Vacation isn’t the answer to employee burnout(technical.ly)
technical.ly
Vacation isn’t the answer to employee burnout
https://technical.ly/2021/08/30/vacation-employee-burnout/
239 comments
Jennifer Senior's excellent article on burnout, "Can’t Get No Satisfaction" [1], contains this gem of a quote, from psychotherapist & burned-out burnout researcher Prof Barry Farber:
> [...] their level of caring couldn’t be sustained in the absence of results
> Farber often calls burnout “the gap between expectation and reward,”
Also:
> “My clients are perfectionists,” says Alden Cass, a therapist to both corporate attorneys and men on Wall Street. He’s young, about the age of a hungry broker, and he looks like the men he treats—strong features, dark teased hair, Turnbull & Asser striped shirt, nice watch. “They have very rigid ideals in terms of win-lose,” he continues. “Their expectations of success are through the roof, and when their reality doesn’t match up with their expectations, it leads to burnout—they leave no room for error or failure at all in their formula.”
> Yet ask Cass why his clients are burning out, and his answer isn’t any different for a banker than it would be for a public-school teacher; there’s a gulf between what they expected from their jobs and what they got. “I can’t tell you,” he says, “how many people come into my office and ask, ‘How come I have this money and I can’t find happiness?’ ”
> So what does he tell them? “That happiness equals reality divided by expectations.”
[1] https://nymag.com/news/features/24757/
> [...] their level of caring couldn’t be sustained in the absence of results
> Farber often calls burnout “the gap between expectation and reward,”
Also:
> “My clients are perfectionists,” says Alden Cass, a therapist to both corporate attorneys and men on Wall Street. He’s young, about the age of a hungry broker, and he looks like the men he treats—strong features, dark teased hair, Turnbull & Asser striped shirt, nice watch. “They have very rigid ideals in terms of win-lose,” he continues. “Their expectations of success are through the roof, and when their reality doesn’t match up with their expectations, it leads to burnout—they leave no room for error or failure at all in their formula.”
> Yet ask Cass why his clients are burning out, and his answer isn’t any different for a banker than it would be for a public-school teacher; there’s a gulf between what they expected from their jobs and what they got. “I can’t tell you,” he says, “how many people come into my office and ask, ‘How come I have this money and I can’t find happiness?’ ”
> So what does he tell them? “That happiness equals reality divided by expectations.”
[1] https://nymag.com/news/features/24757/
It's not even this for me, as much as it is feeling "trapped" in a situation. I like to keep my options open. When I feel trapped, I move on. "Rewards" can't keep me sane, and without sanity everything else loses meaning. Part of the reason why I got out of big tech: their MO is to keep you trapped, a compliant, good little cog wearing pretty, gold plated handcuffs. As an ex-Microsoft VP once told me: "it's a warm Gulag".
Ah yes, temperature is surely the big difference between - let me check my notes - work camps where people starve to death and an office job that you signed up for and are free to leave, with good prospects for your future career.
Apt analogy there.
Apt analogy there.
> So what does he tell them? "That happiness equals reality divided by expectations."
Reminds me of, "I asked for wealth and found it in being content with little" / Happiness is in being content.
طلبت الغنى فوجدته في الرضى باالقليل
Reminds me of, "I asked for wealth and found it in being content with little" / Happiness is in being content.
طلبت الغنى فوجدته في الرضى باالقليل
I like this model, but shouldn't reality be replaced by a person's subjective perception of reality? Various states of delusion (intoxicated, in love, religious, depressed, manic) can modulate reality as experienced by the person.
“That happiness equals reality divided by expectations.”
I really like this way to put it. Lots of people, who talk about how our happiness is driven by our expectations, are politically on the right and emphasizing the idea of personal responsibility. But putting the reality into the numerator, we can also recognize that there might be systemic problems with the "reality" itself, for example social inequality or lack of inclusivity.
I really like this way to put it. Lots of people, who talk about how our happiness is driven by our expectations, are politically on the right and emphasizing the idea of personal responsibility. But putting the reality into the numerator, we can also recognize that there might be systemic problems with the "reality" itself, for example social inequality or lack of inclusivity.
What about people who build tons of successful things and get win after win after win, but are still feeling burned out?
For me, a "win" would be accomplishing something and then getting to bask in the success and take a fucking break and do nothing for a year. Shoot, even being able to take a break for a month after busting my butt on a project for a year would be nice. But nope. You never really "finish" anything in software development. You just have an endless backlog of tickets in JIRA. If you get something done faster, you don't get any reward or payoff for doing so.
I once finished my entire week's worth of planned work in two days and instead of being praised for it, I was chided for underestimating my sprint capacity. Did I get to take the rest of the week off? No! Of course not. I was expected to pull more tickets from the top of the backlog and just keep grinding.
For me, a "win" would be accomplishing something and then getting to bask in the success and take a fucking break and do nothing for a year. Shoot, even being able to take a break for a month after busting my butt on a project for a year would be nice. But nope. You never really "finish" anything in software development. You just have an endless backlog of tickets in JIRA. If you get something done faster, you don't get any reward or payoff for doing so.
I once finished my entire week's worth of planned work in two days and instead of being praised for it, I was chided for underestimating my sprint capacity. Did I get to take the rest of the week off? No! Of course not. I was expected to pull more tickets from the top of the backlog and just keep grinding.
Completely agree with this - I was totally burned out with work because I kept getting and finishing projects and all that would happen is I would get more projects.
I was burned out but then my boss dragged me in a room and told me I was doing a great job, that they appreciated me and that they know I prefer to work in evenings but get there at 9am every day because that’s my contract, so they said I didn’t need to do that in the future and can arrive whenever I want because they know I work hard enough and will work the hours.
That conversation was enough to completely reset the burnout. No doubt it will come back, but a little appreciation goes a long way.
I was burned out but then my boss dragged me in a room and told me I was doing a great job, that they appreciated me and that they know I prefer to work in evenings but get there at 9am every day because that’s my contract, so they said I didn’t need to do that in the future and can arrive whenever I want because they know I work hard enough and will work the hours.
That conversation was enough to completely reset the burnout. No doubt it will come back, but a little appreciation goes a long way.
A never ending backlog of work to be done. No rest. No jogging. Not even intervals/ladders (sprint a while, then jog a while and repeat). Just sprint. Sprint. Sprint. Until you burn out and collapse.
Rich Hickey on sprints (30-second clip): https://youtu.be/zPT-DuG0UjU
Well said. The agile/scrum methodologies in practice pushes people to do this: sprint, sprint, sprint.
I think your last paragraph is the key here. You “got the win” without actually getting the win. Instead of praise, reward, recognition — you got more work.
I think the point above is that the win needs to be material beyond your own recognition.
I think the point above is that the win needs to be material beyond your own recognition.
Are there companies that would let you take the rest of the week off in that situation? If so, shouldn’t they also make you work overtime to finish some work that you underestimated?
Isn’t the trick to just work at a sustainable pace, day in and day out, and celebrate the wins along the way?
All that said, in the last five years my longest holiday has been a week. The work really is endless.
Isn’t the trick to just work at a sustainable pace, day in and day out, and celebrate the wins along the way?
All that said, in the last five years my longest holiday has been a week. The work really is endless.
Vacation is still important even with a sustainable pace. Personally, when i’ve managed teams i’ve always included vacation as part of our 1:1 career talks. Especially with new engineers. If people aren’t taking vacations it’s a dealbreaker to me — taking a real, long, no calls while out vacation is to me as core to professional engineering as fixing bugs and shipping features.
> All that said, in the last five years my longest holiday has been a week. The work really is endless.
Sometimes, even the week off doesn't mean less work, because the few weeks before the vacation you have to work harder to compensate for your coming absence.
Sometimes, even the week off doesn't mean less work, because the few weeks before the vacation you have to work harder to compensate for your coming absence.
This seems horrific to me. Why do people let companies do this to them? Let me guess.... US health insurance? (i:e the need to always be employed to be covered)? A former (US) colleague I had, every year after 9 months he quit the same job to go round S America on his motorcycle. Then after 4 months travel he got hired back. They couldn't manage without him. Eventually they started saying he wouldn't be able to keep doing this and return next time, so he smiled sweetly, said "OK" then 4 months later said "do you need anyone?" and of course they snapped him back up. Part of why he was so good at his job was having a decent break and recharging. In fact arguably he was far more use to his employer by doing this, than what they "wanted" him to do, i:e stay there all the time only 2 weeks annual vacation get burnt out. Sometimes people have to turn to this sort of extreme behaviour to have any sort of life outside work, in the USA at least. I suppose he risked no health insurance for 4 months, or bought some. Maybe now he's older that wouldn't work. Well, please people, look after yourselves.
Yes, having worked in a FAANG I actually enjoyed the fact that you're measured in a somewhat standardized way. After delivering enough impact I usually took a step back and chilled for a few weeks. Didn't take vacation, just arrived to the office to chat with friends and play ping pong.
Sometimes when I felt like it, I continued to grind towards the next expectations level for the cash bonus, but most of the times it wasn't worth it and I just preferred taking a rest.
The grind is eternal, so adjust your pace accordingly, IMO.
I do think that many orgs don't have any sense of pacing when it comes to software dev. So, don't set expectations too high for an org if they don't have PTO in place to compensate for hard work.
I do think that many orgs don't have any sense of pacing when it comes to software dev. So, don't set expectations too high for an org if they don't have PTO in place to compensate for hard work.
Is that really surprising you could not just chill for rest of week?
Yes and no. Am I surprised that a human resource extracting paperclip factory would stive to optimize every last minute of the employee's time? No I am not. Do humans need rest and rewards, to feel special, loved, significant, and appreciated, and do they work better for longer periods of time when they are getting all that, and is it a supprising waste of long term value for short term gain? Yes!
Yes humans need rest. Which has nothing to do with situation in which estimates turn out too low and thus estimated work is done faster.
I don't see how it should imply that employee don't have to do anything rest of the week. Likewise, if estimation is too small at the beginning I don't pull 80 hours long week nor I consider it effective.
Had the complain was about overall lack of rest or overwork, that would be understandable. But it is not about that.
It is about expectation that original estimate is measure of how much you should do and if the task turned out faster, you can watch movies rest of the week.
I don't see how it should imply that employee don't have to do anything rest of the week. Likewise, if estimation is too small at the beginning I don't pull 80 hours long week nor I consider it effective.
Had the complain was about overall lack of rest or overwork, that would be understandable. But it is not about that.
It is about expectation that original estimate is measure of how much you should do and if the task turned out faster, you can watch movies rest of the week.
> Burnout is caused by working hard at something for a long time and not having it pay off.
There's a lot to say about that.
Sometime contexts creates obligations that render reward impossible, you only get a stream of wrong imperatives and lack of benefits.
Sometimes people simply forget how to go for stuff they want. I lived a lot of my life conforming to others orders.. until nothing made sense emotionally. You forget what 'pay off' means for you. Very subtle, very hard. A lot of things in life are negotiating obligations and knowing how to recognize bad deals is key. Freedom is a rare asset :)
Kids have this well set, all they care about is their internal sense of reward.. they'll move relentlessly from rewards to rewards until they're chokeful of them. Social structures blur this into innane amounts of duties that often are invented by morons higher up.
There's a lot to say about that.
Sometime contexts creates obligations that render reward impossible, you only get a stream of wrong imperatives and lack of benefits.
Sometimes people simply forget how to go for stuff they want. I lived a lot of my life conforming to others orders.. until nothing made sense emotionally. You forget what 'pay off' means for you. Very subtle, very hard. A lot of things in life are negotiating obligations and knowing how to recognize bad deals is key. Freedom is a rare asset :)
Kids have this well set, all they care about is their internal sense of reward.. they'll move relentlessly from rewards to rewards until they're chokeful of them. Social structures blur this into innane amounts of duties that often are invented by morons higher up.
"Burnout is caused by working hard at something for a long time and not having it pay off."
I agree but would add "lack of hope" to that. I have no hope that my job/career will get better.
I agree but would add "lack of hope" to that. I have no hope that my job/career will get better.
I’ll add a small insidious realization of what stress is. It’s one thing to work hard and feel tired after working hard, the causality is natural. It’s when you feel fatigue before you even start the work. Why am I tired before I even begin? That to me it’s a dead giveaway something is wrong.
How do you solve that? We mythologized grit, the strength to overcome this preemptive fatigue. But even that, is fatiguing.
Life’s a sport no matter what they say. Whoever doesn’t get tired of it, wins.
How do you solve that? We mythologized grit, the strength to overcome this preemptive fatigue. But even that, is fatiguing.
Life’s a sport no matter what they say. Whoever doesn’t get tired of it, wins.
If it's something you love doing, then it energizes you. When you see your job as hopeless, that's where the pre-existing tiredness comes from. Just like the dread of even logging on.
> How do you solve that? We mythologized grit, the strength to overcome this preemptive fatigue.
Grit and flexibility are in tension with one another.
Being able to accept an approach is unproductive and find another is valuable, in moderation (in excess you flit from task to task without completing any).
Grit is the opposite; being unwilling to give up in the face of adversity is valuable in moderation, but in excess it prevents you from realising when your approach will never pay off.
Grit and flexibility are in tension with one another.
Being able to accept an approach is unproductive and find another is valuable, in moderation (in excess you flit from task to task without completing any).
Grit is the opposite; being unwilling to give up in the face of adversity is valuable in moderation, but in excess it prevents you from realising when your approach will never pay off.
Grit is a scam to extract more value out of people you have convinced to play your game. Scratch to win!
Sounds like 1776, I hear a rebellion.
"Burnout is caused by working hard at something for a long time and not having it pay off."
Exactly.
Yet most people mistakenly attribute the feeling to other causes. OP quote what people think are the causes of their own burnout, and took those at face value.
When you're burnt out, you're probably not in a good state to determine the cause.
Exactly.
Yet most people mistakenly attribute the feeling to other causes. OP quote what people think are the causes of their own burnout, and took those at face value.
When you're burnt out, you're probably not in a good state to determine the cause.
Speak for yourself. Sorry for being blunt, but you clearly know very little about burnout (good for you). If people say that they are burned out because of a bad manager, believe them instead of saying they don't know what they are talking about.
There are many reasons for burnout. Working on things that don't pay off is just one of them.
There are many reasons for burnout. Working on things that don't pay off is just one of them.
"you clearly know very little about burnout"
You may disagree with my statement about the cause of burnout, and you may be correct about that.
But it's unlikely you know enough about me to judge how much I know (or don't know) about burnout.
You may disagree with my statement about the cause of burnout, and you may be correct about that.
But it's unlikely you know enough about me to judge how much I know (or don't know) about burnout.
You are right and I apologize. It also applies to your statement about other people.
But you yourself made the same error, claiming that lots of people are simply mistaken about the causes of their burnouts and that you know their condition better than themselves.
Our statements were qualitatively different. Compare:
A) Each living human has 2 legs
B) Sharlin has 2 legs
Taken literally, B is a subset of A, so A is the stronger statement.
But in normal speech, it's clear that when someone makes a claim about members of a large group, they're making a statement that usually applies to members of that group. And not claiming to have specific knowledge of every single member.
Because statement B is more specific, I probably need more specific data before I make it.
A) Each living human has 2 legs
B) Sharlin has 2 legs
Taken literally, B is a subset of A, so A is the stronger statement.
But in normal speech, it's clear that when someone makes a claim about members of a large group, they're making a statement that usually applies to members of that group. And not claiming to have specific knowledge of every single member.
Because statement B is more specific, I probably need more specific data before I make it.
Can confirm, recently went from a great manager who always had our backs and celebrated our successes to one who offers zero support, plenty of blame and zero recognition. I’ve been surprised how devastating it’s been.
"plenty of blame and zero recognition"
Does the amount of blame and recognition vary with the amount of effort you put in? I've seen situations like this, and seen people feel burnt out when:
1. However hard they work, they do not get blamed less or recognized more, or even
2. They are blamed more than people who contribute approximately zero. Because those people doing nothing have no output, hence nothing to be blamed for.
Does the amount of blame and recognition vary with the amount of effort you put in? I've seen situations like this, and seen people feel burnt out when:
1. However hard they work, they do not get blamed less or recognized more, or even
2. They are blamed more than people who contribute approximately zero. Because those people doing nothing have no output, hence nothing to be blamed for.
We sometimes say "No good deed goes unpunished".
I've seen plenty of 2 and find it fascinating how instincts for feedback, including my own instincts which I need to improve, can be so counterproductive towards the hardest working, most committed and effective people.
Not just critical feedback, but assistance, resources and support also follow a similar pattern.
If someone's working hard on something and making clear progress when others are not, from time time they slow down or even just appear to. It's inevitable even if just due to random events.
Occasionally I've seen someone with a history of conscientious and effective work, going through a rough time, a difficulty, or whatever it may be, and be offered straightforward, non-judgemental, kindly meant assistance. That's really nice when it happens for real. But it's so rare. Not many people seem to have it in them to just offer simple agenda-free help to someone without creating more burdens.
Much more often, I've seen the conscientious high performer given gradually increasing harsh feedback even while they are still ahead of others around them, mixed with offers of "help" which are more of a burden. And other people looking for opportunities to "replace" the high performer in various minor roles, perhaps with themselves naturally, due to mistaking results and effort with status and petty-political influence.
The most insidious and ironic of these I've seen weaponized burnout itself: "You seem like you may be heading for burnout. Why don't you step down for a while", said by someone who had been politically maneuvering to take over the role and whose public dramas were a significant driver, perhaps the only driver, of the burnout they purported to care about.
It is a rough social regulation cycle for the person committed to conscientious and effective work in an environment where people say they want one thing but act to produce another.
I've seen plenty of 2 and find it fascinating how instincts for feedback, including my own instincts which I need to improve, can be so counterproductive towards the hardest working, most committed and effective people.
Not just critical feedback, but assistance, resources and support also follow a similar pattern.
If someone's working hard on something and making clear progress when others are not, from time time they slow down or even just appear to. It's inevitable even if just due to random events.
Occasionally I've seen someone with a history of conscientious and effective work, going through a rough time, a difficulty, or whatever it may be, and be offered straightforward, non-judgemental, kindly meant assistance. That's really nice when it happens for real. But it's so rare. Not many people seem to have it in them to just offer simple agenda-free help to someone without creating more burdens.
Much more often, I've seen the conscientious high performer given gradually increasing harsh feedback even while they are still ahead of others around them, mixed with offers of "help" which are more of a burden. And other people looking for opportunities to "replace" the high performer in various minor roles, perhaps with themselves naturally, due to mistaking results and effort with status and petty-political influence.
The most insidious and ironic of these I've seen weaponized burnout itself: "You seem like you may be heading for burnout. Why don't you step down for a while", said by someone who had been politically maneuvering to take over the role and whose public dramas were a significant driver, perhaps the only driver, of the burnout they purported to care about.
It is a rough social regulation cycle for the person committed to conscientious and effective work in an environment where people say they want one thing but act to produce another.
> If people say that they are burned out because of a bad manager,
What would be your definition of a bad manager that doesn't include putting in inputs and not receiving expected[1] outcomes?
[1]: (or maybe "just" could be another term)
What would be your definition of a bad manager that doesn't include putting in inputs and not receiving expected[1] outcomes?
[1]: (or maybe "just" could be another term)
[deleted]
There's one job in the US that is currently experiencing extremely high rates of burnout.
ICU Nurses.
What can we learn about burnout from them in this current situation?
I don't think "Burnout is caused by working hard at something for a long time and not having it pay off." applies for them in at all. They are constantly saving lives and constantly seeing the positive results of their actions.
My first guess is that there's just too much work for them in the regions where ICUs which are overburdened. Many ICUs have had to up their nurse-to-patient ratio above 1:2, often to 1:3 and in some places even 1:5 or 1:6. Moreover, many ICU nurses are forced into picking up extra shifts.
ICU Nurses.
What can we learn about burnout from them in this current situation?
I don't think "Burnout is caused by working hard at something for a long time and not having it pay off." applies for them in at all. They are constantly saving lives and constantly seeing the positive results of their actions.
My first guess is that there's just too much work for them in the regions where ICUs which are overburdened. Many ICUs have had to up their nurse-to-patient ratio above 1:2, often to 1:3 and in some places even 1:5 or 1:6. Moreover, many ICU nurses are forced into picking up extra shifts.
I would argue that working really hard to keep people alive through covid while society continues to totally ignore and neglect precaution, thus causing further illness and death, is exactly fitting for "working hard at something for a long time and not having it pay off".
I don't think it's fair to say that society completely ignores precaution, in fact large swaths of society are sacrificing a lot in order to prevent covid. Especially when you compare to other causes of death, like mobility or obesity. People are willing to sacrifice 100x more to prevent a covid death than they are to prevent a traffic death.
"I don't think "Burnout is caused by working hard at something for a long time and not having it pay off." applies for them in at all. They are constantly saving lives and constantly seeing the positive results of their actions.
"
That's not really a payoff after a while. I work at a medical device company. When I started I got a kick out of all the great patient stories. Even my girlfriend's life changed from suicidal to pretty good because of our device. But after a while never-ending the deadline pressure got to me and no amount of patient success was motivating anymore. I think it's the same in the ICU. After a while you get numb. Only off time and less pressure can reset your emotional gas tank.
"
That's not really a payoff after a while. I work at a medical device company. When I started I got a kick out of all the great patient stories. Even my girlfriend's life changed from suicidal to pretty good because of our device. But after a while never-ending the deadline pressure got to me and no amount of patient success was motivating anymore. I think it's the same in the ICU. After a while you get numb. Only off time and less pressure can reset your emotional gas tank.
From working in the nonprofit space, the mission is motivating, but it's also the thing you are sacrificing for. You are not working towards your personal benefit, but towards an abstract benefit received elsewhere. The pay is low and the opportunities for advancement are often limited. Burnout is very common. You must also work for your own benefit, otherwise you will eventually feel like a sucker, no matter how many lives you are saving.
You end up thinking these bigger questions like, "why is this only my responsibility to sacrifice? I don't see anyone else making sacrifices!" And "Why is it my responsibility to clean up this mess? Those other people are creating the mess for their own profit but somehow I'm the one that has to fix it?"
It's basically inevitable to recoil at being the one always stuck with the bill while everyone else stops even noticing you paid for them.
You end up thinking these bigger questions like, "why is this only my responsibility to sacrifice? I don't see anyone else making sacrifices!" And "Why is it my responsibility to clean up this mess? Those other people are creating the mess for their own profit but somehow I'm the one that has to fix it?"
It's basically inevitable to recoil at being the one always stuck with the bill while everyone else stops even noticing you paid for them.
Your comment leads me to think that the “wins” need to vary in type over time -that it’s not possible to recycle the same win indefinitely.
The payoff for ICU nurses is a new critical patient right now. They don’t get to see the lives they save reunited with family or recovering at all. They just get a transfer to a lower level of care and a new patient in. They are also seeing a lot more deaths than usual. 10% mortality is in the ballpark normally. With COVID they are seeing 50% mortality. That’s a lot to deal with, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a major factor in burnout.
They also have to step into the world outside of the hospital and see people doing the exact things that are making the situation worse.
> With COVID they are seeing 50% mortality.
Source?
Source?
Not your source, but there was an interesting thread in Reddit with nurses discussing how basically all intubated patients are now checking out via morgue. https://www.reddit.com/r/nursing/comments/pbvcdu/uhh_are_any...
I will always marvel at nursing as a profession and nurses as human beings. My sister just became a nurse and I dated a nurse as well, and while it is a rewarding job, it is also incredibly taxing...no less in today's circumstances.
Burnout can come from many different directions though, but everyone has a limit at which no incentive provides enough benefit to outweigh the cost.
Burnout can come from many different directions though, but everyone has a limit at which no incentive provides enough benefit to outweigh the cost.
The payoff is the critical patient goes away and is replaced by a new one. More work for all involved. Never ending work. In my country, they say it's like wiping down ice. There's less water now but the ice doesn't ever stop melting.
This really, really resonates with me. I've been trying to address my own feelings of burnout, and I think this is a big part of it.
Frankly, it's been a while since I had a win. I think I'm gonna try to set myself up for a small success, and see how that goes. Thanks for this.
Frankly, it's been a while since I had a win. I think I'm gonna try to set myself up for a small success, and see how that goes. Thanks for this.
> Burnout is caused by working hard at something for a long time and not having it pay off.
You know, this might have something to do with why I gravitate towards doing "user" (really other devs since I tend to work on internal tools more than outside facing products) support type stuff. Devs trying to figure out why something isn't working are usually grateful when someone can help them get things working so they can do their job.
You know, this might have something to do with why I gravitate towards doing "user" (really other devs since I tend to work on internal tools more than outside facing products) support type stuff. Devs trying to figure out why something isn't working are usually grateful when someone can help them get things working so they can do their job.
Yeah, I’ve routinely found work on internal tools to be the most satisfying. It’s rare to find product work where you’re directly in touch with users who care, and whose expectations you can routinely meet.
Burnout is something that is discussed quite a lot, but people talk about it as working so hard that you fatigue.
When we're working on something we enjoy and find interesting, when we have a plan and a goal, we find that we have infinite energy.
Burnout on the other hand is when no matter how much you seem to work, it has no impact. You don't seem to be making any progress. Burnout is the loss of momentum.
“Improved productivity also helps drive better employee work/life balance and reduces burnout“ - The State of DevOps 2019.
According to the DORA research program, avoiding heavyweight change processes and creating an environment of continuous delivery go a long way to reducing burnout.
When we're working on something we enjoy and find interesting, when we have a plan and a goal, we find that we have infinite energy.
Burnout on the other hand is when no matter how much you seem to work, it has no impact. You don't seem to be making any progress. Burnout is the loss of momentum.
“Improved productivity also helps drive better employee work/life balance and reduces burnout“ - The State of DevOps 2019.
According to the DORA research program, avoiding heavyweight change processes and creating an environment of continuous delivery go a long way to reducing burnout.
"Burnout is caused by working hard at something for a long time and not having it pay off."
That's the most work-centric definition of burnout I have ever seen.
That's the most work-centric definition of burnout I have ever seen.
You can work hard at a hobby, not have it pay off, and get burned out on that, too.
Great post. An addendum: people still burnout even when the org is succeeding (shipping products, hitting liquidity, etc.).
Oh definitely. Worked in a large company with so much money they didn't know what to do with it. But the number of experienced people leaving weekly was staggering. People would just burn out. And the management didn't give two shits about that. I wonder when this mismanagement will catch up with them as they are still growing.
> because the crushing realization that I'd have to return to work was almost worse than losing myself in the uninterrupted, repetitive, dead-eyed grind
I feel this so much. The anxiety of not working while dreading it on the horizon is often worse than the work itself.
I feel this so much. The anxiety of not working while dreading it on the horizon is often worse than the work itself.
[deleted]
This is me. I just quit my job this week to take time off because of burnout. It's exactly because I worked like a dog and haven't had a payoff in years. I want to make the best product/feature that I can. I want to give it my all. But I don't have control over the areas where things go wrong. Not having a win - and missing wins from my past - has led me to just take a break from it all.
I think this could be exactly the correct definition of burnout. I'm sure a lot of us care about a lot of things in our lives... until we realize that no one else does.
The solution to burning out (not being able to work) is work?
What happens if that something doesn't succeed? You're just describing the day to day that caused the burnout haha
What happens if that something doesn't succeed? You're just describing the day to day that caused the burnout haha
>You can work like a dog to release a feature, and if the feature does what it was meant to do, and you get recognized for your contribution, how hard you worked doesn't matter as much. You are energized, excited to be part of a great team, ready to move on to the next stunning victory.
Gross. All that overtime is systematically stamping all the things that are good for the soul out of life. I'm not going to cheer it on because a feature works.
Gross. All that overtime is systematically stamping all the things that are good for the soul out of life. I'm not going to cheer it on because a feature works.
Striving and succeeding at a personal goal is good for the soul. Feeling a sense of purpose at work and in life is good for the soul.
I disagree.
If your purpose only comes from work I find that kind of depressing. Work is something most people are coerced/forced into to survive and avoid a life of desperation, life has a lot more things in it than work.
If someone's purpose is work it kind of makes me think they're not really creative, lack imagination and have had purpose given to them from external sources rather self decided and internal. They didn't really choose a purpose, they just adopted one they fell into. Kind of sad.
If your purpose only comes from work I find that kind of depressing. Work is something most people are coerced/forced into to survive and avoid a life of desperation, life has a lot more things in it than work.
If someone's purpose is work it kind of makes me think they're not really creative, lack imagination and have had purpose given to them from external sources rather self decided and internal. They didn't really choose a purpose, they just adopted one they fell into. Kind of sad.
Great, great post. Agree completely and wasn’t aware of this until you wrote it down.
> The solution is to get a win
My 28 days of paid vacation are my yearly win.
My 28 days of paid vacation are my yearly win.
When you say working hard, what does that mean? Not checking HN every other hour? Or working more hours per week?
See also The Onion:
> Man Returns To Work After Vacation With Fresh, Reenergized Hatred For Job
* https://www.theonion.com/man-returns-to-work-after-vacation-...
> Man Returns To Work After Vacation With Fresh, Reenergized Hatred For Job
* https://www.theonion.com/man-returns-to-work-after-vacation-...
Lol. Thanks for making my day better.
Edit: But to add to the comedy (all comedy is tragedy, and all tragedy is comedy according to the Greeks), that’s pretty much the reason why I don’t take vacations. It’s not going to change anything, so I much prefer to take days off so I don’t completely lose it.
The sadness is hilarious.
Edit: But to add to the comedy (all comedy is tragedy, and all tragedy is comedy according to the Greeks), that’s pretty much the reason why I don’t take vacations. It’s not going to change anything, so I much prefer to take days off so I don’t completely lose it.
The sadness is hilarious.
They may not fundamentally change ones attitude towards a job, but when carefully planned and executed vacations may have the potential for creating some worthwhile times and memories
It depends on how your personal incentive structure is modeled. Behaviorally, everything for me is goal oriented. I reward myself when I accomplish something (hard), this is how my parents raised me. Psychologically, I didn’t earn a vacation yet.
I only take days off to rest, physically and psychologically.
I only take days off to rest, physically and psychologically.
Why not both? There are many companies and countries where you can do just that. Work a 30 hour week with a month+ vacation a year.
People at the office joke about the fact that when bad weather ruins their vacations, they come back happier to work.
I hate to be "that guy," but I don't understand this joke. :/
The joke is the premise that happiness is relative, so being less happy on a bad vacation makes you more happy when you return to work. This is an ironic subversion of the expectation that happiness will put us in a good mood and unhappiness will put us in a bad mood.
Ruined holidays is the only au they can appreciate coming to work
I'm burnt out right now. Layoffs, a spin-out, and huge situational challenges related to both.
Vacation is great, but I agree with the author here. Vacation _can_ be a tool to combat burnout - but burnout is often a result of other things besides hours worked. I've worked times of 80+ hours. While feeling worn out, I never got burnt out. I've worked times where I can barely put the effort into 30 hours/week.
Right now, I'm attributing my burn out solely to the fact that we have huge amounts of "keep the lights on work" to complete the spin-out while continuing to deliver product. Neither the workload nor the type of work is bad. There's just so much of it and it's wearing.
----
For me, a vacation doesn't solve much for me. I'll be back to "more of the same". What's really helping is the change in pace of my work and the ability to get back to things that engage and excite me.
Vacation is great, but I agree with the author here. Vacation _can_ be a tool to combat burnout - but burnout is often a result of other things besides hours worked. I've worked times of 80+ hours. While feeling worn out, I never got burnt out. I've worked times where I can barely put the effort into 30 hours/week.
Right now, I'm attributing my burn out solely to the fact that we have huge amounts of "keep the lights on work" to complete the spin-out while continuing to deliver product. Neither the workload nor the type of work is bad. There's just so much of it and it's wearing.
----
For me, a vacation doesn't solve much for me. I'll be back to "more of the same". What's really helping is the change in pace of my work and the ability to get back to things that engage and excite me.
100% agree. Burn out for me has everything to do with what the work is, whether there are enough hands for it, and whether it’s being properly recognized/appreciated.
It has nothing to do with the hours; indeed some of my most productive and least burnt out times have been when I was happily pouring in 60+ hrs/week because I was having fun and so energized by the project and my team’s excitement and collaboration dynamic.
It has nothing to do with the hours; indeed some of my most productive and least burnt out times have been when I was happily pouring in 60+ hrs/week because I was having fun and so energized by the project and my team’s excitement and collaboration dynamic.
I had a bad case of burnout 2 years ago. I think for me it wasn’t that I was overwhelmed or otherwise overworked. I was working a lot of hours, but that didn’t bother me either. What got under my skin was that I understood the systemic reasons for all the fires we were having to put out were never going to change. So the burnout was the feeling that I was unable to do anything but tread water.
100% agree. It's about agency. Most companies I've worked at haven't strictly followed agile, and definitely haven't allowed devs much say in prioritizing bugs.
My current thought is product companies might have more of a vested interest in quality, but I'm not positive.
Does anyone have any suggestions here? The only thing I've seen is most people move into management, which I'm thinking is likely the only way out from the long hours and homework/almost constant self-study.
My current thought is product companies might have more of a vested interest in quality, but I'm not positive.
Does anyone have any suggestions here? The only thing I've seen is most people move into management, which I'm thinking is likely the only way out from the long hours and homework/almost constant self-study.
Who prioritises your bugs then? For my teams we've almost always done bugfixes outside the sprint effort with developers' own initiative. We follow crash reports and prioritise ourselves with never even telling the PO we fixed something. Product owner is left with feature ownership and doesn't have to know about the day-to-day operations except for the metrics that have business impact.
very much this, powerlessness and also inability to discuss the problem honestly, or even be heard can be the real reason behind the pain
> What do we do? Well, root out the real causes of burnout. If it’s not those top workplace issues, it may very well be the burn of extended, heightened stress. For employees surveyed, flexible work hours and mental health support were more popular than even a four-day work week or unlimited PTO. The point then is lots of professionals like their actual work, they just don’t like the restrictions and environment. Give direction, let them do the work. Remove barriers.
PTO and a healthy work environment are both good.
PTO and a healthy work environment are both good.
Unlimited PTO is crazy to me. It takes the principles of spelled-out employment terms and throws them in the trash.
The "flexible hours" policy was bad enough at my last job. Wildly varying interpretations between different managers and department heads under the same roof.
The "flexible hours" policy was bad enough at my last job. Wildly varying interpretations between different managers and department heads under the same roof.
My last job implemented an unlimited PTO policy. In 2020, I took about 7 days off, and worked at least 20 days on weekends. With the increased responsibilities, there just wasn’t any time that was good to leave… until I left for good. It was definitely a factor in my current burnout.
The funny thing was before the VCs bought the company, I had two weeks but in practice could ask the CTO for as much time as I wanted. But unlimited PTO functionally meant negative days off, because performance would decrease when you left. Setting a minimum PTO might help.
The funny thing was before the VCs bought the company, I had two weeks but in practice could ask the CTO for as much time as I wanted. But unlimited PTO functionally meant negative days off, because performance would decrease when you left. Setting a minimum PTO might help.
Yeah, if I ever start a company, mandatory vacation will be a thing. If you don't use up your 4 weeks of vacation before Thanksgiving, don't come to work for the rest of the year. Don't worry, there will still be work when you get back.
Another thing I like are company holidays. When nobody is working, there is no email / code reviews / Slack to miss. That's a real vacation!
Another thing I like are company holidays. When nobody is working, there is no email / code reviews / Slack to miss. That's a real vacation!
There's industries where mandatory vacations (or "Required Absence") are a thing - in finance it's not unusual to be required to take at least one two-week block each year. It helps reduce bus-factor (if you can't afford to lose this person for two weeks, he's a risk), and helps prevent embezzlement because most schemes require constant baby-sitting.
Yeah, I've worked at such a bank. The consensus was that we would all use "cron" to embezzle.
That'd be awesome, personally. I'd fail to use my 4 weeks every year, and always get December off, which is probably the most requested month for vacations.
If you want that policy to have teeth, maybe end the "year" on a month that few people want vacations, like February. (I'll pull that out of my arse, but it's less than December, I'm sure.)
That would cause them to actually schedule their vacation when they can use it and enjoy it, instead of sitting at home for a month with nothing to do when it crept up on them.
IMO, at least.
If you want that policy to have teeth, maybe end the "year" on a month that few people want vacations, like February. (I'll pull that out of my arse, but it's less than December, I'm sure.)
That would cause them to actually schedule their vacation when they can use it and enjoy it, instead of sitting at home for a month with nothing to do when it crept up on them.
IMO, at least.
It really does need to come from leadership. The last 2 places I've worked had basically no work after Thanksgiving and much of leadership did take off basically entire month of December.
Also we recently started having an occasionally Friday that everyone takes off same time. You don't have too but to make it easier that people who are often quite busy have an opportunity to not feel like things are getting behind. Over 90% participation(100+ people) in our group mental health day.
Also we recently started having an occasionally Friday that everyone takes off same time. You don't have too but to make it easier that people who are often quite busy have an opportunity to not feel like things are getting behind. Over 90% participation(100+ people) in our group mental health day.
The same thing happened to me. Unlimited PTO is a scam.
> Setting a minimum PTO might help
This is how it has to be implemented in EU countries, so in general it appears to be (in Ireland, at least) the statutory 20 days + whatever.
People have told me that they've taken up to 8 weeks. But I've never ended up working at any of those companies so it's hard to know if that's true or not.
This is how it has to be implemented in EU countries, so in general it appears to be (in Ireland, at least) the statutory 20 days + whatever.
People have told me that they've taken up to 8 weeks. But I've never ended up working at any of those companies so it's hard to know if that's true or not.
Do people not just start taking forever PTO, a week or two at a time, instead of quitting?
Or take a sabbatical or maternity/paternity leave and just never come back?
Or take a sabbatical or maternity/paternity leave and just never come back?
"unlimited PTO" is a scam in most cases. I interviewed with one of these companies a few years ago and told them that from my freelance experience 8 weeks per year is the sweet spot for me. The manager got really quiet and the interview ended quickly.
I now have a contract with fixed 4 weeks off and everybody takes their time. The people I know who have "unlimited PTO" mostly take off less time. I have never heard of anybody taking way more than 4 weeks.
It's basically the same unbalance as some companies having flexible working hours which means you are expected to work overtime during crunch time but when things are slow you are still expected to put in at least 40.
I now have a contract with fixed 4 weeks off and everybody takes their time. The people I know who have "unlimited PTO" mostly take off less time. I have never heard of anybody taking way more than 4 weeks.
It's basically the same unbalance as some companies having flexible working hours which means you are expected to work overtime during crunch time but when things are slow you are still expected to put in at least 40.
[deleted]
There's a lot of companies in the world where "vacation" is offered, but the managers will many times terminate those who take it. All it takes is for one or two employees to be terminated after just getting back from a vacation to send a message to the rest of the employees.
The right to use benefits has to be enforced by the CEO. If people aren't using their vacations (and effectively losing them), then that sets the culture off on the wrong foot from the start.
The right to use benefits has to be enforced by the CEO. If people aren't using their vacations (and effectively losing them), then that sets the culture off on the wrong foot from the start.
Some companies I've been at swung in the opposite direction and I was really greatful for it.
E.g. At Microsoft you have a max amount of vacation days that you can accrue before they start expiring, and managers get dinged whenever their directs have expiring vacation days. The result: Managers would encourage taking vacation
E.g. At Microsoft you have a max amount of vacation days that you can accrue before they start expiring, and managers get dinged whenever their directs have expiring vacation days. The result: Managers would encourage taking vacation
Yes, I absolutely agree with that, and that takes leadership to prioritize your employee's benefits at the same level of deliverables.
It's easier to think that employee vacations are worthless as a manager since it doesn't actually contribute to any direct profit. But if you're an employee, and that was a selling point of joining the company, it certainly sucks when the promise of vacation could never be materialized -- because work was apparently too important.
It's easier to think that employee vacations are worthless as a manager since it doesn't actually contribute to any direct profit. But if you're an employee, and that was a selling point of joining the company, it certainly sucks when the promise of vacation could never be materialized -- because work was apparently too important.
Some people add negative value and it’s sometimes not clear until they step away for a couple of weeks.
I disagree. Either you know what's going on in your directs, or you don't know. If you don't know, you shouldn't be a manager, nor should you enjoy the salary premium that a manager gets.
Unlimited PTO means there's nothing to cash out at the end of the year if you took 0 days of PTO.
It also reminds me of the old negotiating tactic - never be the first one to offer up a number.
It also reminds me of the old negotiating tactic - never be the first one to offer up a number.
There's a different school of thought on negotiating tactics that says you definitely should be the first to offer a number, because it anchors the negotiations.
I can see both to be honest. Especially if you don't 'know what you're worth' in a given market, letting them make the first move at last has a chance that they won't offer you 50k for something hey are prepared to pay 250k for. Potentially they will start off with 150k and you're gonna be happy with it, because you undervalued yourself at 100k. Luckily you didn't say that but took the 150k offered!
If you know you're worth at least 150k, asking for 200k can anchor the negotiations in your direction as long as you don't overshoot what they were prepared to offer by too much (which might just kill the negotiations altogether). You might just walk away with 180k and you feel good because you got 30k more than you thought you might get and they feel good because they got you 'cheaper'.
I have no way of knowing which strategy actually works out better, as its hard to do a controlled experiment here :) Also you probably have incomplete market information and it might be hard to know how incomplete it is.
I can see both to be honest. Especially if you don't 'know what you're worth' in a given market, letting them make the first move at last has a chance that they won't offer you 50k for something hey are prepared to pay 250k for. Potentially they will start off with 150k and you're gonna be happy with it, because you undervalued yourself at 100k. Luckily you didn't say that but took the 150k offered!
If you know you're worth at least 150k, asking for 200k can anchor the negotiations in your direction as long as you don't overshoot what they were prepared to offer by too much (which might just kill the negotiations altogether). You might just walk away with 180k and you feel good because you got 30k more than you thought you might get and they feel good because they got you 'cheaper'.
I have no way of knowing which strategy actually works out better, as its hard to do a controlled experiment here :) Also you probably have incomplete market information and it might be hard to know how incomplete it is.
Flexibility is a multiplier to the existing work environment. Flexible work hours and unlimited PTO make an already good environment better, and make bad environments miserable. Rigid rules for when you're working and when you aren't working is a great defense if your management is going to push you to work as much as they can so you should be wary when job hunting if they are "flexible", but flexiblity can be great too.
The passive-aggressive lie that is "unlimited PTO" is part of the growing toxicity of startup work environments.
To me, the most important part of unlimited PTO isn't the "unlimitedness" but the fact that it's not something I'm having to log in a system. It's that usually I can just take off a Friday or a Monday here and there without any issue as long as I give a bit of notice.
My company just got rid of unlimited PTO for all the reasons people say they hate it - they didn't think people were taking enough PTO for their health, it was used unfairly, etc... Functionally now though, I have to file paperwork with 3 different groups to have someone approve even a single day off so they can make sure I'm not going over the number of days off that I have in accordance with my level and seniority. Thankfully my manager has essentially told us they don't care and we're still on unlimited because they don't want to do the paperwork either.
It's not to say that "unlimited" can't be toxic, but it's easy to forget how onerous other systems can be, which can lead to you taking less time off in the same way. One of my friends is the junior on their team on a fixed PTO system and is being forced to take nearly random days off now in order to have any at all because they didn't get their holiday plans in as early as their more senior team members, so now they're stuck with the dregs. Toxic cultures are gonna be toxic. The framing just changes the mechanism.
My company just got rid of unlimited PTO for all the reasons people say they hate it - they didn't think people were taking enough PTO for their health, it was used unfairly, etc... Functionally now though, I have to file paperwork with 3 different groups to have someone approve even a single day off so they can make sure I'm not going over the number of days off that I have in accordance with my level and seniority. Thankfully my manager has essentially told us they don't care and we're still on unlimited because they don't want to do the paperwork either.
It's not to say that "unlimited" can't be toxic, but it's easy to forget how onerous other systems can be, which can lead to you taking less time off in the same way. One of my friends is the junior on their team on a fixed PTO system and is being forced to take nearly random days off now in order to have any at all because they didn't get their holiday plans in as early as their more senior team members, so now they're stuck with the dregs. Toxic cultures are gonna be toxic. The framing just changes the mechanism.
> It's that usually I can just take off a Friday or a Monday here and there without any issue as long as I give a bit of notice.
I have fixed number of days but still can essentially do this.
> Functionally now though, I have to file paperwork with 3 different groups to have someone approve even a single day off so they can make sure I'm not going over the number of days off that I have in accordance with my level and seniority.
This sounds odd. Why can't you just have a system that tracks number of days and as long as you have the number of days 1-2 days shouldn't be an issue at all. I don't see how switching from unlimited to limited made this approval business necessary at all.
I have fixed number of days but still can essentially do this.
> Functionally now though, I have to file paperwork with 3 different groups to have someone approve even a single day off so they can make sure I'm not going over the number of days off that I have in accordance with my level and seniority.
This sounds odd. Why can't you just have a system that tracks number of days and as long as you have the number of days 1-2 days shouldn't be an issue at all. I don't see how switching from unlimited to limited made this approval business necessary at all.
I'm sure it's possible to have a system where this is easy, but giving HR more things to track to prove their value to the company does tend to make no incentive for them to make it trivial. I'm sure systems exist for that that we could buy, but we didn't, so we don't, so someone's got some ad-hoc something in some Oracle DB somewhere, and now taking vacation is an added hassle for my already overworked manager.
Then really it's a failure of management at your company, not the limited vacation system.
Sure, but so is letting "unlimited" just turn into looting by the privileged or some sort of toxic "my manager won't let me take more than a week off". Which is what I've been getting at. People love to condemn Unlimited PTO as some sort of toxic trap, and it certainly can be, but it all comes down to if your HR department is competent and cares. If your management is bad, having fixed PTO isn't going to save you from them.
That's just because it's more common the case that employees get screwed by the company than other way round. One easy way to make unlimited really unlimited is by having a reasonable number of mandatory days off like 4 weeks. Then I'll believe unlimited PTO.
I'm not asking you to "believe" in anything. There are just some companies where you can take 4-6 weeks off and some companies where you can't, and which one you're in depends on which team you work on and who your manager and HR rep is more than what they claim their PTO plan is.
I hypothetically have almost 5 weeks of days off at my current job and between not having much vacation options because of pandemic and not wanting to just be lazy at home, I haven't used most of it. Should someone from HR just tell me I'm not allowed to work in December now?
I hypothetically have almost 5 weeks of days off at my current job and between not having much vacation options because of pandemic and not wanting to just be lazy at home, I haven't used most of it. Should someone from HR just tell me I'm not allowed to work in December now?
Yes, but HR is sadly considered a cost centre, so that failure of management is sadly quite common.
Why don’t they call it something else then? Maybe “Flexible PTO”? I really don’t like the “unlimited” part of the name. It feels confusing / misleading to me.
Probably because "unlimited" is the relevant part to the part of the company that cares - HR. If it was limited, it would need to be tracked. I get the objection to the fact that you can't literally take 200 days off or whatever, but that just feels like pedantry when at this point the colloquial meaning of "unlimited pto" is fairly clear.
The colloquial meaning doesn't seem clear at all. Am I OK taking 2 weeks? 3 weeks? 4 weeks? 5 weeks? 6 weeks? 7 weeks? 10 weeks? Which is it, precisely? At what precise number of days does it go from being "a reasonable amount" to "lol are you nuts?"
I mean, the answer there is "it varies" and "it depends". Probably something around 3-5 weeks. If you need a precise number to feel ok about the situation, the colloquial meaning is going to be enough to tell you you shouldn't work there. I get what you're asking for, but you're essentially just complaining that it's not Static Days PTO, which is a fine opinion to have, but going "I don't think X is clear because it's not Y instead" isn't really a thing.
You can dislike what is meant by "Unlimited PTO" and the fact that it's not clear on how many days you can take off, but that doesn't mean it's unclear what Unlimited PTO entails.
You can dislike what is meant by "Unlimited PTO" and the fact that it's not clear on how many days you can take off, but that doesn't mean it's unclear what Unlimited PTO entails.
[deleted]
That's actually a good point. Maybe it should really be called "take-what-you-need untracked PTO." That conveys the point that nobody in HR is going to keep track of how many days you take off, and that you're actually supposed to take those days. It's too awkward to spin well on the company's jobs page, though.
In reality, the only person who has unlimited PTO is usually the CEO, because he's the only one who can afford to get away repeatedly.
Depends on the company!
If it's inauthentic though, employees can smell it from far away.
If it's inauthentic though, employees can smell it from far away.
I have no doubt it's meant in good faith at many companies, but it's almost sure to be used unfairly. A lot of people, especially folks who don't feel safely part of whatever in-group, are going to be hesitant to push that policy, especially because being on vacation can be an imposition on your coworkers.
I suspect you could implement the same policy in practice with less social anxiety by mandating N weeks of vacation and allowing additional time off upon request.
I suspect you could implement the same policy in practice with less social anxiety by mandating N weeks of vacation and allowing additional time off upon request.
Truth is it could be hard to take vacation in a toxic company irrespective of whether it's clearly laid out or not. A lot of startups are toxic - intentionally or unintentionally.
Mandating vacation is a good idea when they really mean it. Use it or lose might work. Fixed days with payout if you quit or an option to cash out works too - companies carry it in their balance sheet and encourage days off as a result.
Mandating vacation is a good idea when they really mean it. Use it or lose might work. Fixed days with payout if you quit or an option to cash out works too - companies carry it in their balance sheet and encourage days off as a result.
In my experience limited PTO leads to burnout more often because employees could get paid more by taking fewer days off since their PTO is paid out when they leave. So some employees choose to continue working because they feel bad taking time off that technically decreases their potential pay.
It's always inauthentic, as otherwise people would take all work days off, never show up again, and collect a paycheck in perpetuity.
This is a business transaction. "Unlimited PTO" literally means free paychecks.
This is a business transaction. "Unlimited PTO" literally means free paychecks.
Sure, that's a literal definition of unlimited.
In reality, I've seen it implemented as a "take what you need" policy. Unlimited in that sense means there is no upper bound. Managers are trained to push people who are trending under 5 weeks per year to take more time off. Some people take a lot more than that. Work still get done and people seem happy to do the work. Sample size = 1 employer. Inauthentic?
In reality, I've seen it implemented as a "take what you need" policy. Unlimited in that sense means there is no upper bound. Managers are trained to push people who are trending under 5 weeks per year to take more time off. Some people take a lot more than that. Work still get done and people seem happy to do the work. Sample size = 1 employer. Inauthentic?
Restrictions unfortunately play a large part, e.g. changes to Production can only be done by request.
Requests then take weeks to be completed even though the actual work involved can be measured in minutes
Another core issue for me is the ratio between challenging tasks and more simple tasks.
There should always be a few tasks to work on that are challenging, otherwise procrastination sets in which can turn into some form of burnout if nothing is done.
Requests then take weeks to be completed even though the actual work involved can be measured in minutes
Another core issue for me is the ratio between challenging tasks and more simple tasks.
There should always be a few tasks to work on that are challenging, otherwise procrastination sets in which can turn into some form of burnout if nothing is done.
Burnout isn't always caused by overwhelming jobs - dull, boring, undemanding jobs with little to do can be their own hell and spiral off into depression. Then I don't need vacation; I need meaningful work.
I’ve been suffering from chronic fatigue which is different but I wonder if there are similarities.
To adjust I have dropped many responsibilities at work, halved my hours to 19 and practice pacing I.e scheduled rest, consistent level of activity day to day.
This has helped a lot.
While not everyone can go part time I wonder if scheduled breaks of even 5 minutes each hour (with no exercise, screen time or chat) would be beneficial to most people.
The other side I feel is companies keep inventing initiatives, kpis, okrs, goals and pushing that down the chain. Dumping more and more onto people and companies evolve from “cool” to “overly bureaucratic” over time.
The most stress is when you need to do X to get the job done but !X to meet some other master, maybe a beloved process. (Looking at you, scrum!)
It’s more stressful if when you try to negotiate out of this you are met with dogma. I tend to leave such work but I’ve seen it enough that it’s a pattern common between companies.
Apparently many companies think they have mastered creative process and people management and everyone else is wrong ;-).
To adjust I have dropped many responsibilities at work, halved my hours to 19 and practice pacing I.e scheduled rest, consistent level of activity day to day.
This has helped a lot.
While not everyone can go part time I wonder if scheduled breaks of even 5 minutes each hour (with no exercise, screen time or chat) would be beneficial to most people.
The other side I feel is companies keep inventing initiatives, kpis, okrs, goals and pushing that down the chain. Dumping more and more onto people and companies evolve from “cool” to “overly bureaucratic” over time.
The most stress is when you need to do X to get the job done but !X to meet some other master, maybe a beloved process. (Looking at you, scrum!)
It’s more stressful if when you try to negotiate out of this you are met with dogma. I tend to leave such work but I’ve seen it enough that it’s a pattern common between companies.
Apparently many companies think they have mastered creative process and people management and everyone else is wrong ;-).
Get rid of your Scrum/SAFe sausage grinder, and quit thinking that adding more metrics and KPIs to an already panopticon-ish corporate environment is going to solve your productivity problems. Only then will you be able to address burnout and disgruntlement among your rank and file.
The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems etc.
The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems etc.
Once again we have a CEO pretending to know what works best for the rank and file employee.
First we didn't need bonuses, we just needed a pat on the back from managers and co-workers to achieve happiness.
Now, we don't need vacations if we're burnt out, instead we just need flexible hours so we can schedule our death marches around our other responsibilities and mental health resources. 10 hours is 10 hours regardless of how you schedule it. Pressure doesn't go away just because your boss describes impending doom using nice words.
What's next? Desks aren't the answer for writing surfaces because our walls are already flat?
First we didn't need bonuses, we just needed a pat on the back from managers and co-workers to achieve happiness.
Now, we don't need vacations if we're burnt out, instead we just need flexible hours so we can schedule our death marches around our other responsibilities and mental health resources. 10 hours is 10 hours regardless of how you schedule it. Pressure doesn't go away just because your boss describes impending doom using nice words.
What's next? Desks aren't the answer for writing surfaces because our walls are already flat?
I didn't assume that he meant anything like that. Digging into the company a bit:
> Though results matter most and Technically Media prides itself on flexibility, as a guide, this role might expect to work roughly 40-45 hours a week.
> Technically Media offers 10 paid holidays per year; 15 PTO days accrued per year with additional P TO offered progressively; as well as a month of paid parental leave.
>Technically Media additionally closes its offices for the final week of the year to relax and unwind before each new year. This serves as additional paid holiday time.
https://technical.ly/job/editorial-director/
It's not the most generous but it's par for Philly area tech companies and its not a tech company, it's a journal.
> Though results matter most and Technically Media prides itself on flexibility, as a guide, this role might expect to work roughly 40-45 hours a week.
> Technically Media offers 10 paid holidays per year; 15 PTO days accrued per year with additional P TO offered progressively; as well as a month of paid parental leave.
>Technically Media additionally closes its offices for the final week of the year to relax and unwind before each new year. This serves as additional paid holiday time.
https://technical.ly/job/editorial-director/
It's not the most generous but it's par for Philly area tech companies and its not a tech company, it's a journal.
> this role might expect to work roughly 40-45 hours a week.
I “expect” a lot of things that never happen.
I “expect” a lot of things that never happen.
And for any role that already expects to work more than 40 hours a week, I expect that that's a lie and it'll be more. And never 40.
An extended leave did nothing but make burnout worse by coming back to the careful planning left behind to mitigate my absence being thrown out days in by a meddling manager from another team who saw the vacuum as an opportunity to take over the responsibilities permanently. Looking to exit.
I think vacations help mostly in the sense of "I just need to get through the next two months". That may help as a coping mechanism for burnout, but doesn't stop it.
And of course if you have a job that perpetuates cyclical or chronic burnout, going on vacation just means that you come back to work even more buried in things that went undone.
Or you sacrifice having a true vacation and still commit to working part of the time you're away.
And of course if you have a job that perpetuates cyclical or chronic burnout, going on vacation just means that you come back to work even more buried in things that went undone.
Or you sacrifice having a true vacation and still commit to working part of the time you're away.
"8 hours for work, 8 hours for rest, 8 hours for what we will!" - union slogan, 1920s.
"Unions. The people who brought you the weekend".
"Unions. The people who brought you the weekend".
I would be so miserable if it had to deal with a union.
Though to be fair I am not overworked or undervalued. I imagine there’s a lot of engineers who large companies just grind through.
Though to be fair I am not overworked or undervalued. I imagine there’s a lot of engineers who large companies just grind through.
Why would you be miserable? Union dues? occasional union communication? I'm just trying to understand what hypothetical issue you feel would be super arduous.
A lot of unions can be very 'by the book' and there can be malicious compliance. There can also be multiple unions with very specific roles.
From a quick search:
> If your booth is a 10×10 or smaller, you may install and dismantle your own exhibit – provided you meet these requirements:
> 1. The Set-up can be accomplished in 1/2 hour or less.
> 2. No tools are required.
> 3. Individuals performing the work must be full-time employees of the exhibiting company and cary identification to verify this fact.
> Exhibitors are allowed to unpack and repack their own product (if it is cartons, not crates). They are also allowed to do technical work on their machines, such as balancing, programming, cleaning of machines, etc. Exhibitors may “hand carry” or use nothing larger than a two wheel baggage cart (rubber or plastic wheels only) to move their items.
* http://www.absoluteiandd.com/union-rules/new-york-trade-show...
> Convention center guidelines dictate that any gear one person can't carry with their hands alone must be handled by official union labor. In other words, you have to pay for people to lug your TVs and booth props from the loading dock to your booth, and it's not exactly cheap.
* https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-02-21-the-costs-...
Now if you have similar rules internal to your company, if you annoy the wrong people, they can simply act in a strictly 'compliant fashion'.
From a quick search:
> If your booth is a 10×10 or smaller, you may install and dismantle your own exhibit – provided you meet these requirements:
> 1. The Set-up can be accomplished in 1/2 hour or less.
> 2. No tools are required.
> 3. Individuals performing the work must be full-time employees of the exhibiting company and cary identification to verify this fact.
> Exhibitors are allowed to unpack and repack their own product (if it is cartons, not crates). They are also allowed to do technical work on their machines, such as balancing, programming, cleaning of machines, etc. Exhibitors may “hand carry” or use nothing larger than a two wheel baggage cart (rubber or plastic wheels only) to move their items.
* http://www.absoluteiandd.com/union-rules/new-york-trade-show...
> Convention center guidelines dictate that any gear one person can't carry with their hands alone must be handled by official union labor. In other words, you have to pay for people to lug your TVs and booth props from the loading dock to your booth, and it's not exactly cheap.
* https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-02-21-the-costs-...
Now if you have similar rules internal to your company, if you annoy the wrong people, they can simply act in a strictly 'compliant fashion'.
Certainly, there’s a lot of old entrenched unions who have come to rest on their past laurels and are now mired in bureaucracy and self-satisfaction.
One would easily imagine a software engineering union to be the complete opposite of that, as such a union would be completely new and hungry.
One would easily imagine a software engineering union to be the complete opposite of that, as such a union would be completely new and hungry.
Well from experience in the UK M&P (managerial and professional union) unions you right.
They are not into old school craft union practices.
They are not into old school craft union practices.
But a union will eventually slowly devolve into that example as more and more rules and restrictions are added. Unions have so many benefits but I feel like any time a union dictates how the work is supposed to be done I hate it. That's why I'm super conflicted. It feel like I'd lose a lot of flexibility afforded to me if I joined a union and had to start playing by their rules.
At the same time, I think software engineering is in a position where a lot of employees have the power to switch companies and have more control over how the work is done than other types of jobs. I can see people leaving jobs in mass or starting a union quickly if industry conditions ever get worse.
At the same time, I think software engineering is in a position where a lot of employees have the power to switch companies and have more control over how the work is done than other types of jobs. I can see people leaving jobs in mass or starting a union quickly if industry conditions ever get worse.
You can say the same about any other human organization, though- a corporation, a government, a religious hierarchy. A nonprofit foundation. An open source project. What makes unions any more susceptibility to corruption or the problems of bureaucracy?
> I can see people leaving jobs in mass or starting a union quickly if industry conditions ever get worse.
There's some signs of that happening at some companies. Certainly it's a high time for video games tech companies to push for it, against the bad conditions unique to that industry.
> I can see people leaving jobs in mass or starting a union quickly if industry conditions ever get worse.
There's some signs of that happening at some companies. Certainly it's a high time for video games tech companies to push for it, against the bad conditions unique to that industry.
a union dictates how the work is supposed to be done
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. How do unions dictate the way you perform your duties?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. How do unions dictate the way you perform your duties?
For example, the union could have negotiated rules around an appropriate duration of working hours as well as the start and end times of such. E.g. unionized employees shall not have to work "after hours". Working hours are 9-5. Anything outside of that is paid at 1.5x. Employees can't work from home so as not to infringe on 'family life'.
And suddenly the union has made me very uninterested in performing my duties at that company at all. I want to be able to work with flexible hours. I don't care to be compensated at 1.5x just because I start at 8:30 and leave at 4 one day, then do 9:30 to 5:30 another etc. I want to work from home every day of the week and I'll manage the separation of family life and work just fine, thank you very much but instead of being stuck in transit hours each way and effectively spending at least 11 hours for work related stuff (actual work plus travel, coz you know, union rules prohibit me working from the train, coz it's not in the office and it's not 9 yet), while WFH means I get up at 8:58 and in a meeting at 9:00 and that's great!
Real life example btw. from where some friends work, not theoretical. While I am flexible to take the kids to school, summercamp etc. at the required hours and just work as soon as I come home and made coffee, they gotta plan everything around their commute and timing it so that they don't come in too much earlier than 9 (wasting their time) and not get cited for clocking in too late, e.g. coz there was traffic.
And suddenly the union has made me very uninterested in performing my duties at that company at all. I want to be able to work with flexible hours. I don't care to be compensated at 1.5x just because I start at 8:30 and leave at 4 one day, then do 9:30 to 5:30 another etc. I want to work from home every day of the week and I'll manage the separation of family life and work just fine, thank you very much but instead of being stuck in transit hours each way and effectively spending at least 11 hours for work related stuff (actual work plus travel, coz you know, union rules prohibit me working from the train, coz it's not in the office and it's not 9 yet), while WFH means I get up at 8:58 and in a meeting at 9:00 and that's great!
Real life example btw. from where some friends work, not theoretical. While I am flexible to take the kids to school, summercamp etc. at the required hours and just work as soon as I come home and made coffee, they gotta plan everything around their commute and timing it so that they don't come in too much earlier than 9 (wasting their time) and not get cited for clocking in too late, e.g. coz there was traffic.
And suddenly the union has made me very uninterested in performing my duties at that company at all. I want to be able to work with flexible hours
I was in a union for a little bit, and there was a set process for this. You simply requested & justified a modified schedule, and so long as your boss signed off that it wouldn't negatively impact operations, it was all fine. Not all unions may do this though.
I was in a union for a little bit, and there was a set process for this. You simply requested & justified a modified schedule, and so long as your boss signed off that it wouldn't negatively impact operations, it was all fine. Not all unions may do this though.
Absolutely agreed that unionized doesn't mean only bad things. That's not what my parent asked about though.
My dad was at a sort of unionized place. The core business wasn't Software but they spun their own IT needs out into an IT service company that became quite large on its own too. This was in Germany though. The actual union negotiated with the core business and for their employees. There's also another system in Germany that's a little separate from unions (which also exist) called roughly translated the "workers council".
The core business for example (manufacturers union) had a 35 hour week. The IT company had an agreement of "what the union contract says but with these modifications e.g. +5 hours." (and some other stuff) the unionization was great for a junior as it guaranteed a minimum pay scale for example with set minimum raises after x time etc. You had to track your time (clocking in and out was provided but not mandatory) and weren't allowed to do too many hours etc. But things were still flexible. Come and go when you want to within reason. And that was already like that in the 1980s. Obviously no WFH at that time :)
When the union renegotiated to 37.5 hours that suddenly meant all IT company personnel had to work 42.5. But the workers council and the company were on good terms and workers were told not to worry, the official stuff will take a week or two to hammer out and put in writing but keep working your 40 hours. The intent was the 40 hours and the +5 was just how it was written down. A technicality.
So yeah it can also be good.
My dad was at a sort of unionized place. The core business wasn't Software but they spun their own IT needs out into an IT service company that became quite large on its own too. This was in Germany though. The actual union negotiated with the core business and for their employees. There's also another system in Germany that's a little separate from unions (which also exist) called roughly translated the "workers council".
The core business for example (manufacturers union) had a 35 hour week. The IT company had an agreement of "what the union contract says but with these modifications e.g. +5 hours." (and some other stuff) the unionization was great for a junior as it guaranteed a minimum pay scale for example with set minimum raises after x time etc. You had to track your time (clocking in and out was provided but not mandatory) and weren't allowed to do too many hours etc. But things were still flexible. Come and go when you want to within reason. And that was already like that in the 1980s. Obviously no WFH at that time :)
When the union renegotiated to 37.5 hours that suddenly meant all IT company personnel had to work 42.5. But the workers council and the company were on good terms and workers were told not to worry, the official stuff will take a week or two to hammer out and put in writing but keep working your 40 hours. The intent was the 40 hours and the +5 was just how it was written down. A technicality.
So yeah it can also be good.
Pretty much agreed, I just think the same types of good & bad things happen without unions, just on an individual or departmental scale. It's more visible with unions because it happens all at once and on a larger scale, but I'm not convinced that the overall magnitude is that different.
As an example of the individual/departmental level where there was no union involved: I was embedded within a large, mostly customer-facing area. A scheduling change came down that said everyone had to work late hours twice a week on a rotation, for two six-week periods each year when there was increased demand. I don't work with customers, there was no need for me to modify my schedule. I ran things up the chain and a few days later there was a minor policy change that basically said "everyone except him".
As an example of the individual/departmental level where there was no union involved: I was embedded within a large, mostly customer-facing area. A scheduling change came down that said everyone had to work late hours twice a week on a rotation, for two six-week periods each year when there was increased demand. I don't work with customers, there was no need for me to modify my schedule. I ran things up the chain and a few days later there was a minor policy change that basically said "everyone except him".
Then you are lucky (as many of us in software are) that you had enough pull for that.
Where unions or worker organization (even without a formal union and dues and such) come in is if this doesn't work because individual pull is not enough.
Your case you were lucky, in many an organization you would just have been told "you gotta take one for the team, we cannot make exceptions, then everyone wants one" (note that I don't agree with that but seen/heard this too many times)
Where unions or worker organization (even without a formal union and dues and such) come in is if this doesn't work because individual pull is not enough.
Your case you were lucky, in many an organization you would just have been told "you gotta take one for the team, we cannot make exceptions, then everyone wants one" (note that I don't agree with that but seen/heard this too many times)
And it will never ever go astray.
It would certainly have a lower chance to, in the sense that it will have been founded in a time period after past generations' unions have gone astray, and so has the benefit of historical experience to work with and to improve, to innovate upon. Certainly tech is an industry that believes better futures are capable of being built, rather than expecting everything to always be the same level of mediocrity.
What a generic and low effort comment. It could apply to pretty much any human organization. Not bringing much to the discussion, really.
That person might just not want to deal with the politics and the rules. I used to contract for a union and it was super political. Also, everyone got a lunch break from noon-1pm per union rules. We'd all be in a meeting (scheduled from 11-12) and at noon on the dot everyone straight up got up and left. Needed five more minutes to wrap that up? Schedule a separate meeting.
Note I'm not saying that is good or bad... In fact I liked it a lot - work can wait! But the person who said they'd be miserable may just not be able to hang with that.
Note I'm not saying that is good or bad... In fact I liked it a lot - work can wait! But the person who said they'd be miserable may just not be able to hang with that.
Funnily enough OP could give you no answer. It seems they just spewed without thought some of the anti-union propaganda that is so common in the US. And nowadays in Europe too, sadly.
TBF, there's not really a notification mechanism for comment replies in HN, so if you're like me, and you just occasionally check in on your comments, it's easy to miss responses until ridiculously too late. I know I have done this in the past.
union dues create a huge conflict of interest for union leadership. it turns it into a career path and you become a politician.
if union leadership was volunteer, and dues weren’t required, maybe that sort of union would be less susceptible to corruption.
if union leadership was volunteer, and dues weren’t required, maybe that sort of union would be less susceptible to corruption.
Unions end up punishing good workers and rewarding bad ones. Believe it or not, some people enjoy their job, and enjoy being able to excel at it.
You're not looking very hard for counter examples.
Is the screen actors guild punishing Will Smith and rewarding struggling, untalented commercial actors?
Is the NBA player's association punishing LeBron and rewarding D league players?
Is there even such a thing a "superstar" plumber? I mean, I'm sure there are awful plumbers and amazing plumbers - but do how much can they scale, realistically?
Is the screen actors guild punishing Will Smith and rewarding struggling, untalented commercial actors?
Is the NBA player's association punishing LeBron and rewarding D league players?
Is there even such a thing a "superstar" plumber? I mean, I'm sure there are awful plumbers and amazing plumbers - but do how much can they scale, realistically?
The G League has its own union that isn't the NBPA.
SAG is a weird example. Hard to get in without doing union work. Hard to get union work without being in the union. Can't do non-union work after you're in. The structure reeks of being rigged to temper the rate of newcomers.
SAG is a weird example. Hard to get in without doing union work. Hard to get union work without being in the union. Can't do non-union work after you're in. The structure reeks of being rigged to temper the rate of newcomers.
I'm not sure what your point is, but famous actors and sports-stars have little to do with labour unions. A labour union is all about fighting for the rights of the undifferentiated many, not the situation where there are named celebrities in a winner's zero-sum market.
When there is a pool of people waiting to take your job, and a company willing to lower working standards, you have little choice but to comply with company requests — unless you are part of a union that collectively acts in the interests of the workers.
For software developers there are forces against unionisation:
1. Global outsourcing. What's the point in unionisation if your job can be done by a motivated pool of workers overseas? A union has little bargaining power at the level of outsourcing complete business units. Or buyouts: I am in New Zealand and whole companies here are purchased by American companies.
2. Many software developers are not easily replaceable. It is difficult to replace a person who has specialist software skills or internal organizational knowledge.
3. There is no pool of easily identifiable talent.
4. Developers have to be dissatisfied with working conditions.
5. Developers have to have reached a ceiling (experienced). In a fast growing industry with technical churn, less experienced developers outnumber older developers? Hard to argue with new blood why unionisation is in their interests?
Edit: I did a quick search for "software developer" on https://seek.co.nz job board and about 1% of jobs were for USD140k+ and most of that 1% were not dev jobs. I know zero developers earning >= $200k. AFAIK pay in NZ for developers is significantly below the US. Opportunity there if you want trustworthy highly skilled remote workers that speak English. Main bummer is NZ is 16 hours ahead so 3PM EST is 7AM NZ time, and Friday in the US is Saturday in NZ https://www.worldtimeserver.com/time-zones/nzst-to-est/
When there is a pool of people waiting to take your job, and a company willing to lower working standards, you have little choice but to comply with company requests — unless you are part of a union that collectively acts in the interests of the workers.
For software developers there are forces against unionisation:
1. Global outsourcing. What's the point in unionisation if your job can be done by a motivated pool of workers overseas? A union has little bargaining power at the level of outsourcing complete business units. Or buyouts: I am in New Zealand and whole companies here are purchased by American companies.
2. Many software developers are not easily replaceable. It is difficult to replace a person who has specialist software skills or internal organizational knowledge.
3. There is no pool of easily identifiable talent.
4. Developers have to be dissatisfied with working conditions.
5. Developers have to have reached a ceiling (experienced). In a fast growing industry with technical churn, less experienced developers outnumber older developers? Hard to argue with new blood why unionisation is in their interests?
Edit: I did a quick search for "software developer" on https://seek.co.nz job board and about 1% of jobs were for USD140k+ and most of that 1% were not dev jobs. I know zero developers earning >= $200k. AFAIK pay in NZ for developers is significantly below the US. Opportunity there if you want trustworthy highly skilled remote workers that speak English. Main bummer is NZ is 16 hours ahead so 3PM EST is 7AM NZ time, and Friday in the US is Saturday in NZ https://www.worldtimeserver.com/time-zones/nzst-to-est/
> I'm not sure what your point is, but famous actors and sports-stars have little to do with labour unions.
There are a TON of actors in SAG (160,000). Sure, that's more than an order of magnitude smaller than the 4.4M SWEs in the US. But the idea that everyone in SAG is a "star" is absurd.
Similarly, deep bench players in the NBA - sure they are really good - but they are far from stars. And yet, most of them make substantially more money than overseas "stars". This is because of the players' union.
> A labour union is all about fighting for the rights of the undifferentiated many, not the situation where there are named celebrities in a winner's zero-sum market.
I think you missed my point entirely. SAG and the players' union are good for both stars and non-stars.
GP seemed to think that unions by definition are bad for stars. I was merely pointing out that there are examples of unions that are not bad for stars. It just so happens these unions are also examples of unions that are also not bad for non-stars.
> When there is a pool of people waiting to take your job, and a company willing to lower working standards, you have little choice but to comply with company requests — unless you are part of a union that collectively acts in the interests of the workers.
Google is not unionized, and there are a million people that would take my job for much lower pay - and a lot of them could probably end up doing my job after a substantially long learning period. Despite that, I have my job.
The same is true at Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft (and many other companies). Theoretically, since these are global companies with large presences all over the world - this isn't (at least) entirely because I'm a US citizen.
I agree with your point for most other professions, though. And maybe this will be truer in the future for "FAANG". But, it's not really true now.
> Edit: I did a quick search for "software developer" on https://seek.co.nz job board and about 1% of jobs were for USD140k+ and most of that 1% were not dev jobs. I know zero developers earning >= $200k. AFAIK pay in NZ for developers is significantly below the US.
The majority of people working at "FAANG" in NZ should be >$200k - if for no other reason than because of RSU appreciation.
Not trying to be rude - but if you want to make more money - just read Cracking the Coding Interview cover to cover and get referrals at FAANG. You honestly might triple your salary. You can DM me on Reddit if you want more feedback / advice / referrals.
There are a TON of actors in SAG (160,000). Sure, that's more than an order of magnitude smaller than the 4.4M SWEs in the US. But the idea that everyone in SAG is a "star" is absurd.
Similarly, deep bench players in the NBA - sure they are really good - but they are far from stars. And yet, most of them make substantially more money than overseas "stars". This is because of the players' union.
> A labour union is all about fighting for the rights of the undifferentiated many, not the situation where there are named celebrities in a winner's zero-sum market.
I think you missed my point entirely. SAG and the players' union are good for both stars and non-stars.
GP seemed to think that unions by definition are bad for stars. I was merely pointing out that there are examples of unions that are not bad for stars. It just so happens these unions are also examples of unions that are also not bad for non-stars.
> When there is a pool of people waiting to take your job, and a company willing to lower working standards, you have little choice but to comply with company requests — unless you are part of a union that collectively acts in the interests of the workers.
Google is not unionized, and there are a million people that would take my job for much lower pay - and a lot of them could probably end up doing my job after a substantially long learning period. Despite that, I have my job.
The same is true at Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft (and many other companies). Theoretically, since these are global companies with large presences all over the world - this isn't (at least) entirely because I'm a US citizen.
I agree with your point for most other professions, though. And maybe this will be truer in the future for "FAANG". But, it's not really true now.
> Edit: I did a quick search for "software developer" on https://seek.co.nz job board and about 1% of jobs were for USD140k+ and most of that 1% were not dev jobs. I know zero developers earning >= $200k. AFAIK pay in NZ for developers is significantly below the US.
The majority of people working at "FAANG" in NZ should be >$200k - if for no other reason than because of RSU appreciation.
Not trying to be rude - but if you want to make more money - just read Cracking the Coding Interview cover to cover and get referrals at FAANG. You honestly might triple your salary. You can DM me on Reddit if you want more feedback / advice / referrals.
That's a ridiculously broad brush to paint unions with, and your last sentence shows lack of good faith in the discussion. Good day.
Unions do sometimes make it hard to get rid of bad workers... not sure that's the same as "rewarding" them though.
I can't think of examples of punishing good ones though. Union contracts frequently have defined procedures for requesting a merit pay increase with a mandatory review process, along with similar procedures for reclassification to a higher level position, also with more pay, when a person's scope of responsibilities shift over time to encompass more than the original job description indicated.
I'm not in a union any longer, but that happened to me when I was: I was very good a specific portion of my job and gradually took on more complicated aspects of it. I applied for reclassification. My workplace had a maximum of 21 days to review & reply to the request, which they granted, and I got a higher title & a nice 20% increase in pay.
I can't think of examples of punishing good ones though. Union contracts frequently have defined procedures for requesting a merit pay increase with a mandatory review process, along with similar procedures for reclassification to a higher level position, also with more pay, when a person's scope of responsibilities shift over time to encompass more than the original job description indicated.
I'm not in a union any longer, but that happened to me when I was: I was very good a specific portion of my job and gradually took on more complicated aspects of it. I applied for reclassification. My workplace had a maximum of 21 days to review & reply to the request, which they granted, and I got a higher title & a nice 20% increase in pay.
Getting to keep your job when you don't deserve it is absolutely a reward.
As for punishing good workers... I've heard plenty of stories where someone was really good at their job and they just needed some small thing done that they couldn't get the right department to do, so they did it themselves. The union jumped all over them because it's contractually obligated that the other department perform that function.
It was absolutely in the way of the "good worker" and they needed it to be done to improve their morale and get work flowing well. But their only choices were suffer through it, or be sanctioned for fixing it themselves.
That's the punishment.
As for punishing good workers... I've heard plenty of stories where someone was really good at their job and they just needed some small thing done that they couldn't get the right department to do, so they did it themselves. The union jumped all over them because it's contractually obligated that the other department perform that function.
It was absolutely in the way of the "good worker" and they needed it to be done to improve their morale and get work flowing well. But their only choices were suffer through it, or be sanctioned for fixing it themselves.
That's the punishment.
Sounds like you'd have the same problem if you were a cowboy coder at a non-startup.
That's the punishment
That depends on the reason for the separation of duties. Think of a unionized construction work where a few people specialize on heavy machinery. You aren't designated as such, but you happen to know how to drive a forklift and you need something moved. I'd be pretty pissed off at you for taking it upon yourself to do it because knowing how to operate a forklift isn't the same as knowing all of the safety protocols and idiosyncracies of operating heavy machinery at that specific site. You could put yourself or others at risk, or screw up the project. Or maybe the construction company pays certain insurance premiums for each designated operator and you just opened them up to bankruptcy if there was an accident.
Sometimes these barriers exist for a good reason. And sure, when you run into one it can be frustrating if it seems harmless-- even productive-- to break protocol. But it's not for each individual worker to determine which protocols they will follow and which ones they will break. That's a recipe for disaster that I have seen happen in & out of unions. The right path on that is to work to change protocol. I've done it plenty of times myself so that I could be more productive but also be in the loop on any special considerations I should be aware of, like not querying the production system directly during certain hours when it could be under high load.
That doesn't means there aren't any useless barriers, but it my experience a barrier is usually--initially-- put into place for a reasonable purpose, and people get frustrated because they don't know what the purpose was. Going cowboy isn't the solution though. Asking questions and finding out if the reasons still apply, and initiating change if they don't, that's the path forward. Sometimes it doesn't work, for stupid reasons, but stupid reasons aren't the sole domain of union beauracracy. They exist everywhere. I don't know if they're more prevalent in unions, but it doesn't make sense to look at unions as useless or bad when they simply share the same behavioral patterns as any other organization of sufficient size and complexity. I have seen unions that are completely dysfunctional, I have also seen businesses that are the same (and had the misfortune of working for one or two)
That depends on the reason for the separation of duties. Think of a unionized construction work where a few people specialize on heavy machinery. You aren't designated as such, but you happen to know how to drive a forklift and you need something moved. I'd be pretty pissed off at you for taking it upon yourself to do it because knowing how to operate a forklift isn't the same as knowing all of the safety protocols and idiosyncracies of operating heavy machinery at that specific site. You could put yourself or others at risk, or screw up the project. Or maybe the construction company pays certain insurance premiums for each designated operator and you just opened them up to bankruptcy if there was an accident.
Sometimes these barriers exist for a good reason. And sure, when you run into one it can be frustrating if it seems harmless-- even productive-- to break protocol. But it's not for each individual worker to determine which protocols they will follow and which ones they will break. That's a recipe for disaster that I have seen happen in & out of unions. The right path on that is to work to change protocol. I've done it plenty of times myself so that I could be more productive but also be in the loop on any special considerations I should be aware of, like not querying the production system directly during certain hours when it could be under high load.
That doesn't means there aren't any useless barriers, but it my experience a barrier is usually--initially-- put into place for a reasonable purpose, and people get frustrated because they don't know what the purpose was. Going cowboy isn't the solution though. Asking questions and finding out if the reasons still apply, and initiating change if they don't, that's the path forward. Sometimes it doesn't work, for stupid reasons, but stupid reasons aren't the sole domain of union beauracracy. They exist everywhere. I don't know if they're more prevalent in unions, but it doesn't make sense to look at unions as useless or bad when they simply share the same behavioral patterns as any other organization of sufficient size and complexity. I have seen unions that are completely dysfunctional, I have also seen businesses that are the same (and had the misfortune of working for one or two)
No need to be miserable in a union. If you don't like the union you just don't deal with it. Ignore their meetings & other communication. In the US at least, Per the SC's Janus ruling, public unions can no longer require fees at all, and the same goes for private unions in right-to-work states.
After Janus my wife could stop her union membership but she does not due to concern about repercussions from union members in terms of their ability to reduce her opportunities.
I don’t think that’s quite so cut and dry. Sure the OP can easily ignore union politics. But I’ve seen unions defending toxic people with seniority. Good luck if the union is going to bat for someone that’s been taken to HR multiple times.
>But I’ve seen unions defending toxic people with seniority.
Welcome to all human institutions everywhere.
Ought we dispense with courts, governments, corporations, nonprofits, clubs, police, hospitals, etc. too because they all sometimes do this?
Welcome to all human institutions everywhere.
Ought we dispense with courts, governments, corporations, nonprofits, clubs, police, hospitals, etc. too because they all sometimes do this?
I’ve seen managers/CEOs defending toxic people with seniority. Good luck if the manager is going to bat for someone that’s been taken to HR multiple times.
Not only is it not the answer, vacation can actually be a contributor to burnout, IME.
In my current role, taking PTO is a legitimate punishment. If I take a day off, there is nobody else on my team who has capacity to pick up my work in my absence. When I return from PTO, not only do I now have double the amount of work to catch up on, but I also have 15 emails from angry managers upset that I didn't get to their request sooner.
"you should just take some vacation" is often a convenient escape hatch for managers that want to seem like they're helping, but without actually putting any effort into solving the problems that make people want to escape from work in the first place.
In my current role, taking PTO is a legitimate punishment. If I take a day off, there is nobody else on my team who has capacity to pick up my work in my absence. When I return from PTO, not only do I now have double the amount of work to catch up on, but I also have 15 emails from angry managers upset that I didn't get to their request sooner.
"you should just take some vacation" is often a convenient escape hatch for managers that want to seem like they're helping, but without actually putting any effort into solving the problems that make people want to escape from work in the first place.
If you can't afford to take a day off, then that's on you my friend. The people on your team can take up your slack if you let them. I work for someone just like you. He hoards all of the meetings and knowledge and "power" (for lack of a better word). When he goes on PTO, things halt when they shouldn't. Me and others on my squad can pick up the slack. But gatekeeping and knowledge-hoarding prevent us from helping out. Not a big deal for me, but I'm sure my squad-lead will get burned out eventually. I have warned him about that in our 1:1's, but nothings changed...
>If you can't afford to take a day off, then that's on you my friend. The people on your team can take up your slack if you let them. I work for someone just like you. He hoards all of the meetings and knowledge and "power" (for lack of a better word).
Lmao. Nobody else on my team can take up slack because they have literally no space on their calendar. My team is currently at half of our target headcount. Every person is currently working 60 hour weeks and is still behind. "If I let them"? "hoarding meetings"? Please, keep your assumptions about my workstyle to yourself. I literally beg my teammates and managers to join my meetings and share the load, but nobody has the time.
Lmao. Nobody else on my team can take up slack because they have literally no space on their calendar. My team is currently at half of our target headcount. Every person is currently working 60 hour weeks and is still behind. "If I let them"? "hoarding meetings"? Please, keep your assumptions about my workstyle to yourself. I literally beg my teammates and managers to join my meetings and share the load, but nobody has the time.
Stop killing yourself for someone else's profit. If your team is at 50% head count, then your team should be doing 50% (or less) of its expected work.
Some people like being martyrs and enjoy their drama. Lack of head count? It’s a business problem, a management problem, not my problem.
We already are doing less than 50% of our expected work. That doesn't mean that the problems suddenly go away, and typically just makes things worse.
riiiighhhtt.... If it's that bad, you really should be looking elsewhere. But it's probably not that bad and you're just trying to save face for some HN karma. If you are that good you'd have no problem finding another job. But continue to play the victim here, no one really cares.
Save face? Are you under the impression that I have something to prove, or care about what you or HN thinks? This isn't reddit, I don't make comments with the intention of getting "upvotes" nor do I care how many I get. I posted a comment about vacation on a thread about vacation, trying to start up discussion. Then you came along and made a dumbass assumption about a situation you clearly have no insight or actual knowledge of, and something that does not at all contribute to the discussion at hand.
Go read my comment history and you'll see I'm not shy about the fact that I am looking for other jobs, but I'm waiting out until my RSUs vest before leaving my current place. In the mean time, take your negative comments and "karma whoring" attitude back to reddit, it's not welcome here.
Go read my comment history and you'll see I'm not shy about the fact that I am looking for other jobs, but I'm waiting out until my RSUs vest before leaving my current place. In the mean time, take your negative comments and "karma whoring" attitude back to reddit, it's not welcome here.
I'm glad to hear that you're already looking for another job, because I was going to suggest that again, but without all the negativity from the other posts. You've clearly got the skills, both technical and soft skills, to do good work for someone who actually cares about you as a person, and not just a cog in the machine.
Good luck finding that job!
Good luck finding that job!
Weird. If you're the king of the jungle then it doesn't matter what your managers or their emails or schedules say, now does it? Take your PTO and let the rabble do their rabbling, they can't fire you or else they'd be getting rid of by far the best man on their team and they wouldn't want that, right?
Bullshit. Vacation [1] IS the answer for burnout. Long vacations are even more ok for burnout. Sabbaticals are the most ok. Guess what a doctor would recommend you do if you're having health issues from burnout?
If there's chronic burnout in your company/org then indeed, no amount of vacation will fix that. But neither would flexible work hours or mental health support.
[1] Vacation means complete and total disconnect from work or work related activities. That goes beyond not checking work emails. I'm talking no leetcode or learning some new JS framework.
If there's chronic burnout in your company/org then indeed, no amount of vacation will fix that. But neither would flexible work hours or mental health support.
[1] Vacation means complete and total disconnect from work or work related activities. That goes beyond not checking work emails. I'm talking no leetcode or learning some new JS framework.
Agreed. We need European-style month-long vacations in the US. And sabbaticals every few years. Also we should start looking at 36 and 32-hour workweeks.
We're 20x more productive than 40 years ago, yet still work the same hours or more for pay increases that barely keep up with inflation.
We're 20x more productive than 40 years ago, yet still work the same hours or more for pay increases that barely keep up with inflation.
As a European living in the US since a decade. It starts to impact my mental health.
I went from 8 weeks / years to 4 or 5. Currently 3. Ha.
I cannot recharge the same way ( meaning : travel for weeks at a time, or chill hard for 2 weeks in a row )
It’s flexible all right. But I feel like I’m always working somehow. Work is near, lurking.
I’m nursing a nice little depression that I feel a road trip would cure easily. Too bad I need to keep my last week of vacation for Christmas week.
I went from 8 weeks / years to 4 or 5. Currently 3. Ha.
I cannot recharge the same way ( meaning : travel for weeks at a time, or chill hard for 2 weeks in a row )
It’s flexible all right. But I feel like I’m always working somehow. Work is near, lurking.
I’m nursing a nice little depression that I feel a road trip would cure easily. Too bad I need to keep my last week of vacation for Christmas week.
[deleted]
That sounds really bad man. I'm originally from Germany,but lived previously in Asia(Singapore/Hong Kong), New Zealand and now Australia. I never got less than 3 weeks vacation.
The US is a good environment to innovate, but it's mostly good for companies and not people.
The US is a good environment to innovate, but it's mostly good for companies and not people.
Mind sharing where exactly in Europe is 8 weeks vacation the norm? In Austria it's 5 weeks for everyone but law and that's what most tech companies will give you as well.
I’m French. 5 weeks is the minimum.
Then we work 40h/week but legally we should do 35h. So that give us a extra week.
Those 6 weeks are the norm.
But it become increasingly common to ask for another week as a perk it you are a skill worker.
I my last French job I had weird hours and overtime in the weekend because of the industry I was in. It’s leads 7 and some changes weeks.
So, not 8.
Those 6 weeks are the norm.
But it become increasingly common to ask for another week as a perk it you are a skill worker.
I my last French job I had weird hours and overtime in the weekend because of the industry I was in. It’s leads 7 and some changes weeks.
So, not 8.
Yes, and let's stress _long_ vacations.
We need our brains to disconnect and we need at least 4 days to a week to start feeling "on vacation" [citation needed], so anythin less than say two weeks or whatever (milage may vary) and you just came from work or are worrying about going back to work. Last time I went on vacation I forgot for a moment where I worked :-)
We need our brains to disconnect and we need at least 4 days to a week to start feeling "on vacation" [citation needed], so anythin less than say two weeks or whatever (milage may vary) and you just came from work or are worrying about going back to work. Last time I went on vacation I forgot for a moment where I worked :-)
I'm 3 months into a sabbatical / gap year [1]. Feels great. The water is fine. Come on in!
[1] https://kayce.basqu.es/sabbatical/prologue
[1] https://kayce.basqu.es/sabbatical/prologue
One week of vacation is just not worth bothering with. It's not enough time to even disengage before you turn around and come back.
For me a vacation, it's every day, every time I take my bike, go in the nature, it's something short and intense. I don't need to cut off several week from a job, take a plane to an exotic island. No, not only for environmental reasons, but I don't need it, just working less every day will be more efficient for me when I need to regenerate
I will agree that a sufficiently long vacation is an answer to burnout.
It'll never prevent burnout, though, and having "job satisfaction" will, as many of the other commands are saying.
It's not a either-or situation. You should have both.
It'll never prevent burnout, though, and having "job satisfaction" will, as many of the other commands are saying.
It's not a either-or situation. You should have both.
While I agree with the title, the article itself is a fluff piece. It takes several paragraphs just to give hand wavy advice like, "Just remove barriers." It also feels like it can't possibly be true that people prefer flexible hours more than a four day work week as is claimed. This just feels like one startup guru trying to kid themself into thinking they can get away with avoiding substantive change and trying to justify their fee by dutifully parroting what they heard at the latest growth seminar.
I run https://4dayweek.io and during the time I spent researching companies, it blew my mind how awful the vacation policy is in some companies (especially the US)
i.e. 10 days vacation shouldn't be celebrated as a benefit.
Vacation isn't everything though; there have been some studies which show the positive effect of a vacation quickly disappears when work resumes.
What we really need (imo) is a shorter, more focused work week (with less fluff + meetings) i.e. a 4 day work week
i.e. 10 days vacation shouldn't be celebrated as a benefit.
Vacation isn't everything though; there have been some studies which show the positive effect of a vacation quickly disappears when work resumes.
What we really need (imo) is a shorter, more focused work week (with less fluff + meetings) i.e. a 4 day work week
Coming from a country where 4 weeks plus 11 (soon to be 12) public holidays is the legal minimum I really don't understand the US system.
When you say 4 weeks, do you mean 20 days off because there's typically 5 work days in a week or do you mean 30 days?
The legislation says 4 weeks. In practice that means if you work 5 days a week you get 20 days. If you work 3 days a week you get 12 days.
I have never heard of an employer that makes its employees only take whole weeks rather than a day here or there even though technically you are only entitled to "weeks" off.
I have never heard of an employer that makes its employees only take whole weeks rather than a day here or there even though technically you are only entitled to "weeks" off.
> I have never heard of an employer that makes its employees only take whole weeks rather than a day here or there
This could be country-specific, but in investment banking it is common to require employees to periodically take an uninterrupted block of vacation (in my country, a two-week block once per year seems typical). The rationale is to make it more difficult to perpetuate certain types of fraud, since the bad actor would need to collude with another employee to cover up in their absence.
A bit of a corner case, but thought I'd mention.
This could be country-specific, but in investment banking it is common to require employees to periodically take an uninterrupted block of vacation (in my country, a two-week block once per year seems typical). The rationale is to make it more difficult to perpetuate certain types of fraud, since the bad actor would need to collude with another employee to cover up in their absence.
A bit of a corner case, but thought I'd mention.
I think burnout is mostly related to a lack of intrinsic motivation / reward. When you're no longer deeply interested in what you're doing, it feels like a grind whether its 30 hours a week or 80.
There are many root causes for burnout, but companies not properly valuing and appreciating their employees is definitely a big one!
Vacation is when I want to complete ambitious projects that are not work related. My vacations are exhausting but worthwhile. They are like parenting. They do nothing to help burnout unless I spend them on doing nothing. How does one avoid burnout? 4 day work week. Have a day off with no kids and no travel and no work. Forced recovery time. Like sleep.
I would bet that flexible work hours are contributing for higher employee burnout.
I agree. In my experience, "flexible work hours" is often code for "everyone works weird fucking hours so instead of having a set routine, you have to be quasi-available at all times to respond to the person who decided to wait until 8pm to do the work you were waiting on". It's great for the person who needs flexibility, and shitty for everyone that depends on that person.
Flexible working arrangements are great when the team is able to asynchronously work, but I have yet to see a team that really does asynchronous work right.
Flexible working arrangements are great when the team is able to asynchronously work, but I have yet to see a team that really does asynchronous work right.
> I have yet to see a team that really does asynchronous work right.
I think the Linux kernel developers can be considered the biggest software team that does asynchronous work, and it works just fine.
Honestly just some basic mailinglist software installation goes a long way.
And an organization can still have a process in place on how to get synched when its needed (scheduled calls, impromptu emergency response situations, etc).
I think the Linux kernel developers can be considered the biggest software team that does asynchronous work, and it works just fine.
Honestly just some basic mailinglist software installation goes a long way.
And an organization can still have a process in place on how to get synched when its needed (scheduled calls, impromptu emergency response situations, etc).
Excellent point.
If the expectations is to not respond right away and not be available right away. It can be fine.
I’ve seen it work. But it require discipline.
In my situation the time difference were too striking to hope having synchronized interaction, and the team built on that habit.
But then one day we had a major refactor in our orgs and that was gone.
I’ve seen it work. But it require discipline.
In my situation the time difference were too striking to hope having synchronized interaction, and the team built on that habit.
But then one day we had a major refactor in our orgs and that was gone.
I think this is a contributor, especially with working remote where folks are spanning many time zones.
A position I'm thinking about joining requires being available 9 hours between 9am-6pm EST (I live in EST) to ensure there's reasonable overlap between the west coast US and most European countries. They were really strict on these hours and at first I was against it because I thought what's the difference if I work 2 hours early one day and clock out early or decide to be unavailable for 3 hours in the afternoon (1h lunch break + the 2 hours).
But the more I think about it, the more I think it's a better system for everyone in the end when everyone has strict hours. I wouldn't want to be expected to review a PR at 7pm EST because someone else decided to start a bit later one day.
They have no problem for exceptions like leaving early for a doctor's appointment or picking someone up. The only rule here is you need to give a few days notice which is also reasonable because it lets your team members know you won't be around when you usually are. They don't need to know the details, only that you won't be around. They're also ok if you need to bail without notice because it's something important. Basically don't abuse the system and it's all good.
A position I'm thinking about joining requires being available 9 hours between 9am-6pm EST (I live in EST) to ensure there's reasonable overlap between the west coast US and most European countries. They were really strict on these hours and at first I was against it because I thought what's the difference if I work 2 hours early one day and clock out early or decide to be unavailable for 3 hours in the afternoon (1h lunch break + the 2 hours).
But the more I think about it, the more I think it's a better system for everyone in the end when everyone has strict hours. I wouldn't want to be expected to review a PR at 7pm EST because someone else decided to start a bit later one day.
They have no problem for exceptions like leaving early for a doctor's appointment or picking someone up. The only rule here is you need to give a few days notice which is also reasonable because it lets your team members know you won't be around when you usually are. They don't need to know the details, only that you won't be around. They're also ok if you need to bail without notice because it's something important. Basically don't abuse the system and it's all good.
I don't get how that's a better system than not requiring overlaps between timezones that are essentially too far away from each other for reasonable overlap? Other than being good for the employer of course.
I do agree that having "core hours" is very valuable with flexible hours. Core hours need to be less than a regular working day though and they should be negotiated by the team internally. Have a team of night owls? Core hours can be 4pm to 10pm for example.
Why would you review a 7pm EST PR any earlier than the next day (which is when you'd see it) and your next day happened to start at 10am only that day? Unless you had started your day late or were working later for another reason (like wanting to take half of Friday off) and you happen to see it.
Timezones suck and make things slower. Companies need to acknowledge that and not by making people work longer than they should.
I do agree that having "core hours" is very valuable with flexible hours. Core hours need to be less than a regular working day though and they should be negotiated by the team internally. Have a team of night owls? Core hours can be 4pm to 10pm for example.
Why would you review a 7pm EST PR any earlier than the next day (which is when you'd see it) and your next day happened to start at 10am only that day? Unless you had started your day late or were working later for another reason (like wanting to take half of Friday off) and you happen to see it.
Timezones suck and make things slower. Companies need to acknowledge that and not by making people work longer than they should.
At my last job I took a 20% cut in pay to get a 4 day workweek. Every Thursday evening became “Yay! Three day weekend!”
I was thinking of various 80% flexible working models and there are some great set ups.
4 on, 3 off is usual
But if you break it up to two week cycles you get: 4 on, 2 off, 4 on, 4 off 4 on, 1 off, 4 on, 5 off
And even wilder if you do three week cycles: 6 on, 2 off, 6 on, 7 off
Imagine a full week off every third week! Of course, this likely is not very realistic because it would not line up with collaborators well.
4 on, 3 off is usual
But if you break it up to two week cycles you get: 4 on, 2 off, 4 on, 4 off 4 on, 1 off, 4 on, 5 off
And even wilder if you do three week cycles: 6 on, 2 off, 6 on, 7 off
Imagine a full week off every third week! Of course, this likely is not very realistic because it would not line up with collaborators well.
I think it depends how long the vacation? A month long vacation for me always helps when I find myself becoming overly negative.
Edit* Should add, a lot has to do with your attitude. Some things won’t change and fighting then just makes you look like a jerk in the office. Either come to peace with it or find another job. Of course after you have reasonably done what you think you can to make a difference.
Many jobs are brainless 9to5 collect a paycheck do bare minimum and this is ok for a lot of people, they find creativity and joy elsewhere.
Edit* Should add, a lot has to do with your attitude. Some things won’t change and fighting then just makes you look like a jerk in the office. Either come to peace with it or find another job. Of course after you have reasonably done what you think you can to make a difference.
Many jobs are brainless 9to5 collect a paycheck do bare minimum and this is ok for a lot of people, they find creativity and joy elsewhere.
unless the entire team/company takes vacation at the same time, it is not too helpful.
the person comes back to a ton of work waiting for him.
also, when others take vacation, the work pace often does not stop, and the person, who himself is going through a burnout phase, takes on even more load
the person comes back to a ton of work waiting for him.
also, when others take vacation, the work pace often does not stop, and the person, who himself is going through a burnout phase, takes on even more load
Time away from work absolutely is important for recovering from burnout. If work is causing burnout, prevention means adjusting the parts of work that cause burnout.
[deleted]
I hate vacation.
Stressful travel, no real downtime, spending money like there's no tomorrow.
Stressful travel, no real downtime, spending money like there's no tomorrow.
I've come to separate travel and vacation in my plans. They are rarely the same for me- I travel when I want to see new things, visit people, explore, etc. Vacation is largely reading, working on relaxing hobbies, or spending unstructured time with friends/family.
I enjoy both, but can understand hating the stress of traveling and spending money.
I enjoy both, but can understand hating the stress of traveling and spending money.
Burnout for me was too much responsibility. I would cope with the workload stress better over time due to efficency but the responsibility stress is still there and the more efficient you are the more responsibility you take on due to productivity.
My solution to burn out was to go down to part-time; I have been incredibly fortunate that my work place supported my decision to go down to 4 days a week, with the option to do 3 days for 3-6 months and keep my full pay - I was not expecting this.
This is not much different than the fact that oversleeping during the weekend does not help with the sleep deprivation during the past week... or weeks. One needs to rest. Every. Day.
It is not the answer, but definitely part of the answer. When I have to work twice as hard before and after vacation, to make up for it, well, that's pretty damn exhausting.
Does preventing burn out come down to being paid (in cash/RSU's/etc) for the productive output of others ? If you are the one generating productive surplus for others, doesn't it become hard to justify the longer it goes on.
I do not understand how people can write in their resume that they helped their company generate $100 million revenue per year, while being paid < 1 million per year and not feel like they were taken for a ride.
I do not understand how people can write in their resume that they helped their company generate $100 million revenue per year, while being paid < 1 million per year and not feel like they were taken for a ride.
[deleted]
The issue is also people bringing their work to vacation. This lowers the effectiveness of vacations.
I don't want "mental health support" from work. I only need that if my workplace is causing serious mental health issues in the first place. (Which it is at present.)
A personal counterpoint: I do want mental health support from work. Many of the downsides of complex childhood trauma didn’t start to really interfere with my life until my late 20s/early 30s.
When I started really struggling at a job I’d already established myself in, I learned of and am incredibly grateful for the mental health benefits offered by my employer and for leaders who are open, understanding and willing to work with me when things aren’t going well.
When I first had to broach the subject, easily finding resources about the company’s EAP benefits instead of feeling like it was all some hush hush thing really helped reduce the anxiety of opening up about a difficulty topic.
When I started really struggling at a job I’d already established myself in, I learned of and am incredibly grateful for the mental health benefits offered by my employer and for leaders who are open, understanding and willing to work with me when things aren’t going well.
When I first had to broach the subject, easily finding resources about the company’s EAP benefits instead of feeling like it was all some hush hush thing really helped reduce the anxiety of opening up about a difficulty topic.
I think it depends on what mental health support means. If it means helping pay for therapy and managers making accommodations and being genuinely supportive of people when they're having a hard time, that's fantastic.
Unfortunately at many companies it just means a presentation from HR every couple of months that boils down to "10 strategies to cope with the burnout we're causing". Meanwhile the people with actual power to change things keep pushing the same "aggressive" deadlines and refusing to provide the support/resources necessary to meet them in a healthy and sustainable way.
Unfortunately at many companies it just means a presentation from HR every couple of months that boils down to "10 strategies to cope with the burnout we're causing". Meanwhile the people with actual power to change things keep pushing the same "aggressive" deadlines and refusing to provide the support/resources necessary to meet them in a healthy and sustainable way.
I think that's valid and I want that possibility for everyone. I don't want it linked to work, though.
> Well, root out the real causes of burnout.
I'll offer the definition that's made most sense to me. I didn't come up with it, in fact some wise person here on HN stated it:
Burnout is caused by working hard at something for a long time and not having it pay off.
You can work like a dog to release a feature, and if the feature does what it was meant to do, and you get recognized for your contribution, how hard you worked doesn't matter as much. You are energized, excited to be part of a great team, ready to move on to the next stunning victory.
On the other hand, if you work like a dog on a feature and it gets cut at the last minute, or its success is undermined by some VP's dumb idea, it sucks. If that happens over and over, without a win, you're burned out.
The solution is to get a win. Work on something that you can succeed on, and succeed at it, and get rewarded for it. Could be a big thing, but even a small thing is good enough. Sounds easy, but not always even possible in a badly-run organization.