Thank you so much for your insightful reply.
There's definitely history to that decision. It started with the 8:00am standups because that was the time when all the participants were free (since most arrived at 9:00). The way I see it is that essentially they forced everyone to work for an extra hour, because none of their other duties where reduced.

And while I'm an advocate of being on time, and perhaps use sticks when people are not, 50% off from your daily salary seems excessively harsh. Please take into account that most people have 1+ hour commutes, sometimes even 2+ hour commutes (we live in a city with some of the worst traffic in the world).

> I find it hard to believe that simply having new hires would have triggered this change in timing from 9am to 8am. Did someone, deemed senior/important, request this change? Is the standup headed by your founder? Were people constantly late to this standup/meeting?

Maybe I didn't explain clearly, but this change wasn't because of the new hires. What I meant is that when most of the participants in the meeting joined the company, we joined with the idea of a standard 9-6 job. The late arrivals weren't that big of a deal to impose such policies.

> Further, what is the average/median work-ex of team members in your company? Are people able to work largely independently, or do they essentially need face-time with senior members to be productive?

It's a highly operations-driven company, so we need a lot of communication, both us team leaders with our teams, and between team leaders.

> Try not to internally frame this as an "but flexi-time should be there, it is best for developers" argument. Those are not universal truths. They need to be seen in the context of the business/domain you are in, the maturity of the team, and the culture that the company wants to build/promote.

I completely agree with this point. I see value in having those standups. I see value in having them at a specific time. I see value in having them early in the morning. Heck, I even see some value in using sticks if we're not there on time. Perhaps my frustration stems from my personal situation, where I'm constantly pulling 60-70 hour work weeks, plus a mandatory leadership meeting on Saturdays (11am-3pm), plus whatever bug arises at whatever time. The 60-70 hours a week are not mandatory, but it's what's needed to get things done. It just sounds unfair.

> heavy-handed policies after getting tired of people not adhering to basic work-place protocols ("professionalism"), even after informally pointing out such things multiple times.

This is a great comment. Would you mind sharing some of the policies that you implemented?

Now, I hold an important position in the company and I'm very close to the founders, so I understand the rationale behind these policies. But I disagree with the outcome.

Now, I'm one of the least affected since my commute is short. But it has forced me to change some habits, like commuting on Uber instead of public transportation (which has significantly increased my expenses). Even when I do arrive late (about once or twice a month), it doesn't affect me financially (I don't live paycheck to paycheck). But I think it's so unfair that it really pisses me off.

My course of action will be to vote with me feet and leave. But I definitely want to get a better sense of what's fair in the workplace and what's not. Which ones are acceptable punishments and which ones are not.