by djacobs on 8/26/16, 11:49 PM with 284 comments
by gfody on 8/27/16, 1:38 AM
From the outside it might appear like you came back to the office after a nice weekend break and quickly knocked out whatever task it was that was on your mind. But it's not that simple and after unloading that task, even though it's Monday you could be feeling like you need a break because you actually just worked through the weekend on it.
Because of this, I feel like engineers are already massively overworked and/or underpaid when you consider their salary based on a 40hour workweek when the real mental effort can be pushing 60-80 hours a week. Things like unlimited/discretionary PTO, flex hours, and management that understands the balance of overtime and undertime keeps things fair. Establishing a 30-hour workweek just seems like going hard in the other direction.
by BookingPotions on 8/27/16, 5:03 AM
I'd like to see proper hour counting, like a check in and check out. Where any hour above 30h comes at an extra cost to Amazon, like double pay. So that they would be incentivised to actually tell me to stop working and send me home.
I know some people might say, that's up to you, just don't let yourself work extra, but at a company like Amazon, you can actually lose your job or at least not be promoted from delivering less then the other employees. You're ranked against your peers, so deciding to work only 30h would hurt you in the long run if the others started putting in 35h, 40h, 45h, etc.
by pjmorris on 8/27/16, 1:37 AM
I wonder if the group that does this will be viewed as lesser, e.g. work on less interesting projects, be less likely to be promoted, than the "40" hour employees.
by smb06 on 8/27/16, 1:09 AM
by 20yrs_no_equity on 8/27/16, 3:27 AM
Simply only showing up in the office 30 hours a week would be enough to put your team on the bottom end of the stack.
Amazon is organized such that the politics are vicious and anything that can be used to put another team down (And thus elevate your team in the stack) will be used.
Managers like Bezos are proud of creating this toxic cult like culture because they rationalize it and are not interested in hearing about how they are screwing up.
A real example of this is Bezos claiming after the NYT article that if anyone saw abuse they should email him directly... and now the ex-amazon alumni group has grown by several people who did exactly that and were fired.
My boss was committing felonies on the PacMed grounds on a regular basis, drove %80 of his team to leave, and he still got promoted.
Because he was good at politics and BS (and terrible at actually getting product done, easily wasting %25 of our time with nonsense because he didn't understand how the system worked but wanted to "manage" (which really meant micro-manage.))
Felonies, I'm not kidding.
by ebbv on 8/27/16, 1:18 AM
That doesn't seem like a good deal to me. I don't want a 25% pay cut for 25% fewer mandatory hours of work. As other commenters have pointed out, unless this comes along with a reduction in responsibilities and/or increase in staff, the same amount of work still needs to be done. And most exempt employees already work more than 40 hours a week.
Add to this the fact that the Washington Post is owned by Bezos, and this just seems like a clear PR stunt to me, and a lame one at that.
by Falkon1313 on 8/27/16, 6:20 AM
This is a telling statement. Why are we still stuck on a minimum of 40 hours being 'full-time'? After over a century of productivity increases, and with ever-increasing automation, we could soon be at the point where a 15-hour work week is the equivalent of an old 'full-time' work week. Now is a good time to start nudging down expectations.
The pay cut is wrong, however. The fact that people are producing much more now in 30 hours than they used to produce in 40 argues against that. If a company is profiting from the benefits of that productivity, but can't afford to pay the employees for their work, then it needs to change something else.
by krisdol on 8/27/16, 12:44 AM
by yazaddaruvala on 8/27/16, 1:17 AM
The arrangement I'd be most excited by is a team with forced three month sabbaticals yearly (or honestly even 6 month sabbaticals). Of-course with the normal amount of vacation time added as well.
The way it would work is: Say a team is supposed to have 8 people. Hire 25% more people and schedule sabbaticals such that there is always ~8 people working. Additionally, you could ensure that there is never a time where two developers go more than 2 months without working together.
Benefits: Increases the supply in the job market; Reduces income disparity; Improves employee work-life balance.
by amzn-336495 on 8/27/16, 5:20 AM
by mark_l_watson on 8/27/16, 1:30 PM
I mostly used the extra time for friends and family, and to write books.
by spectrum1234 on 8/27/16, 1:49 AM
by partiallypro on 8/27/16, 2:19 AM
The only type of companies I could see getting away with this would be pure software companies or agencies. Otherwise, I can't see it fitting many models or personal finances.
by peatmoss on 8/27/16, 2:49 PM
by kiddz on 8/27/16, 7:27 AM
by rezashirazian on 8/27/16, 2:27 AM
There are teams where all horror stories you hear are common occurrences(although less so in recent years) and others where it's an absolute pleasure.
by elihu on 8/27/16, 7:13 AM
I think most people would rather have the extra money, for various reasons. If I owed a couple hundred grand on a mortgage or was saving to send my kids to college, I might think the same but as it is I have no house and no kids and relatively low living expenses, so I can afford to be a little bit self-indulgent and take a 3-day weekend every week.
by randyrand on 8/27/16, 1:25 AM
by sangd on 8/27/16, 1:05 AM
by tdumitrescu on 8/27/16, 1:02 AM
by itaysk on 8/27/16, 10:28 AM
How does this sentence make any sense?
by nemesisj on 8/27/16, 7:19 AM
by techsupporter on 8/27/16, 2:39 AM
To each their own, but this is why I don't want to dev for a living.
* - 3 day weekends every week is an awesome thing for me.
by losteverything on 8/27/16, 5:29 AM
Even if you can squeeze more productivity into 30 hours the temptation should be resisted.
The outfit I work for intentionally gives 9 hours of work to new employees and has them work an 7.5 hour day. It's intentional and brilliant. New people do not know they don't have to do 9 in 7.5. Old timers coach them but it is a very hard thing to tell someone to work slower.
I think Amazon will realize more productiviy in 30 than in 40 (in some cases)
by freestockoption on 8/27/16, 1:53 AM
What's next? Unlimited PTO? :)
by stefs on 8/27/16, 10:28 AM
last job i worked at had 42 hours and after 2 years i've been totally burnt out; now i'm motivated, usually well rested and concentrated. when my concentration drops i go home for the day, if i'm working on a hard problem that occupies my mind i'll stay a couple of hours more (but only if i want to, which i usually do). i haven't had to do crunch time for several years and when that was the case they asked if you wanted to volunteer and if you said no that was ok.
also if my project lead tells me there's not much work to do right now and if i want to take off time now would be a good time to do so i'll usually do it.
additionally, if you want to it's possible to work from home if there aren't any reasons speaking against it (meetings) - many colleagues work one fixed day a week from home (i don't because i love the quiet conditions and free, potent coffee).
in my opinion this benefits both me and my employer. i'm motivated, concentrated, productive and loyal - currently i can't imagine working somewhere else full time, even for higher pay. i do regard my employer as fair and really want the company to succeed, not only because of my workplace security but also because i think they're doing it right and that's how it should be done. there's no us-vs-them mentality.
pay is good but i'm probably not going to become a fabled startup millionaire here; quality of life is, in my opinion, unbeatable. currently i don't know any people who lead a more comfortable life than i.
by radafor on 8/29/16, 3:14 AM
by groaner on 8/27/16, 9:46 AM
by AlphaWeaver on 8/27/16, 2:59 PM
by atopuzov on 8/27/16, 11:20 AM
by DominikR on 8/27/16, 5:14 AM
by balls187 on 8/27/16, 6:14 AM
by sidcool on 8/27/16, 7:04 AM
by mbloom1915 on 8/27/16, 3:10 AM
by namelezz on 8/27/16, 2:46 PM
Amazon, is that 30 in decimal or hexadecimal?
by megablast on 8/27/16, 5:17 AM
by jecjec on 8/27/16, 7:04 AM
I love my job but I have had jobs I've hated. Work sucks, go Amazon. If widely adopted, this would represent a massive reduction in taxation imposed on the average American family. A two-income family working 25% less hours pays over 25% less in taxes. Progressive taxes work both ways, Feds :)