Would you be angry?

[clamum]

You should have quit long before, as in, the second week at 80 hours. If they have that much work, they needed to hire double or triple the staff (except that never really fixes things in a software project which is one of the things all the sales staff simply do not understand and why the "mythical man month" should be required reading with tests afterward to any sales staff for any new software product).

Yeah I've worked with one of the best, if not the best, developer I ever have at my last job and he talked about the "Mythical Man Month" several times. I haven't gotten around to reading it yet but it comes highly recommended by him so I have to think there's something to it.

 

[Markbnj]

Yeah I've worked with one of the best, if not the best, developer I ever have at my last job and he talked about the "Mythical Man Month" several times. I haven't gotten around to reading it yet but it comes highly recommended by him so I have to think there's something to it.

It's one of those books that resonates with engineers because you know intuitively that it's central premise, that adding bodies to a project does not make it move faster after a certain (pretty restrictive) limit, is true.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

It's one of those books that resonates with engineers because you know intuitively that it's central premise, that adding bodies to a project does not make it move faster after a certain (pretty restrictive) limit, is true.

If the product is big enough, you need more people just to get the headspace.

But if you have too many developers, you need to have pretty hard-core architecture-nazis policing things, and crazy-good management.

And everybody knows that never happens.

 

[Markbnj]

But if you have too many developers, you need to have pretty hard-core architecture-nazis policing things, and crazy-good management.

Yeah basically. Big milspec projects run this way, and still manage to blow out budgets and time estimates.

 

[smackababy]

I wouldn't be so much angry as I would be looking for a new job. I am a stickler for good management though. Having been in enough terribly managed situations, I just won't do it anymore. There is no reason for me to put in a 70 hour week for months on end because you couldn't manage everyone else to get their [stuff] done or overpromised and can't get egg on your face.

No swearing in the tech forums, please -- Programming Moderator Ken g6

 

[beginner99]

I'm nowhere near $200k! Just less than a third of it actually.

Note: The $200k was just a random high figure I pulled out of the hat so no need to assume any programmer actually earns that much.

Less than 1/3? So about 65k? Well then take one of the positions that were offered with huge raise (at least 100% for the Product Manager Job, rather more) or leave. I'm not from US but 65k sounds like an utter joke unless you live in Montana or some other wilderness.

 

[Ancalagon44]

According to the latest currency conversion, my annual salary is USD 50639 when converted. Remember I work in South Africa.

Such a salary is pretty good for a guy my age (30). Compared to my peers, I earn pretty decently. Remember that salaries in South Africa are lower on the whole than in more developed countries like the USA.

Yeah I could probably get a raise if I took either of the management roles. I would have more responsibility, which should entitle me to higher pay, especially in the case of the product manager role.

I don't know what is on the table there. They might want me to prove myself in the role before offering me a substantial increase, I just don't know.

The only concerning thing is that from discussions with the project manager, the commercial side of the project doesn't look that strong. We won't break even this year. This is mostly due to aggressive negotiating on the part of the client. We're giving them a very good deal on the product because we needed the business, unfortunately it likely means no profits this year. I mean, just for this one project, not the company as a whole.

 

[cabri]

At times, profit needs to be sacrificed to get one's foot in the door with a customer.

Make the $$ on repeat business; ramp up time is a lot less

 

[brianmanahan]

You should have quit long before, as in, the second week at 80 hours. If they have that much work, they needed to hire double or triple the staff (except that never really fixes things in a software project which is one of the things all the sales staff simply do not understand and why the "mythical man month" should be required reading with tests afterward to any sales staff for any new software product).

that was my first job so i didnt have a lot of experience on my resume at the time

once i built up almost a year's worth of time so i could apply to those 1-3 year jobs, i was gone.

 

[brianmanahan]

1) quit your job
2) join the sales team

i wish i was personable or sleazy enough for sales

i heard the guy who completed the sale of our project got close to a 100$k bonus for it

 

[smackababy]

i wish i was personable or sleazy enough for sales

i heard the guy who completed the sale of our project got close to a 100$k bonus for it

You could always write pomes about the products!

 

[Ancalagon44]

Okay I am now thinking I must jump ship sooner rather than later. At the very least, into a different project or possibly different business unit.

I interviewed a guy about a week or two ago who I thought would be brilliant for the role of technical lead on the project I'm currently on (to take over from me, since I will be the defacto technical lead on April the 2nd when I become the only permanently employed programmer). Today a colleague says that my boss wants to make this guy an offer, but his asking price caused a bit of worry and they tried to negotiate him down or something. I don't know details.

Now an interview for tomorrow was cancelled because the candidate's asking price was too high.

Why am I worried? I am the only permanent programmer on the system - besides me, there are 3 contractors who earn more than double what I do (being paid by the hour). My salary is decent for my age (or so I thought). Those contractors could terminate their relationship at any time. We urgently need not just one programmer, but about 4. For one thing, they need to replace me. Besides me, we need another 2-3 to cope with the workload in the pipeline.

And here they are saying this guy is too expensive. He would have to be asking three times my salary to be "too expensive"!

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

there are 3 contractors who earn more than double what I do (being paid by the hour).

I don't know about your country, but it is probably similar.

In the UK, computer consultants, would get about double the hourly rate, of a permanent employee. But that is correct, and means that in real terms, they are getting a comparable salary.

This is because they are getting ZERO, holiday pay, sick pay, pension and have to pay various extra charges, which your employee is paying for you. They usually get NO employee benefits, either.

Their operating costs (to themselves), are usually considerably higher, because typically they have to drive considerably longer journeys to get to work (as it is a temporary job). They have to pay accountancy fees, and spend time working out the taxes. They may even have to pay for a hotel during the week, or pay rent on a flat. In London, this can get quite expensive.

All extra activities, such as training courses, will NOT pay them any money, and they will have to fork out for the expensive courses.

They usually don't get any employee benefits, either.

Pensions can be quite expensive to pay for.

In the UK, there are taxes which the employer pays. If you are a contractor, then YOU have to pay these taxes (Employer National Insurance), in addition to the taxes that you pay on the salary as well.

The consultant has to allow for the fact that they can be dismissed/terminated, at very short notice. E.g. 1 month.

The consultant could be out of work, during quiet periods, in the computer/software industry. This has to come out of their own pocket.

By the time you add up all these "hidden" costs. There is much less difference in real terms, between the salaries.

Occasionally, because of sudden shortages of employees etc. E.g. The Year 2000 millennium (date) bug. It can be very lucrative, despite what I just said above, for the consultants, As the hourly rates, can go up and up.

There can be considerably more job stress, when you are a consultant. Partly because there is no job security at that place of work. Unlike the permanent employees.

EDIT: There are probably other costs involved, as well. A big one, I forgot, is that they are usually done through agencies, who take a rather significant percentage of the payment, for themselves. When the consultant is told the hourly rate, it is usually AFTER the agency has taken their cut.

 

[Ancalagon44]

snip.

I know, but my post wasn't about that at all. Contractors charge that much because of the risk and I have no problem with that.

I have a problem with landing up in a scenario where you are short staffed because of bad or lacking HR strategy. I have a problem with being the only permanent programmer on the project, and then be told that a potential hire is too expensive (bear in mind, he is likely the same cost as the consultants).

The reason we have to use consultants in the first place is because they had no HR strategy and didn't hire when we advised them to (I advised them to do so, they didn't listen, and now they have to pay massive rates for contractors).

Now we turn away employees that are "too expensive". Well how much is the project worth? You won't be arguing about the cost of an employee when hiring or not hiring is the difference between continuing with the business or not.

If that employee is too expensive, perhaps you should reconsider your business?

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

I know, but my post wasn't about that at all. Contractors charge that much because of the risk and I have no problem with that.

I have a problem with landing up in a scenario where you are short staffed because of bad or lacking HR strategy. I have a problem with being the only permanent programmer on the project, and then be told that a potential hire is too expensive (bear in mind, he is likely the same cost as the consultants).

The reason we have to use consultants in the first place is because they had no HR strategy and didn't hire when we advised them to (I advised them to do so, they didn't listen, and now they have to pay massive rates for contractors).

Now we turn away employees that are "too expensive". Well how much is the project worth? You won't be arguing about the cost of an employee when hiring or not hiring is the difference between continuing with the business or not.

If that employee is too expensive, perhaps you should reconsider your business?

It sounds to me like your company definitely did the right thing, if that person was too expensive. Permanent employees can stay for a very long time. So if the business took them on at an outrageously high cost, just because there was a temporary blip in the work flow. They could be paying out a huge amount of money, for the next 10, 20 or even 30 years, who knows.
That could potentially bankrupt the business.

I think it is entirely reasonable, that the business chose a maximum salary to offer, and because it was not enough, they declined to offer any more. Anyway, without knowing how much was offered, and how much the guy was asking for. It is difficult to interpret how sensible their actions were.

Contractors being taken on, to resolve (hopefully) short term blips in the workflow, are much less problematic, if you widely over-pay them. Because if money gets tight in the business and/or the work quietens down, you can easily terminate or not renew their contract.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

there are 3 contractors who earn more than double what I do (being paid by the hour).

I just wanted to point out that, if your contractors are anything like our contractors, the company is paying $100-200/hour to a consulting firm that hires people for less than half that and keeps the change.

 

[Ken g6]

I just wanted to point out that, if your contractors are anything like our contractors, the company is paying $100-200/hour to a consulting firm that hires people for less than half that and keeps the change.

And sometimes there's a subcontractor in the middle. I've been there a lot. Company hires contractor for their name brand. Contractor hires subcontractor who employs me.

 

[Ancalagon44]

It sounds to me like your company definitely did the right thing, if that person was too expensive. Permanent employees can stay for a very long time. So if the business took them on at an outrageously high cost, just because there was a temporary blip in the work flow. They could be paying out a huge amount of money, for the next 10, 20 or even 30 years, who knows.
That could potentially bankrupt the business.

I think it is entirely reasonable, that the business chose a maximum salary to offer, and because it was not enough, they declined to offer any more. Anyway, without knowing how much was offered, and how much the guy was asking for. It is difficult to interpret how sensible their actions were.

Contractors being taken on, to resolve (hopefully) short term blips in the workflow, are much less problematic, if you widely over-pay them. Because if money gets tight in the business and/or the work quietens down, you can easily terminate or not renew their contract.

You may be right in that particular case, but, my fears may have some basis.

Today we interviewed a candidate who is between intermediate and senior - ie not too expensive. I emailed to say that the interview went well and I recommend a second interview, and mentioned that he could be a good fit for this project I'm on. The HR manager then replied saying she is not sure it would be commercially viable to hire him for this project, and that she will have to chat with the director.

Right now, I am the only permanent programmer on this project. He would be cheaper than me and hiring him would double the number of permanent programmers. We could move away from those super expensive contractors. Heck, with the amount of work coming in, we actually need to hire 3-4 additional senior level programmers. Now there is doubt that we have the budget for 1.

The client would be paying for the work because the work relates to custom requirements of theirs. Plus, there are plans to acquire additional clients. So, I am not sure what they mean by commercial viability.

There are backroom discussions going on and they are making me very uncomfortable. I've emailed my director requesting a chat.

I just wanted to point out that, if your contractors are anything like our contractors, the company is paying $100-200/hour to a consulting firm that hires people for less than half that and keeps the change.

Agreed, the point is that permanent staff are cheaper. By not hiring last year, they had no choice but to pay the expensive contractor rates, and by my post above, looks like they will repeat that mistake.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

You may be right in that particular case, but, my fears may have some basis.

Today we interviewed a candidate who is between intermediate and senior - ie not too expensive. I emailed to say that the interview went well and I recommend a second interview, and mentioned that he could be a good fit for this project I'm on. The HR manager then replied saying she is not sure it would be commercially viable to hire him for this project, and that she will have to chat with the director.

Right now, I am the only permanent programmer on this project. He would be cheaper than me and hiring him would double the number of permanent programmers. We could move away from those super expensive contractors. Heck, with the amount of work coming in, we actually need to hire 3-4 additional senior level programmers. Now there is doubt that we have the budget for 1.

The client would be paying for the work because the work relates to custom requirements of theirs. Plus, there are plans to acquire additional clients. So, I am not sure what they mean by commercial viability.

There are backroom discussions going on and they are making me very uncomfortable. I've emailed my director requesting a chat.

Technically speaking, and from what you have said, it sounds like a good idea to seriously consider employing them, and calling them in for a second interview.

But in practice, when you work for a business, the "right" thing does not always happen.

In some cases, even though the item(s) you want to purchase, or more employees, is obviously a really good idea, and would easily save lots of money, and get things done well. And even the boss of the entire department, 100% agrees, and really want to take on the extra two people (or whatever, you are trying to get done). In practice, getting it actually approved (depending on what business you work for), can sometimes be impossible, or very difficult.
In time, one gets to realize that this is a relatively normal way, in which (at least some) businesses operate.

What seems to happen is the boss(s) at the top of the company, decide the overall policy, of if they want to contract/save-money, stay the same, or expand, and how much budgetary money is available. This can vary, on a department by department basis.
So part of it, is how upper management, see the future of your department.

If it is good, they will tend to allow purchasing big budget equipment and extra employees.

But if they are considering downsizing, outsourcing, keeping-same-size, of your department, then it can be very difficult to take on extra staff.

tl;dr
I think people find things just like you describe, in most/all companies. Sometimes it does seem completely mad. Usually in time, the right thing(s) gradually happen. But sometimes you have to be VERY patient.

E.g. Sometimes departments get new employees and/or very expensive equipment, when they DON'T need them, even slightly. But that is done, because they had the budget available to buy the stuff.
And if they left it, the surplus budget would probably go to other departments or be lost for this budgetary year.
Then later, when they REALLY need the extra employees and equipment, their requests, would be turned down and/or hugely delayed. Because there is no budget left and/or spending/new-employees has been severely restricted this year, because profits suddenly dropped by 35%.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Technically speaking, and from what you have said, it sounds like a good idea to seriously consider employing them, and calling them in for a second interview.

But in practice, when you work for a business, the "right" thing does not always happen.

In some cases, even though the item(s) you want to purchase, or more employees, is obviously a really good idea, and would easily save lots of money, and get things done well. And even the boss of the entire department, 100% agrees, and really want to take on the extra two people (or whatever, you are trying to get done). In practice, getting it actually approved (depending on what business you work for), can sometimes be impossible, or very difficult.
In time, one gets to realize that this is a relatively normal way, in which (at least some) businesses operate.

What seems to happen is the boss(s) at the top of the company, decide the overall policy, of if they want to contract/save-money, stay the same, or expand, and how much budgetary money is available. This can vary, on a department by department basis.
So part of it, is how upper management, see the future of your department.

If it is good, they will tend to allow purchasing big budget equipment and extra employees.

But if they are considering downsizing, outsourcing, keeping-same-size, of your department, then it can be very difficult to take on extra staff.

tl;dr
I think people find things just like you describe, in most/all companies. Sometimes it does seem completely mad. Usually in time, the right thing(s) gradually happen. But sometimes you have to be VERY patient.

E.g. Sometimes departments get new employees and/or very expensive equipment, when they DON'T need them, even slightly. But that is done, because they had the budget available to buy the stuff.
And if they left it, the surplus budget would probably go to other departments or be lost for this budgetary year.
Then later, when they REALLY need the extra employees and equipment, their requests, would be turned down and/or hugely delayed. Because there is no budget left and/or spending/new-employees has been severely restricted this year, because profits suddenly dropped by 35%.

I hear what you are saying. The problem is, my company is so small that there is no question of leftover budget getting handed out to someone else. Leftover budget is profit.

You might be correct on the CEO deciding on a policy of not hiring. In fact, it is easily possible that this policy was set by my direct boss or the partner/client.

However, this is the problem with the no hiring plan. We know that the client wants to scale aggressively. They have a long road map of features to add, which they are willing to pay for. The more the client expands, the more licensing revenue we get. It is worth our while to help them expand because it gets us sustainable licensing revenue plus the development costs will be paid for by the client.

(Incidentally, partner/client is different from client. Client is the end user, partner/client came to us with the business idea).

The problem is that there is time pressure. This client needs this stuff done soon, he needs to report to his board that things are on track. If we don't hit the deadlines set by the client, he looks bad in front of his board. He would have to halt or slow down his expansion plans. So we cannot support our client's business plan without extra staff. It simply cannot be done. Besides which, extra staff would actually lower the cost of getting this done.

The reasons they might want to hire - the project is deeply in the red as a result of a long series of missed deadlines. Hiring more staff would require an upfront financial commitment in order to reap the benefits later on. An upfront commitment on top of what has already been committed. So obviously, they are keen to reap the rewards of having a paying client and few resources assigned to the project.

But there is still a problem with that. I have options that I can move to. They know I am unhappy, they know I don't like development. They know it is too much work for one person. If they don't hire, I will move on. Either internally or externally. When that happens, they have to hire someone on short notice or transfer someone else off another project. Either method will cause problems, because I would have to hand over the system, and it will cause a loss of development time.

So yeah, its up to them. But if they don't plan to hire, I will leave, no doubt about it.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

I hear what you are saying. The problem is, my company is so small that there is no question of leftover budget getting handed out to someone else. Leftover budget is profit.

You might be correct on the CEO deciding on a policy of not hiring. In fact, it is easily possible that this policy was set by my direct boss or the partner/client.

However, this is the problem with the no hiring plan. We know that the client wants to scale aggressively. They have a long road map of features to add, which they are willing to pay for. The more the client expands, the more licensing revenue we get. It is worth our while to help them expand because it gets us sustainable licensing revenue plus the development costs will be paid for by the client.

(Incidentally, partner/client is different from client. Client is the end user, partner/client came to us with the business idea).

The problem is that there is time pressure. This client needs this stuff done soon, he needs to report to his board that things are on track. If we don't hit the deadlines set by the client, he looks bad in front of his board. He would have to halt or slow down his expansion plans. So we cannot support our client's business plan without extra staff. It simply cannot be done. Besides which, extra staff would actually lower the cost of getting this done.

The reasons they might want to hire - the project is deeply in the red as a result of a long series of missed deadlines. Hiring more staff would require an upfront financial commitment in order to reap the benefits later on. An upfront commitment on top of what has already been committed. So obviously, they are keen to reap the rewards of having a paying client and few resources assigned to the project.

But there is still a problem with that. I have options that I can move to. They know I am unhappy, they know I don't like development. They know it is too much work for one person. If they don't hire, I will move on. Either internally or externally. When that happens, they have to hire someone on short notice or transfer someone else off another project. Either method will cause problems, because I would have to hand over the system, and it will cause a loss of development time.

So yeah, its up to them. But if they don't plan to hire, I will leave, no doubt about it.

I'm impressed with your reply, and how you are handling the situation.

From a business point of view (in my opinion), it may well be more sensible to keep the existing company at the same or similar size, for reliable low/medium risk progress over the coming years.

If (the company you work for), splash out, and go for having more employees, and later the client stops further work etc. The company you work for, could lose out, somewhat badly.

But if the company you work for, takes things steadily and gently, they are risking losing some potential extra business. But that does not necessarily cost money, as such.

Analogy:
Your walking past a shop, and they are having a massive sale, which ends in 30 minutes. You looked inside, and there was a TV, which looks really good to you, and it is reduced down to $499.
You don't really need to upgrade your TV now, and don't have time to go home, and check reviews for the TV and/or if you can get it even cheaper elsewhere.
Do you buy it ?

The best solution is probably to NOT buy it now. All you are losing is an opportunity to potentially buy something which might be better/cheaper than elsewhere. But there are always special offers, popping up all over the place, from time to time. You don't need a new TV at the moment.

If you buy it you are risking losing your hard earned $499. It may have poor reviews, or be readily for sale elsewhere for $349. There may be a much better model coming out next month.

tl;dr
A business needs to be careful, that it is not going to over-reach itself, and end of losing lots of money. Which ultimately could harm the business, or even bankrupt it. Losing opportunities, to get the best profit from the client(s), although undesirable, does NOT actually lose the business any money as such, necessarily. BUT spending lots of resources, on a risky venture, could go very bad.

"Politically", getting more employees for your department, can be harder than obtaining hens teeth. In some/many companies.

EDIT: But getting more employee(s), may be the best solution. I'm not really in the right position (i.e. Not working there, armed with the wider picture, and specific details). To properly comment.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Agreed.

I know that the company wants to spin the product out as an independent business. The rumour going around is that actually the company wants to divest itself of this product because it has been a bad project. The thing is that because our company screwed up as far as this client is concerned, giving him what was developed could be done in exchange for parting amicably and avoiding a lawsuit. He gets a product with a client and doesn't have to pay revenue to us, we get rid of a troublesome product that has cost us a lot of employees.

If true, it would explain why my company is reluctant to hire for it. However, the client says that he wants to hire and needs to expand the team. If true, it could mean that he will take over the hiring, firing and provision of capital.

I don't know if this is true - I'm trying to get clarity from my director. If it is true, I wonder how it will work with staff, because you can't just "assign" us to a new company. I for one would turn any such offer down.

If its not true, and my company will retain part ownership of this business, then I don't see how they can avoid hiring. I mean, yeah, there is risk involved, even with a client having signed. But logically, I don't see how it can work any other way. Like so:

If they do not hire, they have insufficient resources to perform to the client's expectations.
If they do not perform according to the client's expectations, the client may find another partner.
If the client finds another partner, the business will not have a successful case study to attract more clients, and the business would lose its only client.
If they do not hire, their only permanent programmer (me) will resign, leaving them with no permanent programmers.

So, if they are unwilling to take a risk, I would shut it down now.

EDIT: Okay I had a chat with my director. Sounds like HR was misinformed.

He said he definitely wants an architect to join the team, and then to build the team around that architect. That being said, come to think of it, he didn't confirm that they would consider this guy (the intermediate) for for the project.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Okay, a lot has happened this week and a lot has changed.

Before I start, just a recap on the people involved:
My director: T
The CEO of our company: E
Our business partner in this joint venture, in some respects also a client: GA
The client of the joint venture: GE

GA requests a meeting with the team, excluding T, on Tuesday. In the meeting, he clarifies a few things we have been hearing. We knew that the relationship was rocky, but according to GA, it has got so bad that he needs to start looking at building up a team in his company to take over from our company, which wants to part ways with GA. GA mentions he would like to offer us jobs, but cannot because our company is against it. He is still trying to negotiate with our company to be able to make it offers. This also explains the hiring situation - why hire if you want to part ways with the joint venture?

The next day, E has caught wind of what GA is trying to do. He also hears about the second failed deployment. He calls in for a meeting. It transpires that we didn't do governance at all. So, few signed documents, those that are signed conflict with other documents. We allowed scope creep to occur without changing the go live date. We didn't make them sign anything to reflect they understood it was scope creep. The commercial contract basically charges us out at half our normal rate. If it went to court, we might be in trouble, just because there isn't much signed. T pleads he was too busy to do governance - I think to myself, your job is governance! E shouts at us a bit, for agreeing to a go live date we knew was unrealistic. Fair enough. I should have stood up for myself and made my concerns known in writing to the powers that be - even up to E if I had to. I verbally discussed my concerns, but never expressed them in writing until after the go live date. Lesson learned, put them in email and escalate if I am still not satisfied.

Anyway, after some discussions with GA and GE, what is agreed is that we will manage the relationship with GE, and GA will not be involved in the relationship. GA still gets his 70% share of the licensing fee, but doesn't interfere by promising things we really can't do.

T hasn't conducted himself well and everyone is angry with him. I'm angry with him because I didn't realize quite how badly he had mismanaged things until I learned he didn't do governance. Basically, T agreed to a super aggressive go live date, knowing it would impact his staff, to save his job. It may already be too late, because E is furious with him.

We have agreed with GE to honour the contract we have. We are going to fix the remaining bugs and then go live, with an orderly roll out plan including a round of UAT testing. GA will not be involved at all.

I'm the only programmer on the project (not counting the two contractors), and I am now at the stage where I really don't care. Yeah, I have to get this out. I have no choice. But my colleague and I (the business analyst) are both feeling burned. I've warned T that we need to hire ASAP because we now have a single man dependency for two projects (me), and that person doesn't even enjoy programming. He said it is not up to him, it is up to the investment committee. We meet with E, who represents the investment committee, to talk about this sort of thing. Ironically when I originally left this company, it was because I was stuck in a project for 20 months with no room to grow because they were not hiring. That project was far, far better than this one. Far better run and far more rewarding. The client is still with us to this day and the relationship is still good.

If things go well, and my brother can offer me a management position in his new company, I am gone!