|
Totally agree, follow the money and you will see, more often than not, how and why decisions are made.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
When the CEO and other management cut their own hourly pay by almost half, then they can ask workers to do the same. That money can go to paying overtime.
Quality of work plummets when people are working so many hours on a regular basis. They end up creating so many problems that the net benefit goes negative. All for the schadenfreude and ego boost of seeing your workers suffer.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Kemner wrote: When the CEO and other management cut their own hourly pay by almost half
When they cut their income from the company to a much lower rate.
That is different than how much they get paid.
There are quite a few CEOs (and this might be one) that basically do not get 'paid' a rate. Rather they get stock. Options or just the ownership which goes up as the stock does.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. I was originally going to say "total compensation" but simplified it.
|
|
|
|
|
No. As a CIO I'd rather my staff work 40 hours a week and not burn themselves out.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: ... need to work 70 hours a week to succeed ...
in making him even more rich than he already is.
You'll spend your younger years believing that bullshit, then wake up one day and realize you've been working your ass into an early grave for sh*t pay just to make him richer.
|
|
|
|
|
Did he also state that companies should pay them for working 70 hours a week?
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. If you not gifted in one way or the other, you need to put in hours to make it. To riches, that is.
If you can be happy with less, then it is better to be happy.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
aaahhhh yes; modern slavery.
I would argue that after 35/40 hours, or even less, you stop being productive.
So you have a bunch of employees showing up for work and having low productivity and be at the office just for show.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
|
|
|
|
|
Maximilien wrote: I would argue that after 35/40 hours, or even less, you stop being productive.
That's also a huge part of it. That figure wasn't chosen at random.
At this stage in my life, I feel like I have nothing else to prove to anyone. That's not to say won't do some crunch time if I really, really, REALLY have to, but I'm not gonna make a habit of it, that's for sure.
After some amount of time, working extra hours becomes counterproductive. You end up reworking the mistakes you made when you were just too damned tired to think straight.
|
|
|
|
|
Because they work for him?
|
|
|
|
|
The big question is.. are they willing to pay for those hours?
|
|
|
|
|
I donot agree, the 70 hour work week is the way of slavery and low self esteem.
If so little is left of an employees time, where is the scope for self education, introspection, family life, illness and recovery.
I know for a fact that his company Infosys is consistently one of the lowest paying organizations in the country. Even startups pay better. I know people who take a job there only for the tag and leave it in about a year. The offers that come to them after the stint are the ones that actually correspond to market reality.
Then and only then, the pay actually corresponds to what an average engineering student earns as first choice.
However, again, he has a point in that students who graduate from our lower and middle education tiers have abysmal skills. Skills that we would not even see in a 8th standard passout from a good Institute. The professional, communication, and attitude skills are so bad that they need to train for an additional 2 years to catch up. And this is pure adult learning. These employees are the ones who need 70 hr weeks to just catch up to the whole wide world.
I've interviewed so many and found them to be so lacking in basic skills like connecting to a database and getting some data out of it. Designing an employee database and querying for some salary data. Nothing magic, just run of the mill humdrum CRUD stuff.
And again, I bet he wouldn't have worked that long except for his first decade. Maybe not even that long. Pure BS and virtue signalling.
Paras Parmar
|
|
|
|
|
Paras Parmar wrote: I've interviewed so many and found them to be so lacking in basic skills like connecting to a database and getting some data out of it. Designing an employee database and querying for some salary data. Nothing magic, just run of the mill humdrum CRUD stuff.
I would fail in that too, because I have used three or four times in my life, and that was during studies to pass the exam.
But I am pretty sure that if I go to any industry production line in the world, I will be able to win some decimals if not several seconds in the process what at the end of the year is a huge performance boost. Or improve your quality vision systems, or... or... or...
The right question is not if the candidate fail to answer a concrete question / topic or not, the right question is, is he willing to learn and to improve his skills?
That's why when confronted with something I didn't know I have always answered: NOW, I can't do that. But if I get a chance and a couple of weeks, I will learn it.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
(Working long != working hard) && (working long != working productively)
No need to say more.
Edit: Added the second term due to the answer below.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
modified 1-Nov-23 9:51am.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: Woirking long != working hard.
Concisely stated!
I will add "Nor working productively".
Many moons ago the team I was on had a young guy who worked 70 hours a week, while everyone else worked 45-50. Management repeatedly praised him for his effort.
The sad fact was that he couldn't get his work done in the same time as everyone else, and had to work ridiculous hours to keep up.
|
|
|
|
|
BryanFazekas wrote: I will add "Nor working productively".
Good point
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Does that include commuting? I consider it (part of) "work"; unproductive work .... which makes most people's days pretty long.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry Schmitz wrote: Does that include commuting? I consider it (part of) "work"; unproductive work ....
When I have been abroad I have always started the timer leaving the hotel and stopped it when coming back to the reception. But I did specify what was conmuting and what was "factory" time in my reports. Both got billed (and payed).
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
"...if they want to see the country become a global economic powerhouse."
He also expresses the goal of India expanding their global impact, but in neither case are we told why any of that should matter to the Indian workers. How will any of that help them? Perhaps he should start there instead of simply opining that the Indians aren't working hard enough.
|
|
|
|
|
Most, many, some? Developers seem to generate the best solutions when they AREN'T at work. Walking the dog, or going for a bike ride, or pushing the kids on the swing and suddenly inspiration strikes.
This doesn't seem to happen as much when you have a gun to your head to work insane hours to make your boss happy.
|
|
|
|
|
I guess he's not worried about productivity and quality. Long hours reduces productivity and quality. I've worked with so many people who work crazy long hours but don't produce anything or what they do produce is full of defects.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe this idiot should work 70 hours a week instead...
Steve Naidamast
Sr. Software Engineer
Black Falcon Software, Inc.
blackfalconsoftware@outlook.com
|
|
|
|
|
This mindset is not limited to Indian culture. I've seen it here in American culture before our work sector was inundated with cheap labor and lesser work-culture mores.
This approach is not what made America's economy soar far above any other in history.
The approach that has worked best in the history of the US, is this:
- Prioritize working smart, not working hard.
- A person working smart (and as hard as need be) will do more in 40 hours than a person working hard in 70 hours.
- A balanced life - God, family, work - is what enables one to be highly productive for an entire career.
- Some work does require long hours, even when working smart. Agriculture and law enforcement are just two examples. But it is the priority on working smart that increases productivity and makes the difference between success and failure.
- Working smart involves solving problems without a recipe. Most anyone can follow what someone else has figured out and try to shoehorn it into a current problem or work challenge, but that is inefficient and gives poor to mediocre results. Working smart means creating your own solutions by applying reason, knowing what to glean (not use directly) from "recipe" solutions similar challenges, and delivering excellence.
- Aim for excellence, not just enough to get by.
In most cases, working smart in software development and support for 40 hours a week yields better and more profitiable results than 70 hours of working hard, applying someone else's recipe without understanding the consequences.
|
|
|
|
|
So, the very rich founder of a software company, in a country where employers treat workers like slaves, thinks the serfs should work 70 hours/week. I suppose his megayacht is a slave galley too. He gets all nationalistic about this self-serving opinion, because if he didn't, it would be even more obviously self-serving.
I think that if developers were paid for every hour they worked, you would hear this kind of opinion far less frequently. If they were paid time-and-a-half for overtime, you wouldn't hear it at all.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
