Comment by PragmaticPulp | Hacker News Reader

Comment by PragmaticPulp | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

In the real world, managers don't look at a task and schedule out exactly 40 hours of work each week. We trust our employees to give us feedback and healthy estimates.

Truth is, double job workers are usually caught because they're underperforming. But smart managers give employees the benefit of the doubt and don't go firing people at first signs of underperformance. If someone has a legitimate reason for falling behind for a while (maybe overleveled during hiring, maybe struggling with real life issues, etc.) then we work with them. If they have a manipulative/deceptive reason (working two jobs, avoiding work) then it's better off that we replace them with someone who cares.

If you think that a job is a simple matter of "do fixed pile of work every week", that's not how 95% of software jobs work. We rely on a 2-way communication with employees to establish what's reasonable, and if someone is manipulating us into lowering expectations (literally the title of this article) then they must go and be replaced with someone who cares.

Not to put too fine a point on it, people like the parent are just scum who make life difficult for everyone else. Having a tough period for whatever reason? Oh, they probably have another job because that's what the cool kids do.

If, as an employee, your philosophy is to grift what you can, expect companies to do the same. And good employers actually don't.

> If, as an employee, your philosophy is to grift what you can, expect companies to do the same. And good employers actually don't.

Well said.

If the entire relationship is built on lies and deception, it begins to show over time. Employees who build their relationship based on manipulating their employer (setting low expectations, as the article suggests) aren't the same employees helping their teammates, working together to get things done, and shipping good work. They're the ones that need constant manager attention and slowly siphon the energy out of their peers and managers. Removing them from the team is a win for everyone.

Allowable small side gigs (which I've always been very open about) are totally cool. And often even positive for my employer. But this idea that so long as you can slip under the radar with working at 50% and beg off of tasks?

But pretending that working two full-time salaried jobs are OK because no one has actually caught you? Wow.

And you're basically providing a template for manager who don't believe in more flexible working arrangements to deny them. I'd love for people for that to be kicked hard to the curb.

It's also why employers are tempted to install monitoring software.

Companies do precisely what capitalism gives them incentives to do. "Grift" is not a meaningful concept. A company can and will do anything the people managing it believe they can get away with that will increase their bottom line, yet, somehow, this behavior becomes unacceptable when it's a lowly worker doing it?

Honorable people are honorable in spite of what other people do.

Yes, and that is a non sequitor.

Do you think it's honor that's keeping the peace? It's fear! Fear and blood!

It's not "do fixed pile of work every week." It's "provide a multiple of N worth of your salary value to the company." The amount of work necessary to do so is (should be) irrelevant. Effort is not relevant, and you don't get to demand I commit body and soul to please you if I'm providing a reasonable amount of value.

No, it's about "Is this employee occupying headcount and payroll that would be better used on someone more deserving".

And you've still misunderstand the 2-way feedback loop about effort estimation.

You have this misconception that a job is an isolated 1:1 relationship with an employer where units of work are passed in isolation back and forth. In the real world, something like this does huge damage to the team by forcing everyone else to compensate for the deliberate underperformance.

Oh, wait, now I need to deserve a job in addition to being able to perform all aspects of it adequately with respect to the offered compensation? You really are something if that's what you believe.

> Oh, wait, now I need to deserve a job

I didn't say a job. I said the job I'm hiring for.

If you're going to come in and deliberately do as little work as possible to extract as much as possible from the team, why should I give the job to you instead of someone who is actually honest and cares?

You're not entitled to any job you want, obviously. I usually have 10-100 applicants who would honestly do the job and not sandbag their work onto peers. Obviously we would all rather have the honest employees working on the team.

In what moral system do you deserve the job more than literally any other honest employee if you're dead set on doing less than them and lying your way through the job?

If nothing else, having two jobs becomes a conflict of interest with a huge monetary incentive to continue lying. There's also the matter of trade secrets as people often come from related companies.

Well, okay. If I can do the job, and I am doing the job adequately relative to the compensation offered, why do I need to deserve your job?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com