What? But that is what you're paying him for. You realize how employment works, surely? You give him some money in exchange for the use of his time and skills to perform a task your business requires. The results of his work are owned by the business who take ownership of any benefits arising from the work. If you want him to be involved in the company, you're going to have to involve him in the rewards by giving him a part of the company.

If there is an emergency and an employee does need to stay later, you need to pay that employee overtime - generally at a higher multiple of his standard pay. The reason for this is because a business needs to avoid having emergencies and the best way to do that is to make having an emergency an expensive thing. Then everyone will work to avoid them.

For the OP: just leave and get a new job. If you're able to put together software as well as you say, then you probably don't even need a job. Find a business co-founder and start your own company.

Exactly what I wrote in my post, if you'd actually bothered to read the lower half.

"If there is an emergency and an employee does need to stay later, you need to pay that employee overtime"

I didn't write anything about compensation - I would think it entirely obvious that if you work overtime you either get paid or take compensatory time off?

I also noticed you didn't write anything about compensation and that's why I did. That developer that insisted on leaving at 5 because that's what his job was? I can assure you that if you paid him a multiple of his standard rate and made it clear that he was doing the business a favor then he would remain there to help fix the fire.

Also regarding deploying breaking changes five minutes before leaving - I'm assuming this means it was standard procedure to deploy non-breaking changes five minutes before leaving as well. This feels like a management problem. Those changes should be deployed to a staging environment of some kind and not directly to production without some kind of testing or sign off procedure as then it doesn't matter if they break anything as it will continue to be worked on the following day without affecting customers.

Like I stated earlier, a business in which crisis are so frequent as to occur daily or weekly, is badly mismanaged and dysfunctional. Such companies will hide under false pretenses like "that's just the way the industry works", while frankly straight up abusing developers. Crisis should by all means be extremely infrequent, otherwise there's a major management problem, which of course can't be the developers responsibility. I'll restate from all my replies in this thread, that if OP is in such a company, he should leave.

2) In the variety of European countries where I've worked, compensation for over-time is a non-issue - I did not mention compensation explicitly, as it's obvious to me - it's indeed against the law not to compensate. You'd either get full-pay, 50% to 100% increase (usually for night and weekend work), or you'd get time off. From yours and other responses, I gather this is not the standard in the US.

3) Certainly there were deployment procedures, however this developer decided to bypass staging, testing and even didn't perform a smoke test which would have shown the crashed application. He deemed his code of such high quality that nothing could possibly go wrong. And while he didn't follow procedure and therefore caused a minor scandal for this particular company's public image and lots of lost customers, he didn't see why he should be involved in recovery, since it was after 5 o clock. Instead his teammates worked until long into the night, to find out what had actually happened before finally fixing it.

1) The fire in the kitchen isn't the developer's responsibility as he is an employee and does not own the property or the problem. The company is hiring the developer to do work for them - that work includes fixing problems regardless of who created them. If the developer were on a contract for 1 month and something he created exploded on 1month+1day then the developer is under no responsibility to fix that problem. That extends just the same to an employee and shows how the employee is not responsible for the fire. Of course, most employees are going to happily stay and fix what they broke as it's part of professional integrity - but the business owner should really be saying "thank you" in that situation as the employee has gone beyond his employment contract to help. So I disagree with you - the developer being the only one able to solve a problem does not make him responsible in any way. If the developer received the rewards of ownership then he would be responsible.

I'll admit that it doesn't work like this in most cases as employees are scared of getting fired and act more like indentured servants than anything - but as a manager you should try to be above that, I think.

2) Definitely not standard - and the OP who you wrote your comment to is clearly not being offered overtime. He is being told to work more with no mention of more pay. The company wouldn't want him working overtime if it was costing them more than hiring another employee.

3) So the developer deliberately sabotaged established company procedure. I'm not sure what it has to do with the OP so it's probably why the replies to your comment seem confused. At any rate, it's a completely separate issue and even if the dev stayed all weekend to fix the problem, he should still be getting a very stern official warning to follow safety procedures. Seems like an orthogonal issue.

Obvious to whom? I haven't had an employer that finds this point obvious in more than 7 years.

Typically, full time developers are salaried.

If once in a while something crops up that requires staying after 5 then that is fine however the expectation should be that all the developers go home at 5pm

> While most employers realize that your work isn't (or should be) your single burning passion, it is very negative for team morale when one of the guys always flakes out when the clock hits 17 regardless of the fire in the kitchen.

If there are constant fires in the kitchen you might want to find out who keeps lighting them, if's not the guy leaving at 5 then I fail to see the issue.

> I knew a developer who always left at exactly 17.00, because "that's what they are paying me for". On several occasions, he deployed breaking changes to production five minutes before leaving. Other devs had to come in and work very late to get the system back online. While he is technically in his right to leave at 5, he causes his team much grief and as such is not an asset.

Pushing to production shortly before going home is a separate issue to whether he leaves on time or not, a developer leaving on time should be expected, a developer pushing breaking changes and leaving should not.

The other stuff I wholeheartedly agree with.

This. I strongly believe in finishing what I've started and not leaving things broken. I also strongly believe in work-life balance which to me means working hard until 5 but leaving then.

EC1: If you're confident that your work ethic is sound, then there sounds like there's a significant culture mismatch here. I know it's not easy to think about going somewhere new, but you may have to consider that sooner rather than later. I honestly wish you the best of luck no matter how this shakes out.

"The other side of the coin is that lots of software companies, really has little to no control over software development... This is a company where crisis' occurs daily or weekly instead of maybe once every couple of months."

That's entirely agreeing with your point: The standard should be a well run team where everybody goes home after their 7-8 hours. If there is constant fire in the kitchen, then it's certainly not up to developers to constantly do overtime. In my post I do actually suggest to OP he gets out, if he is indeed in such a situation (which again, it sounds like).

So you have a case where there is a "clock puncher" that is pushing out changes, leaving and then issues occur that others must stay and clean up after.

Would you share if your point of view would be different if that "clock puncher" was your best developer and nobody had to stay late to clean up after his/her mess?

A bad company is "a company where crisis' occurs daily or weekly instead of maybe once every couple of months." In such a company, crisis is the standard, not the deviation. In such a company there'll be rampant requests for overtime.

That's a terrible place to work. As I recommended to OP, if he is in such a company (which it could sound like), he should leave.

A good place is one where most people consistently leave after their standard 7-8 hours. But IF there is a fire, then it's a terrible attitude for a developer to adopt a "not my problem, time's up" attitude.

This doesn't only go for devs by the way, it's the same for managers and any other role really.

If the big payday comes it's not the employee who wins! You aren't betting with equity as employee...

EDIT: Also, don't release after noon (or some other set time) and never release on Fridays. This is just common sense if builds have problems. That way, no one has to stay late.

Everyone is there to get paid.

>when one of the guys always flakes out when the clock hits 17

Doing your job is not "flaking out".

2) Leaving at 17 under ordinary circumstances is not flaking out. If there is a major crisis which happens in average maybe once every three months, and you consistently can't be arsed to put in some extra hours of effort while your team mates and managers are, then yes, you are flaking out.

It is not. The way you demonstrate your lack of care is if you insist to leave, even in times of uncommon crisis.

My points from the original post:

1) If it's business as usual = Work the 7-8 hours.

2) If the business has constant emergencies or otherwise requires you to regularly work more than 7-8 hours = It's a badly managed company and you should leave if you aren't in a position to change things.

3) If the business very rarely encounters emergencies: Stick around if you reasonably can, and help your managers and team members get the emergency resolved if this is within your skills and area of responsibility.

I don't no-life it; I come in at about the same time every day and leave about the same time. If the work is really interesting, I'll surely stick around later, but there's no reason to work 9-10 hours a day if there's no emergency.

1) It should be very rare that work above the normal 7-8 hours is required. If it is common, you are in a dysfunctional software development organization. My advice to OP in this case is to leave.

2) If you and your peers normally work 7-8 hours, it is not unreasonable to expect (for compensation of course), an extra effort in terms of overtime / weekend work in times of extraordinary crisis / emergency.

Your business? Of course not. Unless I have equity, why would I fall for the "you need to care about the company even though it doesn't care about you" scam?

>or your team

You are the one screwing my team, not me.

>your not exactly a paragon of the model employee are you

I would certainly hope not. I try to me a model human. I have no interest in being a model employee. If you want a slave, buy someone else.

>If there is a major crisis which happens in average maybe once every three months, and you consistently can't be arsed to put in some extra hours of effort while your team mates and managers are, then yes, you are flaking out

If that is part of my job, sure. But you are aiming for a world record in strawmanning with that one. Remember the discussion is about employers feeling entitled to owning employees time?

No, that's actually not at all what this discussion is about. That's what OP's situation is about. My post made two points:

1) If a company is mismanaged or just plain taking advantage of you by requiring regular overtime, then leave such a company.

2) A company (not OP's company) who is well managed and does not require regular overtime, pay their wages on time etc, should be able to expect at least a little bit dedication from their employees. No you don't have to tattoo the product name on your chest, but it would suit you to help out your managers and colleagues in case of (rarely occurring) emergencies.

No they shouldn't. They should expect exactly what they pay for, me to show up and do my job and then leave. If you want me to be invested in the company, then I need a stake in the company. It isn't complicated.

On the other hand, the fact that he chooses to leave when his time is out shows you that he values his time. He values it more than the company, if you want to look at it like that.

Not everyone who works for you will love your company. For some people it's just a job. Now, it's your choice to make if that is good enough for you.

In any case, you make a good point. Basically he values a fraction of his time more than any negative, however big, inflicted on his company and his team members.