Hard and unsightly life of a simple programmer
I’ll confess at once that the title of the article is just that in the name of rhyme, in fact, it will be about modern IT pioneers - novice developers, analysts, testers, all those who are called Junior.
I propose to speculate on how in our time it is best to start a career, what paths there are at the start, where to go to a student, or even to a schoolboy who knows PHP, JS, Go, PostgreSQL, heard something about QA and seems to understand why There is a code review.
Recently, as part of a discussion of an article on Habré, a rather curious discussion took place, one of the main thoughts of which I formulated for myself as follows: should a commercial company hire, train and educate June?
Immediately understand the terms: by “must” in this particular case, I mean both the social function of the form “if not to hire, then who else will teach them?”, And the economic function “to hire them is profitable, since they are cheap”.
')
“Junami” in this article, I call both novice developers and novice engineers, testers, consultants, and even novice managers. In general, a full stack of development and operations, plus management, and all this is natural in IT.
The term “beginner” means a person who possesses a certain competence on the theoretical level, but did not apply it in practice, or did it on personal and / or small projects, that is, did not work for the customer, has little idea what teamwork means processes exist in typical organization, etc.
Hereinafter, I’m not talking about the “stars”, those students who are beginning to hunt from the third-year bench of the institute, these guys have a very interesting and sometimes hard fate. Also, the article’s material is geographically limited by the Russian Federation; in any other country, the situation is likely to be different and should be considered separately.
When we begin to talk about the social obligations of a commercial company towards someone in a market economy, we can immediately put an end to this, since the market economy does not imply state regulation in terms of social obligations.
Let me repeat this postulate: a commercial company in the capitalist world and in a highly competitive environment should not bear any social obligations. Maybe, if she wants, but imposing such an obligation on an organization whose purpose is to maximize profits, it immediately translates it into the conditions of a socially-liberalistic economy, where the state indicates (forces) all commercial entities how they should manage their capital.
Tax burden, reaching in our country in some cases 70-80% of the profits, the minimum wage, obliging to pay at least X, a labor code with a limit of forty hours a week, the impossibility of exploiting child labor (which is an absolute good, nevertheless ), the prohibition of the impossibility of this, all this puts a commercial company in a situation where for survival it is necessary to save on everything. Or apply various schemes, both in relations with the state and its affiliates (everyone who falls under both 44 FZ and 223 FZ) and other market participants - competing companies, suppliers and consumers (think about a 0.9-liter milk package , or a dozen eggs in which they are nine).
Our state has not yet reached the realization of ideas, when the obligation of any commercial company will start hiring a certain number of people with disabilities, fathers and mothers of large families, rehabilitated prisoners, the unemployed,and other poor people . But if (when) it happens - the existence of private business in our country will be a very big question.
So, to summarize: a commercial organization in relation to the junas should not bear any social obligations. Maybe if he wants, if there is an understandable budget for this, which the management is ready to merge at a loss.
And who should bear social obligations in relation to the Juneand other poor ?
Of course, our favorite state. I personally know what a shortage of IT professionals in government institutions. I know how interesting problems are solved there. I know that it is there that you can develop the necessary competence to those heights when the junior will be ready to take not only some kind of integrator, but also Google with eipl taken together. Yes, there will have to work a lot, sometimes a lot, simply because there is an open field for work and plowing it or no one, or “not willing”, but this is good, it is in such conditions that you can gain a huge amount of knowledge in a very short period of time and experience. Yes, they will have to wade through the bureaucracy and dozens or hundreds of unnecessary meetings, but this is how steel is “tempered” and an employee with a quite obvious set of soft skills (ability to safely pass arrays of documents, reasoning about the topic, communicating with people) hatches out from yesterday's student of the most diverse nature, level and position, the development of working hygiene and the inculcation (from the word vaccination) of the characteristics of another environment).
Therefore, June, if you have finished reading to this place, try, in any department of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation, the Federal Tax Service, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, FC and other state institutions, including hospitals and some PAOs, they are waiting for you with open arms. Work a maximum there for a couple of years, and if you don’t grow to the middle right there, then practically any “merchant” will take you away with great pleasure, for you will pass the furnace. Of course, if you work exactly, and not engage in IBD, because it is possible and not to work in almost any “state”.
Here it is important: in any state organization you will have to include discipline and self-motivation in order to really do business, but by developing these qualities in yourself you will become a truly valuable specialist. After some time, when you get comfortable, you will surely find people who also work, deliver real benefits, and do not pretend, it’s with them that you keep the closest contact, it’s almost holy people.
Be careful, do not become holy yourself, a year or two and revise yourself, write on a sheet of paper in two columns "as it was" / "as it became", be surprised and go on HH.
The purpose of a commercial company is to make a profit from the services provided, or the sale of manufactured products. Profit is at the forefront. If there is disagreement with this statement, then give your definition in the comments, but for now, I and the wiki live with it.
It is within the framework of this maxim that I propose to consider the question whether it is profitable for a company to hire a junior or not.
Profit, as is known from the school course of the economy, is equal to income minus costs.
And better deploy this classic formula on the other hand:
(Production costs) + (Margin) + (Risks) = (Price of goods / services)
"That's what the guys ... machine gun, I will not give ..."
The easiest way to calculate the economic feasibility of hiring a junior in a small commercial company operating in the IT market is to try to calculate how production costs will change, which I will call cost price to simplify.
There are dozens of models for calculating the cost of production of goods or the provision of services, in the framework of the case under consideration, I will take the simplest: we take the wage fund of employees of production units and multiply by the K-factor.
K-factor is the value accumulating in itself all other expenses incurred by the company in its production cycle, with the exception of the wage fund of employees of production units.
(K-ratio) = (salary of employees of supporting units) + (taxes of all types) + (equipment / jobs / other means of production) + (utility / telematic / other periodic payments)
(I am familiar with many models of calculating the cost of production of goods, from RSVD to TD ABC through cost-driven rates, but the most expedient way to calculate the degree of influence of a management decision on the cost of goods / services I personally consider the calculation of its effect on the K-factor)
Introductory:
So, is it possible to calculate how much one employee costs with a net salary of 100 rubles for the company that he hired? How much is this same K-factor, with which we can understand the cost of 1 producing unit?
We ate excluding options for SMP and “simplified”, to calculate the cost of 1 production unit the salary of each employee producing the product, or directly providing services (the so-called “production worker”), multiplied by K-factor = 2.2.
Personally, the value of 2.2 is derived by sweat and blood, each of the owners counts it himself, specifically for their conditions and costs, and I have never in my life met a single commercial company that would have it below the indicated 1.9, most organizations in which I have seen BDR, this indicator is between 2.3 and 2.5, but for further calculations, for a more optimistic picture, I suggest taking the coefficient 2.0.
This means that a “production worker” with a salary of 100 rubles costs the company 200 rubles a month, regardless of whether he has done some good or not.
Important: for the company to “go to zero” the sales manager must each of the working hours of the “production worker” with a salary of 100 rubles sell for 200 rubles. One hour of work of the “production worker” can be transformed both into the sale of the “box” that the company has created and the provision of services to external contractors — outsourcing, outstaff, service.
I completely forgot about the clock! This is interesting and important too.
How many hours do you think an employee should work on a period? Or is it better to ask like this — what percentage of useful utilization should the “production worker” have?
It is considered, and the labor code directly says that the maximum work time should be limited to 40 hours per week. Or eight hours a day.
Imagine a situation, here the employee comes to work at nine in the morning, turns on the computer at 9:01, and starts to get full. Without being distracted by instant messengers, coffee, conversations with colleagues, reading the Internet, that's just what they do. At 13:00 he gets up and goes to dinner. At 14:00, she sits down at the computer again and code-projects-tests until exactly 18:00. At 18:01 with a sense of accomplishment, he goes to his wife and children, well, or to klubeshnik. And so 11 months a year. He does not get sick, does not study, does not communicate during working hours on non-working issues. Only in this case, we can say that the employee works with 100% recycling. But it is worth a couple of times a year to get sick for a week and recycling drops to 95%.
In fact, of course, we don’t figure it out, we drink coffee, we communicate with colleagues on abstract topics, we no-no, during the working day, but look at Habr and Peek-a-boo. OK, I will not torture, and I will immediately say that an employee of the IT production unit has an average utilization of 80% over the period. Achievement of 90% utilization on a period is work 10 hours a day. Achievement of 120% of utilization in a period is a job for 12-14 hours a day, seven days a week.
So, each employee of the production units, in accordance with recycling = 80% benefits the company from 120 to 130 hours per month, or from 30 to 32 hours per week, or about 6 hours each working day.
The analyst writes TZ only six hours a day, the developer implements it only in six hours in code, the tester checks it only six hours.
A couple of important nuances for this particular case: First, none of the “production workers” does not learn anything new and does not teach anyone else, each of them is self-sufficient and works for the benefit of business at least six hours every working day; and secondly, our production model is built in such a way that there is always work for each of the production workers, they are not idle due to the lack of tasks (which is very close in reality, but we are now discussing a spherical company).
And let's calculate the “cost” of one hour of a specific “production worker” based on his salary of 100 rubles:
$ 100 / 120h * (K) 2 = 1.6 rubles for 1 hour of work
(in order for the company to go to zero - 1 hour of work of a “production worker” with a salary of 100K, it is necessary to sell it as a service or a box for 1600 rubles; it is not cheaper - there will be a loss)
Patience, getting to the point. Although, I think, by this moment the majority already understands the size of the disaster ...
Ta-dam! We take a junior, in the stack we need, this is a diligent guy, but so far he knows little, there is also not enough experience, but he is a sweetheart, we want to grow a great middlehead from him, and maybe even a signora. Our new colleague wants 50 rubles a month.
Thus, June costs the company, taking into account taxes, a workplace and other things (K-factor = 2) already in 100 rubles. Let's take the standard three months to our horizon, and we will say to the June that, or in three months, he will begin to figure on a par with everyone, or “the door is open, please come out.”
I am ready to listen in the comments for all the indignation due to me, but in some places I have to take numbers from the ceiling, otherwise I will not be able to demonstrate.
Mathematics is as follows:
We believe how much the company hired the cost of the June cost:
300 + 60 + 64 = 424 rubles; plus due to the distraction of the team for training, the cost per hour of the N-number of “production workers” increased by at least 10%.
I think this can be summed up: in the first three months, the company incurs a direct loss of 424 rubles and, albeit insignificantly, it increases the “cost” of the “production workers” hour.
We all don’t know if we’ll get a nice middle from our john or not. But now the owner of the company must make a decision - he is ready to throw out 424 rubles for an event, the success of which no one guarantees to him, and even his likelihood no one in his right mind would count.
Or is it better for the owner to immediately hire a middle for 100 rubles, which immediately (well, well, in a week) will bring benefits?
To summarize: under the conditions of a capitalist system and a market economy, the state cannot (and should not) impose social obligations on a commercial company to hire juniors, students and other categories of citizens poorly protected at the start of a career; The calculations I have cited, even for a “spherical company in a vacuum,” clearly prove the economic inexpediency of employing June.
How to be?
I have already written a couple of words about the first path - go to work for the state. Despite all the disadvantages of this approach, including not very high salaries, you can get very valuable experience and develop both hard and soft skills.
The second way is to try to get into the giants of the industry, both domestic, such as Yandex and Mail, and imported, from those who remained in our market - Microsoft, Google and Dell, etc. ... It is difficult even for an experienced specialist (a series of interviews at the end zero took me six months), but possible. Giants have a completely different economy, it is weakly related to the performance of each unit, they rarely consider the cost driven rate, therefore, once they get there, you can work there even until retirement.
The third way is startups. Everything is obvious here - just at the start of work, the low cost (well, it would be zero, only on the idea and motivation) of the production unit is very important, and the experience can be enormous, but very fleeting. It seems that only 0.1% of startups are experiencing one year of life, and the rest ... yeah.
— « ». , ( « » , - )
«» «, , ! , !»
I propose to speculate on how in our time it is best to start a career, what paths there are at the start, where to go to a student, or even to a schoolboy who knows PHP, JS, Go, PostgreSQL, heard something about QA and seems to understand why There is a code review.
Recently, as part of a discussion of an article on Habré, a rather curious discussion took place, one of the main thoughts of which I formulated for myself as follows: should a commercial company hire, train and educate June?
Immediately understand the terms: by “must” in this particular case, I mean both the social function of the form “if not to hire, then who else will teach them?”, And the economic function “to hire them is profitable, since they are cheap”.
')
“Junami” in this article, I call both novice developers and novice engineers, testers, consultants, and even novice managers. In general, a full stack of development and operations, plus management, and all this is natural in IT.
The term “beginner” means a person who possesses a certain competence on the theoretical level, but did not apply it in practice, or did it on personal and / or small projects, that is, did not work for the customer, has little idea what teamwork means processes exist in typical organization, etc.
Hereinafter, I’m not talking about the “stars”, those students who are beginning to hunt from the third-year bench of the institute, these guys have a very interesting and sometimes hard fate. Also, the article’s material is geographically limited by the Russian Federation; in any other country, the situation is likely to be different and should be considered separately.
Social function
When we begin to talk about the social obligations of a commercial company towards someone in a market economy, we can immediately put an end to this, since the market economy does not imply state regulation in terms of social obligations.
Let me repeat this postulate: a commercial company in the capitalist world and in a highly competitive environment should not bear any social obligations. Maybe, if she wants, but imposing such an obligation on an organization whose purpose is to maximize profits, it immediately translates it into the conditions of a socially-liberalistic economy, where the state indicates (forces) all commercial entities how they should manage their capital.
Tax burden, reaching in our country in some cases 70-80% of the profits, the minimum wage, obliging to pay at least X, a labor code with a limit of forty hours a week, the impossibility of exploiting child labor (which is an absolute good, nevertheless ), the prohibition of the impossibility of this, all this puts a commercial company in a situation where for survival it is necessary to save on everything. Or apply various schemes, both in relations with the state and its affiliates (everyone who falls under both 44 FZ and 223 FZ) and other market participants - competing companies, suppliers and consumers (think about a 0.9-liter milk package , or a dozen eggs in which they are nine).
Our state has not yet reached the realization of ideas, when the obligation of any commercial company will start hiring a certain number of people with disabilities, fathers and mothers of large families, rehabilitated prisoners, the unemployed,
How about this in the west?
At the end of the 2000s, I worked in the Russian branch of one of the world's largest IT companies. Once, a request from the head office came to the corporate mail, in which they asked to write in the reply letter how many non-traditional sexual orientation employees work in our hub.
It may be in the US and it is accepted when asking for a job to ask whether you are natural or in some other way they conduct surveys, but in the Russian Federation this topic is not that taboo, but just go to your colleague and ask “hey, but you are not homosexual by chance? ”it is absolutely certain to get in response in the face, and most likely more than once, and perhaps not only with your hand. The hub's management scratched its head for a while, and then answered “None, zero, zero” and calmly went on to draw P & L for the next quarter. But it was not there.
The next letter the head office demanded the presence in the hub of the minimum required number of employees blue, pink, and what colors are there in this rainbow. There was no time for laughter, where to get them? How to identify? And maybe post an advertisement for hire? They laughed at the idea of appointing for a long time: “Helen Petrovna, there’s such a thing, I’m nominating you as our corporate lesbian, you have to, just for business, you know ...”.
Unscrew, of course, but the approach itself, which consists in regulating the quality of employees at this level, was not expected.
It may be in the US and it is accepted when asking for a job to ask whether you are natural or in some other way they conduct surveys, but in the Russian Federation this topic is not that taboo, but just go to your colleague and ask “hey, but you are not homosexual by chance? ”it is absolutely certain to get in response in the face, and most likely more than once, and perhaps not only with your hand. The hub's management scratched its head for a while, and then answered “None, zero, zero” and calmly went on to draw P & L for the next quarter. But it was not there.
The next letter the head office demanded the presence in the hub of the minimum required number of employees blue, pink, and what colors are there in this rainbow. There was no time for laughter, where to get them? How to identify? And maybe post an advertisement for hire? They laughed at the idea of appointing for a long time: “Helen Petrovna, there’s such a thing, I’m nominating you as our corporate lesbian, you have to, just for business, you know ...”.
Unscrew, of course, but the approach itself, which consists in regulating the quality of employees at this level, was not expected.
So, to summarize: a commercial organization in relation to the junas should not bear any social obligations. Maybe if he wants, if there is an understandable budget for this, which the management is ready to merge at a loss.
And who should bear social obligations in relation to the June
Of course, our favorite state. I personally know what a shortage of IT professionals in government institutions. I know how interesting problems are solved there. I know that it is there that you can develop the necessary competence to those heights when the junior will be ready to take not only some kind of integrator, but also Google with eipl taken together. Yes, there will have to work a lot, sometimes a lot, simply because there is an open field for work and plowing it or no one, or “not willing”, but this is good, it is in such conditions that you can gain a huge amount of knowledge in a very short period of time and experience. Yes, they will have to wade through the bureaucracy and dozens or hundreds of unnecessary meetings, but this is how steel is “tempered” and an employee with a quite obvious set of soft skills (ability to safely pass arrays of documents, reasoning about the topic, communicating with people) hatches out from yesterday's student of the most diverse nature, level and position, the development of working hygiene and the inculcation (from the word vaccination) of the characteristics of another environment).
Therefore, June, if you have finished reading to this place, try, in any department of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation, the Federal Tax Service, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, FC and other state institutions, including hospitals and some PAOs, they are waiting for you with open arms. Work a maximum there for a couple of years, and if you don’t grow to the middle right there, then practically any “merchant” will take you away with great pleasure, for you will pass the furnace. Of course, if you work exactly, and not engage in IBD, because it is possible and not to work in almost any “state”.
Here it is important: in any state organization you will have to include discipline and self-motivation in order to really do business, but by developing these qualities in yourself you will become a truly valuable specialist. After some time, when you get comfortable, you will surely find people who also work, deliver real benefits, and do not pretend, it’s with them that you keep the closest contact, it’s almost holy people.
Be careful, do not become holy yourself, a year or two and revise yourself, write on a sheet of paper in two columns "as it was" / "as it became", be surprised and go on HH.
Economic expediency
The purpose of a commercial company is to make a profit from the services provided, or the sale of manufactured products. Profit is at the forefront. If there is disagreement with this statement, then give your definition in the comments, but for now, I and the wiki live with it.
It is within the framework of this maxim that I propose to consider the question whether it is profitable for a company to hire a junior or not.
Profit, as is known from the school course of the economy, is equal to income minus costs.
And better deploy this classic formula on the other hand:
(Production costs) + (Margin) + (Risks) = (Price of goods / services)
"That's what the guys ... machine gun, I will not give ..."
The easiest way to calculate the economic feasibility of hiring a junior in a small commercial company operating in the IT market is to try to calculate how production costs will change, which I will call cost price to simplify.
There are dozens of models for calculating the cost of production of goods or the provision of services, in the framework of the case under consideration, I will take the simplest: we take the wage fund of employees of production units and multiply by the K-factor.
K-factor is the value accumulating in itself all other expenses incurred by the company in its production cycle, with the exception of the wage fund of employees of production units.
(K-ratio) = (salary of employees of supporting units) + (taxes of all types) + (equipment / jobs / other means of production) + (utility / telematic / other periodic payments)
(I am familiar with many models of calculating the cost of production of goods, from RSVD to TD ABC through cost-driven rates, but the most expedient way to calculate the degree of influence of a management decision on the cost of goods / services I personally consider the calculation of its effect on the K-factor)
So, reduce the level of abstraction and describe the spherical horse
Take a company that develops software, both custom and boxed solutions. The company has an established team of architects, team leads, analysts, developers, sub-engineers, testers and engineers. For each of them, there is an obvious role productivity index (expressed primarily in figures) based on statistical data from the work history of a particular role; nevertheless, it is regularly adjusted, since there are few similar tasks. The performance index we use to calculate the time required for the implementation of a task.
Somewhere, sales and presale managers are running around, but the developers usually don’t see them, marketers lining up with SMM bulletins in their offices are marketers, headhunter crowd artists and headhunter at the same time preparing the next corporate event.
With all these employees, it is much more difficult to calculate their performance: a commercial unit, of course, regularly draws a sales funnel for a certain event horizon, but when asked what will come true and with what probability, roll their eyes to the ceiling and mumble something like for all the will of Allah. " There is the same problem with personnel officers: to the question “why the hell did you send me twenty resumes of C-pads if I asked C-Sharpovites” they can answer with a blue eye, “But what is there, and there and there is the letter C”. I don’t want to write anything about marketers, these devils have some kind of math, and maybe even physics, and it’s impossible to understand the performance of their work without half a liter for a brother. Sometimes, the company still has lawyers and accountants, these creatures are certainly useful, but they are needed occasionally, and if the company is small, say up to a hundred people, then they can easily be taken as outsourcing.
Finally, above this whole gang, the leadership sits on top. Commercial, Executive, Technical - Directors. Well, the general, where without him, he signs the documents.
Suppose that all together and individually, these are people sane, appointees and “thieves” neither among production, nor support, nor managerial personnel (no fantasy, of course, I mean all sane, but let this sphericalhorse be in vacuum company).
Focusing on the Rosencrantz formula, I will derive the ratio of production staff to all other types of employees (support, administrative staff, sales staff, etc.) specifically in IT, like 7 to 1, that is, for every seven employees of production units there is oneparasite employee not participating directly in the development of a product or service.
Thus, in a company with a population of 100 people, 85 “developers” need 15 “securers” (rounded of course).
Somewhere, sales and presale managers are running around, but the developers usually don’t see them, marketers lining up with SMM bulletins in their offices are marketers, headhunter crowd artists and headhunter at the same time preparing the next corporate event.
With all these employees, it is much more difficult to calculate their performance: a commercial unit, of course, regularly draws a sales funnel for a certain event horizon, but when asked what will come true and with what probability, roll their eyes to the ceiling and mumble something like for all the will of Allah. " There is the same problem with personnel officers: to the question “why the hell did you send me twenty resumes of C-pads if I asked C-Sharpovites” they can answer with a blue eye, “But what is there, and there and there is the letter C”. I don’t want to write anything about marketers, these devils have some kind of math, and maybe even physics, and it’s impossible to understand the performance of their work without half a liter for a brother. Sometimes, the company still has lawyers and accountants, these creatures are certainly useful, but they are needed occasionally, and if the company is small, say up to a hundred people, then they can easily be taken as outsourcing.
Finally, above this whole gang, the leadership sits on top. Commercial, Executive, Technical - Directors. Well, the general, where without him, he signs the documents.
Suppose that all together and individually, these are people sane, appointees and “thieves” neither among production, nor support, nor managerial personnel (no fantasy, of course, I mean all sane, but let this spherical
Focusing on the Rosencrantz formula, I will derive the ratio of production staff to all other types of employees (support, administrative staff, sales staff, etc.) specifically in IT, like 7 to 1, that is, for every seven employees of production units there is one
Thus, in a company with a population of 100 people, 85 “developers” need 15 “securers” (rounded of course).
Introductory:
- every employee receives a salary;
- for each of the employees, the company pays taxes to the state, at least 30% of each salary;
- all employees are sitting in the office, for simplicity, let's decide that it belongs to the owner of the company, which means he pays 2% tax on its assessed value; plus the owner pays for electricity, water, sewage, telephony, Internet, fire and other labor protection; the owner from time to time takes out the garbage, cleans the snow, repairs the premises and the building; (the model with its building is cheaper than renting, but when renting the company is deprived of some domestic problems, since all this water-electricity-snow is included in the rental price; nevertheless, for our calculations we take a cheaper option with our building);
- each employee has a workplace equipped with a table, chair, computer, telephone, somewhere in the corridor the printer is buzzing, servers stand in racks behind the wall, DGU is bored in the yard, all this good is used every day, and therefore is depreciated, aging, requires repair and replacement almost every five years;
- finally, from every sold box of software, or every hour of services rendered and paid for by an external client, the company pays income tax in the amount of 20% of that profit;
So, is it possible to calculate how much one employee costs with a net salary of 100 rubles for the company that he hired? How much is this same K-factor, with which we can understand the cost of 1 producing unit?
We ate excluding options for SMP and “simplified”, to calculate the cost of 1 production unit the salary of each employee producing the product, or directly providing services (the so-called “production worker”), multiplied by K-factor = 2.2.
Personally, the value of 2.2 is derived by sweat and blood, each of the owners counts it himself, specifically for their conditions and costs, and I have never in my life met a single commercial company that would have it below the indicated 1.9, most organizations in which I have seen BDR, this indicator is between 2.3 and 2.5, but for further calculations, for a more optimistic picture, I suggest taking the coefficient 2.0.
This means that a “production worker” with a salary of 100 rubles costs the company 200 rubles a month, regardless of whether he has done some good or not.
Important: for the company to “go to zero” the sales manager must each of the working hours of the “production worker” with a salary of 100 rubles sell for 200 rubles. One hour of work of the “production worker” can be transformed both into the sale of the “box” that the company has created and the provision of services to external contractors — outsourcing, outstaff, service.
I completely forgot about the clock! This is interesting and important too.
How many hours do you think an employee should work on a period? Or is it better to ask like this — what percentage of useful utilization should the “production worker” have?
It is considered, and the labor code directly says that the maximum work time should be limited to 40 hours per week. Or eight hours a day.
Imagine a situation, here the employee comes to work at nine in the morning, turns on the computer at 9:01, and starts to get full. Without being distracted by instant messengers, coffee, conversations with colleagues, reading the Internet, that's just what they do. At 13:00 he gets up and goes to dinner. At 14:00, she sits down at the computer again and code-projects-tests until exactly 18:00. At 18:01 with a sense of accomplishment, he goes to his wife and children, well, or to klubeshnik. And so 11 months a year. He does not get sick, does not study, does not communicate during working hours on non-working issues. Only in this case, we can say that the employee works with 100% recycling. But it is worth a couple of times a year to get sick for a week and recycling drops to 95%.
In fact, of course, we don’t figure it out, we drink coffee, we communicate with colleagues on abstract topics, we no-no, during the working day, but look at Habr and Peek-a-boo. OK, I will not torture, and I will immediately say that an employee of the IT production unit has an average utilization of 80% over the period. Achievement of 90% utilization on a period is work 10 hours a day. Achievement of 120% of utilization in a period is a job for 12-14 hours a day, seven days a week.
What about in the west?
In the same company - the IT giant of world capitalism, where I worked at the end of zero, the following wage scheme was adopted: in order to get the income recorded in the offer, an employee of the production unit had to enter into the accounting system:
Or, if in absolute figures, just 128 hours were entered into the accounting system, of which:
If we consider that none of the employees were forced to go to the office (moreover, they regularly asked NOT to come to the office, if there were no meetings, or there was no need for a projector, conference calls, etc.) and each of the employees in terms of building his work schedule was his own master (to a certain extent, he was guided both by the needs of customers and by the need for remote work with headquarters in the USA, by the need to go online and onsite audits - from code-review to direct survey of customers with their degree of satisfaction sti), the accurate clock entering into the accounting system became self-granted occupation, which directly depended on income (there still was a smart bonus scheme, but more on that another time).
For managers there were other% of utilization, namely, for RP - 40% of billable hours, 15% of trainings, 10% of trainings (there was no RP in its pure form, I am in this case about an analogue of RP); and so on for everyone, from the resource manager to the head of the branch.
- 60% of the hours on the period paid in cash by external customers;
- 10% of hours on the period spent on advanced training (recorded through online visits and onsite trainings);
- and 10% of the hours in the mentoring period (developing and conducting online and on-site training;
Or, if in absolute figures, just 128 hours were entered into the accounting system, of which:
- 96 hours paid by the customer;
- 16 hours to listen to trainings;
- 16 hours to prepare and conduct trainings;
If we consider that none of the employees were forced to go to the office (moreover, they regularly asked NOT to come to the office, if there were no meetings, or there was no need for a projector, conference calls, etc.) and each of the employees in terms of building his work schedule was his own master (to a certain extent, he was guided both by the needs of customers and by the need for remote work with headquarters in the USA, by the need to go online and onsite audits - from code-review to direct survey of customers with their degree of satisfaction sti), the accurate clock entering into the accounting system became self-granted occupation, which directly depended on income (there still was a smart bonus scheme, but more on that another time).
For managers there were other% of utilization, namely, for RP - 40% of billable hours, 15% of trainings, 10% of trainings (there was no RP in its pure form, I am in this case about an analogue of RP); and so on for everyone, from the resource manager to the head of the branch.
So, each employee of the production units, in accordance with recycling = 80% benefits the company from 120 to 130 hours per month, or from 30 to 32 hours per week, or about 6 hours each working day.
The analyst writes TZ only six hours a day, the developer implements it only in six hours in code, the tester checks it only six hours.
A couple of important nuances for this particular case: First, none of the “production workers” does not learn anything new and does not teach anyone else, each of them is self-sufficient and works for the benefit of business at least six hours every working day; and secondly, our production model is built in such a way that there is always work for each of the production workers, they are not idle due to the lack of tasks (which is very close in reality, but we are now discussing a spherical company).
And let's calculate the “cost” of one hour of a specific “production worker” based on his salary of 100 rubles:
$ 100 / 120h * (K) 2 = 1.6 rubles for 1 hour of work
(in order for the company to go to zero - 1 hour of work of a “production worker” with a salary of 100K, it is necessary to sell it as a service or a box for 1600 rubles; it is not cheaper - there will be a loss)
Patience, getting to the point. Although, I think, by this moment the majority already understands the size of the disaster ...
Ta-dam! We take a junior, in the stack we need, this is a diligent guy, but so far he knows little, there is also not enough experience, but he is a sweetheart, we want to grow a great middlehead from him, and maybe even a signora. Our new colleague wants 50 rubles a month.
Thus, June costs the company, taking into account taxes, a workplace and other things (K-factor = 2) already in 100 rubles. Let's take the standard three months to our horizon, and we will say to the June that, or in three months, he will begin to figure on a par with everyone, or “the door is open, please come out.”
I am ready to listen in the comments for all the indignation due to me, but in some places I have to take numbers from the ceiling, otherwise I will not be able to demonstrate.
Mathematics is as follows:
- We will pay 300 rubles for 3 months of work (salary, workplace, security, taxes, etc.) and this is a net loss;
- 24 hours in 3 months (2 hours a week, or 25 minutes each day) will spend on training and monitoring the results of a team lead with a salary of 150 rubles, which will cost the company 60 rubles of net loss, which in turn will raise the sales price of 1 hour team lead up to 3p / hour
- 40 hours in 3 months will be spent on his training and control of the results by other “production workers” - developers will learn to comment the code correctly, regularly review the code, merge / unmerge joon code, everyone who can point out errors, testers will find curves in Joto prototypes , June himself will be tormented by questions - it was precisely such a task that he was set and he diligently performs it; Honestly speaking, I took 40 hours of total labor costs from the ceiling, I know that this is much more important as labor costs; 40 hours of total costs from "production workers" with the same salary of 100 rubles will cost the company 64 rubles, and will increase the selling price of each of them from 1.6 rubles / hour to (ummm ... and in my model their number is unknown, well, ok) to 1, 8p / hour
We believe how much the company hired the cost of the June cost:
300 + 60 + 64 = 424 rubles; plus due to the distraction of the team for training, the cost per hour of the N-number of “production workers” increased by at least 10%.
I think this can be summed up: in the first three months, the company incurs a direct loss of 424 rubles and, albeit insignificantly, it increases the “cost” of the “production workers” hour.
We all don’t know if we’ll get a nice middle from our john or not. But now the owner of the company must make a decision - he is ready to throw out 424 rubles for an event, the success of which no one guarantees to him, and even his likelihood no one in his right mind would count.
Or is it better for the owner to immediately hire a middle for 100 rubles, which immediately (well, well, in a week) will bring benefits?
And how to survive in such an economy?
- = 2,8 . 2,7. , 3,4 – 3,5, , , , .
findings
To summarize: under the conditions of a capitalist system and a market economy, the state cannot (and should not) impose social obligations on a commercial company to hire juniors, students and other categories of citizens poorly protected at the start of a career; The calculations I have cited, even for a “spherical company in a vacuum,” clearly prove the economic inexpediency of employing June.
How to be?
I have already written a couple of words about the first path - go to work for the state. Despite all the disadvantages of this approach, including not very high salaries, you can get very valuable experience and develop both hard and soft skills.
The second way is to try to get into the giants of the industry, both domestic, such as Yandex and Mail, and imported, from those who remained in our market - Microsoft, Google and Dell, etc. ... It is difficult even for an experienced specialist (a series of interviews at the end zero took me six months), but possible. Giants have a completely different economy, it is weakly related to the performance of each unit, they rarely consider the cost driven rate, therefore, once they get there, you can work there even until retirement.
The third way is startups. Everything is obvious here - just at the start of work, the low cost (well, it would be zero, only on the idea and motivation) of the production unit is very important, and the experience can be enormous, but very fleeting. It seems that only 0.1% of startups are experiencing one year of life, and the rest ... yeah.
— « ». , ( « » , - )
«» «, , ! , !»
, . , , , , , , - , , , . ! – !
, , -, , , « , , !», «_», _, , , «, , !»
, , , , , « !» ().
, , , . , , , , , .
, , -, — «, , , - ?» ()
, « , ». , , .
, - - , , , — «» , .
, - , «» .
, , -, , , « , , !», «_», _, , , «, , !»
, , , , , « !» ().
, , , . , , , , , .
, , -, — «, , , - ?» ()
, « , ». , , .
, - - , , , — «» , .
, - , «» .
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/441550/
All Articles