This is one of their favorite reasons for recruiting people without experience: They're unlikely to say no and more unlikely to be married or have familial commitments.
Yes, and this quickly leads to ageism and sexism. Want to hire a 28 year old woman who just got engaged and is excited about starting a family? Want to hire a 43 year old person who prefers spending evenings with his/her kids over grinding away at the office?
My first job in Silicon Valley I had no idea I should be saying 'no' to unreasonable demands. I burned out pretty hard.
Encouragingly, when I started saying 'no' I started getting taken seriously as an engineer. The conversation after 'no' includes real engineering topics on resources, schedules, techniques and backup plans. 'Ok, how do we get this done?', not 'You're fired'.
If anyone is looking for start-up ideas, focus on finding ways to give employees more leverage (collective bargaining, etc).
Most of our bosses believe leverage is value (that's why they make the most, they have the most leverage!), so I say we play the game their way. Leverage is the only thing that's important to them, so let's all go out and get us some leverage. Wage slaves unite lol.
Funny how this is a Silicon Valley article that doesn't mention Google at all. Most of the people I know who work there do 9 to 5, sometimes 9 to 6, rarely 9 to 7.
In my anecdotal experience perusing glassdoor and talking to various tech company recruiters (as I job hunt), a lot of companies these days (in the valley and elsewhere) seem to be touting "good work life balance" and "9-5 hours" as a selling point.
Oh yea, absolutely, I'm not going to accept those pitches at face value. Been around the block enough times to be skeptical, but its at least something that it seems to be a thing that companies are advertising as a feature.. maybe.
Not every company is like that. LinkedIn was famously 40-hour weeks in the early days. I just started at a company that's pretty aggressively work-life balanced. We're no doubt a startup (VC funding, high growth, the whole 9 yards), but we just don't believe that 80 hour weeks translates to the best work. You are first and foremost your own caretaker, and it's probably bad if you're in the office 8-6 and working at home.
Culture matters, and it's different at every company. Don't let what's said on Twitter fool you into thinking it's the same everywhere.
There are so many stories out there of people who busted their ass, ignored family, sacrificed all their free time for a startup only to be completely shafted. Workers are starting to wise up to the idea, and start asking what they get for putting their life on hold in order to make someone else rich. And they're not really getting a compelling answer.
There's plenty of work life balance available for people who want it, and not on shitty teams. The people who believe and have the passion to work for 18 hours a day either are just plain passionate or are being played. At every job I've had I could come in (or not) for 5 hours a day as long as I attend catchup meetings and get my work done.
There's another class of people that truly believe they are the next Jobs or Bezos or Serge or Larry. There will always be those people in the valley, but the good part is at least for now nobody has to work either for or with them if they don't want to. They can say everyone who isn't as "passionate" as them are losers but nobody has to listen to them.
In my organization, it was rare to work more than 8 hours. I worked ~8 hours at the office, and did little more than check email occasionally on evenings / weekends, and still managed to be promoted to staff SWE after 2 years. I knew several people that would arrive at 9:30 and leave by 4pm. It was like a vacation after the small IHV that I worked for previously.
Speaking as another Googler, but over in Product Marketing Management, my experience of working hours and reward, and that of others, is similar to your observation.
I remember being told on day two of Noogler training (paraphrasing) “if you find yourself working evenings and weekends something is messed up.” We actively want to find where efficiencies can be made or where more support is needed. Someone working 'harder' (AKA additional ass-in-chair-hours) does not deliver that.
If you work 9 to 5, you're paid accordingly. Of course, some people foolishly work even more hours for little additional pay.
If you want to earn more, you either need to work more, or you need to prove that your work generates revenue. If you are a revenue engine, a company will always pay you. Otherwise, you're just a bee in the hive.
I was expecting an article about the crazy traffic in the Bay Area and people working weird hours (6am to 2pm or 1pm to 9pm or crazier) to compensate. I was kind of disappointed by the article decrying workaholism which is by no means required to get ahead anywhere in Silicon Valley.
I'm happy to be a 9-to-5 loser making market rate at BigCo and gladly leave the winners to their startup lottery tickets and their 60+ hour weeks of busyness theatre.
There is one true way to measure this, you may be offering skills but you are selling your time.
100,000 / (5240) = $48 p/h (8 hours a day)
100,000 / (5260) = $32 p/h (12 hours a day)
You are actually costing yourself $320 ($16600 pa) a week by working and extra 20 hours.
60,000 / (5240) = $28 p/h (8 hours a day)
60,000 / (5260) = $19 p/h (12 hours a day)
You are actually costing yourself $180 ($9360 pa) a week by working and extra 20 hours.
I understand this is a fairly black and white way of looking at it, and you could easily say hey I am earning 100K and happy putting in the time.
Now if you take Gary's V point of view on an 18 hour day
100,000 / (52*126) = $15 p/h (18 hours a day).
You want to make sure you get a return on your investment, and as an employee you probably never will. However a business person, I agree these hours may be beneficial.
25 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 38.8 ms ] threadEncouragingly, when I started saying 'no' I started getting taken seriously as an engineer. The conversation after 'no' includes real engineering topics on resources, schedules, techniques and backup plans. 'Ok, how do we get this done?', not 'You're fired'.
Most of our bosses believe leverage is value (that's why they make the most, they have the most leverage!), so I say we play the game their way. Leverage is the only thing that's important to them, so let's all go out and get us some leverage. Wage slaves unite lol.
Guess they're all "losers" then.
Not every company is like that. LinkedIn was famously 40-hour weeks in the early days. I just started at a company that's pretty aggressively work-life balanced. We're no doubt a startup (VC funding, high growth, the whole 9 yards), but we just don't believe that 80 hour weeks translates to the best work. You are first and foremost your own caretaker, and it's probably bad if you're in the office 8-6 and working at home.
Culture matters, and it's different at every company. Don't let what's said on Twitter fool you into thinking it's the same everywhere.
[x-posted from the other thread]
There's another class of people that truly believe they are the next Jobs or Bezos or Serge or Larry. There will always be those people in the valley, but the good part is at least for now nobody has to work either for or with them if they don't want to. They can say everyone who isn't as "passionate" as them are losers but nobody has to listen to them.
In my organization, it was rare to work more than 8 hours. I worked ~8 hours at the office, and did little more than check email occasionally on evenings / weekends, and still managed to be promoted to staff SWE after 2 years. I knew several people that would arrive at 9:30 and leave by 4pm. It was like a vacation after the small IHV that I worked for previously.
I remember being told on day two of Noogler training (paraphrasing) “if you find yourself working evenings and weekends something is messed up.” We actively want to find where efficiencies can be made or where more support is needed. Someone working 'harder' (AKA additional ass-in-chair-hours) does not deliver that.
If you want to earn more, you either need to work more, or you need to prove that your work generates revenue. If you are a revenue engine, a company will always pay you. Otherwise, you're just a bee in the hive.
100,000 / (5240) = $48 p/h (8 hours a day) 100,000 / (5260) = $32 p/h (12 hours a day)
You are actually costing yourself $320 ($16600 pa) a week by working and extra 20 hours.
60,000 / (5240) = $28 p/h (8 hours a day) 60,000 / (5260) = $19 p/h (12 hours a day)
You are actually costing yourself $180 ($9360 pa) a week by working and extra 20 hours.
I understand this is a fairly black and white way of looking at it, and you could easily say hey I am earning 100K and happy putting in the time.
Now if you take Gary's V point of view on an 18 hour day
100,000 / (52*126) = $15 p/h (18 hours a day).
You want to make sure you get a return on your investment, and as an employee you probably never will. However a business person, I agree these hours may be beneficial.