I guess my question is just how much after hours work are you talking about. I did tech support for years for a large software company and we rotated the after hours support amongst the group. If the software if failing, then the quickest way to stop the after hours calls is to fix the reason the call happened.

Just remember, we get paid in this industry to support and please our customers. Without them, there's no reason for us.

I'm not completely clear on this scenario.

As I understand it, the replacement comes from another department with his own baggage, a software system, that he supports (so a part time equivalent was hired). I assume that the software in question supports the loosing department. So now Unhappy is being tasked with also supporting this same software from a different department (another part time equivalent was lost). I'm having a difficult time figuring out why a department would let an important piece of software and its support move to a different department and why the "gaining" department would take this deal. There are a bunch of issues below the surface throughout this whole mess.

I am leery of wavering from BL.... but

much depends on your position, its current responsibilites, your current remuneration. Will you be expected to work additional hours? How many? Will you be expected to be on call if problems arise (and you were not on call before)?

As professionals, we are expected to vary our work loads as technologies and other realities change, but if they are expecting you to work 60 hours when now you are working 45 hours -- let them know what you want -- and what you need. Most bosses do not want unhappy employees and will make reasonable (at least reasonable to them) adjustments.

But remember in this situation the software will require after hours maintenance. That ain't negotiable.

Peace,

Rog

Reminds me of my first IT job. The company had no previous IT manager, but instead called in an outside vendor "when needed." This guy should have worked in used car sales as his typical visit would rarely consist of fixing anything, typically broke additional things, but always left everyone (other than me, since I knew what he was, or rather wasn't doing) feeling good about his visit. He had almost no real technical skills that I could see. Pointing this out fell on deaf ears due to the relationships he'd built there, but my complaints kept getting louder and louder as tech support issues I hadn't yet learned how to fix myself kept piling up. I wasn't allowed to call anyone else. Fingers started pointing my way and I would call "John" out purely for political reasons (to make it look like we were trying something).

Eventually, though, we ran into a do or die issue with a planned network migration from NT to 2000. John didn't have a clue, though he wouldn't admit it, and neither did I (and, right or wrong, I did admit it). I very publicly told the executive committee that we were headed for disaster unless we brought someone else on board. Their response? "We trust John. He's going to do the migration. Whether you're here for that or not is up to you."

Three days into what should have been a three-hour migration (it was a really small network), he just stopped showing up, and stopped taking phone calls. Two days after that, the general manager gave me permission to call someone else. It was at that point that I actually started learning, and things turned around tremendously.

I refrained from saying "I told you so" simply because it was so obvious and because I actually liked where the job was headed after that.

It's six years later, and the GM and I are still pretty good friends, but at least I learned a little bit about diplomacy and the value of patience from that. As for the bitterness? Didn't have a problem with that afterwards; guess it's a case of "he who laughs last," you know?

"But while I'm sympathetic with your situation, I'm not sympathetic with how you're responding to it."

As usual, the perfect response!

I'm with "OldGreyGeek" (pretty good handle for me, too ;-) - this is a very odd-sounding arrangement. What is meant by "office partner"? What does that imply for duties/responsibilities? I have shared office space with folks both within and without my department, and the proximity was not necessarily reflective of shared responsibilities, and certainly never a "cause" when they were shared, but sometimes a result. That is, placing me close to another co-worker was a matter of office space "luck" or due to already having some functional purpose. The function never resulted from the placement, so that concept mystifies me.

ROC