The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
First, I hope you know what you're doing with a 70-hour work week, as most mortals can't possibly hope to handle it.
Second, the situation is something you should have forseen when you signed with Company B, and you should have made it clear which hours you would and would not be available. If you've already agreed on the hours and they try to change it, you need to tell them that it requires a renegociation.
I would probably stick with working for just Company A. As the others have posted, 70 hour per week can be grueling. If you are up to working 70 hours a week and you can do it without getting burned out, it is your choice.
I am not sure about Company B as they sound like they might be unreasonable.
"Any sort of work in VB6 is bound to provide several WTF moments." - Christian Graus
You're getting good advice here. Remember that this arrangement is a two way street, and they don't own you. Be professional, but don't be afraid to push back. Now, the OP has some stuff in it that worries me:
indicated that they would like me to put in 25-30 a week. It's remote so I can work on it whenever I want, however, they made it clear during negotiations that they would really like me to make this a priority and be available during the days. They have even said they wanted me to phase out the other job with Company A. They have started sending me meeting invites that conflict with this day job at Company A. I'm a contractor here, so I can take the day off, but I don't get paid for it.
Do you see the problem? What is in the contract? Who is your contract contact? You need to have a heart to heart right now to clarify the situation. As another has a grandfather who so eloquently phrased the situation... if they want you full time, and at their whim, that will cost more.
<italic>You're going to tell me what I want to know, or I'm going to beat you to death in your own house.
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Be upfront. Maybe you can tell them that if they can come up with a comprimise, you will go to Company A, and see if you can have the mornings free to work on Company B. Or possibly and extended lunch period to work for Company B.
Frankly I wouldn't have overstretched myself in the first place.
That said, it sounds like your negotiations with B weren't clear - as they are only now saying they want you to spend 25-30 hrs a week What was originally said?
The only course I can see (other than terminating your contract with one or other) is a compromise on time.
Assuming your contract with A stipulates 40 hrs and they're not movable, then can you change WHICH 40 hrs? e.g. can you work one or two days 'offset' by an hour or two (start at 10:00 for example)
It's quite reasonable for a company to expect your undivided attention when they are paying you - so that's what I would do.
Otherwise, if I needed to keep both contracts, I would possibly see about taking 1/2 day or so off from A on a regular basis, assuming B are willing to compromise and use that time for any meetings.
If there are no compromises possible as I suggest, then your only alternative is simply to say to B that you can't do it - you're not movable - give them the amount of hours (and approximate times you can do the work, and be firm.
Facebook. If you use facebook, please vote to keep the right to vote on privacy issues. If less than 300m people vote, they will take it away. (Who knows, maybe the government will try it if this works out, too.).
You can't. At best, you can disable your account, and they claim that if you don't use anything that references your account for 2 weeks (I think that was the time period) your account will be deleted. I didn't use my account for a month, then used my Facebook login on another site to test whether my account was deleted, and it wasn't.
Blatant lies, and I think it should be illegal not to be able to completely delete one's account an all the content on it.
I like app.net. It's a paid social network, so they don't display ads or abuse your privacy rights. It's not as robust as Facebook yet, but apps are being built all the time to extend it (such as Rivr for iPhone).
Sorry, but this is phony. Since when did users have any say on what happened on Facebook? A company's board and ultimately it's stock holders determine what rules a coporation will follow. Customers may affect this by voting with their wallets (or usage, in the case of Facebook, Google, etc.) however user votes CAN'T be legally binding. This is nothing more than posturing.
I've been making up my mind for so long to break into 3D programming. I do not do 3D at my work. But just out of my curiosity, I've been skimming through D3D articles & trying to catch up with the terms and 3D buzz words. When I look at conventional D3D projects it seemed plausible. I could date to try out few little things.
I've been hearing news about MS strategy on core game development for windows platforms. They've killed XNA and made C++/CX the only way to do core 3D. (not to mind sharp/slimDx/Mono).
I knew C++/Cx is not the common man's C++. But I was guessing it'd would be something like the C++/CLI.
Now I downloaded a sample D3D game that's done with C++/CX, my quick reaction is it's not for the faint hearts. The learning curve trajectory looks out of the sky towards the moon. It's a multiple of the feeling I got when I tried to learn Asp.net MVC just by opening a sample project. (Please note I don't do web stuff at work as well, but kept in touch with ASP.net to some extent) Too much for the rusting brain
I'm happy C++ is still alive for conventional Windows applications. .
I'd thump my chest and try once more to go through at darned C++CX lets see
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
DirectX has always been a mass of confusion. It embraced COM to an absurd degree (I read an interview where one of the designers of DirectShow admitted that they'd gone overboard. If I remember, he said that he had just finished his post-graduate degree and was enamored with the idea of a pluggable-style architecture and that resulted in what you see. It's been simplified over the years, but it still disproportionately complicated for the problem it is solving. Then again, that could be Microsoft's model, since given a choice been simplicity and complexity, they pick the latter, but so do far too many engineers.)
Last Visit: 31-Dec-99 19:00 Last Update: 3-Dec-16 15:07