For those who didn't know this off-hand, as I didn't, "VCSE" in this context appears to stand for "voluntary community social enterprise," which appears to be UK-speak for, roughly, the non-profit sector.
I think this is where a lot of the stress comes from. Not for profits attract the kind of employees who are out to save the world not just earn a pay check so stepping back from work (and therefor saving the world a little less) is more difficult to justify than if you were working for a large faceless corporation
I have enough privilege that I don’t need to work 2 jobs so for me, time and health are two finite resources that I will never trade for. Even the wealthiest trillionaire can only buy so much of either.
> I agree with your overall point, albeit I'd restrict it to work done for others.
Some work done for others is a calculated stepping stone to the opportunity you want. I've done just that over five years to get out of data science and into the job (now small business) I run.
I think your point is fully compatible with what I'm saying, working on your own thing, presumably to get financial independence or a job that's agreeable and pays the bills is an excellent alternative to just renting your time.
The author of the twitter thread works for a non-profit. It think it's safe to assume it's a cause she believes in rather than "just another income stream".
I think people in many white collar jobs highly underestimate their ability to set boundaries and make their work/life balance healthier. (Not sure if OP's job is white collar, but her Twitter bio suggests it is.)
The excuse I always hear is that if they don't work that hard, they'll get fired and replaced with someone who does. I'm sure that's true for some jobs, but a) it's likely very few of them, and b) why would you want to work for/with people who have so little respect for you and your health in the first place?
Sure, promotions might come less often and raises might be smaller, but that's a trade off you can consciously make: more money, or better health and family/friend relationships. And you also set an example for your peers: if they start complaining about their health or about burnout, you can show them that it's a problem that can be solved. And the more that people do this, the more people will realize it's possible and the right thing to do.
And yes, there are some who live paycheck to paycheck, hold multiple jobs, will take any job they can get, and don't have much choice. I'm not talking about people like that... though that is another conversation that should be had more often; no one should have to be stuck in a situation like that, but so many are! And yes, there's unfortunately sexism and racism involved; I expect women and POC will get looked upon less favorably if they set stronger boundaries than white men will. But I don't see that as an argument to destroy your health.
I agree. The way to avoid it is to just avoid it. You have to be ok with the fact that you might be asked to leave. And also the fact that if so, that’s for the best.
I completely agree. My opinion is that many of the people who claim that they “have” to work hard don’t really have to, it’s just that they’re not willing to leave the fast track / move to the B league/ analogy of your choice
That seems like a very "hackernews centric" take on the actual issue.
We are in the middle of a once in a century pandemic that's pushing many healthcare systems, and lots of the involved people, to the maximum of their limits and often even past those limits.
In that context it seems a bit tone-deaf to make the problem out as people just not wanting to "leave the fast track/go to B league", as for many HCW these are not even realistic options or prospects because there's really not that much of a career ladder/B league for occupations like nurses and others in the sector.
Certainly the pandemic has made the problem of overwork worse for many people, but it's existed for decades (centuries?) prior. The pandemic has been pushing more people then usual past their breaking point... which I think makes the idea of setting boundaries even more important than usual.
In many cases, an expectation of working long hours is self-inflicted. A lot of managers would be surprised if their employees told them how many hours they have been working while at home during the pandemic, because they didn't expect them to work that long.
The easiest way to clear this up is to just talk to your manager and get on the same page about what is expected.
I've had to force employees to take time off. If we were still in an office environment, I would have made them leave their work laptop in the office just so they don't try to sign on.
Some of the reasoning I've heard from these employees is that they believe they're the only one who can solve an issue. They're the ones who jump on it when it comes up during the regular day so if it re-appears they feel the need to jump on the grenade - explaining to them that other people can (and will) fix the problem helps, though it usually takes a few go arounds to get the point.
There are times I'm on call, and I'll be pretty pro-active. Even if I don't get paged but major events are going on, I'll be keeping an eye on them. On the other hand when I'm off call? Unless someone picks up a phone and calls me, it's not even on my mind.
I've never been a manager, so I have no idea if this is a reasonable thing to do, but is it possible to tell employees that not taking care of their own health will reflect poorly on their performance review? I wonder if that would do anything.
If you engage in threat making, that tends to make behavior become hidden as opposed to actually resolved. The goal is to build understanding because many of these folks are going to also be managers one day.
Everyone is (usually) an adult, just talk it out and build that understanding.
That's probably not a good approach. I would just tell them that they have been working hard and they deserve a break/vacation. If they are worried that they are going to miss out on something, I just try explain that there will be plenty of work for them to do when they get back.
I wouldn't mention that not taking care of their health would reflect poorly on their performance review. In fact I wouldn't want them to think about the performance review. The goal is for them to rest, recharge, and not get burnt out,
> I wouldn't mention that not taking care of their health would reflect poorly on their performance review. In fact I wouldn't want them to think about the performance review. The goal is for them to rest, recharge, and not get burnt out,
I know you are trying to be considerate, but please do not ever assume people “are not taking care of themselves”, even if true. In the US, there is always a deeper story to it. Generally speaking 50% of the American population has a pre-existing condition. 30-50% of Americans avoid some medical care yearly due to the cost of care.
The third leading cause of death is believed to be preventable medical errors (caused by the for-profit nature of our system: our doctors and nurses have excellent training), and the vast majority of these victims likely had pre-existing conditions. We just don’t attribute “preventable medical error” as a cause of death on US death certificates like we should. See: https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139
Also, the system is not designed to ensure the health of the populace, even if you are “rich” and “have good insurance” and “can afford to pay for healthcare with insurance coverage”. Pretty much every other industrialized and developed country is outpacing us in longevity.
The system is not meant to prevent disease and it is very ineffective at it. It profits on the already sick. It really is a grotesque system. For more info on this (and the previous 2 paragraphs consult the publications on http://healthdata.org
When your health insurance is tied to your work, you are screwed if you have a pre-existing condition.
This is why I will never work in the US, as a dual US|EU citizen with 2 rare immune mediated neurological diseases affecting my peripheral nervous system plus type 1 diabetes (autoimmune and insulin dependent). The neurological diseases are in remission, but I have to take a certain blood product, administered in a certain way, in large quantities, for life. It is known as subcutaneous immunoglobulin. It is far easier to access this is western/Northern European countries than the US, too.
In a former life, I would take 3-4 week vacations at a time when being away really meant being away and people would be flabbergasted that I could do this. But things were just fine.
I admit I haven't really done this for a while--though I came close last year. But TBH, I'll keep vaguely in touch these days when I conveniently can and deal with anything that's urgent or really can't wait. (Like I did an interview from a B&B room that really needed to be done--an then wasn't used of course.)
IMO, a lot of people put way too much pressure on themselves to be available 24/7/365 who don't need to. And if that really is the expectation maybe they should look someplace else unless it's their company or something something really special to them.
> they believe they're the only one who can solve an issue.
Have you ever been in situations where you really are the only person who can solve the issue? Or, at least the only one who can solve it a) in a reasonable time frame and b) without creating multiple other problems?
I've been in those situations before - not all the time, but it's happened. First time I sort of liked it - seemed like a bit of 'prestige'. But then ... I took a 3 day vacation. Flew hours away. Checked in to hotel. Light on the phone in the room was beeping with a message to call the office, because there was a bug no one could figure out. Even though I was at a 'big company', I was (literally) the only person on the project, and couldn't have 6 hours away without the world crashing down. Really poor management on everyone's part.
I've been in a couple other situations since then where I'm the only person who can do X, and I recognize it, and lobby for someone else to be able to step in. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I've also had a couple of situations with competent team mates who all started before me, and had a wide diverse set of skills, supported each other, and I was not expected to be some sort of 'superhero'. I appreciated those environments more as an older person who's previously experienced the 'superhero' environments.
These "many other people can do what you do" teams I've been a part of have been nice, but also comparatively rare.
Whatever else can be said. I went on a week cruise with zero stress about work.
Knowledge was so well spread around that no one was a point of failure.
Several of us were the best for specific issues, but our pair would then get better at it.
I've done short stints of pairing with folks, and yes, generally it works out great in those respects.
Yes, those setups are often best - for people and for the business - "no one point of failure". It also seems harder for businesses to commit to paying for that redundancy, at least up front.
I think there's a set of mental gymnastics that a lot of managers do in these scenarios, though. Sure, they want me to work normal hours, but every time we talk about roadmaps, it's all doom and gloom and there's isn't enough timing or resourcing to do anything, and we've already cut this project down as low as it can go. Implicit is the expectation that it's going to get done with the people we have by the deadline we set (arbitrarily).
I have coworkers and managers who will email or instant message me at all hours of the day or night. I simply don't have company email or instant messenger on my phone, and if I'm not "at work" then I don't read, answer, or even see them. I personally have never had a problem with replying to people when I am actually working rather than whenever they've messaged me. It's actually often useful because very often they'll figure things out for themselves rather and the delay means I actually have less work to do.
It sounds like what ALittleLight does is working. Often times people who set boundaries have their boundaries respected. They may get more respect in general.
HR represents the company's interests, not the employees'.
I've heard it said that in the U.S., the only reliable way for a non-union worker to get real protection from abuse is to personally hire a labor attorney.
Unless you have a case so egregious there is a high likelihood of punitive damages or a class action, no labor attorney is going to take a typical non union individual’s case. 30% of the actual damages alone aren’t even close to being enough to get an attorney to take a case that will take years to resolve and will cap out with a low 5 figures payout for the attorney.
Depends on the HR department. If you can communicate why "bad for employees" is bad for the company, then they'll help. Same with the legal department. And yeah, sometimes lawyering up is necessary to demonstrate that bad for employee is about to be bad for company.
Why make a false report to HR? Someone can send me an inbound message anytime they like. I'll respond to it when it's convenient for me. I don't need to restrict their message sending to times that are convenient for me (how would they even know, especially if they are working in a very different timezone and holiday schedule than my own?)
I don't see it as a hostile work environment at all. People can message me whenever is convenient for them and I'll read and respond whenever it's convenient for me.
I work with people from different time zones and people who like to keep different schedules, some waking up very early or working very late, and I myself wake up pretty late. It just doesn't make sense that I should demand people message according to my schedule, but I'm also not going to wake up early or work late to match theirs.
I use the same method - don't install things at home that allow me to work from home. If I need to I'll bring a laptop home, but I dont do that daily either.
On a couple occasions I came in at a reasonable time only to have missed an extra-early meeting or call that someone scheduled at 7:00pm the night before. A polite "yeah I didn't see the email until 8 this morning" seems to send the message "what the fuck were you thinking" without any complaints from anyone. They learn, and hopefully question they own constant availability.
There’s a good quote in the recent Increment issue on remote work, of a manager’s email signature:
Received this email outside of my standard working hours (ET)? That means I’ve chosen to do some work at this time; it’s not an expectation that you do the same.
As someone prone to working odd or odd hours, I’ll often preface slack or email messages I send with a bold ‘not urgent’ or similar, in the hope that the recipient will feel comfortable ignoring it until their working hours.
I think if more people clearly set response time expectations, off hours messages would read as less of an intrusion, even to people with fewer firm boundaries.
Some German company, I believe the Deutsche Post/DHL, was changing their email servers to not deliver emails outside of working hours. Granted this works because all folks are in the same Timezone, but it is such an elegant solution. Just not deliver the mails until the next day. If it is super urgent you can still call. Would be cool if that was a mail client feature.
I have no work mail or chat on my private devices and actually move all incoming mail to a temp imap folder which I don’t sync to my phone or laptop. Then a cron job moves it to my inbox between 8 and 8.
While I have it pretty good as programmer, especially in covid times I get lots of calls from clients. I suspect they do so in part because they're going crazy isolating. The pressure to pick up the phone knowing it'll significantly impact my productivity is strong.
I think it's a phenomenon similar to the whole 'panopticon' idea: I'm pretty sure not picking up the phone will be fine, but because of the not knowing for sure I still often end up letting the interruption happen. We humans prefer removing uncertainty to an irrational degree, I guess?
>I expect women and POC will get looked upon less favorably if they set stronger boundaries than white men will.
I worked with a POC who the CEO told me point blank to give them extra leniency with regards to them not performing their duties (an ongoing complaint of mine) because a "diverse face" on the pitch deck helped us raise money.
THIS is the reality. The cult of victimization has run amuck in the west to the point where you are not doing your job if you're not claiming to be a victim.
As if women really need to work harder to get the same job as a man today, what a load of shit.
I have more personal experiences like that, with different people, at different companies. I want people to know that these things happen behind the scenes, and they likely aren't aware of them. The only want to hear about experiences where the game is rigged against them, but never scenarios where it is rigged for them. But people should know that it happens both ways.
I'm not demeaning anybody. Apparently I'm never allowed to tell these stories because it's never appropriate at any time, ever. But they're real and they happen, and I have more. That is also a reality, but people don't want to hear it.
My underlying point was that it's too broad to say that you'll be negatively discriminated against for setting strict boundaries. Some (more progressive) places will let you get away with more based on your ethnicity or gender.
> I worked with a POC who the CEO told me point blank to give them extra leniency with regards to them not performing their duties (an ongoing complaint of mine) because a "diverse face" on the pitch deck helped us raise money.
So, it sounds like the CEO is using this person of color in order to earn a certain credibility and get more money from investors.
And, maybe this person of color is either, a) working hard, but not very experienced yet/able to complete their tasks. Or, they are wrongfully neglecting their duties/have no interest in doing their job. Or, some other nuanced situation, I don't know. You believe they are benefiting though.
But either way, exactly what is your point? To be honest, reading this, it seems like you are biased against people of color, and you view this situation as evidence that all people of color do not work hard/are given unfair advantages in life, and therefore, your bias is warranted. In other words, you appear to believe in a common racist trope. To you, it is true, based on this story.
Or, you are not biased against people of color, and simply think it unfair that this person, regardless of their ethnicity, is being given a free pass on not doing their work. If the latter, isn't your CEO partly in the wrong here? They are capitalizing on the identity of this person of color, which shouldn't matter, by your logic.
> it seems like you are biased against people of color, and you view this situation as evidence that all people of color do not work hard/are given unfair advantages in life, and therefore, your bias is warranted. In other words, you appear to believe in a common racist trope.
You judged me guilty of all of that because I provided an anecdote that some companies bias positively (not always negatively) towards people based on their race and/or gender? Do you expect me to respond and defend myself against each accusation? Because you don't have the right to pressure that from me, especially as an anonymous throwaway account.
>I think that you want people to draw a conclusion from this story.
Yes, that conclusion is exactly what I already said, which I worded very precisely: "some companies bias positively towards people based on their race and/or gender". So we should not automatically assume, as the person I was replying to suggested, that someone will be biased against because of their race or gender for affirming work boundaries.
You reading into that to try to sniff out hints of racism and prejudice says more about your motives and your intentions here than it does mine.
>You believe these companies "bias positively". Which may or may not be true.
I didn't say "these companies", I said "some companies." And "some companies" is true, because I have personal experiences at "some companies" that show backroom positive biases towards employees and interview candidates, without their knowledge, explicitly because of their identity (both race and sex).
You seem to disagree that my experiences are valid, and if they are valid, that I must be sexist or racist for even sharing them.
I don't mean to suggest that your experiences are not valid. Or to make you feel like you're on trial. I mean to make you feel that you may benefit from a tweaked perspective.
What I disagree with is that there is such a thing as 'biasing positively'. People seek to build diverse teams. In my opinion, your colleague wasn't necessarily being done a favor if it happened they were performing poorly and didn't have a good feedback loop. Your CEO may have been profiting from this situation at the long-term expense of your colleague.
I actually agree with most of this. I also think we should actively seek to build diverse teams, primarily by more inclusive pipelines. I also agree that it was a long-term disservice to the employee who wasn't getting the necessary feedback/adjustments, because the CEO wanted to game the system unethically.
I just don't think we should be biasing our judgments of a person's value or competency based on their sex or race though, and unfortunately, I have a few experiences that point to conscious decisions in that direction. I'm not saying you are making this argument, but if there is an argument that "we need conscious decisions to counterbalance the unconscious biases," then I really wholeheartedly disagree with that approach. Like you suggested, we're not doing people favors when we shield them from honest feedback about their output.
> Yes, that conclusion is exactly what I already said, which I worded very precisely: "some companies bias positively towards people based on their race and/or gender".
I would not consider the scenario you described to be positive bias. It's still negative, and it still hurts the employee in question, even if they still get to draw a paycheck for a time. It's just a... different... kind of bias than the kind I mentioned.
> So we should not automatically assume, as the person I was replying to suggested, that someone will be biased against because of their race or gender for affirming work boundaries.*
My original comment didn't suggest that we should automatically assume that, just that it was a possibility. And I'd still expect my possibility to be more likely and pervasive than the scenario you described.
I read this as a case of taking on extra work through a sense of commitment. That's different from putting in the hours to make partner at a law firm. Still, as the person says, there's only so much one can do and not damage one's health.
>I'm not talking about people like that... though that is another conversation that should be had more often; no one should have to be stuck in a situation like that
that's a lot of people mate. Over half of the workforce doesn't have a degree, half doesn't have any or barely any savings and cannot cover a few hundred bucks emergency, and if you have at least one kid or a family member who is dependent on you good luck. Most people cannot risk forgoing even a month without a salary, including a lot of white collar workers even with an undergraduate degree or similar.
The particular person here runs a charity for inmates, and if you're self-employed or own a business in a sense ironically enough you have even less control over your schedule because you can't just dial the numbers down and people depend on you, in this case both workers and clients.
I agree, but I think my point still stands even if it doesn't apply to everyone, or even a majority of people.
> The particular person here runs a charity for inmates, and if you're self-employed or own a business in a sense ironically enough you have even less control over your schedule because you can't just dial the numbers down and people depend on you, in this case both workers and clients.
This is a manifestation of the same problem of not setting boundaries. People only depend on you if you agree to take them on as clients. It might be heartbreaking to have to make those kinds of decisions when it comes to something like working with inmates, but I do believe you'll help a smaller number of inmates much more effectively if you're well-rested and take care of your health. And, again, that actually is entirely within your control. You can certainly choose to help more people at the expense of your health, but that may not be the best decision for yourself (or the people you're trying to help) in the longer run. But it's still a choice.
A lot of pressure is self-induced pressure. Sure. But it comes from somewhere: a social system and specific incentives. If the system incentives you to be more performant, and emphasize other peers’ performance (for example by constantly comparing you to others), then ...
Maybe not "fired", but you will definitely be less likely to advance if everyone else is grinding, unless you somehow gain some uncanny efficiency and clarity improvement on your work output from taking back the hours to yourself.
> I think people in many white collar jobs highly underestimate their ability to set boundaries and make their work/life balance healthier.
This is something that took me 1.5-2 decades to figure out. My first "worst project" was around 2007 and it was hell. It cost me a lot (health, it became a large factor in losing a good relationship). I couldn't see the forest from the trees. I couldn't say no to the sleazy sales manager who would ignore me all week only to become my best friend for a 60 second conversation every Thursday: "Maaaate! Can you work Saturday?"
The wounds were very expensive but after some time to heal became something to laugh at, lightly. When someone in a room full of developers at 9 PM snaps and says, "This is the worst project I've ever been on!" half the room will immediately agree, only for the the other half to grin politely and disagree. "Really?!" At best sharing these stories can be a bonding exercise. Some of the anecdotes are now quite funny jokes.
Then a decade past my worst ever project and it was happening all over again! Only this time I was cognisant of the machinations around me. While being older might mean more capable, it also means we can't do the same long hours any more. The absolute worst thing was I saw it coming. I gave my manager (who had all the authority) unambiguous advice to avoid this project. After it went bad they needed me. I said no, but then they weren't asking and suddenly I was involved. Deeply. Drinking after work was no longer 2 beers on a Friday, but 2-4 every day at our desks (but after 8 PM when the place was mostly abandoned). Other negatives I was putting up with for the $$$ also broke the threshold (mostly the insane daily travel, but the place was generally a crap client site all round).
I'd work hard to the deadline then be done with it. January became February, March, then April. I was burnt out. I quit before it was done and became the bad guy. I didn't care. I never wanted to see any of these clowns ever again.
I went overseas for a year without working. Didn't work for another year after returning, and very casually waited for the right, quite different, role to come through my jokingly tiny social network.
Man, that sounds like a terrible experience. And based on the time it took you to get back to work in the right role, it's a testament to the fact that burnout can be really severe and take quite a while to get through.
I've also been working in a non-profit organization that's seen so much more work since COVID hit.
These last 9 months have been awful and have me seriously considering looking for another job. Everything is suddenly urgent and high-impact, being on-call until late every night with real (potentially deadly) consequences if you mess up.
Is management aware of this problem, and have they been able to hire more people to pick up some of the extra work? I get that extra budget has been difficult to come by during the pandemic, but it seems like they're missing the forest for the trees... if their undersized staff gets burned out and quits, the problem will only get worse until people do die.
I don't know your situation but it's almost certainly not functional to be on call every night. People just don't function without rest and being on call tends to occupy a fair bit of mental and stress bandwidth.
Right! And when you're on call, there are things you can't do, like go out of range of an internet connection, maybe you won't go see your friends, or go out to dinner because you don't want those activities interrupted... You need to be keeping tabs on your phone all the time. It keeps you in a high-alert mental state, just in case... and you don't really relax and unwind.
Agreed. The most relaxing thing I'm able to do while on-call is sit in the bath for a while - and even then, a few times my phone has gone off after five-ten minutes.
Part of what I forgot to express here is that the work is important, and I do care deeply about my coworkers - I've been at this job for 6 years, and half of my team has been there since I started. In some ways, it makes it better, because I can be proud of what we're doing. But it also makes it harder to take time off or set those boundaries, because I know that every day I'm not on call, somebody else has to be. Every day that I'm not doing work delays improvements and makes the rest of the team's lives harder.
I try very hard to stop my normal workday at 8-9 hours and to not put in extra time on the weekends, but it's difficult to balance my own needs with both the needs of my co-workers and also with the demands of the work we're doing.
Over workers of this nature are the source of their own problems. I pity them, but at the same time the power to fix their problems lie entirely within themselves. She is (almost certainly) not in an instance where she needs to work 80hrs/week in order to make enough money to feed her family.
Pick a random day in the past year - I'd love to hear her argument as to why the work she did on say July 13th was so important and time sensitive that it couldn't have been delayed 12 hours so she could spend a little time with her family.
When accepting work, if you do not provide backpressure, you'll keep getting more and more work.
Saying no has nothing to do with unprofessionalism, it has to do with the fact that there are finite number of hours in a day and there is a limit to what a person can do. That limit can be different for each person, but it will always be there.
If you get blamed or shamed for not being able to do more work, just insist. There is no shame in this.
Also, working more does not necessarily translate into career progression. And if your job security depends on working an insane amount of hours, unless you are being compensated properly and understand the long-term health implications of what you are doing, just look for another job.
What happens if you get a RSI injury such as carpal tunnel syndrome? or some other kind of health issue? If it's bad enough, that's it, your ability to work is over. If they already do not care about your work/life balance and your health, their reaction will surely be "hey, the typing machine on desk #3 broke, please get a new one".
It is fine to be professional, but don't drink the Kool-Aid, look after your health and your best interest. If you want to be able to work until retirement, you need a sustainable lifestyle.
Also remember that one day you will change jobs, and when you do it is likely you won't see your close friends at work anymore. But nevertheless you will have to live with the implications of neglecting your family and friends, or looking in the mirror one day and realizing you are old and you wasted your youth making other people rich for no reason.
I've also stopped accepting the 8 AM meeting requests that get fired off at 3 AM same-day from the subcontinent. It takes some resetting of expectations, but it's a far healthier and more professional set of ground rules.
Transitioning everyone to remote work during COVID has only amplified these problems. Boundary-setting feels much easier when people are physically switching contexts between home and work.
Obviously, people with physical offices still put in work from home, but it feels much easier to time-box activities when there is a clear distinction between hours spent at work and hours spent at home.
With full remote, the physical boundaries between work and home disappear. It no longer feels safe to tell someone you'll follow up on something when you're back in the office tomorrow morning, because now technically you're always in your office.
I dealt with this problem a lot with high achievers on remote teams (pre-COVID). Certain personality types will always aim to please, never pass up an opportunity to shine, and have trouble saying no to requests. Combine those personality traits with a high-achiever mentality and you have a recipe for disaster.
This was especially problematic in new university graduates who had spent the first two decades of their lives getting straight As on arbitrary, time-limited school work. Drop them into open-ended work environments where the project scope and duration is a moving target and they struggle to pace themselves. Their old techniques of powering through work at 100% effort until it's done are no longer sustainable in the face of a never-ending supply of additional work.
Managers should, of course, be aware of these situations and work to intervene. However, employees also need to take some share of the responsibility for closing feedback loops with their managers. Some people are so afraid of disappointing anyone or appearing weak that they'll deliberately hide any signs that they're struggling or overworked. It's critically important that both managers and employees work together to keep feedback loops open and honest. As a manager I wish I could read everyone's minds and adjust accordingly, but it's extremely difficult when employees are actively working to hide these things from their employers. Side note: It's so much easier to manager people who were formerly managers themselves because they're so much better at communicating these things, having seen both sides of the table.
I agree but will add that a lot of those issues are significantly pandemic-worsened.
"If there's literally nothing fun and social to do, I might as well work" has been the calculus for me for hundreds of hours of extra work in 2020. I'm not even upset (at my company) about it; in some ways, it was nice to have something to stave off some of the boredom and I'd honestly rather work than watch some mindless television programming.
Without a pandemic, but with remote work, I still have team beer-league sports to play, dinners/BBQs with friends, social events relating to the kids, etc.
I don’t know if I fully agree. Usually working remotely you have a life. These days it’s hard to have a life so you can’t just put it on the “not going to the office” (case in point: the coronavirus was a blessing for my 3 hour commute)
> With full remote, the physical boundaries between work and home disappear. It no longer feels safe to tell someone you'll follow up on something when you're back in the office tomorrow morning, because now technically you're always in your office.
I've been working remote for many years; started out part time remote in 2010 and been full time since about 2016 (across 5 different companies since). What you're saying has never been true for me.
I average 40 hours a week. If I go over 8 hours one day, I'll do less hours the next. I have no problem telling my manager or anyone else that I'll follow up tomorrow. I don't give them excuses, I just simply state "I'm signing off, I'll follow up in the morning" once that clock hits my 8 hour mark.
You (the royal "you") are in control of your own destiny when it comes to setting these boundaries. If your company is truly forcing you to do this, it's time to look elsewhere. Don't blame it on remote work. This is not a remote problem, this is a problem between you and your company.
I had to google was VCSE was. Incase anyone didn't know its Voluntary Community and Social enterprise. For some reason I can understand this sentiment coming from someone in tech or some other highly competitive industry... but a non-profit?
This is definitely a top-down solution. Our CIO mandated “no meetings Fridays” before COVID-19 and it became a blessing when everyone started working from home. It reminded people that our coworkers are people. Don’t expect them to drop everything for our employer. Or for our work needs. We can all responsibly manage workloads.
The author of this piece lists CEO as a title. Sadly, if she wants to reduce the workload and expectation of her staff, she’ll need to lead by example. I wholly expect her to be able to do so, and it will only make her employees happier.
Something I've had a long and hard time learning is that others treat my time approximately as valuable as I do. When I'm always an instant message away, responding to any problem, allowing interruptions, and not setting boundaries, I'm signaling that my time isn't as valuable. So others treat it that way, and I become overworked.
If instead most of my interactions with people are on important matters, then they see my time as important. Setting boundaries and saying no to more trivial requests generally increases the respect people show.
My own experience is that startup employers really do have unrealistic/over-optimistic expectations of what's actually required to achieve a certain result. Anything worth doing in the startup world hasn't been done before, so it's usually not possible to invent it on a schedule.
People who will throw something together are heroes, but very often the result is complete crap that has enormous costs if it gets adopted as a standard. I'm being only slightly facetious asking, how much has humanity been set back due to the fact that less than two weeks was spent inventing Javascript? Maybe they should have spent an extra week or two on it and saved millions of person-years down the road [ h/t the recent repost of https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death... ]
At the same time, my own psychological makeup made me vulnerable to trying to meet those unrealistic expectations, and that's on me. It took decades to really figure out what's going on, and ultimately it's a matter of acceptance rather than actionable change, although change is possible. With so much of our capabilities and challenges being unconscious, I continue to marvel at the miracle that anything gets done at all.
During the summer I looked at my commit activity on our github and it was a solid green since March when the lockdown began in the UK. There was nothing else to do and the went on until perhaps mid November. I've been on holidays since mid December and I had no idea how mentally fatigued I was until I stopped working.
There's no way next year will be as frantic. And to be fair to our HR team, they did regularly warn people to take time off and not burn out.
I've been pondering the same. It's called "working from home", but it often feels like "sleeping at the office".
My work/life balance depends (or depended) on physical boundaries: Being at home gave some distance, then traveling gave me some more. In 2020, it's been difficult to separate work from non-work.
I think many people who overwork themselves really overestimate how much managers and others care. I hear stories of software devs doing like 12 hour days. But why? You're likely salaried for a 7.5-8 hour day. When your salaried work is over you don't need to work longer, log out/go home/ignore anything work related. It's really not that hard. If someone is trying to contact you and you aren't on-call or aren't required to listen, then kindly tell them that you're not at work. Emails are easily ignored too. Did someone send you a ticket at 5pm with the message "Can you take a quick look at this?". That's tomorrow mornings problem, not todays. The outcome of whatever work you do for that will not produce anything meaningful until the next day anyway, because most people finished work, so why bother?
Do you feel pressured from needing to work longer to meet expectations set by other people in the same role? Don't be. If your manager or anyone else in charge has a problem with your productivity then the first thing they're going to do is ask you about it. What things are forcing you to work these extra hours? Is it deadlines? A backlog of work? Did they overestimate your skill level? Talk about it. It might turn out that you actually are in over your head, but you're in the job and you're making the company money. Not every manager is evil and most are accommodating. You might be able to get training/help, perhaps a lower salary and therefore lower expectations/responsibilities. Yeah it might suck to lose some money, but you know what sucks to lose more? Your health.
Firing people is pretty expensive and a last resort for a company, you're almost never at risk of being fired. So long as you're not punching people in the face when you meet them and you're doing your work at an acceptable level then you're most likely okay. The people that get fired are those who are really really shitty and do nothing. Any reasonable worker will have domain knowledge and other skills that are invaluable and will take a long time for new hires to pick up.
Any company which effectively forces you to over work, even after discussing it, is not worth working for. Software devs are lucky in that the market is full of jobs. Other people might not be so lucky, but in that scenario the first thing you should be doing is gradually reducing hours and looking for a another job.
After decades of experience, I figured out my steady-state output is maximized with 6 hour days.
I need at least 2-4 work hours a day without someone yapping at me so I can figure out what to type into the computer next. My best work is done while biking or jogging.
I’ve also found that most people working >> 8 hours produce substandard work during deadlines. Their crunch time usually delays product launches.
If you don’t stand up for yourself and set boundaries, you will be 100% be taken advantage of. The world is full of people who doesn’t care about your short or long term wellbeing. Stop living in a fantasy world and work hard to see the world as it really is.
This is why I will never work in the US. I need the benefits (and to be able to pay for them, even in retirement, which gets complicated if you have cancer or a rare disease, both of which are common) more than I need the actual income. It’s sad but true.
I could also lose them in a split second if I became too ill to keep up the hectic long hours.
I am fortunate to be a dual US|EU citizen, but if I was not, I would try to become a citizen of (Republic of) Ireland, which is part of the EU, so you are also conferred EU citizenship in addition to being an Irish citizen. This gives you the right to live/work/retire in over 30 countries, including all of the EU and EEA countries. Additionally, if you have citizenship from the Republic of Ireland, you are allowed to live/work/retire in the UK, due to a longstanding common agreement. If you are of Irish descent and are a direct blood relative (even great-great-great grandparent) of someone born in Ireland, you can become an Irish citizen in 3 years of living there if you provide the birth records. Also, if you are under 30(?) Americans can get a 1 year working holiday visa. Tech workers can get a job easily through the Irish skills shortage list.
102 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 188 ms ] threadNothing wrong with doing that with some of your time, and as you point out, you wouldn't want to do that with all of your time.
Being smart about how you trade time for money is where it's at - like achieving financial independence.
Sometimes that might mean trading a lot more time for money upfront so you can reap the dividends of that investment later.
Work is not always a loss, people may actually prefer it over other obligations (eg. running after your small babies).
I agree with your overall point, albeit I'd restrict it to work done for others.
Some work done for others is a calculated stepping stone to the opportunity you want. I've done just that over five years to get out of data science and into the job (now small business) I run.
Planning is vital.
All part of my long term plan to financial independence that I'm slowly, sometimes painfully, executing.
Edit: Downvotes? In a forum supposedly filled with “entrepreneurial” minded individuals? Whatever... at least explain yourselves.
The excuse I always hear is that if they don't work that hard, they'll get fired and replaced with someone who does. I'm sure that's true for some jobs, but a) it's likely very few of them, and b) why would you want to work for/with people who have so little respect for you and your health in the first place?
Sure, promotions might come less often and raises might be smaller, but that's a trade off you can consciously make: more money, or better health and family/friend relationships. And you also set an example for your peers: if they start complaining about their health or about burnout, you can show them that it's a problem that can be solved. And the more that people do this, the more people will realize it's possible and the right thing to do.
And yes, there are some who live paycheck to paycheck, hold multiple jobs, will take any job they can get, and don't have much choice. I'm not talking about people like that... though that is another conversation that should be had more often; no one should have to be stuck in a situation like that, but so many are! And yes, there's unfortunately sexism and racism involved; I expect women and POC will get looked upon less favorably if they set stronger boundaries than white men will. But I don't see that as an argument to destroy your health.
I include myself in this
We are in the middle of a once in a century pandemic that's pushing many healthcare systems, and lots of the involved people, to the maximum of their limits and often even past those limits.
In that context it seems a bit tone-deaf to make the problem out as people just not wanting to "leave the fast track/go to B league", as for many HCW these are not even realistic options or prospects because there's really not that much of a career ladder/B league for occupations like nurses and others in the sector.
The easiest way to clear this up is to just talk to your manager and get on the same page about what is expected.
Some of the reasoning I've heard from these employees is that they believe they're the only one who can solve an issue. They're the ones who jump on it when it comes up during the regular day so if it re-appears they feel the need to jump on the grenade - explaining to them that other people can (and will) fix the problem helps, though it usually takes a few go arounds to get the point.
There are times I'm on call, and I'll be pretty pro-active. Even if I don't get paged but major events are going on, I'll be keeping an eye on them. On the other hand when I'm off call? Unless someone picks up a phone and calls me, it's not even on my mind.
Everyone is (usually) an adult, just talk it out and build that understanding.
I wouldn't mention that not taking care of their health would reflect poorly on their performance review. In fact I wouldn't want them to think about the performance review. The goal is for them to rest, recharge, and not get burnt out,
I know you are trying to be considerate, but please do not ever assume people “are not taking care of themselves”, even if true. In the US, there is always a deeper story to it. Generally speaking 50% of the American population has a pre-existing condition. 30-50% of Americans avoid some medical care yearly due to the cost of care.
The third leading cause of death is believed to be preventable medical errors (caused by the for-profit nature of our system: our doctors and nurses have excellent training), and the vast majority of these victims likely had pre-existing conditions. We just don’t attribute “preventable medical error” as a cause of death on US death certificates like we should. See: https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139
Also, the system is not designed to ensure the health of the populace, even if you are “rich” and “have good insurance” and “can afford to pay for healthcare with insurance coverage”. Pretty much every other industrialized and developed country is outpacing us in longevity.
The system is not meant to prevent disease and it is very ineffective at it. It profits on the already sick. It really is a grotesque system. For more info on this (and the previous 2 paragraphs consult the publications on http://healthdata.org
According to the book, “Dying for a Paycheck”, the fifth leading cause of death in the US is overwork: https://www.baltimoresun.com/health/bs-hs-workplace-cause-de...
When your health insurance is tied to your work, you are screwed if you have a pre-existing condition.
This is why I will never work in the US, as a dual US|EU citizen with 2 rare immune mediated neurological diseases affecting my peripheral nervous system plus type 1 diabetes (autoimmune and insulin dependent). The neurological diseases are in remission, but I have to take a certain blood product, administered in a certain way, in large quantities, for life. It is known as subcutaneous immunoglobulin. It is far easier to access this is western/Northern European countries than the US, too.
I admit I haven't really done this for a while--though I came close last year. But TBH, I'll keep vaguely in touch these days when I conveniently can and deal with anything that's urgent or really can't wait. (Like I did an interview from a B&B room that really needed to be done--an then wasn't used of course.)
IMO, a lot of people put way too much pressure on themselves to be available 24/7/365 who don't need to. And if that really is the expectation maybe they should look someplace else unless it's their company or something something really special to them.
Have you ever been in situations where you really are the only person who can solve the issue? Or, at least the only one who can solve it a) in a reasonable time frame and b) without creating multiple other problems?
I've been in those situations before - not all the time, but it's happened. First time I sort of liked it - seemed like a bit of 'prestige'. But then ... I took a 3 day vacation. Flew hours away. Checked in to hotel. Light on the phone in the room was beeping with a message to call the office, because there was a bug no one could figure out. Even though I was at a 'big company', I was (literally) the only person on the project, and couldn't have 6 hours away without the world crashing down. Really poor management on everyone's part.
I've been in a couple other situations since then where I'm the only person who can do X, and I recognize it, and lobby for someone else to be able to step in. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I've also had a couple of situations with competent team mates who all started before me, and had a wide diverse set of skills, supported each other, and I was not expected to be some sort of 'superhero'. I appreciated those environments more as an older person who's previously experienced the 'superhero' environments.
These "many other people can do what you do" teams I've been a part of have been nice, but also comparatively rare.
Whatever else can be said. I went on a week cruise with zero stress about work.
Knowledge was so well spread around that no one was a point of failure. Several of us were the best for specific issues, but our pair would then get better at it.
Yes, those setups are often best - for people and for the business - "no one point of failure". It also seems harder for businesses to commit to paying for that redundancy, at least up front.
My higher ups were shocked when I presented them with >540 hours of overtime accumulated from mid March to September.
Not that I didn't more than once tell it in different video meetings with my team lead as well as managing directors.
But they only reacted shocked when there was a paper trail. Before that telling them that I would run up to that amount of overtime did nothing.
There's no need to involve anyone else.
I've heard it said that in the U.S., the only reliable way for a non-union worker to get real protection from abuse is to personally hire a labor attorney.
I work with people from different time zones and people who like to keep different schedules, some waking up very early or working very late, and I myself wake up pretty late. It just doesn't make sense that I should demand people message according to my schedule, but I'm also not going to wake up early or work late to match theirs.
On a couple occasions I came in at a reasonable time only to have missed an extra-early meeting or call that someone scheduled at 7:00pm the night before. A polite "yeah I didn't see the email until 8 this morning" seems to send the message "what the fuck were you thinking" without any complaints from anyone. They learn, and hopefully question they own constant availability.
I think if more people clearly set response time expectations, off hours messages would read as less of an intrusion, even to people with fewer firm boundaries.
I have no work mail or chat on my private devices and actually move all incoming mail to a temp imap folder which I don’t sync to my phone or laptop. Then a cron job moves it to my inbox between 8 and 8.
Yes, it’s 2am in India. Yes, I want the whole thread to be in one tool. No, I don’t want to notify the person until they’re at their desk.
Slack does have a suppress notifications setting that the recipient can set. That doesn’t help when they haven’t set it.
90% of the emails I send are because this feature is missing.
I think it's a phenomenon similar to the whole 'panopticon' idea: I'm pretty sure not picking up the phone will be fine, but because of the not knowing for sure I still often end up letting the interruption happen. We humans prefer removing uncertainty to an irrational degree, I guess?
I worked with a POC who the CEO told me point blank to give them extra leniency with regards to them not performing their duties (an ongoing complaint of mine) because a "diverse face" on the pitch deck helped us raise money.
As if women really need to work harder to get the same job as a man today, what a load of shit.
My underlying point was that it's too broad to say that you'll be negatively discriminated against for setting strict boundaries. Some (more progressive) places will let you get away with more based on your ethnicity or gender.
So, it sounds like the CEO is using this person of color in order to earn a certain credibility and get more money from investors.
And, maybe this person of color is either, a) working hard, but not very experienced yet/able to complete their tasks. Or, they are wrongfully neglecting their duties/have no interest in doing their job. Or, some other nuanced situation, I don't know. You believe they are benefiting though.
But either way, exactly what is your point? To be honest, reading this, it seems like you are biased against people of color, and you view this situation as evidence that all people of color do not work hard/are given unfair advantages in life, and therefore, your bias is warranted. In other words, you appear to believe in a common racist trope. To you, it is true, based on this story.
Or, you are not biased against people of color, and simply think it unfair that this person, regardless of their ethnicity, is being given a free pass on not doing their work. If the latter, isn't your CEO partly in the wrong here? They are capitalizing on the identity of this person of color, which shouldn't matter, by your logic.
You judged me guilty of all of that because I provided an anecdote that some companies bias positively (not always negatively) towards people based on their race and/or gender? Do you expect me to respond and defend myself against each accusation? Because you don't have the right to pressure that from me, especially as an anonymous throwaway account.
What do you think this anecdote means? What do you think about this situation?
I think that you want people to draw a conclusion from this story.
Yes, that conclusion is exactly what I already said, which I worded very precisely: "some companies bias positively towards people based on their race and/or gender". So we should not automatically assume, as the person I was replying to suggested, that someone will be biased against because of their race or gender for affirming work boundaries.
You reading into that to try to sniff out hints of racism and prejudice says more about your motives and your intentions here than it does mine.
>You believe these companies "bias positively". Which may or may not be true.
I didn't say "these companies", I said "some companies." And "some companies" is true, because I have personal experiences at "some companies" that show backroom positive biases towards employees and interview candidates, without their knowledge, explicitly because of their identity (both race and sex).
You seem to disagree that my experiences are valid, and if they are valid, that I must be sexist or racist for even sharing them.
What I disagree with is that there is such a thing as 'biasing positively'. People seek to build diverse teams. In my opinion, your colleague wasn't necessarily being done a favor if it happened they were performing poorly and didn't have a good feedback loop. Your CEO may have been profiting from this situation at the long-term expense of your colleague.
I just don't think we should be biasing our judgments of a person's value or competency based on their sex or race though, and unfortunately, I have a few experiences that point to conscious decisions in that direction. I'm not saying you are making this argument, but if there is an argument that "we need conscious decisions to counterbalance the unconscious biases," then I really wholeheartedly disagree with that approach. Like you suggested, we're not doing people favors when we shield them from honest feedback about their output.
I would not consider the scenario you described to be positive bias. It's still negative, and it still hurts the employee in question, even if they still get to draw a paycheck for a time. It's just a... different... kind of bias than the kind I mentioned.
> So we should not automatically assume, as the person I was replying to suggested, that someone will be biased against because of their race or gender for affirming work boundaries.*
My original comment didn't suggest that we should automatically assume that, just that it was a possibility. And I'd still expect my possibility to be more likely and pervasive than the scenario you described.
that's a lot of people mate. Over half of the workforce doesn't have a degree, half doesn't have any or barely any savings and cannot cover a few hundred bucks emergency, and if you have at least one kid or a family member who is dependent on you good luck. Most people cannot risk forgoing even a month without a salary, including a lot of white collar workers even with an undergraduate degree or similar.
The particular person here runs a charity for inmates, and if you're self-employed or own a business in a sense ironically enough you have even less control over your schedule because you can't just dial the numbers down and people depend on you, in this case both workers and clients.
I agree, but I think my point still stands even if it doesn't apply to everyone, or even a majority of people.
> The particular person here runs a charity for inmates, and if you're self-employed or own a business in a sense ironically enough you have even less control over your schedule because you can't just dial the numbers down and people depend on you, in this case both workers and clients.
This is a manifestation of the same problem of not setting boundaries. People only depend on you if you agree to take them on as clients. It might be heartbreaking to have to make those kinds of decisions when it comes to something like working with inmates, but I do believe you'll help a smaller number of inmates much more effectively if you're well-rested and take care of your health. And, again, that actually is entirely within your control. You can certainly choose to help more people at the expense of your health, but that may not be the best decision for yourself (or the people you're trying to help) in the longer run. But it's still a choice.
This is something that took me 1.5-2 decades to figure out. My first "worst project" was around 2007 and it was hell. It cost me a lot (health, it became a large factor in losing a good relationship). I couldn't see the forest from the trees. I couldn't say no to the sleazy sales manager who would ignore me all week only to become my best friend for a 60 second conversation every Thursday: "Maaaate! Can you work Saturday?"
The wounds were very expensive but after some time to heal became something to laugh at, lightly. When someone in a room full of developers at 9 PM snaps and says, "This is the worst project I've ever been on!" half the room will immediately agree, only for the the other half to grin politely and disagree. "Really?!" At best sharing these stories can be a bonding exercise. Some of the anecdotes are now quite funny jokes.
Then a decade past my worst ever project and it was happening all over again! Only this time I was cognisant of the machinations around me. While being older might mean more capable, it also means we can't do the same long hours any more. The absolute worst thing was I saw it coming. I gave my manager (who had all the authority) unambiguous advice to avoid this project. After it went bad they needed me. I said no, but then they weren't asking and suddenly I was involved. Deeply. Drinking after work was no longer 2 beers on a Friday, but 2-4 every day at our desks (but after 8 PM when the place was mostly abandoned). Other negatives I was putting up with for the $$$ also broke the threshold (mostly the insane daily travel, but the place was generally a crap client site all round).
I'd work hard to the deadline then be done with it. January became February, March, then April. I was burnt out. I quit before it was done and became the bad guy. I didn't care. I never wanted to see any of these clowns ever again.
I went overseas for a year without working. Didn't work for another year after returning, and very casually waited for the right, quite different, role to come through my jokingly tiny social network.
These last 9 months have been awful and have me seriously considering looking for another job. Everything is suddenly urgent and high-impact, being on-call until late every night with real (potentially deadly) consequences if you mess up.
I don't know your situation but it's almost certainly not functional to be on call every night. People just don't function without rest and being on call tends to occupy a fair bit of mental and stress bandwidth.
But yeah, it's not something I can deal with much longer.
Part of what I forgot to express here is that the work is important, and I do care deeply about my coworkers - I've been at this job for 6 years, and half of my team has been there since I started. In some ways, it makes it better, because I can be proud of what we're doing. But it also makes it harder to take time off or set those boundaries, because I know that every day I'm not on call, somebody else has to be. Every day that I'm not doing work delays improvements and makes the rest of the team's lives harder.
I try very hard to stop my normal workday at 8-9 hours and to not put in extra time on the weekends, but it's difficult to balance my own needs with both the needs of my co-workers and also with the demands of the work we're doing.
Pick a random day in the past year - I'd love to hear her argument as to why the work she did on say July 13th was so important and time sensitive that it couldn't have been delayed 12 hours so she could spend a little time with her family.
Saying no has nothing to do with unprofessionalism, it has to do with the fact that there are finite number of hours in a day and there is a limit to what a person can do. That limit can be different for each person, but it will always be there.
If you get blamed or shamed for not being able to do more work, just insist. There is no shame in this.
Also, working more does not necessarily translate into career progression. And if your job security depends on working an insane amount of hours, unless you are being compensated properly and understand the long-term health implications of what you are doing, just look for another job.
What happens if you get a RSI injury such as carpal tunnel syndrome? or some other kind of health issue? If it's bad enough, that's it, your ability to work is over. If they already do not care about your work/life balance and your health, their reaction will surely be "hey, the typing machine on desk #3 broke, please get a new one".
It is fine to be professional, but don't drink the Kool-Aid, look after your health and your best interest. If you want to be able to work until retirement, you need a sustainable lifestyle.
Also remember that one day you will change jobs, and when you do it is likely you won't see your close friends at work anymore. But nevertheless you will have to live with the implications of neglecting your family and friends, or looking in the mirror one day and realizing you are old and you wasted your youth making other people rich for no reason.
I've also stopped accepting the 8 AM meeting requests that get fired off at 3 AM same-day from the subcontinent. It takes some resetting of expectations, but it's a far healthier and more professional set of ground rules.
Obviously, people with physical offices still put in work from home, but it feels much easier to time-box activities when there is a clear distinction between hours spent at work and hours spent at home.
With full remote, the physical boundaries between work and home disappear. It no longer feels safe to tell someone you'll follow up on something when you're back in the office tomorrow morning, because now technically you're always in your office.
I dealt with this problem a lot with high achievers on remote teams (pre-COVID). Certain personality types will always aim to please, never pass up an opportunity to shine, and have trouble saying no to requests. Combine those personality traits with a high-achiever mentality and you have a recipe for disaster.
This was especially problematic in new university graduates who had spent the first two decades of their lives getting straight As on arbitrary, time-limited school work. Drop them into open-ended work environments where the project scope and duration is a moving target and they struggle to pace themselves. Their old techniques of powering through work at 100% effort until it's done are no longer sustainable in the face of a never-ending supply of additional work.
Managers should, of course, be aware of these situations and work to intervene. However, employees also need to take some share of the responsibility for closing feedback loops with their managers. Some people are so afraid of disappointing anyone or appearing weak that they'll deliberately hide any signs that they're struggling or overworked. It's critically important that both managers and employees work together to keep feedback loops open and honest. As a manager I wish I could read everyone's minds and adjust accordingly, but it's extremely difficult when employees are actively working to hide these things from their employers. Side note: It's so much easier to manager people who were formerly managers themselves because they're so much better at communicating these things, having seen both sides of the table.
"If there's literally nothing fun and social to do, I might as well work" has been the calculus for me for hundreds of hours of extra work in 2020. I'm not even upset (at my company) about it; in some ways, it was nice to have something to stave off some of the boredom and I'd honestly rather work than watch some mindless television programming.
Without a pandemic, but with remote work, I still have team beer-league sports to play, dinners/BBQs with friends, social events relating to the kids, etc.
Best thing I did was move back in with family.
I've been working remote for many years; started out part time remote in 2010 and been full time since about 2016 (across 5 different companies since). What you're saying has never been true for me.
I average 40 hours a week. If I go over 8 hours one day, I'll do less hours the next. I have no problem telling my manager or anyone else that I'll follow up tomorrow. I don't give them excuses, I just simply state "I'm signing off, I'll follow up in the morning" once that clock hits my 8 hour mark.
You (the royal "you") are in control of your own destiny when it comes to setting these boundaries. If your company is truly forcing you to do this, it's time to look elsewhere. Don't blame it on remote work. This is not a remote problem, this is a problem between you and your company.
The author of this piece lists CEO as a title. Sadly, if she wants to reduce the workload and expectation of her staff, she’ll need to lead by example. I wholly expect her to be able to do so, and it will only make her employees happier.
If instead most of my interactions with people are on important matters, then they see my time as important. Setting boundaries and saying no to more trivial requests generally increases the respect people show.
Take some time off!
People who will throw something together are heroes, but very often the result is complete crap that has enormous costs if it gets adopted as a standard. I'm being only slightly facetious asking, how much has humanity been set back due to the fact that less than two weeks was spent inventing Javascript? Maybe they should have spent an extra week or two on it and saved millions of person-years down the road [ h/t the recent repost of https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death... ]
At the same time, my own psychological makeup made me vulnerable to trying to meet those unrealistic expectations, and that's on me. It took decades to really figure out what's going on, and ultimately it's a matter of acceptance rather than actionable change, although change is possible. With so much of our capabilities and challenges being unconscious, I continue to marvel at the miracle that anything gets done at all.
There's no way next year will be as frantic. And to be fair to our HR team, they did regularly warn people to take time off and not burn out.
My work/life balance depends (or depended) on physical boundaries: Being at home gave some distance, then traveling gave me some more. In 2020, it's been difficult to separate work from non-work.
Separate devices, separate rooms if possible, go on a 30 min walk after you closed your company devices for the day.
Do you feel pressured from needing to work longer to meet expectations set by other people in the same role? Don't be. If your manager or anyone else in charge has a problem with your productivity then the first thing they're going to do is ask you about it. What things are forcing you to work these extra hours? Is it deadlines? A backlog of work? Did they overestimate your skill level? Talk about it. It might turn out that you actually are in over your head, but you're in the job and you're making the company money. Not every manager is evil and most are accommodating. You might be able to get training/help, perhaps a lower salary and therefore lower expectations/responsibilities. Yeah it might suck to lose some money, but you know what sucks to lose more? Your health.
Firing people is pretty expensive and a last resort for a company, you're almost never at risk of being fired. So long as you're not punching people in the face when you meet them and you're doing your work at an acceptable level then you're most likely okay. The people that get fired are those who are really really shitty and do nothing. Any reasonable worker will have domain knowledge and other skills that are invaluable and will take a long time for new hires to pick up.
Any company which effectively forces you to over work, even after discussing it, is not worth working for. Software devs are lucky in that the market is full of jobs. Other people might not be so lucky, but in that scenario the first thing you should be doing is gradually reducing hours and looking for a another job.
I need at least 2-4 work hours a day without someone yapping at me so I can figure out what to type into the computer next. My best work is done while biking or jogging.
I’ve also found that most people working >> 8 hours produce substandard work during deadlines. Their crunch time usually delays product launches.
I could also lose them in a split second if I became too ill to keep up the hectic long hours.
I am fortunate to be a dual US|EU citizen, but if I was not, I would try to become a citizen of (Republic of) Ireland, which is part of the EU, so you are also conferred EU citizenship in addition to being an Irish citizen. This gives you the right to live/work/retire in over 30 countries, including all of the EU and EEA countries. Additionally, if you have citizenship from the Republic of Ireland, you are allowed to live/work/retire in the UK, due to a longstanding common agreement. If you are of Irish descent and are a direct blood relative (even great-great-great grandparent) of someone born in Ireland, you can become an Irish citizen in 3 years of living there if you provide the birth records. Also, if you are under 30(?) Americans can get a 1 year working holiday visa. Tech workers can get a job easily through the Irish skills shortage list.