Dan wrote:
> > If a programmer doesn't want to work for a company that makes him spend
> some >time at work actually working, he can (a) quit and look for another
> job or (b)
> > suck it up and do his job.
>
> I'm not sure this is really the choice that is given by a no-surf policy.
I
> lead a group that had a project to get out. I didn't crack the whip every
> day, but I got the team to believe in the project. It didn't make sense
to
> make the folks stare at a bug for an hour straight when they weren't
getting
> anywhere. Instead, I let them work as they felt most comfortable.
>
> No one was really slacking, though. You could tell it by how intent they
> were at the work. When push time came, everyone worked nights and even
> weekends to get things out. But, the difference might be the time frame
of
> the effort. When one has a one year project or a two year project, one
> cannot go full out all the time; one might have individual problems that
> take weeks to solve in a 2 minute flash of insight. Personally, I've
> developed a whole pack of distractions to eliminate the technical
equivalent
> of writers block. The productive people on my team did the same sort of
> things.
That's the way I encourage my team to work - they spend most of their shifts
monitoring the network for indications of systems going down and then
troubleshooting the alarms they see, but they don't stare at the screen all
day without cease. When I ran the scene shop at a university's theatre
department, I did the same thing. I encourage regular breaks, especially
when dealing with a particularly difficult problem. I'm not by any means
suggesting that a slave driver mentality is the best way to manage a
workforce.
> > He's not chained to the desk, and no one is
> > going to send the bloodhounds out after him if he decides to find
another
> > employer.
>
> It depends on the field. I worked for a company where a V.P. said "who
> would hire you" when someone complained about the lack of raises for two
> years, while the top management got large bonuses. When he went to work
for
> a competitor, he was sued for stealing what was in his head. He was told
> that he could not possibly design something new without stealing trade
> secrets. You could say work for a non-competitor, but after spending 20
> years becoming the top person in his field, changing fields did not seem
> like a good option.
That's shameful behavior on the part of the VP and the original employer,
IMO. I can't in any way say it's in line with my personal ethics. That
said, the option of leaving is still there. It might be the least
attractive option, but it is still there. If you want to discuss my
thoughts re: executive compensation, we could start another thread on that,
and I'm sure I'll sound less like a corporate stooge there.
Adam C. Lipscomb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ# 32384792
