Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

64% Positive

Analyzed from 3097 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#company#job#worked#more#money#actually#project#hours#years#spend

Discussion (88 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

etothepiiabout 2 hours ago
As a junior software engineer, I worked at a large UK bank.

Senior management routinely seem baffled that they could announce redundancies or hiring freezes, yet technology costs would continue to rise.

One pattern I saw repeatedly was a contractor being let go, only to return via a large outsourcing provider. The provider must have added a substantial markup despite supplying the same engineer back to the same team, without having incurred any procurement costs.

I once asked a more senior colleague how this made any sense. His answer stuck with me:

"You can’t stop people from doing their jobs. If someone thinks their job is to deliver X, they’ll find a way to deliver X. Sometimes that means working around processes and incentives in ways that look very strange from the outside."

shoo40 minutes ago
when i worked for an australian bank, one co-worker in a nearby team had been working on the the banks systems as a sysadmin for over a decade.

the bank would go through cycles of "we need to reduce our headcount and outsource everything" and then 4 years later "we need to reduce spend on contractors and retain more knowledge and expertise in house". he'd survived multiple waves of it, switching back and forth between being an employee or a contractor through some external agency, as management trends changed, while essentially doing the same job.

sekh602 minutes ago
I hope he was able to get a paybump each switch!
OptionOfTabout 1 hour ago
I've seen that in a large management consultancy company. Part of their risk management procedures (both for the company and in terms of some EU law) meant they couldn't keep contractors for longer than x years. They'd have to convert to employee or separate for 12 months.

Bit that doesn't really work in knowledge systems. Even with the best documentation people will build up knowledge that no one has, and their departure is costly.

Equally at the end of their contract a lot of time will need to be spend on a handover which slows down others even more.

So what happened? The contractor went via another middle man, which checked the correct boxes on the form, and everybody was happy.

chiph5 minutes ago
That's because the bankers didn't realize they're not in the banking business anymore - they're in the IT business (which has a focus on tracking money).
guhcampos11 minutes ago
I think I have a simpler answer: quarterly results.

Management just really needs to make the next earnings look like what it should look. Next quarter is next quarter's problem.

rr808about 2 hours ago
> Senior management routinely seem baffled that they could announce redundancies or hiring freezes, yet technology costs would continue to rise.

I dont think they're baffled, they just trying to show they're attempting to keep costs under control.

betabyabout 2 hours ago
> One pattern I saw repeatedly was a contractor being let go, only to return via a large outsourcing provider.

That's 'normal' in Canada and France.

stackghost35 minutes ago
The military is like this. Higher Headquarters decides to contract out maintenance and logistical support for $aircraft_fleet. Uniformed maintainers go home in Friday and show up Monday making a lot more money to do the same job but without risk of getting posted or deployed.

Contractor fees come out because of a different pot of money, so perverse incentives abound.

LPisGood24 minutes ago
Don’t those uniformed maintainers get reassigned to other military jobs or are they allowed to work as a contractor while being active military?
trollbridge12 minutes ago
They're dismissed due to a reduction in force.
jojobasabout 1 hour ago
This doesn't seem to answer why an engineer is let go and gets rehired through an outsourcer.
jijji40 minutes ago
most large companies have a 2-year limit on contractor employment so what they tend to do is they'll hire the same guy through a different contractor with another two-year agreement..... that's to get around the situation where if someone is working as a contractor for more than 2 years they can legally claim that they're actually an employee....see Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 120 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 1997) [0]...

this is just a guess by the way but it seems like a plausible one, as I've seen it happen in Fortune 500 a lot, where the same guy comes back through a different vendor 2 years later if he was really good and they needed him to come back....

[0] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/120...

comrade1234about 3 hours ago
I was on a government project where I found out I was being fraudulently billed on my hours. It was towards the end of the year and my manager was trying to use up the budget of the client. Although this is normal in the private sector I told him from the beginning that you can't do this on a government project.

The project was $1M+ which was enough for prison time. He had gone into our billing software and edited my entries - it wasn't as if he was submitting the fraudulent totals only - he was changing what I was entering.

I gathered as much documentation as I cloud and went to a law firm. They told me I had two options - report it to the Government Accounting Office or report it to the head of the project, an academic.

So I simultaneously resigned and reported it to the professor. I covered my butt. I'm pretty sure the professor hid the fraudulent billing but I didn't look into afterwards because basically that was what I was hoping he'd do so I wouldn't have to go to court and defend that my reported hours weren't really mine.

The full project was eventually awarded to another academic group.

talon8635about 2 hours ago
Okay… do you not feel culpable at some point? Do you feel no obligation to expose these various individuals fleecing the tax payers? Your boss, the academics, and everyone else who participated or knows and remains silent. Obviously, you are now in the later group.

Yes I know it’s not all that rare, BECAUSE people can’t be bothered to blow the whistle.

post-itabout 1 hour ago
Now that you know, do you feel culpable?
jayd166 minutes ago
I'm supposed to dox this person or something? What are you asking exactly?
tzs29 minutes ago
He just knows that someone on HN who is not using their real name has described witnessing government fraud at some unspecified point in the past and reporting it to the head of the project. He doesn't have any information about where it occurred other than probably the United States.

He's not really in a position to act usefully on this information, so had no reason to feel any culpability for not acting. It is only an interesting question when put to people were in a position where they had to make a choice.

jiddert8about 1 hour ago
Everyone's fleecing the taxpayer. We have low-trust societies in the West now. If you're playing by the rules, you're a sucker.
Der_Einzige19 minutes ago
Honestly, having been to high trust places like Singapore for a decent amount of time - it's better to live in a low trust society. Singapore is easily one of the most boring, sad, depressing places on earth despite it being on paper a paradise according to education, health care, etc rates.

High trust in society correlates strongly with being anti-innovative. Europe is going through another lost decade in a row because it got too addicted to social democracy. The fastest growing parts of Europe are some of the lowest trust (i.e. Poland). Please fleece the tax payer more.

tokioyoyoabout 1 hour ago
Easier to say than do.
comrade1234about 2 hours ago
It was too risky. My boss was scummy and even though I had documentation about my hours being edited he would have fought it and we'd go to court and at that point it'd be a crap shoot. If I remember right, the prison time was five years and there is no parole with federal sentences.
Buttons840about 1 hour ago
To prevent this situation the peons should be given the benefit of the doubt by the courts.

In this case, either (1) the peon was lying about reported hours, the boss didn't notice, and then the peon reported himself... or (2) everything happened just like you said.

Aren't there bounties for reporting things like this? At the very least winning should include reimbursement for legal expenses.

dfedbeef27 minutes ago
Someone hasn't heard of qui tam
idiotsecantabout 3 hours ago
That was your mistake. The grant recipient or department has as much incentive to fully spend the money as your consultant boss does to bill it. It's a implied understanding.

Spend the budget or next time people will ask why you need all that money when you didn't spend it last time. Expensive projects are important projects. Important projects make careers. That is baked in several layers deep. You'd need to report it to a waste and fraud line, ombudsman, or similar.

I'm not sure its unusual enough to bother, though.

comrade1234about 2 hours ago
I decided to take the advice of my lawyers who specialized in the topic of government projects. Based on the budget someone could have easily gone to prison and it probably would have been me because it looked like I was billing 80-hours a week when it was just one of many projects and so I was actually billing ~20/wk. The $1M threshold wasn't an anecdote - at the time it really was the limit in project size for prison time.
tasty_freezeabout 2 hours ago
Ages ago, my girlfriend at the time worked for a company that routinely got SIBR (small business innovation research) grants. Such grants made up part of her total workload.

The crazy thing was that if she worked for 10 hours on SBIR stuff, then worked 40 hours on her normal work stuff (so overtime), the SBIR billing would get scaled down to 8 hours (that is, 25% of 40 hours). There would be no way to bill 80 hours.

The other thing that seemed somewhat crazy is that it was also common to have multiple SBIR contracts going on at the same time. If they bought a $10K tool for SBIR grant #1 and SBIR grant #2 needed it two, they'd have to buy a second one. So the tool would be out, then when switching between work on the grants, the tool would go into a locked cabinet, then the second copy of the tool would get unlocked from a different cabinet. I understand that firewalling like that prevents a company from "borrowing" expensive equipment for their own work, but it lead to waste like I just described.

zuluxabout 2 hours ago
You would have been fine: Your pay stubs reflected the correct time and your correct payment.
fyredgeabout 2 hours ago
> Spend the budget or next time people will ask why you need all that money when you didn't spend it last time.

I've always heard of this nugget of wisdom but never really understood it. By punishing those who underspend (by making the next application harder), wouldn't you incentivise inflated research costs, or worse, fraud. Seems like a quick path to a positive feedback loop towards the degradation of trust in academic spending, leading to "poor government efficiency".

Paracompact31 minutes ago
It makes zero sense to me either, yet it is an omnipresent influence in who gets tasked to what in my work. At my level, I do not know anyone who endorses it, they merely react to it.
charcircuitabout 1 hour ago
But if someone doesn't need a big budget it makes sense to decrease it. It reduces efficiency if you force yourself to spend the whole budget.
yCombLinks44 minutes ago
But what if you need to save up to buy something that you can't afford in one year? Or you're trying to reduce cost in one place enough to hire a team to do some other project?
SecretDreamsabout 2 hours ago
This is all simultaneously true and simultaneously disappointing. It requires a certain forfeiture of morality to be a part of this status quo. But, especially on grants between academia and the government, this very much seems to be the status quo.
hsbauauvhabzbabout 2 hours ago
Is it actually true, or just a trope? Anyone in a position to manage hundreds of millions worth of projects is smart enough to know that some projects will run under budget.
siskiyouabout 2 hours ago
I worked for Advanced Network and Services, which operated the NSFNET and was later acquired by America Online. Then one day the company was acquired by WorldCom. A few years later the CEO was sentenced to 25 years in prison for a ~$10 billion fraud. As a systems administrator I knew nothing about any of that, but I could tell that the new management included a lot of players and empire builders. That's the signal that told me to quit a few months after the acquisition. Employees were invited to invest their retirement savings in a mutual fund that contained only WorldCom stock. Many of them lost everything. Pay attention to those signals.
sokoloffabout 1 hour ago
I feel like Worldcom got a modest amount of press coverage at the time but probably would have gotten a lot more if it hadn’t been front-run by the Enron scandal.
adastra2240 minutes ago
Why are these always one letter off from what they actually are? Worldcom-> World-con. Madoff -> Made-off
scrubsabout 2 hours ago
I was briefly employed by a robotics company in the US ... robotics is too nice: glorified if/then/else is better.

The owner was the son of an old school magnate out of PA.

Among other things his line has always stuck with me: "A whale that surfaces is soon harpooned."

The company never made money. I think the whole thing was run as a loss on purpose for tax purposes. I became tired of the head manager/engineer combo (big fish in this tiny, tiny world) and left.

Even they knew this company was never really trying to do anything serious. Strange indeed

cobbzillaabout 1 hour ago
> The owner was the son of an old school magnate out of PA.

If you have a lot of money it’s fun to LARP the startup life. The experience working for such a company is highly varied and completely depends on the personality of the founder. But even if it’s a healthy place, it’s usually a black hole from a career development POV.

Zhenyaabout 3 hours ago
Why does any of this actually matter? Why were you shaken?

You weren’t committing fraud. You did real work. Now you’re in the US with a family and a career.

Happy Father’s Day.

wyldfireabout 3 hours ago
You know that feeling when you work on a feature for weeks or months and then something comes along and the feature is no longer needed or the project is cancelled?

It's a pretty frustrating experience -- was it all for naught? Maybe it's useful to vent about it a bit.

jchwabout 3 hours ago
I definitely had this feeling early on in my career, but it did flip around somewhere around halfway through.

"We're not shipping? Well, that's a bummer, but also, what a relief! If building it that was this hard, I can only imagine how bad shipping it would've been; now we can delete that code and with it all of the maintenance we would've had to commit to for years."

The personal attachment just had to go eventually. It proved not to be terribly helpful or healthy anyways.

denkmoonabout 1 hour ago
look at you you lucky devil, getting to delete code!
mingus88about 3 hours ago
I worked at a company whose product was truly boneheaded. Without giving too much away, it’s the kind of technology that would have been useful if we lived in a world where smartphones weren’t being carried around by literally everybody.

I knew this, but took the job because I was burned out and knew I could spend a year or two coasting and padding my resume with some interesting things.

I came to the conclusion that the company was a grift, but at least they took care of their employees and included them in the profit part of it.

We had startup perks that were basically paid out in cash when the pandemic hit. The “gym” perk became $500 in cash which could be spent on anything vaguely fitness related, like an Apple Watch. The commuter benefits rolled into our accounts which gave me free tolls for years afterward. Instead of taking all the money, they cut us in.

So yeah, maybe frustrating if you expected your startup to be successful, but that’s so often outside of the control of any engineer. It’s always a crap shoot. Get your best offer and make the most of it. You can do resume driven development even in the shadiest of firms.

cucumber3732842about 2 hours ago
>but at least they took care of their employees and included them in the profit part of it.

All good grifts let some "little people" in on it so they go to bat for it.

girvoabout 3 hours ago
> was it all for naught?

I accepted a long time ago that it is all for naught :)

Enjoy our time on this earth, do what we can, focus on people and it'll be alright

cm2012about 1 hour ago
Yep 90% of companies don't matter and don't affect things. Only 10% of people do. That's just the way the world works. There's no way to know before you start so just live while you can enjoy.
xg15about 2 hours ago
Ok, but then honestly, spending 40+ hours/week in an office, doing work that's neither enjoyable nor useful doesn't seem like the best way to spend that time.

It also feels like willfully abandoning the bit of agency you still have if you don't even try to understand why the world around you works like it does.

bartreadabout 3 hours ago
So much of what I’ve worked on in my career has proven to be utterly ephemeral. I’ve learned not to dwell on it too much, in part because one of software’s great strengths is its malleability[0].

However, I was quite surprised a few weeks ago, on a client project, to find in one of their repos a chunk of example code that I’d worked on 22 years ago.

[0] Being real, a lot of the ephemerality actually stems from questionable commercial decisions, working on the wrong thing, etc. But some at least is a legitimate result of evolving markets and needs.

antisthenesabout 1 hour ago
> You know that feeling when you work on a feature for weeks or months and then something comes along and the feature is no longer needed or the project is cancelled?

I would have thought most people would grow out of having this kind of feeling after their 1st job. But I also definitely work to live, not live to work, so YMMV.

uberexabout 2 hours ago
I assume because it turns out it was a actual bullshit job, and they were probably proud of what they had achieved. They probably trusted and may have even got on well with their boss.
uberexabout 2 hours ago
If we can see far, it is because we are standing on the shoulders of tyrants.
talon8635about 2 hours ago
The real version is much more applicable, because we can’t see far, because we are depressingly shortsighted.

In this regard, we aren’t standing on shoulders of giants, we are like an immense asshole of a dad climbing ontop of his young child’s shoulders to win a chicken fight in the pool while his kid drowns below.

big85about 1 hour ago
I vaguely recall a story about an employee who discovered that their company's sales department was acquiring a lot of new customers to hit some metrics, but rarely actually closing the deal. The employee spent months chasing up incomplete sales orders, and discovered that the sales department's apparent success was illusory.
iparaskevabout 2 hours ago
I think it doesn't really matter if the fund manager was committing a fraud. The author had fun, met their spouse and just enjoyed life with the information they had at that point.
exacabout 3 hours ago
Fraud aside, I think a more common thought among developers is

> Did my old job only exist because the Product Owners didn't realize we didn't have product-market fit?

julianeon43 minutes ago
That's the job: experiment until you find product-market fit... or die trying.
raincoleabout 2 hours ago
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's what a healthy economy looks like.
shermantanktopabout 2 hours ago
At a small company, anyone can damage the company prospects. But product people have outsized negative impact when they are wrong. They can tank the whole company in short order.

Which is maybe as it should be, but it does pit agonized debates over detailed technical work in perspective.

pdimitarabout 1 hour ago
All true but every time I tried to help with an outsider's perspective -- and IMO us as engineers with systems thinking _can_ contribute -- I was told to shut up and stay in my lane (more politely than that but still crystal clear what's the underlying message + a clear show of we-will-not-debate-this-again).

So let them do damage. I do what I am told, I have the strategic thinking but not many have made use of it. OK. It's their right. I still pocket a wage. They could have gotten more for their money but consciously chose not to. Who am I to stop them? (And not like I actually can.)

suzzer99about 1 hour ago
I worked for a company that did opt-in spam email. Their main offices were in Silicon Valley, but they had a startup thing in LA that I worked at. Ostensibly we were building a self-service email campaign app to be bundled with Weblogic Commerce Server (which itself was basically DOA).

It became pretty obvious to me from the get-go that nothing was being built, and the startup was just siphoning money off the parent company. I'm not sure if there was any fraud going on beyond a bunch of people collecting a paycheck.

I think the boss was skimming off of the captive H1Bs, and there was a guy in NYC who never did anything as far as I could tell. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some kind of kickback going on there.

My first day, I went out for sushi with the top devs, who proceeded to tell one horror story after another about the boss. Awesome way to start a job. I lasted 3 months.

db48xabout 3 hours ago
Love that second footnote.
Advertisement
rwmjabout 2 hours ago
At the end of the day he wrote some software which sounds legitimate and useful. What management did without his knowledge isn't really his problem.

At the other end of this extreme is if you have a good job in a bad industry, like gambling or boiler room frauds. You should feel responsible even if your job is just maintaining the servers.

phendrenad232 minutes ago
In these cases I'm always curious who the investors were. I have the bad feeling it was you and me via our 401ks somehow.
jackbucksabout 1 hour ago
YES
throwaway98797about 2 hours ago
sometimes fraud leads to positive outcomes.

imagine a world where SBF didn’t defraud the crypto world.

in that world anthropic may have not existed.

NDlurkerabout 1 hour ago
What's The link there?
nailerabout 1 hour ago
SBF was one of the earliest funders of Anthropic, Solana, Robinhood and Cursor, mostly around 2022.
senshan17 minutes ago
Is there evidence that no one else would fund Anthropic, Solana, Robinhood and Cursor?
actionfromafarabout 2 hours ago
No Genie finally out of the bottle joke?
Aprecheabout 3 hours ago
One of the many reasons to never actually care about the work you are doing if it is a for-profit endeavor, and you are not the owner. You are there to collect a paycheck so you can survive. If you want a job that you should care about then work in public service, at a non-profit, or for yourself.
wbl25 minutes ago
Do you think people at Merk or Pfizer or Disney don't care about what they work on?
mickael-kerjeanabout 2 hours ago
> If you want a job that you should care about then work in public service

I did that in the health sector of my local gov, the whole place was full of consultant who either got contracted directly from Oracle, used to work at Oracle before but moved there or took the Oracle pill early on and never got the idea to see how things get done elsewhere. It was impossible to ship anything that's not made of Oracle technologies and that was not an accident but a deliberate construction.

xg15about 2 hours ago
It's a reasonable stance until the point where most of society is ran by for-profit companies. Then that mindset actively makes the world worse.

Your bosses might not actually care about the work you do, but your users and customers sure will.

pdimitarabout 1 hour ago
Your proposed solution?
analog31about 2 hours ago
Another option is to do work you care about, in a way that doesn't attract the attention of people who might thwart it. I think plenty of socially or personally redeeming work can be done this way, for instance within very large companies. Enough of this work, in fact, that the net outcome for people and society is actually beneficial.
the_cat_kittlesabout 3 hours ago
basically agree, though if you work for a transparently evil company you should care, and quit
Dusseldorfabout 2 hours ago
or stay, and be subtly bad enough at your job to negatively affect the progress of the enterprise.