Oil rig engineers have to be away that much, or they're no longer going to be oil rig engineers. They also make disproportionately more money doing that particular job than they would if they did something else.
There's no natural requirement for programmers to leave their home/families (unless they're consulting). I suspect you're not giving your employees "hazard" pay either, are you?
If it were me, I'd want to bring my family along and turn it into a work vacation.
But what if this is condition of the job? When you apply, you are informed that you have to do this. If its unacceptable, you simply do something else.
Then you might miss out on a lot of talented people, because being away for a month at a time is a strange requirement for a programmer. Most people have families, friends, significant others, pets, or WoW guilds they simply don't want to be away from for a month at a time. The emotional toll of homesickness could very easily end up costing you.
Not to mention, if your employees are in committed relationships you're also subjecting them to a month without sex. I don't know if it's worth $2800/month to have two months a year where your employees are homesick and sexually frustrated.
There are a lot of talented people in the world and Max needs to hire, hmm, five or ten of them? Being a Japanese salaryman probably wouldn't sound that attractive to the average American but there are a few of us defective types who do/did it anyway.
(Speaking of quirky individual preferences: I'm a strict Catholic. Two months, huh. <dry>How ever would I cope.</dry> You can probably find five or ten other people with similar preferences -- it is a big Internet.)
I think he's an unmarried Catholic, so he's not having sex already; two months of not having sex amidst a lifetime of not having sex isn't really an issue for him.
He'll change his tune pretty quickly, I'm sure, after getting married (from one "strict" Catholic to another).
Oh definitely, I'm not saying he won't be able to find people. All I'm really saying is I wouldn't accept a job that required that of me, and I wouldn't be happy if my work implemented this policy.
Different strokes for different strokes I suppose. <Insert celibacy joke here.>
Imagining an existing company implementing a policy like this and forcing it on its employees is pretty different from a small startup deciding on it (with the enthusiastic buy-in of the principals) and then going off and hiring people who are excited about it.
I've worked as a consultant for years. It's a job that requires a lot of travel. We don't hide this from prospective hires, and despite having a schedule that's a lot more rigorous than 1 month in 6, and going to places that are a lot less swank than a five-star in Bangkok, we've never had trouble recruiting.
Actually I think there are a lot of people for whom the possibility of traveling twice a year to some semi-exotic locale and having their food/drinks/entertainment comped would be a big draw. As long as you're okay with the demographics that tends to lean towards -- young people, probably fresh college grads -- you might end up finding people willing to work for less, because they'd see the travel as a benefit, than if you were hiring for a cube job.
A lot depends on how you spin it, and what kind of people you try to recruit. It's going to affect the character of the company a lot though.
Absolutely true. However it also frees them to hire people who live anywhere in the world, which gives them access to a lot of cheap talent that they otherwise would find hard to access.
Given that they have 5 employees in 4 countries scattered across 2 continents, this is a pretty big benefit.
Turning into a working vacation works until your kids reach school age, or your significant other gets a job of their own that they can't just "put on hold" for a month.
Comments
Oil rig engineers have to be away that much, or they're no longer going to be oil rig engineers. They also make disproportionately more money doing that particular job than they would if they did something else.
There's no natural requirement for programmers to leave their home/families (unless they're consulting). I suspect you're not giving your employees "hazard" pay either, are you?
If it were me, I'd want to bring my family along and turn it into a work vacation.
But what if this is condition of the job? When you apply, you are informed that you have to do this. If its unacceptable, you simply do something else.
Then you might miss out on a lot of talented people, because being away for a month at a time is a strange requirement for a programmer. Most people have families, friends, significant others, pets, or WoW guilds they simply don't want to be away from for a month at a time. The emotional toll of homesickness could very easily end up costing you.
Not to mention, if your employees are in committed relationships you're also subjecting them to a month without sex. I don't know if it's worth $2800/month to have two months a year where your employees are homesick and sexually frustrated.
There are a lot of talented people in the world and Max needs to hire, hmm, five or ten of them? Being a Japanese salaryman probably wouldn't sound that attractive to the average American but there are a few of us defective types who do/did it anyway.
(Speaking of quirky individual preferences: I'm a strict Catholic. Two months, huh. <dry>How ever would I cope.</dry> You can probably find five or ten other people with similar preferences -- it is a big Internet.)
How would being religious affect anything? Aren't there Catholic churches in pretty much every major city?
I'm an atheist ex-catholic and I don't get the joke. Why would you downvote me for a legitimate question?
I think he's an unmarried Catholic, so he's not having sex already; two months of not having sex amidst a lifetime of not having sex isn't really an issue for him.
He'll change his tune pretty quickly, I'm sure, after getting married (from one "strict" Catholic to another).
He's referring to the lack of sex issue.
Oh definitely, I'm not saying he won't be able to find people. All I'm really saying is I wouldn't accept a job that required that of me, and I wouldn't be happy if my work implemented this policy.
Different strokes for different strokes I suppose. <Insert celibacy joke here.>
Imagining an existing company implementing a policy like this and forcing it on its employees is pretty different from a small startup deciding on it (with the enthusiastic buy-in of the principals) and then going off and hiring people who are excited about it.
I've worked as a consultant for years. It's a job that requires a lot of travel. We don't hide this from prospective hires, and despite having a schedule that's a lot more rigorous than 1 month in 6, and going to places that are a lot less swank than a five-star in Bangkok, we've never had trouble recruiting.
Actually I think there are a lot of people for whom the possibility of traveling twice a year to some semi-exotic locale and having their food/drinks/entertainment comped would be a big draw. As long as you're okay with the demographics that tends to lean towards -- young people, probably fresh college grads -- you might end up finding people willing to work for less, because they'd see the travel as a benefit, than if you were hiring for a cube job.
A lot depends on how you spin it, and what kind of people you try to recruit. It's going to affect the character of the company a lot though.
Absolutely true. However it also frees them to hire people who live anywhere in the world, which gives them access to a lot of cheap talent that they otherwise would find hard to access.
Given that they have 5 employees in 4 countries scattered across 2 continents, this is a pretty big benefit.
>Not to mention, if your employees are in committed relationships you're also subjecting them to a month without sex.
Dude, they went to Bangkok.
Turning into a working vacation works until your kids reach school age, or your significant other gets a job of their own that they can't just "put on hold" for a month.