Why Do You Permit This To Be Done To You
Why Do You Permit This To Be Done To YouWhy do US programmers put up with the appalling conditions described on FortyHourWeek?
On the west coast, in the US, I've worked for a very large hardware/software company for five years. Two of those years were spent in the Bay Area where the company is based. As I was far away from home and family and we were massively short-staffed at all times, I never left work. For the first 18 months, I did not have a home. There was no point in it. I showered, shaved and ate at work. I stored my clothing at work. I slept under my desk. I worked from 5:00am until 12:00am. On the weekend, I often worked a few hours less. I would usually wake up around 2:00am and get out of the way so the cleaning people could vacuum my cubicle and empty the trash. When they had left and it quieted down again, I would go back under the desk and sleep. It was cramped and I only had a blanket, pillow and a hard floor.
My breakfast, lunch and dinners came out of the vending machines. I ate them at my desk. I was in the office on holidays and handled all emergencies that otherwise would have required my co-workers being paged in the middle of the night. I very rarely left the building more than once a week. Instead of washing clothes, I just bought more once a month. I declined invitations to dinner, gatherings, golf and movies. In one month, I could do what the average employee who worked normal hours did in one year (at least, as far as our tracked statistics and metrics display).
After the first two years, I moved back home where I telecommute for the same company. I live in an apartment but keep the same hours. I have no furniture other than a futon mattress, an office chair and a office table with lots of hardware all over. I set up shop in the bedroom. The futon is next to the desk. When my day is done, I slide off the chair and into bed. My living room is empty.
After five years of approximately 95+ hour work weeks, I have had one 5% raise. Though I work for a HUGE company, the tech industry situation has prevented any further raises to be metered out. Factoring in inflation, I earn less now than when I was hired. I am given 10 holidays per year. Being one of the rare single males without kids, I typically work all of those holidays. I am given 11 paid days of vacation per year. I have never used one day. I reached my maximum accrual limit three years ago. After a decade, I'll start getting 18 days of vacation per year.
I have 30,000 shares in stock options. The tech industry has dropped so much in the last two years that for me to even break even on those shares, they will need to increase 2800%.
And I still feel that I am not doing enough. Especially in this economy and this industry. There are a lot of others who put in the same time and effort and I have to keep up with them lest I become unemployed. Working 40 hours a week would be bizarre. I would probably have a mental breakdown in a country where I had a month of vacation, a month of holidays and a 35 hour work week.
This guy obviously enjoys computer programming a lot, and can live very cheeply, why don't you quit your job, and start writting open source?
You say "lest I become unemployed" as if it were a negative thing. Why don't you try it for a while and see what you think?
Is the above testimonial real, or is intended as a satire of sorts? It seems almost too extreme to be believable, but then again ...
Because most American cities and towns offer less after-hour leisure options (nightlife, restaurants, interesting clubs and bars) than typical European cities. Americans stay at work to avoid boredom once they go home.
There's an underlying assumption that going to a movie, club, etc., is having a life. It sounds like our European friends have been brainwashed into thinking a life can be only one way. Freedom is the ability to choose. Some may make different choices from yours and have different priorities.
{One cannot choose go to a restaurant late at night if they are not open.}
Because a pretty good programmer can work short term (3 to 12 month) contracts, earning two to three times as much in a month as a month's living expenses, then take extended time off before seeking another contract. I don't mind an absence of vacations and holidays, and lots of overtime demands, during an intense working spurt, when I know that at the end of the spurt I'll be able to coast for as long as several months without having to go into anybody's office at all!
Ahhh, that sounds like the life... (Me, still being a StandardWageSlave?.)
Because we don't know anything different.
Because it's too far to commute to Europe.
Some of us want others to feel just as miserable as they do. It's the American way.
Companies do not publicize how many hours a week are required for a position. The exempt status does not make sense.
Because the US healthcare "system" is evil; this imposes tremendous overhead on the hiring process. Therefore employers don't hire support staff; they just ask the principals to work longer hours.
This is another page on which otherwise intelligent and insightful people are getting tripped up by trying to imagine outside their own cultural background. Please remember that to do this is hard. First, and probably second thoughts are almost always based on media stereotypes or insufficient personal exposure to the alternative culture. As an Englishman, each time I read an American pronouncing on how Europeans think, why we do things the way we do, or how it feels to live and work here, I cringe. I guess the converse is true, but how would I know?
See also AmericanCulturalAssumption, CultureDifferences
Here are some attempts at describing what it is like to be part various cultures and industries. Others are welcome to describe their own experiences, but please think at least three times before contrasting with your imagination of what others are like.
What makes you say that the original comment came from a non-USian? There are plenty of Americans who'd agree with the assessment of the U.S. healthcare system as evil. (I'm one of them.)
Having recently moved to Europe from the US, it seems very strange to me that so little time is spent working. I sometimes feel that less initiative is being taken in what I can, but it may be just a cultural difference. I tremendously enjoy coding, it's what I do on and off the job, so working doesn't apply to me so much.
Do you work to live, or live to work? You may think this is just a cliche, but consider it carefully. Implicit in it is the question, "What does it mean to you, to live?" This, of course, can be rephrased as another cliche, "What is the meaning of life?" More useful aphorisms: Find something you love to do, and you'll never work a day in your life; and, Everything in moderation.
Including moderation!!
Many people in the USA choose to work hard because they think it will help them get ahead, or for other reasons. Many people choose otherwise. In Europe, many people are denied that choice by government fiat. -- RobertEikel
I had a chance to work in Canada, US, Germany and Norway. I'd say that IT people in America have an option to work "European style" when working for the government. However, most choose to work harder AND longer (at private enterprises) and be SIGNIFICANTLY better compensated, especially if you factor in taxes and cost of living. Obviously it does not apply to some areas of the USA which count among the most expensive places to live in the world. But it does apply to most. Also, working (hard and long) at private companies in America gives them (us?) better chance of working on something hot/new/interesting/meaningful. -- Marcin Kolbuszewski
Let's be careful to distinguish working "long" from working "hard". I do work hard. When I'm on charge I work hard for the client about 7.5 hours five days most weeks, most weeks of the year. I choose not to exceed these hours frequently (although I will put in longer hours for say, the last week before a release in order to reduce risk). I choose not to do this because my experience tells me that working long hours over extended periods (more than a fortnight) is counter-productive.
Oh, absolutely - a lot of these "hard workers" aren't actually being effective. That, of course, is their problem, not mine. -- RobertEikel
Also, as far as I'm aware [anyone to confirm?], as UK/EU salaried employee I am perfectly at liberty to volunteer to work tiring, demoralizing, counter-productive long hours consistently for no extra money any time I want. My employer is not at liberty to require it of me.
Hmm, as far as I know (and IANAL) in France it's illegal for an employee to do work weeks of over 35 hours (or 39 hours for the dwindling population of businesses who haven't yet switched over to the contracts required by new labor laws), just as it's illegal for an employer to require the same of its employees. It's never enforced (that would be kind of tricky), but it's illegal.
''It is not illegal to work more than 35 hours per weeks in France - it's just considered as overtime (with an extra 25% on the salary). The maximum is 48 hours per week if I remember well. Of course, as long as you volunteer (Hi Keith) to work more than 35h/week, you're free game and denied any compensation. And volunteering is as simple as just working more than 35h/week without a written and signed note from your boss.'' -- PC
I get paid by the hour. When the work is interesting and progressing well (and I'm sure to get plenty of sleep at night), working 50 to 60 hours a week can be a good way to get lots o' stuff done. Teams working 60 hours a week during peak demand eliminate the need to increase staff by 50% (or more) - with corresponding increases in overhead costs, management, and training. And it can be fun. However, when progress is held back up by poor planning, interfering corporate bureaucracy, or lots of useless ?make-work? ISO-9000-style paperwork, no amount of overtime can save you.
Work has to be more interesting than going out to a movie to make me stay late.
-- JeffGrigg
The problem with this idea is that it doesn't work. In general, two people working 60 hour weeks are not even close to comparable (in terms of real output) to 3 people working 40 hour weeks. It is great if you are having fun doing it, but don't pretend you are equivalent to the larger team (within reason, and notwithstanding specific teams)
I believe he mentioned "peak demand". In that case, and assuming "peak demand" doesn't happen often, I believe the statement about not incurring in overhead costs it's true.
You're missing a key component in that equation (above italicized). And I think the above comment almost revealed this. How much peak demand is there. If there is little peak demand, then that third person is sitting on their thumb most of the year. Thus, it isn't more cost effective to hire another person. It's also not cost effective to hire a third person just for peak demand because you'll continuously incur training and research time (at which point, it's too late for them to help). Given this scenario, it is not appropriate to say that 3 people working 40 hours is comparable to 2 people working 60 hours. You have to factor in training research and adjustment to the community and standards of the company. However, for every --day-- week operations, 3-40s is better than 2-60s. -- LeeLouviere
There is always some amount of "us" vs. "them" at play at any organization of any significant size, but think about how you might feel differently if you're working for a startup company in which you have a large personal stake, even though you're not a manager. Or consider the case where you don't have such a big personal stake in the organization, but you do have considerable freedom about how you do your job. The most important thing I can stress here is that this is not something "that is being done to us", but rather something we are doing to ourselves. There is certainly a downside, but we do have a choice. Quality of life was a primary reason why I left Microsoft. My new job does sometimes require me to work late or on weekends (this weekend for example), but these days I very rarely work the crazy kinds of hours I used to.
I don't mean to say that there's not a problem, but I think you guys may be misunderstanding the nature of the problem, and may be misunderstanding what we want from our jobs. I personally want to work a reasonable number of hours on average, but I do not want a 9 to 5 job.
The "them" is the "man"... It's not the CIA or some secret consortium of managers trying to kill us. The "them" is the invisible hand of capitalism failing to do what it ought to. You see, we can only negotiate things like how long we work in an immediate space. So, if we can convince all of our coworkers to work a set amount of time, that's great.
But, we all know that cartels fail. When OPEC drops supply just to raise the price of oil, eventually someone will dump some oil on the market and end the supply shock. Even if you could go to each of your coworkers' houses and convince them to just stop working more than forty hours a week, eventually someone will say, "aha! If I'm the only one who puts in fifty this week, it'll show up on my end-of-cycle review."
This is one of your coworkers dumping his supply of labor onto the market. In the short run, he wins, in the long run, he loses. If we organize, however, we can bring ourselves around. A union doesn't allow people to pull the rug out from under the his mates.
You know, if the CEO of a company wants to really set an example for his people, he should show that he can accomplish all of that "hard work" in thirty-five hours per week. Enough of this silly top-down stuff where we all oppress ourselves so that the system can oppress us all. I'd like to say, "JustStopDoingIt!", but we all know that's not going to work.
-- JohnDuncan
It can work, and it does work. Right now, I'm working 20 hours a week, and loving it. The spare time lets me stay sharp and rested. -- JohnBrewer
There is no "man" at work here. There is supply and demand. Since demand is high for overworked employees (in order to reduce benefit costs), the value of said employee increases. Since employees get paid on value, every employee is trying to match that demand. You work at will. However, I can tell that above comment assumes an entitlement philosophy towards employment. This attitude neglects the fact that you can choose to self-employ.
This "man" philosophy is built on the few employers who are unethical, and the overwhelming people that refuse to be self-responsible for their income (or lack thereof, or less thereof, etc.). Branch out, start a business, find some side-work, or learn out to work the market. You can start investing at $500. There is no "right" to prosper. Only a "right" to pursue prosperity. The same person responsible for the "golden rule", also said, "He who doesn't work, doesn't eat."
People who say that Capitalism fails, say so because they expect it to do something it never intends to do -- offer entitlements. -- LeeLouviere
SteveMcConnell in OrphansPreferred says something interesting:
On the other hand, even if the company you work for is creating a production shrink-wrap product, you are under no moral obligation to continue working for that company if you decide not to. ItsYourLife?, and I think that's the point McConnell is trying to make. It's more important to protect yourself and your mental stamina than the company you work for (not that we shouldn't protect companies at all). -- BrentNewhall
Similarly, it seems to me that programmers will sacrifice their lives just to get the product done. It's something to do with pride: pride of completion, pride of solving a problem. Perhaps it is this kind of obsessive compulsive behaviour that leads us so foolishly into these overtime traps time and time again. -- SunirShah
Have you ever heard the saying, "Loyalty to country: Always. Loyalty to government: Only when they deserve it." -- AnthonyLander
I wonder sometimes. In CarletonUniversitySoftwareSystemsDesign, our professor mentioned how some "rich companies" could afford to have people work through their weekends to run integration tests against the system. That just strikes me as wrong; why should anyone give up their weekends for a piece of software? The obvious action would be to identify and solve the inefficiencies in integration, not to throw more resources at it. -- SunirShah
Integration inefficiencies can take a long time to identify and solve. Production deadlines often occur well before the underlying problem can be solved. I see nothing wrong about temporarily working extra time to solve an immediate surface problem, while also working to solve the underlying problem in the long run. Or are you talking about people who are regularly paid to work seven days a week? -- BrentNewhall
It's about freedom, choice, and control of your work: People who volunteer for extra work, and put in the extra time to deliver on their promises can get the "fun" tasks and avoid the "boring" tasks. Others, who just put in their 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, get what they're assigned. It's a social issue: You gain power and prestige by taking on hard tasks, and getting them done. When you fail - by delivering late, or with too many bugs - you lose power. -- Jeff Grigg
Have you considered that an obsession with power and prestige might be something of a mental illness with which other people (perhaps Europeans) might not be afflicted? It is not "natural" to work overtime for power and prestige; it's American. The USA's obsession with money as the definition of social status, and of social status as the definition of identity is quite unique on this world. Incidentally, what kind of freedom is it that forces people to care about power and prestige? What kind of control over their lives do Americans have if they want to waste them working?
America is not the only culture in which people voluntarily work overtime for power and prestige; the same is true in Japan and Korea at the very least. -- BrentNewhall (inserting his comment in the middle of the discussion)
It is not just power and prestige - it also has to do with a sense of honor. To most Americans an agreement sealed with a handshake is not something to take lightly. While related to 'prestige', it has more to do with the way we see ourselves. This is the source of our 'can do' attitude that transcends human frailty when times are at their darkest. We thrive on chaos, as a result. While this may seem like arrogance to an outsider, I really think it is a form of optimism that led to our success as a nation, and as a world power - but also has been the source of some of our excesses in all honesty. From our standpoint, a foreign person's view of this 'strength' as a weakness is baffling - particularly if we find our work not a chore, but a calling. -- MalcolmCampbell
I find it strange hearing computer programmers calling their work conditions "appalling"? If you want a life in the U.S., you can have it. Lots of people here do.
Most of us in programming work at jobs we love, we are paid well enough to live comfortably, the work conditions are sanitary and often quite pleasant, and it's really not that hard to make room for life outside of work, especially given our enormous wealth (relative to Roman or medieval standards).
Sometimes what makes work tolerable (or even enjoyable) is the smaller things. Many of us, despite our job or salary, appreciate when the company stocks a vending machine full of goodies for us at no cost, a machine full of sodas at no cost and even a refrigerator full of bottled water. All of these things have been dropped at most tech companies that I'm aware of including my own. I don't see these token offerings returning ever again now that the '90s are over. While employers probably think it costs down on cost, it also cuts down on morale. It feels good when your employer wants to take care of some of the little things that help you work harder, better or just without as much stress. Walking across the hall to get a 'free' Mountain Dew and a bagel after a two hour commute or when I need a little energy during my coding spree really does help.
What doesn't help is when an employer tries to use his employees as consumer pigs. Inviting cell phone companies, car dealerships, dentists and everyone else onto the campus to sell us a lot of stuff we don't want or need __while we're working__. That's insulting.
"I can tell it's the weekend because the breaks are longer." --some old BDUFer
Programmers work long hours because it's a fascinating profession. Not too many other types of jobs are as much fun.
Note that Antonio Stradivari (the violin guy) was in his workshop from dawn to dusk, seven days a week. (Of course he probably lived upstairs).
You hear stories about actors who have to show up for makeup at 4:00 AM, and work 16-hour days. Now that's tough.
Comments about Canadian health care moved to CanadianHealthCare?.
I worked long hours on a project once. 70 hours a week, 7 days a week. Looking back, I can see that I would have been more productive if I had spent half the time at work. Never again. Nowadays, I spend about a quarter of my time programming, and the rest thinking about what I am going to program. I very, very rarely work for longer than 10 hours in a day. I haven't come in on a weekend for some time. And I believe, with some justification, that over the last few years I have contributed more value in IT terms to the firm than almost anyone else where I work. And I am recognised as doing so, and rewarded accordingly. SlowDownToSpeedUp, indeed.
Part of the problem is that most managers I know were trained in industrial management, not in mangement of service industries. If you have an assembly line and are producing widgets, then having people put in over time before hiring more workers makes sense. In a service industry like software it is a recipe for disaster. You end up with dissatified customer and burned out staff.
On this topic, the following article has recently been brought to my attention independantly from a few different places:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
I had a job where I worked 50-60 hour weeks every week for 5 months. I also had a lot of stress from unrealistic management expectations and a lack of recognition for the work I did. The code I wrote was great - 1 bug found in code review, none in system test or since - so I clearly could keep quality high.
The true cost was the 8 months out of work that followed as I recovered from burn-out. That's where it hurts.
If you want a lasting career in IT, you pretty much have to think about moving into management someday, which requires far more human interaction than the "desk motel" guy seems to get. Some heads-down techies may be super-productive when young, but it will usually catch up with them one way or another via burn-out, carpel-tunnel, etc. One must keep well-rounded because the future is unpredictable.
This is not strictly a programming comment but does come from my time working for a LARGE US CPU manufacturer. While on a training course we were treated to an inspirational lecture on the various impacts of over-running on cost and time for different project types. It boiled down to the fact that it was better to over-run on cost and meet the deadline than to meet the budget but to let the deadline slip. It was pointed out that our company had consistently met its deadlines. The audience cheered. It was then pointed out that chronic high over-time (and resultant stress) was positively correlated with early death. The audience continued to cheer like that was a good thing. It was at this point that I realised that I wasn't macho enough and decided that it was time to get my coat....
Is this a problem with programmers, or USians in general? See AmericansWorkTooMuch.
We gotta compete with Tiger Children raised by Tiger Moms.
See also:
OverTime, GetaLife, ProtestantWorkEthic, StressHasSolutions, FortyHourWeek, StopComplaining, EconomicsOfWorkWeeks, WorkWeeksAroundTheWorld, LieOrStreet
EditText of this page
(last edited January 30, 2014)
or FindPage with title or text search