If it's anything more than a 2 person company, it's still not the right place.

Well, let's see, I had met with my boss, I met with my boss's boss, who was also the CEO, I met with my boss and the CEO, I met with my boss and the CEO and the cofounder. I wrote emails and had hallway chats and met in person. I asked, asked again, more formally outlined the situation, pleaded, asked for an update, and then said they weren't leaving me a lot of options.

Throughout this period they kept promising they were trying to hire but I hadn't seen a single resume or interview.

Most jobs, I'd just bounce and leave 'em hanging at that point. But, I actually liked most of the people I worked with, they just had a terrible CEO that had a bad habit of seeing devs strictly as cost centers. I wanted them to fix it, and this was an appropriate move for that company and the company's culture.

Thanks for your judgement though, wish you'd been there to tell me how to be better.

> Well, let's see, I had met with my boss, I met with my boss's boss, who was also the CEO, I met with my boss and the CEO, I met with my boss and the CEO and the cofounder. I wrote emails and had hallway chats and met in person. I asked, asked again, more formally outlined the situation, pleaded, asked for an update, and then said they weren't leaving me a lot of options.

> Throughout this period they kept promising they were trying to hire but I hadn't seen a single resume or interview.

So, they were clearly lying. Pointing this out publicly like you did probably feels good for the ego and your principles BUT as you experienced, it's not a wise move if you want to actually stay at that company. Nobody likes to be pointed out in public, and unless you are in a position of power, you will be in the receiving end afterwards.

In any case from what you say that company wasn't a good place to be for you, so I hope you found another place.

It's a business though, and devs need to contribute to the bottom line. How would you have management treat devs other than an operational cost?

The case we're discussing is one where they had exactly one developer doing the work of multiple developers, and he was about to quit. He did them a favor by not only staying around to train his replacement, but giving them advance notice of his intent to leave. Considering they hired someone new once he did this, it sounds like he was probably contributing to the bottom line!

Treating devs as people would be a good start.

Of course you treat devs with total respect and as people who sometimes get sick, or worries or tired- with the presumption that they're contributing to the generation of profit for the business over the long term.

It's not a social club, there's a requirement for devs to do work. Sometimes this work is boring or drudgery and as people we might say we don't want to do this and rather go sit in the sun and chill.

But the social contract is to either submit to both the interesting and unpleasant aspects of the work or go and be some free spirit elsewhere.

I disagree. I worked at a 20 person company where this type of discussion would be acceptable. Granted, the fact that people could bring these topics up without risk, meant things rarely got to that point.

I left for family reasons, but it remains the best place I’ve worked. Its product was leading the field because they actually had open discussions about things and built what people cared about.