Work-life balance at Google (salaries, cost, vs)

[jonlovet]

About work life, i think it is same in all the tech companies. I switched from 1 tech to other. I work around 60hrs+/week. I see everybody online most of the time. Even if they are offline, they are working because I see the threads getting updated at 1 am or so. So no work life balance in tech companies. I am not sure about regions other than SV. But it should not be very different.

[blauskies]

Originally Posted by robertin75

I have read them already in the past.

What do you mean by "padding Glassdoor"? Do you mean not honest reviews?

Yes, as with most online review sites, Glassdoor is not 100% accurate, reason being is it's easy to create multiple accounts with various e-mail addresses and post reviews of either negative or positive manner. You sorta have to weed out the comments and know what's fluff and what's not, internal HR and other cheerleaders will often pad the review sites with fake reviews just like you hear from Recruiters to lure you in. I often use LinkedIn search functions, though limited without a premium account, to look at people who worked at said companies to see how long they stayed and turnover trends.

[blauskies]

Originally Posted by jonlovet

About work life, i think it is same in all the tech companies. I switched from 1 tech to other. I work around 60hrs+/week. I see everybody online most of the time. Even if they are offline, they are working because I see the threads getting updated at 1 am or so. So no work life balance in tech companies. I am not sure about regions other than SV. But it should not be very different.

I would expect it at a start-up where there are only 5 to 10 people working, a lot of responsibility and targets to meet in order to keep funding flowing. Apple and Google are beyond start-up phase, they are just racing to get out the next big thing. Google's diversity is intriguing but they are so big your just a number at the end of the day. I think working for a start-up and being employee #5 with all the inherent risk is more fun and rewarding, especially if they succeed.

[Gentoo]

I was at Google for a while when I was in the Bay Area. Most of the time, I worked out of the San Francisco office but did have to go to MTV once a week and still had to go back to SF that same day. Days like that would start at 7am and frequently ran till 7pm, sometimes longer. The place a bit chaotic, things change with the wind. It was a good experience and the company does take care of it's people but if you're expecting organization and good planning, not gonna happen.

[jonlovet]

@blauskies
I worked for US based established companies with more than 20k employees. I find no work life balance.

[sabapc]

Originally Posted by duffdog

I know for a fact that almost all engineers are required to work 70+ hours per week in silicon valley.

This statement by itself is ridiculous. I do not need to continue reading to know it can't be true. You cannot possible know something like that "for a fact", about "almost all engineers" in silicon valley, an area that has tons of companies and thousands of engineers doing all kinds of different jobs.

On this topic, this is my opinion:

• In general, work-life balance is somewhat determined by the employee.
• In general, you end up working long hours if you are ambitious and want to get far. How long and how frequent? It is up to you. So again, the "balance" part depends on you.
• There are certain jobs / teams where you can expect long ours or on-call shifts upfront. If that's the case, you should be able to know this upfront as well, and consider it in your decision of accepting an offer and negotiating salary.

[blauskies]

Originally Posted by jonlovet

@blauskies
I worked for US based established companies with more than 20k employees. I find no work life balance.

I worked for both small and large companies, I found work/life balance the best when projects were not nearing launch. Not to mention the time you spend of your own time travelling to suppliers all around the world, often for 3 weeks at a time. I also worked for some real country clubs, places were most of the staff made six digits just polishing a chair in a nice office with a window view, 4:55pm out the door they go, 1 1/2 hour lunches, walk in at 9AM.

[80skeys]

Originally Posted by sabapc

In general, work-life balance is somewhat determined by the employee.

In my field (sysadmin), it is rare to find a job that does not have on-call duties. Even in the larger companies the rotation schedule often puts you every other week on-call. This is because different groups usually manage their own infrastructure and don't have enough operations people for a more spread-out schedule. At a startup, you are usually the only sysadmin (or one of two) which means you are on call all the time, so you'd better find a startup with a really stable infrastructure.

The only place I found that I didn't need to be on call was when I was contracting at one of the very large internet companies here. The contractors were required NOT to work more than 40 hours a week, which was a big draw for me, and one of the reasons I continue to look for contract opportunities rather than full time.

[sabapc]

Originally Posted by 80skeys

In my field (sysadmin), it is rare to find a job that does not have on-call duties. Even in the larger companies the rotation schedule often puts you every other week on-call. This is because different groups usually manage their own infrastructure and don't have enough operations people for a more spread-out schedule. At a startup, you are usually the only sysadmin (or one of two) which means you are on call all the time, so you'd better find a startup with a really stable infrastructure.

I think this falls into one of the scenarios I mentioned before, where you know (or can guess) upfront that there will be on-call duties (because the job is for a sysadmin position) and you should consider that in your decision to join the company. This is specially true if you know you are the only sysadmin in the company.

So I think work-balance is a choice. You either make that choice when you join, or further down the road, but you always have a choice.

[duffdog]

Originally Posted by sabapc

This statement by itself is ridiculous. I do not need to continue reading to know it can't be true. You cannot possible know something like that "for a fact", about "almost all engineers" in silicon valley, an area that has tons of companies and thousands of engineers doing all kinds of different jobs.

On this topic, this is my opinion:

• In general, work-life balance is somewhat determined by the employee.
• In general, you end up working long hours if you are ambitious and want to get far. How long and how frequent? It is up to you. So again, the "balance" part depends on you.
• There are certain jobs / teams where you can expect long ours or on-call shifts upfront. If that's the case, you should be able to know this upfront as well, and consider it in your decision of accepting an offer and negotiating salary.

You are correct. that single sentence would seem unlikely when taken out of context (as you just did) and does not make sense. Unfortunately, it is still true. I am a contractor who has worked inside and seen just about every single fortune 500 company in the bay area and they are all the same. Normal people (like yourself) would most likely never ever have the same experience I have already had and would therefore be skeptical of my claims simply because you just don't want it to be true.

So please, name these mythical tech companies that I am not aware of in silicon valley where all the engineers work exactly 40 hours per week.

I will wait.