
All I Wanted Was to Work in Tech. Be Careful What You Wish For - monsieurpng
https://www.thestranger.com/features/2018/03/28/25959731/all-i-wanted-was-to-work-in-tech-be-careful-what-you-wish-for
======
ef4
What nobody told this unfortunate person is that working for a tech company is
not the same as being a tech worker.

I'm not defending the two-tier system inside many tech companies, just
pointing out that it's real and it's maintained by market forces bigger than
any one company.

If a big Seattle software company lays off a team of programmers, recruiters
are swarming around them by the end of the same day.

~~~
mmsimanga
Then are tech workers working in none technical organisation. A programmer in
financial services or retail company. IT is seen as just a cost centre and
there always seems to be mistrust between the IT department and the business.
Most tech jobs in my country are not with tech companies but within
industries.

~~~
ljw1001
That whole distinction between "IT" and "the business" makes me nuts. No one
refers to marketing, sales, finance, production, etc., a thing separate from
"the business" yet IT is just as fundamental to many businesses as any other
function. Hearing IT people do it is worse.

~~~
mmsimanga
:-) I will be sure to be more specific. Actually, I think it is the other way
round. All other business units marketing, finance, communication are fairly
well understood by everyone. When it comes to IT they don't understand why the
DBA seems to earn a big salary but he cannot help fix the MS Word issue.
Afterall it is IT. Therein lies the problem.

------
RichardCA
Back in my 20's I had a girlfriend who simply could not handle the
opportunistic, hit-or-miss nature of finding work in tech.

I ended up breaking up with her. I just couldn't tolerate that kind of
friction and lack of support when I was already under the pressure of a job
transition.

Even when I succeeded in landing a better paying job she was never truly happy
for me. From my point of view it felt like a lack of trust.

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I see how I failed to understand the
emotional burden I was asking her to carry for me.

------
anonacct37
I don't have as much sympathy for this person as I probably should. So someone
decided being a waiter sucked and they wanted one of those cushy tech jobs.
Without much self awareness as to why they exist or which jobs are valuable.
Later in the article they almost figure it out:

> One of the more apparent lessons I've learned during all this is that when
> working in tech, anyone is dispensable, from the C-suite to the sales floor.
> (Actually, IT is untouchable, and rightfully so.)

This former waiter then proceeds to land not one but three tech jobs. Based on
what qualifications? Apparently just good networking skills. Wow, what a rough
industry. Oh I almost forgot they turned down a fourth job because that would
have meant relocation.

It sounds like "tech" was willing to give a go-getter chance after chance and
either due to their performance or the company's performance it just didn't
stick. Maybe despite many people being willing to give the author a chance,
he/she just wasn't qualified to do the job?

------
alephnan
> They got unlimited paid time off (yes, you read that right—some companies
> offer unlimited vacation time to compete for talent).

I started reading the article with skepticism after that. At my previous
startup, unlimited vacation time ended up meaning no vacation time. Sounds
great in theory, not in practice. When I left, I did not get reimbursed for
the unofficial ~15 paid vacation days we're technically allowed.

~~~
donretag
Exactly. I will never work again for a company with unlimited PTO.

~~~
2trill2spill
I guess it depends on your company, At my company we have unlimited PTO and I
definitely get more PTO days then people with a set number of PTO days at
other companies.

~~~
otterley
Are you in engineering? Ask around sometime: The amount of time people feel
entitled to take at “unlimited PTO” companies varies widely by department and
role and how much competition there is for your position. People who feel
extreme pressure to perform are likely to take much less time off, especially
when they know they’re not entitled to a specific amount.

~~~
Posibyte
There's also this weird dynamic of not having number on paper. I once took off
three weeks for vacation, first in a very long time, several years. When I got
back, there was definitely this air of "so and so is finally back, working
like the rest of us." Even with my direct management, it felt a lot like I had
spent trust for time off.

Since then, I've worked in a large corporate job for a while now as well, and
it's different. Here, management and I can look at my PTO sheet and see I've
accrued X hours so I can take off Y weeks, and that's earned. It feels more
like a contractual obligation at that point, and not just an off-the-cuff
spree.

~~~
2trill2spill
> I once took off three weeks for vacation, first in a very long time, several
> years. When I got back, there was definitely this air of "so and so is
> finally back, working like the rest of us." Even with my direct management,
> it felt a lot like I had spent trust for time off.

That's too bad. The person who sits to the left of me just got back from a 6
week long vacation and I have not noticed anyone being upset or treating them
differently afterwards. We caught them up with the stuff that happened while
they were gone and they went right back to helping the team.

------
dahauns
Yes, I can empathize with getting frustrated both facing the superficially
hyper-positive, but in reality severely opportunistic and ruthless nature of
startup culture, and with being treated like a freely interchangable, faceless
number in a large company. Been there both, and it was harrowing.

That said - and it's hard not to sound condescending here - halfway through
the article I found myself agreeing with his girlfriend when she described his
state of mind as "delusional".

Going after what has been said in the article: What did he actually expect as
someone with absolutely no experience and no education and/or skillset for the
job beyond those transferable from being a waiter? (The often underrated value
of those notwithstanding). And the primary motivation being "I want to work
'in tech' and have it made!" (And not, say, being interested in at least
aspects of the core field or product of the company.) And the only actual
mention of what his work was at those companies being "marketing" and
"whiteboard[ing] the shit out of everything." (Because writing with colorful
markers on a whiteboard makes you look important.)

This screams "disposable", or more benevolently "likely one of the first to be
let go when things go south", no matter the kind of company or field, or even
the type of job at the company.

------
leggomylibro
A good reminder that 'tech' is more than the people sitting in front of
screens [mis]mashing code together.

It seems odd that the same code/infrastructure-y peculiarities of interviewing
would get extended to marketing roles - why do you need a 5-person interview
loop for things that revolve around communication and people skills? The only
reason that those (awful) processes exist in the first place is because it's
extremely difficult to judge a candidate's technical skills in a broad swath
of concepts and technologies with limited time. But what sort of businessing
doesn't require marketers? Is that sort of thing not reasonably figured out?

The author's last contracting stint also smells sort of like the 'gig
economy'. Sort of like how nowhere hires janitors anymore - the company which
owns the building contracts services like that out to another firm which
rarely offers full employment.

Back to the 'rat race', eh?

------
ngngngng
It seems obvious to me that companies are inherently amoral. I'm not saying
this is good, but does it really take a full blown sociopath to prioritize
business goals over the repercussions of firing someone?

I don't run a business, maybe I don't want to with this in mind.

~~~
WillPostForFood
Companies are inherently non moral, non sentient, legal constructs. Any sense
of morality comes from the people in the company, and they can be highly
moral, immoral, or anything in between.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
There's an interesting argument[1] that the behavior of corporations can be
very accurately modeled as artificial intelligences that use humans as
computing resources. If you accept that argument, it is no longer accurate to
say that morality comes only from the people that make up the company, a
company has its own agency that isn't just the sum of all of the decisions
made by the individuals who make up the corporation.

[1] [http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2018/01/dude-
you...](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2018/01/dude-you-broke-
the-future.html)

~~~
jpm_sd
Yes. The paperclip maximizers are already here.

------
maxxxxx
Is any this of this specific to "tech"? It just seems to confirm that a lot of
companies are run by sociopaths (see Gervais principle) who don't care about
the impact of their actions on the people that work for them.

~~~
vokep
Is that really the case though? Do the leaders of such companies really have
other options which still accomplish their goals? People are hired to
accomplish the goals of the company, not the other way around.

Seems to me like its not so much that companies are run by sociopaths but that
workers have trouble empathizing with a CEO and understanding that nothing is
guaranteed. Rarely are they going to be happy to lay people off, they know it
causes problems for people. They're human too. Sometimes there isn't much of
an option which preserves their interests. Some might react going "but that's
just the problem, they only care about their interests" but...do you really
care about theirs? Does anyone work long ours putting passion into a project
because they hope to make the executives rich so they can feel good about how
rich they made the executives? I certainly don't, I work passionately on
something because I believe in what it does/what I'm doing/making, and
secondarily for my own gain of wealth. A good CEO runs a company because s/he
believes in an idea, and secondarily for their own wealth, and perhaps finally
for the ability to create jobs and benefit people that way. But that is a
final result of the process, not a primary goal. Of course there are CEOs
which just want wealth but in tech space at least they are unlikely to go too
far, more likely to fuck up in their greed.

~~~
maxxxxx
I think with the rise of shareholder capitalism it has become OK to treat
workers like disposable items. I grew up during a time when it was not OK to
lay off people while giving a bonus to the CEO. Now that's normal practice.

~~~
lliamander
I'm a little confused about what you mean by shareholder capitalism, and how
that would pertain to an employer's loyalty to their employees.

Joint-stock corporations have been around for several hundred years, and
limited liability has been a legal concept in American law for almost 200
years.

Employer loyalty may have gone down in the past few generations, but
attributing that to shareholder capitalism seems vague and unfounded. Perhaps
you mean something else?

~~~
maxxxxx
I was around in the 80s when suddenly shareholder value was the main driver of
companies. Before that there was more of an understanding that the
relationship between employer, employees and community was mutual and should
benefit all. Then slowly the attitude became that the only responsibility of a
company was to the shareholders and nobody else (and no, there is no legal
obligation for a company to do this. Their only obligation is to engage in
lawful business). This led to underfunding of pensions, layoffs and wage
stagnation. Essentially shifting of benefits from employees to shareholders.

I think in the 50s a lot of CEOs would have been embarrassed to announce
layoffs while raising their own pay. Now that's normal.

~~~
lliamander
Fair enough, but the notion of "shareholder primacy" has been around since the
early 1900s.

My understanding of the shift that occurred in the latter part of the 20th
century was that businesses became less dependent upon fixed local
communities.

Part of it was that the communities themselves were dispersing (increased
geographic mobility among the populace).

But other factors include:

\- a shift from capital-intensive industries like resource extraction and
manufacturing, to service industries

\- the opening of foreign labor markets

~~~
maxxxxx
" Fair enough, but the notion of "shareholder primacy" has been around since
the early 1900s."

I started hearing about it with Jack Welch ("neutron jack"), GE and others.
There was a noticeable change in attitude. "Greed is good". Layoffs were good
for the share price.

~~~
lliamander
Interesting. I'll have to look into those references.

~~~
maxxxxx
Read this:
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2017/04/27/harvard...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2017/04/27/harvard-
business-review-the-pernicious-nonsense-of-maximizing-shareholder-
value/#3d0320d471f0)

It started in the 70s. As far as I know GE and Jack Welch were the poster
child of this movement.

------
sevensor
> I'd always heard growing up that if you make yourself indispensable, you'll
> never get fired.

This is terrible advice. Indispensable people are your team's biggest
weakness, and your boss knows it. If you become the single point of failure,
you're a problem to be fixed.

~~~
mrkstu
Yep, make yourself 'invaluable' instead. If you're always returning a
disproportionate value, whatever the task, you are doing it right.

If you make yourself 'indispensable', the best that can happen is that you're
never fired but never promoted. The worst is that you're a target for
replacement.

~~~
pkaye
Also you will be prone to burn-out because you might never get a break.

------
jstewartmobile
Even if you are in demand, none of these places have any honor. It is a shame
too. People are usually ok at rolling with the punches if you just tell them
one might be coming.

That, and as tempting as it may be to lay it all at the door of capitalism,
I'm not sure that's fair. Even in a competition, honor still has some value.
I'd put more of the blame on the aphysical conflict-averse types office work
generally attracts.

~~~
lovich
In what world does honor have value for businesses? The business that is
willing to like, steal, and cheat their way to higher profitability is going
to outcompete the ones who will not. Even if they get bad PR just hire a
company to clean up your image,rebrnd, or hide your activities behind a
plethora of other companies and branda you own.

Nothing in the history of corporations has shown any preference for honor on
their part

~~~
Ascetik
>In what world does honor have value for businesses?

The one we live in. Honor and integrity are matters of justice. It is
honorable to pay an agreed upon price for widgets. It is just. If one deviates
from that they are painted as dishonorable and people don't like doing
business with someone who has the reputation of being dishonorable (companies
that lie to their clients or don't pay their bills).

>The business that is willing to like, steal, and cheat their way to higher
profitability is going to outcompete the ones who will not.

Banks can do this unfortunately, but not other companies. You don't build a
legacy like Ford, or Samuel Gawith in England by lying, cheating and stealing
or treating your customers like trash.

~~~
lovich
Your examples include Ford who literally decided it was cheaper to let
customers die instead of fixing their product[1] This is what I mean, just a
little bit of PR and companies can get you to ignore literal manslaughter

[1][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto)

------
nitwit005
I haven't worked for that many companies, but every company I've worked for
has fired a marketing department. Usually because they realized their
marketing department was useless.

------
vkou
Unsurprisingly, modern white-collar work is incredibly anti-human. Blue-collar
work is, as well, but in a different way.

This is a natural consequence of our economic systems. Companies that won't
burn you the moment that your department's RoI is <1, will be outcompeted or
acquired by ones that will.

Though it may seem that way, nothing about this state of affairs has to be
immutable.

~~~
Andre_Wanglin
I find it difficult to believe that people being assholes is a result of any
particular economic system.

~~~
badpun
I think you're right in a way that assholes will do better in all imaginable
economic systems, so it's not a result of capitalism per se.

------
falcor84
I stopped sympathising with the writer after "... very smart people who
deserved work...". The way I see it, if you come in with this mindset of the
world owing anybody anything, then you are surely in for a big disappointment.
The world doesn't care about a particular human any more than it cares about a
particular amoeba.

------
noonespecial
All that churn sounds inordinately expensive.

It almost seems like its time for someone to come along and disrupt the
disruptors with a little good old fashioned loyalty and a modicum of
institutionalized common sense.

~~~
jpm_sd
Most of these "disruptive" companies are pissing away investors' money without
actually accomplishing anything. They will never be productive or profitable,
so there is no point in trying to out-compete them.

Edit: as far as the BigCos are concerned, this is also true of many of their
internal teams that are chasing "moonshots" in parallel to the main business
model. The "investors" in this case are the profitable parts of the BigCo.

------
nontechdude1
wanting to solve a defined problem is a much better reason to join a certain
company than on name alone. clearly the author just wanted a better salary.
fine.

i agree that this has a limit. if one were to want to fix facebook's problems,
you'd inevitably have someone tell you no.

------
awat
Good read. The sooner that society comes to grips with the concept that
sociopathic behavior in a t-shirt and jeans is exactly the same as sociopathic
behavior in a Prada suit the better.

~~~
xkjkls
First of all, no one on Wall Street wears Prada suits. Prada suits are high
fashion trash. They wear Zegna or Canali or bespoke.

And second, what about this story reads you as sociopathic? Sure, there's alot
of shuffling in this business, but how much worse is that than any other?
Restaurants and bars close down all the time, and no one accuses restaurant
and bar managers of being sociopaths.

~~~
ericmcer
In a restaurant and bar though the employees are viewed as humans, they
actually know the person deciding their fate and the reason for that decision.
In his story there was always an invisible hand guiding decisions that could
completely devastate or make his life.

~~~
xkjkls
I mean, the largest percentage of restaurant and bar layoffs are just due to
the restaurant and bar closing. In that case, the invisible hand of the free
market can be even more cruel than these.

Especially since you won't get severance.

