
Bad Microsoft - Flopsy
http://badmicrosoft.com/
======
nonymous--
For people supposedly so intelligent, programmers often appear quite foolish,
at least when compared with other professionals.

They give away enormous quantities of their labor for free through open source
(some even going so far as to sign one-sided contracts granting the copyright
to for-profit corporations without compensation). They openly denigrate their
own skills by spreading egalitarian myths like "everyone can be a programmer"
(whereas I doubt many doctors or lawyers would make similar declarations
concerning the practice law or medicine) and by preferring the title "coder"
over its considerably more prestigious alternatives like "programmer" or
"software engineer." They promote bootcamp-style vocational schools to flood
the market with cheap labor to compete with them and to further bolster the
perception that programming is an easy, low-skill trade, perhaps a rung or two
above mere clerical work.

And then when it becomes apparent that they are getting screwed by their
employers who collude with one another to drive down wages with no-poaching
agreements, H-1B visas, and by firing senior devs in favor of 20-somethings,
the long-ignored subject of unionization is revived.

And of course, being programmers and therefore unsavvy, the model proposed is
invariably that of a blue-collar trade union like the United Auto Workers
Union and never an innocuous-sounding, white-collar "professional association"
like the American Bar Association, American Medical Association, or American
Dental Association. These outfits are so successful in both their lobbying and
PR that they've made their members among of the highest paid practitioners in
the world (particularly doctors), and the gullible masses remain wholly
ignorant of their true nature and consequently spare them from the
condemnation usually heaped upon unions, both public- and private-sector
alike.

In fact, their PR has been so successful that I wouldn't be surprised if
someone responded to this very post contesting my characterization of them as
unions, despite evidence of their anti-competitive practices being trivial to
come by:
[http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2006/216804.h...](http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2006/216804.htm)

~~~
zxcvcxz
The thing is, most programming really _isn 't_ brain surgery in most cases.
Unfortunately most professional programmers are arrogant douches that _really
do_ believe they're on the same level as a doctor. Maybe some are, especially
if they're coding medical equipment, but the majority of programmers are just
regular people with average IQs. Programming is only "hard" because
traditional western schooling doesn't introduce you to any programming
concepts.

~~~
fsloth
Good point. The act or programming is comparable to writing or simple
arithmetic.

However, where things get complex is when we reach the systems-design level.
Doctors need ten years of studying to be qualified. I would claim that you
need at least that much of programming to be really qualified for a position
where the evolution of an expensive system depends on the intuitive design
decisions you perform on the spot.

The cost of unskilled medical practice are localized and can result in large
costs and an individual tragedy.

The cost of unskilled systems design practice can be spread temporally over
several years, result in large organizational costs in maintenance and small
tragedies for the poor bastards who have to maintain the system.

While I do not suggest comparing the economic risks are a good key metric in
computing a professionals pay check I think it should be a part of the
equation. It's really hard for me to figure out who has more financial risks
tied to their profession, the systems designer or the doctor.

If we continue the risks analysis one could say a regular lorry driver can
easily cause as much in damages with careless driving. However, in the case of
the lorry driver learning to do a proper job does not take ten years.

Edit: Auch, the downvotes, they hurt. I was trivializing a bit with the
comparison to arithmetic. What I should have said is 'a fundamental skill
applicable to many domains _just like_ arithmetic or writing.

~~~
matwood
_The act or programming is comparable to writing or simple arithmetic._

I have interviewed many people who claim to know programming, but can't
program. These same people I think could read and do simple arithmetic.

Like many things, once _you_ know how to do it, it looks easy. I never
understood why people have a hard time with pointers, recursion or dependency
injection, but many people do. Programming is not some impossible to learn
skill, but it does require dedication, a level of abstract thinking not often
found in other disciplines, and logic. Reducing programming to writing or
arithmetic is maybe true for simple Excel macros, but not what most people on
this site would consider programming.

~~~
fsloth
Is the 8 year old doing Scratch exercises not programming? I would claim she
is. The difference we want to make then, is between 'simple' programming and
complex systems level programming.

I claim both can provide value. Even simple programming can be used to
automate domain specific tasks that will reduce the amount of manual labour
required, freeing the professional to other tasks and thus increase their
productivity.

Programming in a professional setting has thus at least two facets - a tool to
create new systems and a tool to automate existing ones. I would claim both
tasks are programming but with dramatically different mechanisms for adding
value.

"Reducing programming to writing or arithmetic is maybe true for simple Excel
macros, but not what most people on this site would consider programming."

Yeah, I went overboard with simplification there. The difference I wanted to
communicate (but failed) was between the human requirements for entry level
scripting and actual systems programming as the post I responded to stated
programming did not have the same economies of scarcity as skills in medicine.
I would have been more correct to state that programming is _more like_
arithmetic than medicine in the sense that both novice and experts alike can
provide added value through the act of programming but in widely different
circumstances.

I'm a professional software engineer but my wife with a PhD in physics 'just
happens' to write Matlab scripts in her day job as an R&D engineer to chew
through terabytes of production data in an indusrial setting so I think I have
a pretty good view to these different kinds of domains :)

~~~
matwood
I think a lot of what we call _simple_ programming today will just be expected
knowledge for most people in a short amount of time. Doing Scratch exercises
or writing a macro will not make me a future person a programmer in the same
way doing some simple math does not make me today a mathematician.

------
greenyoda
_" Telling your story to HR or the ERIT will make you feel good, but all you
are doing is giving Microsoft Legal a heads-up."_

This can't be emphasized enough: In any conflict between employees and
management, HR will always be there to cover the company's ass legally, not to
help the employee. Don't expect them to be on your side.

I've been reading the book "Corporate Confidential", recommended recently by a
HN contributor.[1] Strategies like "managing employees out" seem to be a
ubiquitous practice in corporate America, not just limited to Microsoft.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8600716#up_8602172](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8600716#up_8602172)

~~~
pmiller2
Agree completely. It's amazing how many people don't realize this. HR should
be called "Employee Risk Management." I can think of few things you should
ever talk to HR about other than your benefits.

~~~
mverwijs
No, "Human Resources" covers it just fine. Humans are merely resources a
company can use and discard as it sees fit.

~~~
waterlesscloud
I spent some time this week reading old CIA interrogation manuals (which
openly discuss "coercive" techniques), for personal background on the current
debates.

Anyway, the CIA interrogation manual for the wars in Central America in the
80s was titled "Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual", which struck me
as perfectly Orwellian from a couple of directions.

------
edent
Join a union. I know they're not particularly popular in the USA - and
especially not in the high tech sector. But if these actions don't convince
you that they're necessary, nothing will.

In the UK I pay ~£16/$25 per month to be a member of Prospect, a union for
workers in the telecoms sector. When I was made redundant (downsized) they
were able to get me an excellent settlement and provided me with incredibly
useful professional advice.

I also know that if I'm in a disciplinary situation, they'll have trained
employment rights specialists available to fight my corner.

The best way to think about a union (IMO) is as legal insurance. You pay for
car insurance in case someone plows into your automobile - why wouldn't you do
the same for your career?

~~~
dingaling
> You pay for car insurance in case someone plows into your automobile - why
> wouldn't you do the same for your career?

Few people willingly pay car insurance; fewer still have any confidence that
their insurance will pay-out. But we pay the premiums because it is a legal
requirement, even though it might be more effective for some people to put
that money into a bond instead.

It's a similar situation for unions; few people expect that a union really
protect them from a determined private-sector employer, so they assess the
cost-benefit of such "insurance" to be negative. Particularly when the
premium, much as in your example, costs a lot in terms of minimum wage.

~~~
SixSigma
> Few people willingly pay car insurance

By that rationale, no-one would by the more expensive fully-comprehensive
insurance (where your own car is insured, not just third parties) but they do.

~~~
pionar
Many people only buy the comprehensive insurance because their loan contract
and/or lease terms require it.

~~~
pas
And that makes sense, you can just return the car and get a new one. And lease
contracts fees reflect this. If you have a fixed term lease, then returning a
car ahead of time costs you, so you opt to repair it, and probably the leasing
company wants it repaired at a brand licensed garage, so higher prices on that
means you're likely to get a proper insurance, but you get the lease for
cheaper.

------
CurtHagenlocher
I love anecdotal data, so I'll share mine: I'm at Microsoft, almost 46, and
most of my managers have been younger than me. Nearly all of my reviews have
been extremely good; the remainder just good.

It's true that there seems to be a sort of cliff around my age; there are very
few people in product development roles over the age of 50. I would attribute
that to the way the industry evolved: mine was the first generation that
really had the opportunity to grow up with PCs. My first exposure was a
programming class in summer school in 1981. The demand for software developers
also really exploded in the 1980s. These things combined to make software both
more interesting and more compelling as a career than it had been in earlier
generations.

EDIT: It's probably also worth pointing out that anyone who'd joined Microsoft
before ~1995 and was careful about managing their money could likely have
decided to retire by now.

~~~
netcan
To find an explanation of the process I would really just look at the number
of programmers working in any given year. There are many times more new
programmers starting professionally in 2015 than 1985 while mechanical
engineers, lawyers and poets get produced at a roughly even rate.

That in itself creates a huge skew, there are fewer 50-something programmers
because 1985 produced fewer programmers. I think a lot of the concern/focus on
the youthful "fetish" in the industry is this kind of an illusion.

In the early 70s, Rockstars were by definition in their 20s. These days, if
you are looking for rock mega stars who can fill arenas anywhere in the world,
you will find rockstars of all ages. In fact, rockstars like Mick Jagger
(70s), Steven Tyler (60s), Prince (50s) are more likely having had decades to
accumulate fans.

It turns out that the 27 year old rock god cliche was a product of the fact
that it takes time to make a 60 year old and no one was making rockstars in
1929.

~~~
jobposter1234
Unrelated to your point, but undercutting your conclusion is the fact that the
"27 year old rock god" cliche came about in large part due to the # of rock
stars who died at 27. Check out the wiki article on "the 27 club" for more
info.

Plus, when you're 27, you're probably at or near your physical peak. IE,
you're good looking. And that's arguably more important than any skill.

------
funkdobiest
This story reminds me of my current company. A large fortune 500 company that
has recently had most leadership moved to Silicon Valley, in which there were
major layoffs to most of the older engineers, based on a consultants
suggestion. Most of these engineers maintained and supported older legacy and
mainframe systems. Now everyone is scrambling to fill the gaps and it puts a
toll on everyone. Not to mention the fear of current talent fleeing as the
word is out that you don't spend more than 5 years here or you will be forced
out.

~~~
kyllo
_based on a consultants suggestion_

No top management decision is ever based on a consultant's suggestion; it's
the other way around. The consultant's job is to provide the appearance of
neutral outside expertise to justify whatever the executives wanted to do
anyway.

------
quonn
Only 17.7% of Microsoft employees are younger than 30. Almost half are 40+.
Average age: 38.7.

Source: [http://news.microsoft.com/facts-about-
microsoft/](http://news.microsoft.com/facts-about-microsoft/)

Don't be scared. Instead, learn to have more compassion on others while you
are young. Join a Union. Keep improving. And consider moving into management
later or start a small business in your late 30s.

~~~
thomasahle
Wow, I'm trying to imagine what that age distribution curve looks like. It
must start out pretty heavy, and then have a super hard drop right after 40.

~~~
bostonpete
Why? A bit more than half the company is under 40 and the average age is
slightly under 40. Seems like any sort of distribution could yield these sorts
of numbers.

------
jurassic
Stories like this one terrify me. No matter how young you are today, someday
not too long from now you'll be 40+ and on the receiving end of this type of
discrimination. Is that the kind of industry we want to be?

~~~
stinos
But we don't know the full story (for each individual) - we don't know if it
really is discrimination based on age or if there are other things going on.
I've seen both things happen in medium sized companies so I won't be surprised
if it's the same for Microsoft (or other major companies for that matter)

\- case 1: a guy in his fifties writing C++ like it's C with classes in the
same style he did 20 years ago. Every piece of code is a complete trainwreck.
I could go on for hours on how bad it is. Anyway, the programs he creates like
that sort of work. Barely. But because there isn't anyone else to do his job,
managment is stupid and too lazy to find someone else and rather waits until
it explodes in their faces (i.e. when he retires), he can stay. Until one day
a new manager steps in and immediately sees the problem and lets the guy go.
Would you really call this discrimination or rather the proper thing to do?

\- case 2: the opposite. Decent guy in his fifties, hard working, always
learning, writing proper code, not afraid to speak up. The letter eventually
yielding him fired because (again) of stupid managment: one manager able to
convince the rest he's too old and too costly too keep, rest of the pack too
lazy too stand up and just let it happen.. That is discrimination.

~~~
yummyfajitas
There is also a trickier and more interesting case 3:

Experienced guy in his 50's, seen it all before. Remembers the era of object
databases, knows why SQL was invented, and shuts down his hipster colleague's
plans to use Mongodb. Remembers CORBA, SOA and J2EE and is skeptical about
microservices. Understands why logging/metrics/dependency injection is
necessary and pushes RoR guys to use more verbose syntax to support it.

Younger folks dislike him because of this. There is conflict. Management has a
real problem, since they both need experience but the senior guy can't build
everything on his own.

~~~
1stop
dependency injection isn't needed in RoR, as mocking/stubbing is so simple,
and built in (with RSpec, say)... (Same with metrics, they can easily be
injected into the entire object tree). Logging sure, you need to write some of
that.

There are also arguments for NoSQL dbs as well, some times old knowledge is
exactly that.

This doesn't seem to be a compelling example... But alas, I think I've taken
this off topic.

~~~
pionar
> dependency injection isn't needed in RoR, as mocking/stubbing is so simple,
> and built in (with RSpec, say)

Disclaimer: not a RoR guy.

Dependency injection isn't about unit tests. Dependency injection is about
weak dependencies, easier refactoring, and preventing bad design decisions
from being a disaster 5 years down the line. Dependency injection is a good
idea no matter what the language/framework is.

That's the point of the parent comment. A dev in his 50s would point these
things out.

~~~
barrkel
Dependency injection in practice is almost always implemented for tests.

In terms of architecture, it's usually a case of YAGNI. Every dependency
injected is a configuration point that is almost never altered, except for
mocks in testing. When this style infects a whole codebase, it makes it far
harder to read and navigate, because code flow is dependent on runtime data
flow. Heavy use of indirections that only ever go to the one place is a bad
code smell, and it's a stench over the entire field of enterprise Java.

Code that is easy to read is easy to refactor. Except for natural
architectural chokepoints that are typically intrinsic to the problem being
solved, you're fooling yourself if you don't think architecture changes are
needed for most refactoring - dependency injection isn't buying you what you
think you're buying. Every injection point you create is a prediction about
the future, about the possibilities of change, but there's one gotcha: the
future is hard to predict, so most of your decisions are wrong.

You're better off being agile, following YAGNI, doing the simplest thing that
will work, and altering it when requirements change.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I've done DI many times for things other than tests - swapping out different
algorithms is the most common case (BetaBanditCalculator ->
TimeVaryingBayesianBanditCalculator ->
HierarchicalPersonalCharacteristicCalculator, etc). It also makes testing
easy, which is great, but that's far from the only use case.

DI tends to work great for the integration point between systems - e.g.,
connecting the REST or Thrift interface to the calculation backend and
datastore.

The fact that a concept is hard to use in Enterprise Java is a poor argument
against anything other than Enterprise Java.

------
brackenbury
_" Microsoft uses bad performance reviews (“The How”) as a tool to eliminate
the elder (40+) and senior ranked employees."_

Current Microsoft employee here. A few years ago my manager at that time did
exactly the above. The review process in use at that time rated employees on
"What" you accomplished and "How" you accomplished it. I had done really well
on the "What" and the manager still gave me a low rating because supposedly I
did poorly on "The How". The "How" gave managers tremendous flexibility to
rate employees however they want regardless of actual performance. So why did
my manager do it? I believe he discriminated against me for age reasons. There
is evidence to support this: This manager rewrote ("reinterpreted" according
to him) the HR-supplied expectations for SDEs (Software Development Engineers)
at each level, and he raised expectations for those at higher level, while
leaving expectations for lower level employees the same.

While I believe this manager discriminated against me for age reasons, I don't
believe there is Microsoft-wide, corporate-sanctioned, age discrimination
going on. It might be happening at the level of individual managers, however.

~~~
kmontgom
So, how'd it all work out? I mean, obviously you still work for MS, but what
happened with the manager? Did he move or did you?

This is actually part of classic corporate behavior: * Company starts small,
based on people who want to get things done (and get rich)

* Small company succeeds, discovers need to expand

* Small company becomes big company

* At some point a threshold is passed: behaviors (such as are typical in middle management) begin to appear, and are tolerated, because the company is successful.

* But, the mid management behaviors are lethal in the long term. The reason its long term instead of short term is because the company success is a kind of inertia -- it takes a while before the "decelerating" behavior of mid management affects the company.

* By the time the success inertia has been countered, those mid managers have moved on, either through making a fortune, or being able to parlay their "success" into other positions in other companies.

Pessimistic, but I've observed it in many circumstances, up close and personal
in one or two (including my current position).

~~~
brackenbury
I moved to another group immediately and doing well in the new group. The
manager got demoted during a reorg several months later, likely because there
was a lot of negative feedback from his direct reports. That's one thing I
like about Microsoft. Microsoft collects anonymous feedback about managers
from their direct reports during an annual survey, and if there is a lot of
negative feedback about a manager that manager is not going to do well. Other
companies should adopt this.

~~~
kmontgom
Good move on your part.

Lets hope Nadella works out well for you and MS.

I've made my career on MS technologies, and it's been painful over the past
decade or so to gradually turn away from it as the big corporation management
power plays run their course.

------
leoc
This story doesn't exactly scream "STEM shortage", does it?

~~~
threeseed
I've always taken "STEM shortage" to mean "STEM shortage of low cost, high
tolerance for long hours overseas workers".

~~~
scrrr
Does anybody actually still think it's anything else than that?

~~~
Filthy_casual
Same is true for talent. There's no shortage for talent. There's a shortage
for talented people willing to work for "the price we're offering".

------
patja
I guess it is just the audience on HN that is driving it, but I find it
interesting that this whole discussion here is focusing on subjects like the
purported STEM shortage and whether programmers should unionize. As far as I
can tell the badmicrosoft.com site and suit in question really doesn't have
anything to do with these subjects, other than the fact that Microsoft is the
largest software company in the world.

Relatively few Microsoft employees are STEM workers or programmers, and none
of those in the lawsuit in question. They are in the sales organization. They
may work in the technology industry, but the questions of this lawsuit are
more about ageism and management issues endemic in many Fortune 500
corporations regardless of the industry or role of the worker.

------
walterbell
Why are tech writers and programmers treated differently in the law? Recruiter
lobbying: [http://andreas.com/faq-overtime.html](http://andreas.com/faq-
overtime.html)

 _" The recruiters accepted our exemptions because they were going after
bigger fish: the engineers. The computer engineers who work as W-2 contractors
are generally earning $100-300/hr and often work 60-80 hours per week. The
recruiters were afraid that if such workers were entitled to overtime pay, the
companies may cut overtime work, and therefore the recruiters would lose their
30-50% share of that money (this can be much as $6,000 per week to a recruiter
for a single worker.)

Engineers have always refused to organize or even to be aware of their
interests: they think recruiters are their friends. One engineer said to me:
"Engineers think they're so smart that no one could do such a thing to them.
Wow. They got really screwed." The law is an annual loss of as much as
$50-75,000 dollars per each engineer. Yep, it's legal. The recuiters wrote a
law to take away their money. Silicon Valley engineers were plundered by their
"friends"."_

See also
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8137958](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8137958)

~~~
mrj
Companies don't pay overtime. Those numbers cited would never happen. Instead,
employees would simply lose the freedoms they enjoy now to work hours that
suit them or spend company time learning.

I was hourly once because my company was very conservative about labor laws.
Finally reaching the rank that no longer required me to fill out timecards or
justify project time was a big upgrade in my life style. Did I work an
occasional Saturday? Sure, but I also left early on other days or worked from
home. I couldn't do that when I was hourly.

I'm far from convinced that overtime rules would make anything better for tech
workers.

~~~
walterbell
These rules are about hourly contractors, not equity-incented employees.
You're comparing hourly to non-hourly. This is about hourly with overtime
(tech writers) vs. hourly without overtime (engineers).

------
MisterMashable
Microsoft has turned into Ma Bell. Microsoft is so large that any innovation
at this point has to be minimal and highly managed or it would rock the boat,
threatening the cohesiveness of the company. This is the worst environment for
the hacker. It's an excellent environment for office slime who know how to
play the game and lean more toward the psychopathic end of the spectrum. It's
a world tailor made for the venal and the mediocre. A word about priorities,
let the pricks take all the money, it's really worthless anyway compared to
your mental health. In lieu of any positive creative talent middle management
and HR thrive on destruction pursuits like emotional abuse, gas lighting and
lying. Start living a real life worth having, live by your own rules and play
your own game even if it means living on $20,000 per year which is all you
really need anyway. Most of us are fighting an uphill battle with corporate
suits to protect our clutter, distractions and excesses. Go outside for a nice
walk, feel the sun on your face, read a good book, talk to a friend, take your
child to the play ground, throw out the stuff you don't need, just start
living for God's sake. Be happy now and leave all misery and bad feelings with
them where they belong. Do not take the anger and resentment of your bitter
experience with you (that's their greatest weapon BTW). It's very difficult to
just drop your anger and resentment but do it fast, hard and don't look back.
You want to be happy don't you? You want to be free? Don't waste your time
thinking about them. Only think about good things. If it doesn't make you
happy, you shouldn't think about it. If it makes you happy, you should think
about it. You can and should become the happiest person you family and friends
know about. Happiness isn't free. It requires a disciplined mind that allows
good stuff in a throws out garbage like grudges. Happiness costs you but it
well worth the price. There will always be enough money in your life. Social
status is overrated and useless. Imagine yourself on your deathbed, are you
going to regret not making $X million dollars and being the center of
attention or the opportunities for true happiness that you let slip.

~~~
robwilliams
> In lieu of any positive creative talent middle management and HR thrive on
> destruction pursuits like emotional abuse, gas lighting and lying.

This whole post is crazy but this quote especially is absurd.

I'm a current Microsoft employee and I'm not a brainwashed corporate drone
constantly abused by incompetent management. I don't think you've had any
experience being employed by Microsoft.

------
robrenaud
What incentive does Microsoft have to get rid of high performing older
employees?

~~~
codeonfire
Nothing for Microsoft. Microsoft managers, and really any manager, see older
people as threats to their power/jobs. They did not get into the business
because they want to make successful products and technology that makes
everyone happy. Management is the business of controlling people for a
paycheck, and nothing more. Obviously the type of people who get into that
kind of business are not the kind that give a shit about replacing workers for
their own benefit at the expense of the company.

~~~
divegeek
I must be lucky because in 25+ years I have worked for only one manager like
that, during my (brief, and regretted) foray into sales. Every other manager
I've had has been interested in building things and enabling his employees to
do great things.

My point is just that if you have a manager like you describe, leave. You
don't have to with that; there are better options out there.

~~~
foobarian
Agreed, in fact at our company it's the opposite: engineers mostly don't want
to manage, and director level managers keep trying to push us into the
positions. For the managers we do have we are mostly thankful that someone is
willing to do that thankless job and sacrifice their coding time :-)

------
jmpeax
"Microsoft uses bad performance reviews (“The How”) as a tool to eliminate the
elder (40+) and senior ranked employees."

Proof please. This not only reeks of confirmation bias, but could it also be
explained by resistance to acquire new skills in line with advances in fast-
paced technological improvements?

~~~
nl
_Proof please._

I'm kinda thinking that's what the case could possibly be about?

Is this one of those _divert the conversation by asking for citations for
things that are obvious_ sockpuppet things?

~~~
WorldWideWayne
Could you explain your position a little better? Maybe I'm misunderstanding
you, but it's not immediately clear to me how the proof being asked for was
already obvious.

Also, I'm wondering how you know for sure that someone is a so-called
"sockpupppet"? This is a skill I'd really like to master because reading
people over the Internet is so difficult.

~~~
vinceguidry
A sock puppet has no interest in actually participating in a discussion. It's
only interested in harping on one side of a political debate. You ask for
specifics and they just repeat a bunch of talking points.

Someone like this might be a sock puppet, but they might also just be an
ideologue. A sock puppet will have created a login, assuming a login is
necessary, just for the purpose of sock puppetry. An ideologue will stick
around and argue other topics.

Sock puppets also like to work in teams, you'll see them in groups of two or
three 'me-too'ing each other's points. If this happens, all of them will have
created accounts specifically for that purpose. Sometimes they'll also all
have the same IP address. This kind of manipulation is easy to detect, so
generally you'll only see them rarely and in the short window between their
spamming and the subsequent detection and banning.

------
JimmaDaRustla
I hope these people do get any justice they truly deserve.

But, I work for a big company. I've only been here 4 years and I've been
desired by other teams and at least a half dozen occasions - I do my job, I
learn the technology and processes used here, I solve problems, I deliver, I
am reliable and consistent, I treat people with respect, etc. Even still being
a junior, if I lost my job today, I'd have at least 3 different job offers in
different areas of the company just by my perceived worth. No, I'm not a brown
noser.

So my question is, how can one work for a company for so many years, deliver
and execute on so many projects, only to be invisible to the entire
organization? This makes it sound like these are line workers getting laid off
despite their long-term employment with the company.

If I was as invisible in my current job as these people were, I'd be looking
for a new job so that I can actually be valued for my worth. Are these people
victims, or are they mediocre and their career came to an end sooner than
retirement?

Just a perspective, don't hate.

Edit: My company isn't one that values young workers - our primary TS core is
older. Thing mainframe old. So I don't actually have much of an advantage with
my "youth".

------
pentelkuru
These stories lead you to believe that engineering, as a profession, is
broken. Like athletes and models, software engineering is one of the few
career paths where your perceived value starts declining at a relatively young
age.

If a developer's value truly increases faster than their cost over time, why
are software companies engaging in age discrimination? We can all tell
ourselves that these companies are shooting themselves in the foot in the long
run, but do facts back this up? Presumably, if another company hired all these
valuable experienced professionals, they'd wipe the floor with these companies
staffed by cheap college grads. Why hasn't this happened?

I'm currently in my early 30s and working in a different engineering
discipline, but I love programming and part of me would love to jump into
professional programming. I interviewed at a few start-ups recently and got an
offer for that money than I'm currently making. Ultimately, I turned it down
because jumping into software this late in the game feels like possible career
suicide. In my current occupation, senior engineers are valued and their
accumulated knowledge and experience has demonstrated value.

By comparison, writing software the HN way feels like building on sand. It's
fun how a new programming language or database or web framework is announced
weekly, but in the end everyone is chasing a moving target. I enjoy this now,
but I can see how I might eventually grow tired of playing this game.

I don't think Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc., have consciously been
creating/adopting different programming languages to silo their workforce and
reduce the fluidity of the labor market, but that might be a side effect.

------
mark_l_watson
I don't feel like the article convinced me that Microsoft has any wide spread
process for removing older employees.

A little off topic, but: I am in my 60s and I have never felt any age
discrimination (at large companies like Google, Disney, and remotely working
for many small companies, some of them startups).

I think it is critical to put effort into developing your own career, in
addition to giving fair value to whoever is paying you at the moment.

------
musesum
Metrics for MSFT vs GOOG: [https://blog.kissmetrics.com/google-vs-
microsoft/](https://blog.kissmetrics.com/google-vs-microsoft/)

Pay > $150K: MSFT 40%, GOOG 20%. Age Over 55: MSFT 16%, GOOG 20%. No children:
MSFT 74%, GOOG 79%.

As for me, I am 57, a developer in a startup, and still get offers. MMV

------
meesterdude
Just when I was starting to think Microsoft had turned a new corner. Can't say
I'm surprised. But definitely a little disappointed. I guess it's just part of
their corporate identity.

~~~
tluyben2
All big companies have this; if you have a lot of employees and buy a lot of
companies which need to be 'integrated' you'll have elaborate plans to sack
them without it costing too much money. It sucks but it happens everywhere. It
is really really hard not to be evil as a big company, hence it's probably
better to just stay small if you have that goal. In some companies you have a
social net to catch you; I believe companies, when hiring/acquihiring, should
be held responsible for those people. But I understand this is not (always)
possible. The staff being the most important asset of a company (as they like
to say) usually only goes for the super-human part of the staff, not for the
rest.

~~~
meesterdude
I appreciate your thoughtful response. Though I don't think it's a size thing,
I think it's about culture and priorities, and being beholden to stock holders
and profits; having no loyalty for the employees (or likely customers) that
got you to where you are.

Some people / companies believe that the only way to get ahead is by screwing
someone else over; either out of some money, or out of a job, or what have
you. That's just a shitty way to do business, and a clear sign of lack of
respect or appreciation.

But then again it might be a scale thing with them and a matter of
acquisitions and such too, as you said.

+1 for staying small; or at least growing slowly and carefully. Companies that
just spam hire are likely not thinking about how they'll support any given
hire for the next few years let alone the rest of their lives.

------
kenjackson
The article has a lot of innuendo, but I couldn't actually find any data in
it. Did I miss it? From my observations MS is one of the "older" tech
companies.

------
las_cases
No disrespect, I have something that is pressing on my heart.

I am absolutely mind blown by reading the comments here. You are afraid of
what will happen to your job when you reach 40? Ask yourself this: how do you
think people managed to live and have a job a hundred years ago when they hit
40 or 50?

OK, perhaps this is a cultural thing. I am from eastern Europe where a
"normal" annual income, for a single person, can be $12,000. So a couple can
bring $24,000 I assume this would be devastating in US. Just like the news the
other day with the president of a university (in UK?) where he was complaining
of having to deal with an €220,000 annual income.

But of course, you are aware of this discrepancy. Otherwise why would these
kind of job offerings exist: [https://www.elance.com/j/wordpress-plugin-theme-
developer-mo...](https://www.elance.com/j/wordpress-plugin-theme-developer-
month/66087187/)

$300 / month "FULL-TIME wordpress plugin and theme developer from Pakistan and
India only."

Please, if you are being laid off at 40 and in the case you are not suffering
from a company downsizing, bankruptcy or you don't have medical issues
(another interesting topic to talk about) it means that you are either an
incompetent or a lazy individual.

No disrespect, please just wake up from your dream.

EDIT: I just realized from the feedback to this message how completely and
utterly naive I am to not taking into account that HN is in no way
representative of the average worker in US. Here, the absolute majority seems
to be only people from IT which don't quite appreciate the opportunity and
privilege actually to be able to code and think that only > $60,000 salaries
are worth their time and effort.

Good luck then!

~~~
fsloth
If we take the global perspective the quality of the state funded safety nets
combined with the local culture and job market greatly affect what the
implications of a lay-off are. And they can vary drastically.

For instance in the USA the economically worse off are in relative terms
considerably more worse off than in countries with lower income inequality.

~~~
las_cases
I just cannot believe you are arguing that in US you have a more hard time
finding a job then in a less developed country like in Eastern Europe.

> You seem rather ignorant of the U.S. then.

To this type of a comment you can easily answer the same way. You madam or sir
seem to be equally ignorant of Europe as well.

~~~
fsloth
I don't think I argued that - but that the amount of economic options
available to individuals should not be deduced from comparing GDP or such. I
think in eastern europe most countries are still civilized enough to offer
basic medical care without insurance?

Any way, I have no local knowledge of either issue ... I'm located in northern
europe.

------
kelvin0
It`s somewhat bizarre to find that programmers are starting to have a much
shorter shelf life (In SV only?), something that used to be associated with
more the 'fickle' fashion world ... what does that say about us?

------
sidcool
Now I am scared for my 40s.

~~~
dvirsky
Just keep being good, learning new skills and liking what you do. I'll be 40
soon so I'll let you know if this tactic works out.

~~~
sidcool
Yep, I started learning C and ethical hacking, to start with. I do have a
decade till I turn 40, but that's not too long honestly.

~~~
Dewie
It feels like time goes faster as I get older (I'm mid-twenties).

~~~
dvirsky
It most certainly does.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_perception#Changes_with_ag...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_perception#Changes_with_age)

------
hooverlunch
Yet another reason to start or join a worker cooperative.
[http://techworker.coop](http://techworker.coop)

------
higherpurpose
So glad to see the "new Microsoft* is _so much different_ than the "old
Microsoft".

/obvious sarcasm

~~~
WorldWideWayne
Care to elaborate on your sarcasm? I'm interested to know how Microsoft is no
different than they were 10 years ago because of an employee dispute.

------
kuni-toko-tachi
I agree with many of the sentiments here regarding software engineers
particularly in regard to not effectively capturing the economic value of
their own work and that corporate interests which depend upon that value do
not have their interests at heart. While open source and information sharing
is one of the joys of working in this industry, I wonder if there is not a
middle ground - confederations of engineers who charge for their products as
independent entities as a means to reclaim that value for themselves, where
the software they create is charged for, and shares of the profit are
distributed on a contribution basis. Does this idea have merit, and is there
interest in the community to write software to manage this confederation
model?

------
ethana
I understand the reason behind replacing older coders. However, I think
software companies like Microsoft should have transitional programs to better
help seasoned programers proceed with their careers.

There are plenty of transition paths I think. For example, education,
research, legacy support, etc.

~~~
alkonaut
When I was 25 I preferred recruiting 25year olds. Now that I'm 35 I realize I
didn't know squat when I was 25 so prefer to recruit at least 35year olds. I
suspect this story will repeat when I'm 45.

What could possibly be the reason to avoid older coders? You probably don't
want the 85-90 year olds but 40? 50? What you want to avoid are those who stop
evolving and stop being curious. Those who go to the office and apply what
they learned a decade ago but doesn't learn anything new. That can happen at
any age. Evolving doesn't require putting in 12hour days. Also it's likely
cheaper for the company to encourage employees to grow within their field than
to move all "old" people to supporting roles.

If you could learn a new programming language when you were 20 it should be
easier, not harder, to do at 50. Experience should ensure that.

~~~
BhavdeepSethi
It's probably the cost factor. The salary of a 50 year old will be way more
than a 25 year old for doing the same job.

~~~
alkonaut
That may be one part, but somehow that should rather mean that most big-city
corps should hire really good 40 year olds to telecommute and be paid less
than the 20 year olds in whatever tech mecca this may be taking place. But
that doesn't seem to happen in my experience.

Another reason of course is the ever changing tech landscape; when I had 5
years under my belt C# had existed 5 years and I had 5 years of C# experience.
I had more pro experience with C# than anyone, including of course most of
those a lot older than me. The takeaway is that the exaggerated focus on
experience _with specific tech keywords_ means that young age often trumps
longer industry experience, simply because the young dev may have started just
as Tech X took off. This obsession with resume keywords _will_ go away as our
industry matures. Companies that don't realize that won't be around long.

