Comment by p0w3n3d

I call that the "shower clause," because the company claims ownership of any ideas you come up with, in the shower.

I think, like noncompetes, there's limits to how far the company can actually enforce it, but they bank on the fact that they have lawyers on permanent retainer, and you don't. Even standing up for your rights, against blatant corporate overreach, is expensive.

I always ask companies to remove that clause from contracts, I think all offers I've ever got had that clause, but also 100% removed it on request.

If my contract says that I must be available immediately at any time, do I have ANY personal time? Or is all of my time their time too?

In the US, the enforceability of that sort of thing depends on the state. Generally, if that state enforces non-competes (other than for selling the business, or managerial staff), then it most likely enforces "you're salaried, so everything you invent belongs to us".

The legal term to search is "work for hire".

My last employer had a monthly Day of Learning where you could study whatever you want (so long as you could sort of tie it back to work). It was great. They’d organize presentations from employees but you could spend the whole day essentially however you wanted.

> If you're shipping consistently and high quality nobody is going to care if you're occasionally reading through a book chapter or watching a lecture online.

Or if they do, it's a toxic workplace.

>I've never understood why employees push for official approval like this.

>I've never had official permission to study at work. I've also never had any problem studying at work.

In this case, since the manager was the one pushing for "personal growth", asking ensured that

- the activity is sanctioned, and one doesn't have to bet on nobody asking questions

- it effectively gets put on record, in a quantifiable way, and can be used for promotion/salary boost at performance reviews

- it also enables others to do the same, even if they're not "shipping consistently and high quality" (in the eyes of the management). So that they could reach that level, y'know. Learning that benefits the employer isn't a reward one should earn for high performance.

- in case of denial (as in this case), one gets a clear signal about where the priorities are and what's bullshit, and can act accordingly. By updating their resume, at the very least.

>If you're shipping consistently and high quality

I cannot emphasize strongly enough that this "if" kills your entire point.

>You're not hourly anyway, so in theory any non-project time is your time anyway.

I don't know what fantasy world you live in, but when I was in Google, we were told to bring our entire selves to work.

That's to say, while you were there, Google has your entire self. You're no longer a mere person, you're a Googler, and there's no such thing as non-Googler time while you're on the payrolls.

The consequence of "you're not hourly" isn't that you get to have non-project time to yourself. It's that you don't get to have your time. All your time belongs to the company; you are bringing your entire self to work.

Sure, you're allowed to spend some of that time doing other things. The Corporate will graciously avert their eyes. You will be held accountable for what you do in that time though.

You better answer those stupid emails while you're loafing, because you weren't hired to answer emails, and the engineer's time is expensive. You are expected to demonstrate impact for every hour spent. Answering emails is not impactful. You still have to do it though.

So you do it in your "off the clock" time, when the corporate isn't looking.

There is no such thing as YOUR time. There merely is time when your performance is measured and judged (working hours).

It's showtime, when you compete with other employees for that promotion (or simply not being fired).

It's a precious resource that you have to ration for the pirouettes that get the most points from the judges, like coding and leading and doing other things with demonstrable impact.

An athlete doesn't stop being an athlete when the competition clock stops. Oh no, that's when the real work begins.

That's why the parent commentor asked.

The real question was: do I get points from the judges for this move?

If the answer isn't a "yes", then the judges expect you to do it in your "off work" hours when they aren't evaluating your performance. If they see you doing it, it will adversely impact your score.

You're only supposed to do things that count during the preciously small 8-hour window when The Corporate deigns to see what you're doing.

The things that you have to do to showcase this performance are the things you do on your own time.

You don't watch the Olympics to see the athletes do all the things that they have to do to be high-performing athletes.

There's a word for people who, say, only play soccer when there's a judge present to count the score, and go back to their lives in the end of the day.

The word is amateurs.

Amateurs don't get paid. And they're certainly not needed in the club.

It's not just Google, of course, other companies are the same or worse. The corporate chat shows who's online and when, inviting the employees to the after hours game.

Oh, and the best part is having everyone judge each other.

The Corporate promises not to look when the clock stops, but your peers aren't beholden to the same promise.

They will look, and they will judge.

No, the corporate doesn't expect you to help out a colleague in the "off hours". But someone's going to write that peer feedback in the end of the perf period. And you don't want to be the unhelpful one.

You can't complain about being messaged in the off-hours because the corporate says that you a aren't required to answer messages at that time, so there's nothing to complain about.

Prisoner's dilemma ensures that the judgment never stops.

The competition keeps going; you're just being judged for different things.

And none of them is the process personal growth.

During work hours, you'll be judged for how much you "personally grew".

But nobody wants to watch the paint dry or watch the grass (or you) grow.

[dead]

> (Just kidding, I know what happens... they will fire you and hire someone who doesn't have kids.)

And then the boss will blame young people for collapsing the demography and endangering the country.

Either get let go, fall behind, or pick up an expensive stimulant habit to try and eek out a little productivity at unholy hours.

You either fall behind/into a rut, or like you said, get let go. It’s scary

>Look, we want you to express yourself, okay? Now if you feel that the bare minimum is enough, then okay. But some people choose to wear more and we encourage that, okay? You do want to express yourself, don't you?

(This is from Office Space for those who don’t know. Hilarious scene with Jennifer Aniston)

What else would you do when i̶t̶'s̶ c̶o̶m̶p̶i̶l̶i̶n̶g̶ claude is generating?

This is such a curious POV for me - I'd genuinely like to hear your thoughts on this. Who owns your career growth if not.. you?

(If you don't desire to grow your career, that's a viewpoint I can entirely understand.)