Re: not enough real programmers? (was Re: Byte Magazine: 18 Vintage issues, 1985-1986)

[Ian Thompson Bell <itb@techprt.co.uk>]

Howard S Shubs wrote:

> In article <7on5qh$dcu$0@216.39.144.179>, Victoria Welch <vikki@oz.net> wrote:
>
> >My point and I think Howards is that there was (in my/our experience) NO
> >compensation for it, unless you consider continual harrasment and demand
> >for more to be compensation.  12 - 16+ hours a day on a continual basis
> >IS abusive and detrimental to rational organizational goals (this is
> >where burned out people come from).  Sure, it saves the company a lot of
> >money, but they sure do not get much quality from exhausted and stressed
> >out workers.
>
> Right.  Mr. Bell doesn't seem to "get" that such "savings" is -very- short
> term in that it destroys lives.  Lives are more important than any
> business I can think of, including medicine, defense, and certainly
> programming.
> --
> Howard S Shubs      hshubs@mindspring.com    hshubs@bix.com
> The Denim Adept     Is this the right room for an argument?
> SPAM: uce@ftc.gov   postmaster@[127.0.0.1]   abuse@[127.0.0.1]

I agree 12 to 16 hours on a continual basis is destructive.  I worked 70 hours a
week for 6 months some 20 years ago.   It nearly destroyed my marriage an I vowed
never to do it again (and I have not).  What I find hard to believe is your
contention that the majority of employers require this and that the majority of
employees will put up with it.

Ian