all 29 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 64 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Workers who choose the path of least resistance may not speak up about barriers to work that they face for fear of conflict or apprehension to change.

Or because it's not their job to do that. Tech perpetuates this "entrepreneurial mindset" bullshit, saying that for the wage paid for your work, you are also responsible for the company as a whole. Fuck no, especially since most devs can't do shit about it. If you own a company and decide that I spend most of my productive time in bullshit meetings, you still pay me, just not for stuff you can actually sell. If the meetings start grinding my gears, I might hop over to a place where stuff makes more sense.

Workers are not there to make up for the bullshit management pulls. If your company is inefficient and mismanaged, look for the problem in management.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 21 points 2 years ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)
  • Not to mention, in many cases, the CEO is also the CEO of something else, and is on the board of a third and fourth entity (or something like that).

    How about we apply the same standard to CEOs that the rest of us fucking peons have to abide by? Because I can sure as shit focus on two jobs better than my CEO can focus on 4+ jobs, and I’ve got ADHD.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    Personally, I understood that sentence as mainly pointing out that you're hindered in your work.

    If you don't have to perform activitism to get things changed, and you don't have to fear any kind of consequences for pointing them out, then having a good rant in a retroperspective is therapeutic, fun.

    You even just considering this to be extracurricular work, already seems indicative of some problem with management to me...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 45 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    We’d like you to be “agile” by following these very specific and rigid set of rules and procedures.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The original "agile" is a reaction to the overly rigid planning and emphasizes worker self-management. It makes sense since the people who are closest to the work (the workers) know best how to plan and implement the work.

    It immediately breaks down when a specialized management tier emerges and tries to push their own agenda, i.e. to sell themselves rather than do something meaningful.

    At this point, whichever form is used doesn't matter. The management, endowed with the power from above, will exploit the weakness of any agile-shmagile methodology to push their own agenda.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    Makes sense. My company was recently purchased and now we're getting ready to start "working more agile". I love the idea of it helping with the structure of our team. But, I can also read between the lines.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 33 points 2 years ago

    When my company introduced the concept of "Agile Metrics" I knew the shit went off the rails.

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's time to break free from Corporate.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -18 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Worker-owned enterprises are doomed to end up going the way of corporate, just like Animal Farm. It's just human nature to seek power in any way, shape or form.

    CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You're awarded the bad take of the day.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Why? Are you telling me humans in big enough numbers are not driven by power and greed?

    CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Because there are literally real world examples of this working, they're called cooperatives.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    And when they grew they didn't become more corporate-like? Are you sure?

    CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'm going to leave it up for you to decide. Mondragon corporation has been around for over half a century and is one of the largest worker coops in the world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'm just going to pretend you said nothing at all, because that statement was incomprehensibly idiotic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Lol, I don't know what you think you read, bud. I said worker owned enterprises end up being corporate, you say it ain't so then provide an example that literally has "corporation" in its name. If you don't see the irony maybe get your biological L1-L3 caches checked. You might have an attention deficit disorder.

    CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Every strata building has a body corporate, and it's nothing to do with seeking power - it's about, you know, collectively running the building. In fact body corporate is a bit of a misnomer, since the word "corporate" comes from the word "corpus", which means "body". More precisely in this context it's a legal body, and may or may not be for-profit (a strata building's body corporate is definitely not-for-profit).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Do you also believe Nazis are actually socialists because Nazism is short for national socialism. Or that North Korea is a democratic country because their official name is literally Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Do you really want to prove you're that stupid?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago

    My experience is that a team should self-organize and decide how to work by trying things out and see what works well for them.

    Anyone trying to force a framework down on people is wrong because different people/teams prefer working in different ways. I've never experienced following a framework rigidly as beneficial.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    "Burndown charts."

    Best cover for teams trying to look busy and justify their headcount.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago*

    This is too close to home.

  • source