hit will start a chain reaction which should destroy the station."
Now there's a case where I could see it being an oppressive restriction. Still seems to be be an exceptional circumstance.
I agree. How many times have you actually taken a laptop inside a theater though? (I wouldn't want to just out of the inconvenience personally, but in theory I could need to.)
I can certainly understand that, and it certainly is a scenario where someone would be annoyed by not being able to carry in their laptop (presuming you didn't have a car there at the time - if ever), but as I was saying to other, this seems like an isolated case. I don't care if people bring their laptops into the movie theater (as long as they don't use them, lol), but in typical Slashdot fashion people tend towards hyperbole (like the op.)
Where I live we have trains, bus, and a great transportation system. I don't need a car either, I walk. I have never seen anyone bring a laptop to a movie theater, ever. So much for sarcasms [sic].
Not really. I have lived in the UK (Liverpool) and Italy (Palau, and Roma) and I currently reside in the US and I walk to a theater here in the city whenever I see a film (unless the film I want to see is only playing elsewhere.) In Liverpool proper we mostly drove/took public transport to a common area to eat/drink/socialize before walking to the theater but in Italy we always walked start to finish. I have never, not once, seen someone carrying a laptop to any theater. That's certainly not to say it doesn't happen, but for people to suggest this is a serious inconvenience seems to be stretching things a bit, don't you think?
I don't think I'm particularly self-center in my thinking, my experiences (having lived/worked around the world) simply suggest this is a non-issue. I can understand that this will annoy some people, but my *feeling* is that this number is low.
I'm sure we can all think of *theoretical* cases where you'd be forced to bring your laptop, but to be totally honest I have never seen anyone with a laptop at a movie theater - and I walk to a theater in the city often.
I walk to the cinema as well, but I don't bring my laptop. Do you find yourself bringing your laptop to the cinema often?
Ooh, good point leading to a reason (I should have thought of) that I WOULD use a laptop in a theater for (although I wouldn't really because it would be impolite in the extreme) - when forced to watch the latest chick flick...
*sarcasm* yeah, I see so many people walking around with laptops, who didn't just get out of a car, who aren't in an airport... ;)
If you didn't have a trunk (motorcycle rider for example) I could see why, but seriously, this should not be much of an issue for most people.
"give me an example of Flash animation that can't be done better in hardware accelerated CSS3" - Um... Weren't you talking about HTML 5? Or have you turned this into "any supported browser technology" means that browser apps are better than Java or Flash for applications? LOL. How many browser even support CSS3? How long has it been out? Anyhow, if you want an example of Flash animations that can't be better done in hardware accelerated CSS3 (you do realize that flash is hardware accelerated both at the composition layer and on several platforms at the GPU level, right?) which browser would you like me to pick apart? ALL of them are missing large portions of SVG support (just as an example.)
Objective-C being portable? Good God, why would anyone want that? Webkit browers making HTML5 portable? Well, let's just hope the absolute impossible happens and there's one base browser renderer out there future, eh? LOL. Browser fragmentation is getting worse, and a plugin (sadly) is actually a better solution to combatting such fragmentation.
"Sooner your decrepit old technologies" - Wow. First, they're not mine - I'm a software engineer and architect, they're just tools in a toolbox, whatever best fits the problems now and in the future. Second, how is Flash, Java, or anything "not HTML5" decrepit?
People like yourself always overlook two of the most important things in software engineering (probably because you're a programmer and not a software engineer) - the tools available and the talent pool. You think developers should be completely satisfied with Apple and the App store because if you don't like their incredibly restrictive policies, you can use what you consider to be a vastly superior technology - HTML5 (and CSS3 though you kind of lump them together.) Who cares if each browser implements canvas differently, supports video differently, supports AND renders SVG differently. That's not important. Who cares if there are exponentially more Java and Flash developers out there, much more mature and stable tools and IDEs, debugging procedures, testing suites, et cetera. That doesn't matter, because you're cool like that.