I'm an Australian working for a US big tech company, the culture thing is interesting to me. What I see from corp and the US side very much matches the "Americans tend to be enthusiastic about their company mission - in the extreme, believing that they’re saving the world" statement, but I always wonder how genuine it is? When your access to healthcare is directly tied to your enthusiasm for the company mission, it seems to me that you _must_ display that enthusiasm even if it's a facade. Maybe I'm just a cynical aussie, but how can you possibly be enthusiastic for (eg.) putting ads infront of as many eyeballs as possible?
I think in the tech sector, as an engineer (what I am) I do not feel tied to my company for healthcare. I can snap my fingers and have another job with full coverage in a month, earlier if I’m willing to take a mid tier job rather than top tier. I’ve never thought about being without healthcare.
I also served in the Marines and grew up in Massachusetts, two places that really embrace sarcasm and gallows humor. Merging into the California tech sector, the enthusiasm, sunny demeanor and inability to take being picked on as a demonstration of affection… it was a difficult adjustment.
I am enthusiastic about using quality call centres and I value the service. I give the respondent respect. A niece who worked in one told me some firms give staff a daily discretionary spend to make small problems go away and I believe it's worth it, and it's worth being respectful to the person trying to help you, if they have this ability then it reflects their autonomy, your value as a customer and how nice you are.
She said dealing with the live shark lost in the mail was a highspot (a lot of strange delivery issues in the modern shop from home world)
I’m not saying we don’t need them. Obviously they provide a valuable service and I wish the best for our agents and customers.
But the problem is about as boring as they come. There’s nothing exciting about making a callcenter operate well, even though it’s often done wrong. Probably why we can (apparently) eat the market.
I'm not an entrepreneur, or want to be one but I think There’s nothing exciting about making a callcenter operate well, even though it’s often done wrong is a bit of a call-to-action signal. Somebody should feel passionate bout this, it has high value (social) outcomes.
I would think that giving staff some agency to intercede, plus improved scripting support and process-flow improvements could be huge here. The stories I hear about helpdesk who can only add file notes and not actually fix things like gas-meter address/ID mismatches (and the consequent debt collector problems for people who genuinely are NOT the user of the phantom gas meter) is just huge. There's a process-improvement opportunity here.
"computer says no" is about the worst possible outcome. Measuring helpdesk effectiveness on time to close call feels like the problem (in part)
> When your access to healthcare is directly tied to your enthusiasm for the company mission, it seems to me that you _must_ display that enthusiasm even if it's a facade.
I get what you're implying, but I want to point out that healthcare is not "directly tied to your enthusiasm." I'm sure somebody can post their anecdote about being fired for not having enough pep in their step at work, but enthusiasm for the company mission is not a typical requirement for employment. Furthermore, despite the pervasive online meme to the contrary, the US does have a substantial social safety net — we devote more of our GDP to public social spending¹ than Canada or Australia. It's completely fair to say that the outcomes can vary, but it's not fair to say that Americans are by and large left rudderless without help from the state if they lose their job.
think you're grossly misunderstanding what social safety net means - public spending is not the same thing as a safety net. the public healthcare system that countries like Gemrnay have is an example of a social safety net.
I'm not misunderstanding it. In fact, I think it's a misunderstanding of the current zeitgeist that "public safety net" must necessarily include a public healthcare system. If that were true, then a country like Switzerland wouldn't qualify as having a public safety net.
In the US, our public safety net consists of Medicaid, Medicare, unemployment benefits and SNAP, among other things. Like I said in my previous comment, the outcomes/efficacy of our safety net versus Germany's safety net are totally different, and it's fair to criticize that. But the spending reflects our country's intent to provide a safety net, even if it's far from perfect.
In my experience (outside of bigtech but in the B-tier of VC-funded startups), "change the world" hyperbole is rare, but most founders and founding devs are pretty confident they can improve some specific topic for some specific niche of people. And it's sometimes even true for the ones that provide real services.
I joke with my friends that one day I am going to get a job with Lockheed, Raytheon, etc. and be uncomfortably enthusiastic about the mission. Some sort of workplace live art project.
However, I have luckily only worked at companies in my career that I could really get behind the mission and have in my view a reasonably positive work output. Letting people save money for retirement, or start a business is pretty good. I don't know how my view would change if I worked for something more morally gray.
>your access to healthcare is directly tied to your enthusiasm for the company mission
No, it's not. First, they're legally required to provide it so long as you work there, whether you're enthusiastic or not. Even if you got fired for not being enthusiastic enough, by law you can stay on the same health insurance plan for 18 months. If you still haven't found a job after 18-36 months, or just don't like the company's plan, you can get your own individual plan, or look for a plan for low-income people like medicaid.
The US healthcare system has its problems for sure, but you seem confused about what they are.
You are technically correct--the best kind of correct! However, if you step back and look at the big picture, the US's tethering of health care to employment is probably a big driver of lots of critical decisions around employment. It's definitely one of the big reasons guys like me with a family will never voluntarily quit my job and go try a startup. Or just semi-retire when I turn 55 (unless I find health care). And COBRA tends to be massively expensive, so while your health care is technically available, it's not even remotely the same as being employed.
It's pretty similar to a comparable marketplace plan and even to Medicare for the first couple of years (which is tied to what your recent W-2 income is/was). The issue is that your employer is presumably chipping in a lot of your current insurance costs as part of your benefits. But, yes, if you're paying for insurance on your own, it's expensive because you're covering the whole thing.
I can assure you, your US colleagues are as cynical as you are, but in America you fake a positive attitude because what the hell else are you supposed to do but make the best of it?
Generally, the West Coast of the US is the most fake positive and the East Coast is the most blunt and outwardly cynical. Middle America tends to be friendly yet direct.
At the end of the day, I don't think many people would be doing this if they really had a choice (e.g. a few million in the bank, house paid off, etc), but it is what it is. You still need to play the game of life and make the most out of it.
The circle jerk enthusiasm and camraderie really does help to keep a lot of people motivated and focused on providing for the company. While it might feel over the top, it serves a purpose, and gives people a sense of community and belonging which is often hard to find in the modern world. Plus it stops them from being depressed thinking about how mundane their life is, spending 60+ hours a week fixing the CI pipeline.
Yikes, please don't cross into personal attack. We have to ban accounts that do that, and it looks like you've posted this kind of thing before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41880411.
Fortunately when I skimmed through your comment history I saw many more good comments, so this should be easy to fix. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
> If you were on my team I’d manage you out. People like you are a cancer in organizations, always bringing everyone down.
If you have this absolutist attitude why would you expect anyone to ever be honest with you? Of course people are going to pretend that they believe in the company mission. Not doing so puts their livelihood at risk because of people like you.
Uh huh honey. Newsflash: Most people are doing their jobs because they have to to get by, and don’t have the choice to work on socially-useful-but-not-lucrative stuff.
Nah. Just don’t want to work with negative Nancy. You bring everyone down.
Are you aware that your attitude also affects everyone in a negative way (and you just don't care?), or are you oblivious to the damage you do to people?
Or maybe for you it's all about the output and how good your numbers look, and damaging people is just a price to pay?
A lot of people are deeply cynical about the front they have to put on at work, and a lot of people are also self-selecting into roles and workplaces requiring less of a front.
