DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: KevShmev on August 15, 2022, 06:27:40 AM
-
I saw this on linkedin and thought it was interesting.
Apparently it's the new trend, to put as little work in as possible so as to have a better work/life balance.
Striving to the achieve the latter is definitely a good thing, but I don't think going out of your way to do the bare minimum at work is the way to go. These are the people who will do as little work as possible and then wonder why they aren't getting paid more, ya know, the "pay me what I am worth!!" people.
I have noticed the trend the last few years as well of people just up and quitting with no notice, no warning. And I know from where I work and others that it has become pretty common now for people to schedule job interviews and then simply not show up for them.
To quote the guy from Ferris Bueller, I weep for the future. :P
-
Counterpoint: if a company IS paying you the bare minimum they can get away with (which for a lot of companies is their objective, as minimising expenditures while maximising income is essentially the goal of a capitalist enterprise) then why should the worker do any more than what they are contractually obliged to?
-
I don't think notice should always be expected. If you work a job where there's no severance and the company would just let you go at any time without warning then why do you owe them notice if you're leaving? Respect for the employer-employee relationship goes both ways. When I think about my job (working for a large bank), there are guardrails around the sudden termination of my employment. If I'm being fired for cause, that can come at any time (though typically would require a specific fire-able incident), but if I'm being laid off then while there isn't notice per se (and understandably so), there is a severance package. Similarly, if I was quitting "for cause", I wouldn't feel that I owed it to the company to give them notice (though I might anyway to maintain a good relationship if it made sense to), but if I was leaving because I found a better opportunity or wanted to change career paths then I would absolutely provide it.
-
Everyone is different, as is every situation, and I do my best to avoid passing judgement on others.
That said, for me, work (and by proxy, my approach to it) is a source of personal pride. I show up, do my thing to the best of my abilities, and leave.
I've worked for great companies and I've worked in toxic environments—I would hope that every single co-worker would share the same thought: man, that Will Munny works his ass off. It's certianly what I strive for.
So, yeah, quiet quitting? Not my style, man.
-
Two pieces of advice that shouldn't have to be said - Never miss job interviews without cancelling and never quit without notice unless it's some kind of contract job where that's considered acceptable practice. While I have problems with the idea of blacklisting, this is the real world. Professional communities talk.
Also, I don't care if you work in an esoteric white collar job or you do manual labor for a living - Working hard will never hurt your chances at career success. And with the economy getting the way it is, and companies looking for ways to cut back costs (and labor is a huge cost), you aren't going to survive unless you're some kind of distinctly value added proposition to the company. If you really don't think this... I hope you have a really cushy position setup for yourself.
Like a couple people here have said, no personal pride in not working hard. You can tell yourself you're being rebellious and trying to have a work/life balance all you want... You know you're being lazy and you will feel worse about yourself.
All that said................
I don't know if the American workplace changed or if the American public did, but it's harder to ignore how much work sucks these days. It's nearly at the point where you watch something like Office Space, which was deliberately designed to be satire, and you think "this would be a relatively sane office environment."
It gets harder and harder to find people who know how to do anything. People whose job it is to make things over-complicated are constantly trying to make it even harder. No one can make a decision because no one wants to be responsible for anything. And now wanting to take responsibility for yourself and your job is seen as some kind of weird stepping outside of your boundaries. Maybe trying to juggle multiple requests from multiple people that you don't actually have time for isn't some kind of normal part of work and is in fact a sign of deep organizational dysfunction. You're told to come up with ways for the company to save money and then have to make laboriously researched reports to demonstrate what should be intuitively obvious, so no deeper questions are ever actually asked because there's no time for them. All the executives are bull-headed and none of them really understand how the business operates, so massive amounts of time are spent putting things into PowerPoints that they can understand. Oh, two VPs are having a disagreement, time to marshal their teams together to make competing sets of spreadsheets so they have ammo to argue out their points.
Okay I'll stop now but I think you get the point.
-
Apparently it's the new trend, to put as little work in as possible so as to have a better work/life balance.
Back in my days, we called them slackers :biggrin:
-
I certainly feel like my coworker quietly quit the moment we hired him :lol guy doesn't even put what I would consider the minimum effort.
I take some pride in my work so doing the bare minimum isn't really my style, but I do slack from time to time.
I could totally see some scenarios where quietly quitting actually makes sense, but I don't generally think it's good career advice.
-
I could totally see some scenarios where quietly quitting actually makes sense, but I don't generally think it's good career advice.
Unless you're working on a side hustle or your family needs you, I can't think of anything else.
-
I could totally see some scenarios where quietly quitting actually makes sense, but I don't generally think it's good career advice.
Unless you're working on a side hustle or your family needs you, I can't think of anything else.
I'm thinking minimum wage jobs that treat workers poorly. Something that isn't your career, just a job.
-
I could totally see some scenarios where quietly quitting actually makes sense, but I don't generally think it's good career advice.
Unless you're working on a side hustle or your family needs you, I can't think of anything else.
I'm thinking minimum wage jobs that treat workers poorly. Something that isn't your career, just a job.
Been there, done that, understand it. Never a great idea in general. Terrible idea in this economy.
-
Not just American...this trend.
Local employers here in Ottawa, Canada paying people to show up at interview---if hired and stay a minimum time. Local employers of service type jobs out bidding each other with perks, above minimum wage and other incentives to get people to apply.
nobody wants to work
-
nobody wants to work
Man oh man am I tired of this phrase. Everyone is willing to work for a price. At times there is more labor demand than supply and so if you really want people, especially good people, time to pony up and you'll get them.
As for the greater trend, I work with one person in particular that I don't think is quitting, but shows this attitude and it's infuriating. Especially when it's this particular often non-team player who is already clearly the most selfish when it comes to making sure they get theirs that is constantly talking about how they are such a people pleaser and never care for themself.
-
nobody wants to work
Man oh man am I tired of this phrase. Everyone is willing to work for a price. At times there is more labor demand than supply and so if you really want people, especially good people, time to pony up and you'll get them.
This. Supply and demand works both ways. People want to work, but they also want to feel valued.
-
I hear you to but let me give a perspective. I work with people who are reclamation projects. It's mostly their lives are messed up and now they are trying to get their life on track. We are manual laborers. So the starting pay, while going up. is still not the greatest. $17.00. They have no work skills and like Marc talks about, a career job is not on their radar.
So, what I do is talk about reasonability, building your career. If you show up daily, take on new responsibility, and stay at a job for a decent amount of time, you can use this job as a stepping stone. If you jump from job to job, managers will skip by your resume.
I've had many people tell me, I'd rather stay unemployed than work for $17.00. We have 3% unemployment in NH. I so see many working temp jobs instead of getting a real job. Temp jobs pay $10 to $12. They could jump to $17 working with us and get health benefits within a month. Monthly safety bonuses. This year, 3 of the 4 months they received a $350.00 bonus on top of the safety bonus.
Yet, I can't fill jobs. I actually believe that some people overvalue their worth. Hence the saying, "Nobody wants to work."
-
I've had many people tell me, I'd rather stay unemployed than work for $17.00. We have 3% unemployment in NH. I so see many working temp jobs instead of getting a real job. Temp jobs pay $10 to $12. They could jump to $17 working with us and get health benefits within a month. Monthly safety bonuses. This year, 3 of the 4 months they received a $350.00 bonus on top of the safety bonus.
Yet, I can't fill jobs. I actually believe that some people overvalue their worth. Hence the saying, "Nobody wants to work."
I do agree with this. And you can blame it partially on inflated egos.
But I can't give American business culture a pass on this one either. Because of resume inflation, college graduates with no useful skills are all just the best, most dynamic professionals you can possibly find who are ready to conquer the world. I don't care how much it's supposedly just "what you have to say", you become what you do. Jobs convince themselves they are only looking for the best, and applicants think they are the best. No one's expectations are met.
I don't blame people in the labor market for having too-high expectations, but they're all drinking the Kool Aid. Though they aren't the ones who mixed it.
-
I actually believe that some people overvalue their worth. Hence the saying, "Nobody wants to work."
This! I know of some recent graduates that overvalue their worth. For example, I know a recent graduate (BA), who has absolutely no work experience outside of 3 month internship he did before graduating. The internship place ended up liking him and offered a fulltime salaried job (IT support, mainly helpdesk type of work), starting salary of $75K/year, which he turned down because that wasn't a good salary. Now, I don't work in IT, but a $75K/year salary for an entry level job sounds good to me.
Another in a similar situation, recent grad with a BA and some retail experience. Received a job offered with a salary of $80K and turned it down because "He won't accept anything less than 90K"
-
I get wanting to feel valued and not get taking advantage of, and that certainly happens a lot, but the way I see it, doing the bare minimum at work is a bad habit to get into because what happens when that person finally gets a chance at a good job? There is a good chance that their bad work habits will continue. It is like muscle memory. Go in trying to do your best at every job and then it just becomes habit, and when you do get to a good place, that muscle memory of doing your best will benefit you. No, it won't happen for everyone, but I feel that it is far less likely to happen if you "do the least" verses "doing your best."
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/45/fb/d6/45fbd662037708b3838c8fac36721182--office-spaces-bob.jpg)
-
I guess I should have quantified my "nobody wants to work".
16-25 year olds sitting at home with a bunch of government money after a pandemic, having been unable to properly socialize for 2+ years......DON'T want to work service jobs.
it's very difficult to convince them that that early work experience is very vital to proving to future employers that you understand the value of ...a hard days work, a project---started and completed---working in groups---having difficult coworkers.
All of these things. I learned in the service industry and then in the construction industry. Does everyone need to follow that path that I just broadly and sweepingly described as "the way" ? No. But you have to walk some kind of path.
Or sit at home with bonus free money and do nothing.
-
Counterpoint: if a company IS paying you the bare minimum they can get away with (which for a lot of companies is their objective, as minimising expenditures while maximising income is essentially the goal of a capitalist enterprise) then why should the worker do any more than what they are contractually obliged to?
Because base rate isn't the only benefit you get from working.
-
nobody wants to work
Man oh man am I tired of this phrase. Everyone is willing to work for a price. At times there is more labor demand than supply and so if you really want people, especially good people, time to pony up and you'll get them.
This. Supply and demand works both ways. People want to work, but they also want to feel valued.
Base rate isn't the only benefit you get from working.
-
I actually believe that some people overvalue their worth. Hence the saying, "Nobody wants to work."
This! I know of some recent graduates that overvalue their worth. For example, I know a recent graduate (BA), who has absolutely no work experience outside of 3 month internship he did before graduating. The internship place ended up liking him and offered a fulltime salaried job (IT support, mainly helpdesk type of work), starting salary of $75K/year, which he turned down because that wasn't a good salary. Now, I don't work in IT, but a $75K/year salary for an entry level job sounds good to me.
Another in a similar situation, recent grad with a BA and some retail experience. Received a job offered with a salary of $80K and turned it down because "He won't accept anything less than 90K"
We get people coming in with less than a year experience and expecting to be Vice Presidents. My response? Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
-
I actually believe that some people overvalue their worth. Hence the saying, "Nobody wants to work."
This! I know of some recent graduates that overvalue their worth. For example, I know a recent graduate (BA), who has absolutely no work experience outside of 3 month internship he did before graduating. The internship place ended up liking him and offered a fulltime salaried job (IT support, mainly helpdesk type of work), starting salary of $75K/year, which he turned down because that wasn't a good salary. Now, I don't work in IT, but a $75K/year salary for an entry level job sounds good to me.
Unless this is in a major metro area (even then, it might not matter), absolute insanity.
Another in a similar situation, recent grad with a BA and some retail experience. Received a job offered with a salary of $80K and turned it down because "He won't accept anything less than 90K"
Don't know this person's field, but sounds wild to me.
-
Not sure how one goes out of their way to do the bare minimum. The bare minimum doesn't require any extra effort. :justjen
-
I actually believe that some people overvalue their worth. Hence the saying, "Nobody wants to work."
This! I know of some recent graduates that overvalue their worth. For example, I know a recent graduate (BA), who has absolutely no work experience outside of 3 month internship he did before graduating. The internship place ended up liking him and offered a fulltime salaried job (IT support, mainly helpdesk type of work), starting salary of $75K/year, which he turned down because that wasn't a good salary. Now, I don't work in IT, but a $75K/year salary for an entry level job sounds good to me.
Another in a similar situation, recent grad with a BA and some retail experience. Received a job offered with a salary of $80K and turned it down because "He won't accept anything less than 90K"
What I don't understand is, wouldn't it still be better to take the job and keep looking for what you really want? For one, just to start getting income and experience, but also because your resume will look better if you are actively employed.
-
Not sure how one goes out of their way to do the bare minimum. The bare minimum doesn't require any extra effort. :justjen
That's a good point.
-
My view is at the low level job. I can't comment on college entry jobs. Just what I deal with in my profession. Though $75.000.00 is a fantastic starting pay. I would convince him to take it, excel and look for opportunities to move up in the company.
-
Counterpoint: if a company IS paying you the bare minimum they can get away with (which for a lot of companies is their objective, as minimising expenditures while maximising income is essentially the goal of a capitalist enterprise) then why should the worker do any more than what they are contractually obliged to?
Because base rate isn't the only benefit you get from working.
So? Pay and benefits are agreed at the signing of the contract. The contract details what work is expected of you. Either party expecting freebies is unreasonable.
-
I certainly cut my teeth on service industry jobs first, followed by temp labor with no PTO and benefits, until finally landing a salary for myself.
Whether the next gen of workers are right or wrong for staying home turning down work while waiting for the right opportunity - honestly, not my call. Time and the market will determine that.
-
Counterpoint: if a company IS paying you the bare minimum they can get away with (which for a lot of companies is their objective, as minimising expenditures while maximising income is essentially the goal of a capitalist enterprise) then why should the worker do any more than what they are contractually obliged to?
Because base rate isn't the only benefit you get from working.
So? Pay and benefits are agreed at the signing of the contract. The contract details what work is expected of you. Either party expecting freebies is unreasonable.
A contract is its own animal. Most people do not do contracted work.
-
You don't sign a contract when you start working a salaried job? I certainly did.
-
You don't sign a contract when you start working a salaried job? I certainly did.
No. I'm not salaried anymore, but I was salaried from 1994 to 2013. I had no contract.
-
I don't remember signing anything either, but that was more than 36 years ago. Times are probably a lot different now, not that I would actually know how much different as far as the hiring process goes.
-
You don't sign a contract when you start working a salaried job? I certainly did.
I didn't as well. Maybe that's a GB thing?
-
Huh. Agreeing to work for a company without signing anything seems quite odd to me. Though in that case I'd say as an employee you owe the company even less.
-
Well, you fill out 1st day paperwork but there are no clauses in it.
-
For the most part, you sign the offer letter and any employee handbook the company/organization has. It states starting salary, responsibilities, code of ethics, etc but it's not a contract. Not sure what the ratio is, but most employers have an "employee at will" policy, which is the complete opposite of a contract.
-
Huh. Agreeing to work for a company without signing anything seems quite odd to me. Though in that case I'd say as an employee you owe the company even less.
Why would you think that?
-
For the most part, you sign the offer letter and any employee handbook the company/organization has. It states starting salary, responsibilities, code of ethics, etc but it's not a contract. Not sure what the ratio is, but most employers have an "employee at will" policy, which is the complete opposite of a contract.
I have been a salaried worker now for over five years and have never had to sign a contact. The only thing I had to sign was something saying that if I leave the company, I cannot work with any customers at my current job at a new job for at least a year, which is more than reasonable, otherwise people could leave, knowing your rates and whatnot, and poach your customers.
-
Huh. Agreeing to work for a company without signing anything seems quite odd to me. Though in that case I'd say as an employee you owe the company even less.
Why would you think that?
Because if neither you or the party paying you have agreed to any formal commitments to the other party then beyond what is legally required neither of you owe each other anything.
-
Huh. Agreeing to work for a company without signing anything seems quite odd to me. Though in that case I'd say as an employee you owe the company even less.
Why would you think that?
Because if neither you or the party paying you have agreed to any formal commitments to the other party then beyond what is legally required neither of you owe each other anything.
I expect get to get paid and they expect me to do a good job. I mean, it's a pretty basic understanding.
-
Huh. Agreeing to work for a company without signing anything seems quite odd to me. Though in that case I'd say as an employee you owe the company even less.
Why would you think that?
Because if neither you or the party paying you have agreed to any formal commitments to the other party then beyond what is legally required neither of you owe each other anything.
Someone can correct me if I screw this up - In America when we talk about an employment contract, it typically means that there are specific performance expectations outlined, and a specific number of years you're contracted with the company + pay during that period. Once you sign a contract with an employer, in theory, they're on the hook for the years/money they signed to, unless they have a way to terminate you for cause (this is where I don't know the employment law well enough - how intermingled are temp vs. contract employees. Are contracts more typical these days where the employer and employee are able to terminate? I've worked with contract employees before and they tended to ride out their terms).
Most employment in America is "at will." Both you and the employer have certain rights and expectations, but, legally, both you and the employer can get out of it for any reason. And, I'm sure with some restrictions, employment agreements are subject to change.
-
I saw this on linkedin and thought it was interesting.
Apparently it's the new trend, to put as little work in as possible so as to have a better work/life balance.
Striving to the achieve the latter is definitely a good thing, but I don't think going out of your way to do the bare minimum at work is the way to go. These are the people who will do as little work as possible and then wonder why they aren't getting paid more, ya know, the "pay me what I am worth!!" people.
I have noticed the trend the last few years as well of people just up and quitting with no notice, no warning. And I know from where I work and others that it has become pretty common now for people to schedule job interviews and then simply not show up for them.
To quote the guy from Ferris Bueller, I weep for the future. :P
I've subconsciously seen this sort of thing happened at the Council I work at for a while now. It's been slowly accelerating. People literally taking the piss and getting a pay cheque for doing fuck all. While the people putting in the work pick up the slack.
I've had casuals quite without notice, but they can do that being casual. Full time is a different story, two weeks notice over here.
-
Huh. Agreeing to work for a company without signing anything seems quite odd to me. Though in that case I'd say as an employee you owe the company even less.
Why would you think that?
Because if neither you or the party paying you have agreed to any formal commitments to the other party then beyond what is legally required neither of you owe each other anything.
I expect get to get paid and they expect me to do a good job. I mean, it's a pretty basic understanding.
I think unfortunately, a lot of people don't have the loyalty and common respect as us older heads do mate. It's pretty fucked from my point of view.
-
I used to have a saying when I was a manager...
If they suck, it's their fault. If they continue to suck, then it's my fault.
-
I ask what they want from this job? An opportunity to take on responsibilities, more money, build a resume where they can have a choice to grow with us, or find bigger opportunities elsewhere.
-
I used to have a saying when I was a manager...
If they suck, it's their fault. If they continue to suck, then it's my fault.
I don't mind that.
-
I don't do the bare minimum with work. But that's my personal choice.
If there is no contract, how are ya'll knowing why you're getting paid or what your responsibilities are?
That said, I can totally understand the mentality of doing the bare minimum, even if I disagree with it. If I do X amount of work and receive X amount of compensation, then why would I do X Y Z amount of work for the same compensation? It seems just a social push to be more productive people. So it makes sense to me if the person doesn't feel it's worth their time. They won't make it much further past that, but that's their choice.
-
If there is no contract, how are ya'll knowing why you're getting paid or what your responsibilities are?
Oh I don't know...
Job description?
List of responsibilities?
Training?
Performance appraisals?
If someone doesn't know what's expected of them it's either they are dumb or management sucks.
That said, I can totally understand the mentality of doing the bare minimum, even if I disagree with it. If I do X amount of work and receive X amount of compensation, then why would I do X Y Z amount of work for the same compensation? It seems just a social push to be more productive people. So it makes sense to me if the person doesn't feel it's worth their time. They won't make it much further past that, but that's their choice.
Actually it seems the social push is just the opposite.
-
my 2 cents, don’t forget that a big part of the « nobody wants to work » thing is there’s just a whole lot less people of working age. Demographics, at some point you can’t fight it. Also it seems for a long time we told people in low paying jobs that if they didn’t like it they should quit and go somewhere else. Then the pandemic pushed a whole lot of people to do just that.
-
my 2 cents, don’t forget that a big part of the « nobody wants to work » thing is there’s just a whole lot less people of working age. Demographics, at some point you can’t fight it. Also it seems for a long time we told people in low paying jobs that if they didn’t like it they should quit and go somewhere else. Then the pandemic pushed a whole lot of people to do just that.
I've been extremely fascinated by this whole situation. I just wonder...what are these people doing instead?
-
my 2 cents, don’t forget that a big part of the « nobody wants to work » thing is there’s just a whole lot less people of working age. Demographics, at some point you can’t fight it. Also it seems for a long time we told people in low paying jobs that if they didn’t like it they should quit and go somewhere else. Then the pandemic pushed a whole lot of people to do just that.
I've been extremely fascinated by this whole situation. I just wonder...what are these people doing instead?
what "situation"?
Is the idea that "nobody wants to work" based on anything or is it just kind of a vibe?
-
I think it might be a good moment to point out that currently there are more job openings than there are unemployed people in the US.
-
But what about the narrative????
-
Right. Unemployment is actually down. I think I posted that a few weeks ago in terms on umemployment payouts.
my 2 cents, don’t forget that a big part of the « nobody wants to work » thing is there’s just a whole lot less people of working age. Demographics, at some point you can’t fight it. Also it seems for a long time we told people in low paying jobs that if they didn’t like it they should quit and go somewhere else. Then the pandemic pushed a whole lot of people to do just that.
I've been extremely fascinated by this whole situation. I just wonder...what are these people doing instead?
what "situation"?
Is the idea that "nobody wants to work" based on anything or is it just kind of a vibe?
To me the "situation" is all of these unfilled jobs across the board and how we got there and where are all of the people.
-
If there is no contract, how are ya'll knowing why you're getting paid or what your responsibilities are?
Oh I don't know...
Job description?
List of responsibilities?
Training?
Performance appraisals?
If someone doesn't know what's expected of them it's either they are dumb or management sucks.
That said, I can totally understand the mentality of doing the bare minimum, even if I disagree with it. If I do X amount of work and receive X amount of compensation, then why would I do X Y Z amount of work for the same compensation? It seems just a social push to be more productive people. So it makes sense to me if the person doesn't feel it's worth their time. They won't make it much further past that, but that's their choice.
Actually it seems the social push is just the opposite.
Sure. Each is a social push. One telling you that your value as a person is directly tied to how productive you are and one saying it’s not. That’s fair.
-
But your value as a person is certainly different than your value as an employee, is it not?
-
But your value as a person is certainly different than your value as an employee, is it not?
Indeed!
-
To me the "situation" is all of these unfilled jobs across the board and how we got there and where are all of the people.
Maybe we should open the Border.
-
my 2 cents, don’t forget that a big part of the « nobody wants to work » thing is there’s just a whole lot less people of working age. Demographics, at some point you can’t fight it. Also it seems for a long time we told people in low paying jobs that if they didn’t like it they should quit and go somewhere else. Then the pandemic pushed a whole lot of people to do just that.
I've been extremely fascinated by this whole situation. I just wonder...what are these people doing instead?
what "situation"?
Is the idea that "nobody wants to work" based on anything or is it just kind of a vibe?
I have my godson living with us because his dad is on disability (he shouldn't be) and his mom lives in a camper and her felon boyfriend is on the lamb.
My Godson is so sick and tired for living day to day and not knowing where he can sleep. We had him move in, he went to School in Ohio per his new job his grandmother and my wife and I helped. He wants a better life.
I see his mom finding ways not to work. That says a lot. He has no skills about life skills.
His mom should have shown him so much the age of 19. You would freak out how he has no life skills.
We are training him but it bothers me that his parents failed him.
I see that so much as a manager.
-
To me the "situation" is all of these unfilled jobs across the board and how we got there and where are all of the people.
Maybe we should open the Border.
I thought it was open.
-
That said, I can totally understand the mentality of doing the bare minimum, even if I disagree with it. If I do X amount of work and receive X amount of compensation, then why would I do X Y Z amount of work for the same compensation?
My wife and I have had this discussion several times. She just doesn't get it. Every job I've been at (except the current one, which is much more skill based) she has insisted I should always be taking on more responsibilities, the money shouldn't factor in to it. To be fair, my last job where this was a big issue, I always got 4s and 5s (scale of 1-5) on my reviews, so even by doing what I considered the "bare minimum" I was rating very highly with management.
I used to have a saying when I was a manager...
If they suck, it's their fault. If they continue to suck, then it's my fault.
Is it your fault because you haven't improved their skills, or because you haven't fired them and found someone else?
-
You have to put to time in to cultivate an employee. You don't look at yourself as failing then when you put the work in.
-
I saw this on linkedin and thought it was interesting.
Apparently it's the new trend, to put as little work in as possible so as to have a better work/life balance.
Striving to the achieve the latter is definitely a good thing, but I don't think going out of your way to do the bare minimum at work is the way to go. These are the people who will do as little work as possible and then wonder why they aren't getting paid more, ya know, the "pay me what I am worth!!" people.
I have noticed the trend the last few years as well of people just up and quitting with no notice, no warning. And I know from where I work and others that it has become pretty common now for people to schedule job interviews and then simply not show up for them.
To quote the guy from Ferris Bueller, I weep for the future. :P
I've subconsciously seen this sort of thing happened at the Council I work at for a while now. It's been slowly accelerating. People literally taking the piss and getting a pay cheque for doing fuck all. While the people putting in the work pick up the slack.
I've had casuals quite without notice, but they can do that being casual. Full time is a different story, two weeks notice over here.
We had a guy at work for about two years who was vocal about the fact that his work ethic was "work smarter, not harder." He was the king of doing as little as possible, and he was like the class clown every other day at work. Eventually, he was pretty much told he needed to step it up and do more (which I heard through the grapevine), and it was weeks later when he gave his notice. I am sure his endless search for an employer who will pay him to do as little as possible and act like a child will continue for years to come.
-
On this subject. I never know what to do with my stepson.
When he was a teenager, he was a tweaker….bad. To the point that his mother and father WENT TO COURT in an attempt to have him forceably put into lockdown treatment before he ended up dead. That attempt failed.
At some point, someone he cared about died in a horrible car wreck. And somewhere around that time my wife and I had to start taking care of her invalid mother (his grandmother) and so we needed his help. That was when he was just about to turn 20.
There were times when his behavior was so awful, we were forced to kick him out anyway, but it would usually be just a couple of months before he was out of a job with nowhere to go, and we were having difficulty taking care of mom without him, so he would be let back in.
He did finally get completely clean. He helped around the house and helped take care of his grandmother for 13 years until she passed in March of 2017. And we probably couldn’t have made it down the home stretch without him.
But now what? He’s a massive reclusive. He’s got **** for a job history. He’s 36. He doesn’t drive. His teeth are rotting out. He’s technically a “dead beat dad” so if he ever did get a job they would take nearly everything. He’s most likely got similar mental issues like my wife does, but with no insurance…good luck getting him any help.
He does the yard work, and takes out the trash, and otherwise takes care of things around the house that his mother can’t do while I’m at work.
I love him. And I wish I could motivate him to do more. But at this point, he gets free room and board, and we have a….what…a “ward” I guess? He doesn’t do nothing. But I’m not sure he could do much more than what he is doing.
Heck…even I need help taking care of his mother sometimes.
-
my 2 cents, don’t forget that a big part of the « nobody wants to work » thing is there’s just a whole lot less people of working age. Demographics, at some point you can’t fight it. Also it seems for a long time we told people in low paying jobs that if they didn’t like it they should quit and go somewhere else. Then the pandemic pushed a whole lot of people to do just that.
The last 2 years has been by far the hardest time finding good qualified people that want to work.
-
I agree but right now, there is so much opportunity. Companies are paying wages most look for.
Time for those to take advantage.
-
I agree but right now, there is so much opportunity. Companies are paying wages most look for.
Time for those to take advantage.
It is actually a benefit for those of us who actually care about working and doing a good job. Let the deadbeats sit around and not work, while we rake it in. :hat :hat
-
BTW…my point in bringing up my step son is that I’m fairly certain that his situation is far from unique. And I do feel that mental illness has taken a HUGE bite out of the work force. People are just…broken.
And don’t talk about the mental health crisis as if anyone has a viable solution because they don’t. It’s too big a problem. I’ve said this in P/R about this subject, but the problem has become so massive that it’s like in the Monty Python and the Holy Grail when King Arthur is told he must chop down the largest tree in the forest with a herring.
-
I agree but right now, there is so much opportunity. Companies are paying wages most look for.
Time for those to take advantage.
Oh I agree. If I had balls and went for a career change, now is the perfect time.
-
No doubt jammindude. The Wal Mart DC I work in is looking for help. They offer $28.00 to start. Yet Wal Mart struggles to hire and hold people.
Why is that?
-
I agree but right now, there is so much opportunity. Companies are paying wages most look for.
Time for those to take advantage.
It is actually a benefit for those of us who actually care about working and doing a good job. Let the deadbeats sit around and not work, while we rake it in. :hat :hat
And I’m benefiting from this too.
I HATED being an electrician. I HATED IT!!! And what was worse…my body couldn’t keep up any more, so I was having difficulty keeping any job for more than a year.
But now, thanks to the older generation leaving, COVID, and no one qualified in the work force, I was able to pick up a high paying permanent job as an electrical inspector for a local municipality! And they are training me to be a framing, plumbing, mechanical, fuel gas, foundation….and all around building inspector! They are also using dead time to train me to become a plan’s examiner!! And they are paying for 4 years of schooling so I can learn to become a building official!! It’s like doing a job and getting paid to go to college!!
PINCH ME!!!
And what’s more? Best freakin coworkers….EVER!!!
-
No doubt jammindude. The Wal Mart DC I work in is looking for help. They offer $28.00 to start. Yet Wal Mart struggles to hire and hold people.
Why is that?
I dunno why but I remember talking to a former client who was early/mid 20's trying to get a job at a restaurant (waitress or something) and being really excited about 17 an hour. Those people are still out there, but yea, it definitely seems they're few and far between.
-
BTW…my point in bringing up my step son is that I’m fairly certain that his situation is far from unique. And I do feel that mental illness has taken a HUGE bite out of the work force. People are just…broken.
And don’t talk about the mental health crisis as if anyone has a viable solution because they don’t. It’s too big a problem. I’ve said this in P/R about this subject, but the problem has become so massive that it’s like in the Monty Python and the Holy Grail when King Arthur is told he must chop down the largest tree in the forest with a herring.
I agree with you. I wouldn't even know where to begin when it comes to mental health. I do think a fair amount of non-workers are lazy deadbeats who just don't want to work, but I agree that the pandemic and everything since has broken a lot of people, and that is definitely taking its toll on the work force. Heck, I have not had my best year for a variety of reasons, which is probably why I am crabby now sometimes here :lol, but I tough it out at work every day and it is usually fine, but I get that for many it can be not so easy.
-
I do think a fair amount of non-workers are lazy deadbeats who just don't want to work
Is this based on anything quantitative?
-
I do think a fair amount of non-workers are lazy deadbeats who just don't want to work
Is this based on anything quantitative?
Based on what I have seen in this thread, the answer is no. It's based on people's bad experiences with family members, friends, or the particular job they work in. I get that it's very frustrating to have a deadbeat child, or know somebody else who just can't seem to pull their life together. I have a step brother who is this way. I can see how people would take solace in the idea that the problem they are facing is more widespread than it really is.
-
I cannot imagine putting my coworkers in a tough spot by just up and quitting. I guess there are a lot of factors that play into it, but above all else is the respect I have for them as teammates. The notice I'd provide is more a sign of respect for them than the company I work for, though I'm extremely fortunate to work for an great organization who really walks the walk and takes pride in doing so.
A lot of self-respect (for me) comes with doing my absolute best in work, and really in anything else I chose to do in life. My organization rewards this, and they reward well. Are there other companies that pay better? Sure. Plenty of people have left for greener pastures - a lot have come back, though, when they realize the culture there isn't the same and the extra $ isn't worth the added stress.
There are plenty of examples of people just getting by, I know some of them personally and professionally, and none of them are people I'd choose to spend time with outside of work/family obligations. Poor work ethic translates to everything someone does and is, IMO. Doesn't make them bad people, just not people I'd ever want to have to rely on for anything.
-
Counterpoint: if a company IS paying you the bare minimum they can get away with (which for a lot of companies is their objective, as minimising expenditures while maximising income is essentially the goal of a capitalist enterprise) then why should the worker do any more than what they are contractually obliged to?
Because base rate isn't the only benefit you get from working.
So? Pay and benefits are agreed at the signing of the contract. The contract details what work is expected of you. Either party expecting freebies is unreasonable.
Well, now you're adding things. "Pay and benefits". Read what I said: "BASE RATE (i.e. "pay") isn't the only benefit you get from working". How many people actually quantify what their benefits cost them? How many people quantify what things like education or licensing cost them? Or the ability to come and go as you please (if your job allows that)? Travel perks?
I've gone through this now with three kids. "But I'm only making $xx. per hour!" So? You work six hours a day, at your schedule. So? You get free meals while working there. So? You get all your licenses paid for. So? ... and I can go on. Even my father-in-law, when there was a reorg at his work complained about some of the wage issues; he's now retired and of all the things he misses, "wage" isn't one of them.
As for contracts, I'm sure this is said somewhere else in the thread (but I haven't read it all yet), it is exceedingly rare for the average American to sign anything that could be construed as an "employment contract" at hiring. We are, generally, considered "at will" employees. Exceptions are for senior managers with incentive compensation (or deferred compensation), members of a board of directors, or officers of companies wherein they are responsible for activities beyond the normal course of the job description (though it should be noted I fall into more than one of those categories and I do not have a specific employment contract).
-
No doubt jammindude. The Wal Mart DC I work in is looking for help. They offer $28.00 to start. Yet Wal Mart struggles to hire and hold people.
Why is that?
Wow that's more than starting pay at my job, which takes six months of on-the-job training before you get checked out.
Edit: Oh yeah and I'm from Long Island New York which has a pretty high cost of living.
-
Same here too. It's crazy the turnover they have. That's fantastic starting pay.
-
The Wal Mart DC I work in is looking for help. They offer $28.00 to start. Yet Wal Mart struggles to hire and hold people.
Why is that?
$28 to start is pretty damn good. Excellent actually. I have more to say, but I don't really know how to right now.
-
I cannot imagine putting my coworkers in a tough spot by just up and quitting. I guess there are a lot of factors that play into it, but above all else is the respect I have for them as teammates. The notice I'd provide is more a sign of respect for them than the company I work for, though I'm extremely fortunate to work for an great organization who really walks the walk and takes pride in doing so.
A lot of self-respect (for me) comes with doing my absolute best in work, and really in anything else I chose to do in life. My organization rewards this, and they reward well. Are there other companies that pay better? Sure. Plenty of people have left for greener pastures - a lot have come back, though, when they realize the culture there isn't the same and the extra $ isn't worth the added stress.
There are plenty of examples of people just getting by, I know some of them personally and professionally, and none of them are people I'd choose to spend time with outside of work/family obligations. Poor work ethic translates to everything someone does and is, IMO. Doesn't make them bad people, just not people I'd ever want to have to rely on for anything.
This. You saved me typing this out. ;D
-
After reading through this thread and looking at a few articles on this "quiet quitting" thing, it seems like it's being a bit misrepresented in this thread. For example, if I were to do the "bare minimum" at my job that could still be a lot of shit if it's busy. Herrick doesn't do only the bare minimum, but I don't think the bare minimum is the same as actually trying to get out of doing one's job or being lazy...but it could be depending on the type of work.
It does not sound so bad to just do the work you're hired to do without bending over backwards or going the extra mile...whatever that may be. I don't know. I've never had an office job or any job that causes stress at or outside of work, so I'm not sure what these people go through.
-
No doubt jammindude. The Wal Mart DC I work in is looking for help. They offer $28.00 to start. Yet Wal Mart struggles to hire and hold people.
Why is that?
I dunno why but I remember talking to a former client who was early/mid 20's trying to get a job at a restaurant (waitress or something) and being really excited about 17 an hour. Those people are still out there, but yea, it definitely seems they're few and far between.
Not really directly quoting either of you, but I think some of it has to do with social media. We don't see real life on social media, we see an idealized version of it. I think that translates. Why should I work like a dog for $17.00 at Wal-mart when I can "influence" and be a billionaire like Kylie Jenner? It doesn't have to be that extreme, but the point remains, we're not always making decisions on the reality of the now, but on an idealized version of reality that doesn't always exist out of whole cloth. "Hey Jude" wasn't the first song Paul McCartney ever wrote, and Mick Jagger didn't play a stadium as his first show.
-
No doubt jammindude. The Wal Mart DC I work in is looking for help. They offer $28.00 to start. Yet Wal Mart struggles to hire and hold people.
Why is that?
I dunno why but I remember talking to a former client who was early/mid 20's trying to get a job at a restaurant (waitress or something) and being really excited about 17 an hour. Those people are still out there, but yea, it definitely seems they're few and far between.
Not really directly quoting either of you, but I think some of it has to do with social media. We don't see real life on social media, we see an idealized version of it. I think that translates. Why should I work like a dog for $17.00 at Wal-mart when I can "influence" and be a billionaire like Kylie Jenner? It doesn't have to be that extreme, but the point remains, we're not always making decisions on the reality of the now, but on an idealized version of reality that doesn't always exist out of whole cloth. "Hey Jude" wasn't the first song Paul McCartney ever wrote, and Mick Jagger didn't play a stadium as his first show.
That might be a few people but I doubt it’s too many.
And even so, the system will work itself out. They will either succeed at influencing or they won’t and will either find another way to make ends meet or they won’t. Then they get a normal job. So it doesn’t bug me.
-
I think Bill is right though, it still gives off the impressions that it's easy and anyone can do it. Which then makes people doubt themselves, affects their self confidence and it goes from there. When that's all you're seeing on social media, it infiltrates the mind and thought processes.
-
No doubt jammindude. The Wal Mart DC I work in is looking for help. They offer $28.00 to start. Yet Wal Mart struggles to hire and hold people.
Why is that?
I dunno why but I remember talking to a former client who was early/mid 20's trying to get a job at a restaurant (waitress or something) and being really excited about 17 an hour. Those people are still out there, but yea, it definitely seems they're few and far between.
Not really directly quoting either of you, but I think some of it has to do with social media. We don't see real life on social media, we see an idealized version of it. I think that translates. Why should I work like a dog for $17.00 at Wal-mart when I can "influence" and be a billionaire like Kylie Jenner? It doesn't have to be that extreme, but the point remains, we're not always making decisions on the reality of the now, but on an idealized version of reality that doesn't always exist out of whole cloth. "Hey Jude" wasn't the first song Paul McCartney ever wrote, and Mick Jagger didn't play a stadium as his first show.
That might be a few people but I doubt it’s too many.
And even so, the system will work itself out. They will either succeed at influencing or they won’t and will either find another way to make ends meet or they won’t. Then they get a normal job. So it doesn’t bug me.
You're wrong, it bugs you.
I'm not in disagreement; you're right, it will equilibrate. But it's always in that ramp up time that things are out of whack. There was a similar sort of issue at the time of the dot com boom, it just didn't seem as obvious because those people had jobs (for about three weeks). It's still the same net effect that the non-sexy jobs suffer while there's a new shiny thing across the street.
And I think it's more people than you think; it may not be as strong in all of them, but how many work threads have we had here where 3/4 of the posts were "my boss is a douche and I could do their job twice as good"? It's a common sentiment; everyone to some degree or another thinks themselves better or in a better place than they actually are. I work with two people like that now; they had direct reports once, and now they work for an organization that is very flat and doesn't lend themselves to direct reports. Both are working themselves out of the organization because they're not team players, they can't adapt, and they feel an entitlement.
-
I think Bill is right though, it still gives off the impressions that it's easy and anyone can do it. Which then makes people doubt themselves, affects their self confidence and it goes from there. When that's all you're seeing on social media, it infiltrates the mind and thought processes.
Social media has completely mind fucked people.
it will equilibrate.
(https://i.imgflip.com/6q5zb6.jpg)
-
You bug me!
But we agree. People always have and always will overvalue themselves. But I don’t think that means most young people want to be influencers. Mostly because I have and do work with a ton of young people and none of them want to be social media types. Though I do have one client who does work in social media as a money or something guy. But that doesn’t count.
-
They think they can be an influencer. 95% don't realize that aren't model looking to do so. So, their life skills suck. Better off being a gamer.
-
They think they can be an influencer. 95% don't realize that aren't model looking to do so. So, their life skills suck. Better off being a gamer.
Also, to add to this, these people better not try to think they can make it as a professional poker player in the casinos or online when they turn 18 or 21. I've learned that lesson the hard way 11 years ago and the game is even much more tougher to make as a profession now than it was back then.
-
They think they can be an influencer. 95% don't realize that aren't model looking to do so. So, their life skills suck. Better off being a gamer.
It's no different as a gamer. The cream rises to the top. 99.9% of people trying to be influencers will not be one. This came up in another thread, where I said something similar. I don't think it's that diferent than sports. People watch sports as kids and think they can do it too as a profession. The equilibrium exists.
-
The thing people don't realize when they see influencers or gamers or athletics is that there needs to be a lot of prep work done that people don't see on camera and if people are not able to put in the work outside of what people would see, you're not going to make it, plain and simple, and this applies to any profession really.
-
I was just talking looks. You and I would never be that kind of influencer. He'll, I could try a podcast about music and probably fail.
What gets more looks for you? Gaming or concerts?
BTW, remember when Blob went full on Gaming because it got more looks?
-
I do think a fair amount of non-workers are lazy deadbeats who just don't want to work
Is this based on anything quantitative?
No, that is why I said "I do think" rather than "I know for a fact that."
-
Whether there's a formal contract in place or not, there's generally an understanding with a job that you will provide work/productivity X in exchange for compensation Y (inclusive of benefits). I don't see any inherent value in providing more than X unless there's something else at play. If there's a discretionary performance bonus, or if you're explicitly trying to prove that you can handle more than X so that they promote you and start paying you more than Y, then sure. But otherwise it's like going to the store and voluntarily paying more than the cost of the goods you're buying. Any sense that going above and beyond for your job just for the sake of "doing a good job" is noble/admirable is the result of decades of us as a society aggrandizing employers.
-
Any sense that going above and beyond for your job just for the sake of "doing a good job" is noble/admirable is the result of decades of us as a society aggrandizing employers.
Whatever job I pay you for, I expect you to do it well. A poor job is not acceptable.
-
Any sense that going above and beyond for your job just for the sake of "doing a good job" is noble/admirable is the result of decades of us as a society aggrandizing employers.
Whatever job I pay you for, I expect you to do it well. A poor job is not acceptable.
Oh absolutely. Whatever's expected of you should be done and be done well.
-
:tup
-
Any sense that going above and beyond for your job just for the sake of "doing a good job" is noble/admirable is the result of decades of us as a society aggrandizing employers.
wat?
Animals are programmed to eat, reproduce, and maybe have some sort of social structure to them. Humans got to where they are, in part, because we rose above the minimum requirements for survival and built civilizations.
I understand that sending an extra couple emails a day might not do much to drive the species for, but if you aren't trying to do your best for its own sake, then how are you different from any other animal that farts around then dies?
-
Any sense that going above and beyond for your job just for the sake of "doing a good job" is noble/admirable is the result of decades of us as a society aggrandizing employers.
wat?
Animals are programmed to eat, reproduce, and maybe have some sort of social structure to them. Humans got to where they are, in part, because we rose above the minimum requirements for survival and built civilizations.
I understand that sending an extra couple emails a day might not do much to drive the species for, but if you aren't trying to do your best for its own sake, then how are you different from any other animal that farts around then dies?
Because employers take advantage of this for their own gain. My work ethic has been abused and used by managers to get ahead and take credit at their own will.
Going above and beyond your call of duty sometimes doesn't always lead to positive outcomes. Hasnt mattered in the past how many free hours I've done, I've been shat on.
Going into a company fresh with the attitude of doing bare minimum doesn't wash with me I agree with that, but sometimes toning it down and doing just what you're expected and no more is sometimes forced upon you in situations you are in.
-
I do think a fair amount of non-workers are lazy deadbeats who just don't want to work
Is this based on anything quantitative?
No, that is why I said "I do think" rather than "I know for a fact that."
Well there are degrees of certainty/confidence, hence my question.
-
I just think it boils down to how we're pre-wired, built and influenced by our upbringing
Some people keep their homes, yards and lives spotless. They help neighbors and donate their time. Other people don't give a shit about these things. In both cases these inherent behaviors cross over to work ethic.
Corporations are built to attain results and profitability and will do whatever is necessary to do so, including overworking and mistreating employees in many cases, which can create bad attitudes.
-
You bug me!
But we agree. People always have and always will overvalue themselves. But I don’t think that means most young people want to be influencers. Mostly because I have and do work with a ton of young people and none of them want to be social media types. Though I do have one client who does work in social media as a money or something guy. But that doesn’t count.
No, that's true; maybe not specifically an INFLUENCER, but the social media environment does impact how people think. It's insidious, too; my wife and two daughters understand conceptually that social media isn't really "real", except in the "snapshot" sense of things, but they all have at one time or another lamented how so-and-so has this and I don't have that. Or so-and-so has achieved this and I'm still doing that. Hell, we have entire social justice campaigns predicated on that very concept: "See her, be her!" What's the difference? Do you think the animal brain separates out "well, they mean WOMEN ACHIEVING, not having a makeup line and doing runway modeling (like teh Kardashians)!" Of course not.
-
Any sense that going above and beyond for your job just for the sake of "doing a good job" is noble/admirable is the result of decades of us as a society aggrandizing employers.
wat?
Animals are programmed to eat, reproduce, and maybe have some sort of social structure to them. Humans got to where they are, in part, because we rose above the minimum requirements for survival and built civilizations.
I understand that sending an extra couple emails a day might not do much to drive the species for, but if you aren't trying to do your best for its own sake, then how are you different from any other animal that farts around then dies?
Because employers take advantage of this for their own gain. My work ethic has been abused and used by managers to get ahead and take credit at their own will.
Going above and beyond your call of duty sometimes doesn't always lead to positive outcomes. Hasnt mattered in the past how many free hours I've done, I've been shat on.
Going into a company fresh with the attitude of doing bare minimum doesn't wash with me I agree with that, but sometimes toning it down and doing just what you're expected and no more is sometimes forced upon you in situations you are in.
I agree with you. but to go back to what I said before, doing more than the bare minimum is far more likely to result in a positive outcome (better pay, promotion, recognition, etc.) than doing just enough, wouldn't you agree?
The "work smarter. not harder" guy to whom I referred who left our company a while back was a 7-4 guy who openly joked off how he'd often get to work around 6:50-6:55 and sit in his car and play on his phone until 6:59 and then come inside and start work at 7 because he wasn't about to give anyone any extra minutes. That is such a terrible attitude. I am sorry, but if you are taking the "I am not giving the company 5 extra minutes" attitude, which trickles down into other areas, you pretty much have no one but yourself to blame when you don't get the raise or promotion you feel you "deserve," and I use deserve loosely since far too many nowadays seems to think they deserve the moon for doing jack squat. I am a salaried worker whose hours are technically 8-5, but I almost always get to work 10-20 minutes early and just get to it. Part of that is because I hate being late for anything, so I always leave early to ensure I am not late, but if I know I have a lot of work at the start of the day, I'd rather get to it and get rolling.
And back to Bill's point about there being more benefits than pay to working, there was a day a while back where I had to do a quick doctor's appointment at lunch. It was 10 minutes away, so with an hour, I figured I had time to get there and back, but I also gave my boss a heads up that I could run a little late back if there are any delays and he said that was fine. Naturally, there ended up being a delay and I got back after like an hour and 25 minutes, so I asked my boss if I should email HR about taking 25 minutes of personal time and he said, "nah, don't worry about it, I know you're always here early, so you are good." I know that same courtesy would not be extended to those who do as little as possible or who are never early (I know they can see what time we swipe our cards to get into the building). And, no, not all bosses are as good about that kind of stuff as mine, but this goes back to doing your best.
-
Whether there's a formal contract in place or not, there's generally an understanding with a job that you will provide work/productivity X in exchange for compensation Y (inclusive of benefits). I don't see any inherent value in providing more than X unless there's something else at play. If there's a discretionary performance bonus, or if you're explicitly trying to prove that you can handle more than X so that they promote you and start paying you more than Y, then sure. But otherwise it's like going to the store and voluntarily paying more than the cost of the goods you're buying. Any sense that going above and beyond for your job just for the sake of "doing a good job" is noble/admirable is the result of decades of us as a society aggrandizing employers.
AND
Because employers take advantage of this for their own gain. My work ethic has been abused and used by managers to get ahead and take credit at their own will.
Going above and beyond your call of duty sometimes doesn't always lead to positive outcomes. Hasnt mattered in the past how many free hours I've done, I've been shat on.
Going into a company fresh with the attitude of doing bare minimum doesn't wash with me I agree with that, but sometimes toning it down and doing just what you're expected and no more is sometimes forced upon you in situations you are in.
I dunno. I think it's more complicated than that. It's also the same problem we see in so many places in P/R: how do you reconcile the individual experience with the collective experience? I would never say "you're wrong" Wolfking, because that's YOUR experience, and you own it. But I know for me, a component of my job is precisely to make my boss look good. Now, it's up to me to cultivate that relationship so that I get an appropriate level of recognition and return, which doesn't always happen, but I'm not sure that's a "corporate" problem or a "system" problem, any more than me going to a bar, seeing the hottest girl there and blaming someone else when she isn't interested in going back to my place. Now, I've been married twice and went to my senior prom with a date, so at least three women on this planet find me reasonably attractive. That others don't (and to spell it out, the analogy is, that other bosses don't see my value) doesn't necessarily mean the system is flawed, only that experience in the system.
-
Well, now you're adding things. "Pay and benefits".
I only added benefits because you mentioned them first. :huh:
Read what I said: "BASE RATE (i.e. "pay") isn't the only benefit you get from working". How many people actually quantify what their benefits cost them?
I mean, everyone should, IMO.
You work six hours a day, at your schedule.
Working your contracted hours at mutually agreed times isn't a benefit. It's just employment.
You get free meals while working there.
Do I get the option to opt out and be reimbursed in kind? If not, its a not de facto a benefit, instead its something I am pretty much forced to do if I wish to get the maximum value from my work.
You get all your licenses paid for.
Do I need them to do the job I agreed to? If I start work as a carpenting company would being handed a saw and a chisel be a benefit? I would not say so.
Even my father-in-law, when there was a reorg at his work complained about some of the wage issues; he's now retired and of all the things he misses, "wage" isn't one of them.
Because he still money from his pensions, presumably? I.e, the government is now paying his "wages". It's easier to miss something you no longer have access to.
As for contracts, I'm sure this is said somewhere else in the thread (but I haven't read it all yet), it is exceedingly rare for the average American to sign anything that could be construed as an "employment contract" at hiring. We are, generally, considered "at will" employees. Exceptions are for senior managers with incentive compensation (or deferred compensation), members of a board of directors, or officers of companies wherein they are responsible for activities beyond the normal course of the job description (though it should be noted I fall into more than one of those categories and I do not have a specific employment contract).
This was indeed something I was unaware of, since every place I have worked for from the UK/Sweden has had me sign something that details my wages, minimum hours, rights and so forth. Starting work without a mutual, legally binding agreement on the terms of employment is a bit insane from my perspective, but I never grew up in the USA's rather "different" work environment.
-
Any sense that going above and beyond for your job just for the sake of "doing a good job" is noble/admirable is the result of decades of us as a society aggrandizing employers.
wat?
Animals are programmed to eat, reproduce, and maybe have some sort of social structure to them. Humans got to where they are, in part, because we rose above the minimum requirements for survival and built civilizations.
I understand that sending an extra couple emails a day might not do much to drive the species for, but if you aren't trying to do your best for its own sake, then how are you different from any other animal that farts around then dies?
A false dichotomy where you're either giving yourself over to work or else not doing something worthwhile.
I see a lot of people nonchalantly pat themselves on the back for never taking off, never leaving the office on time, checking emails while on vacation, and so on...
Do people like this really assume everyone with boundaries is just lazier than they are?
Ok, well, if people want to make it about personal judgments, I'd like to think I'm a better husband and dad than that.
And yes, if I get sacked for not "doing extra", that's fine (although, that won't happen). I will still be able to find employment and take care of my family, because I have skills that go far beyond just bending over backward to ingratiate myself to my employer by making sure they know all the "free stuff" I do for them.
-
I see a lot of people nonchalantly pat themselves on the back for never taking off, never leaving the office on time, checking emails while on vacation, and so on...
See, I've always had the mentality of doing the best work I can and on time, so that the moment I walk out the office I have no need to check my email/work phone (except in case of emergencies, of course).
At my previous job, I used to be the main contact for any emergencies or alarms. I used to get so annoyed when 1 hour after I got home, I would get a call that the alarm system was triggered because someone did not close the building properly. I always made sure to check the cameras and shame them the next day though :)
-
Working in academia, I was very much one of those people who checked emails and answered questions outside of work hours, until I realised I was burning myself out. Now i am much more strict, while still allowing it occasionally, and my work/life balance is waaaayyy better. Especially during the pandemic, where working from home you really had to place a hard line between work and home life lest it all blur into a constant state of being "on-call".
-
I see a lot of people nonchalantly pat themselves on the back for never taking off, never leaving the office on time, checking emails while on vacation, and so on...
See, I've always had the mentality of doing the best work I can and on time, so that the moment I walk out the office I have no need to check my email/work phone (except in case of emergencies, of course).
Exactly, it's about valuing oneself, and feeling confident that you've done a day's work and done it well.
Otherwise, everything we are talking about here is pure symbolism - how much do you feel the need to continuously genuflect to your employer after working hours, and do you resent those who do not?
-
Working in academia, I was very much one of those people who checked emails and answered questions outside of work hours, until I realised I was burning myself out. Now i am much more strict, while still allowing it occasionally, and my work/life balance is waaaayyy better. Especially during the pandemic, where working from home you really had to place a hard line between work and home life lest it all blur into a constant state of being "on-call".
Stuff like this is why I haven't tried to move up in my company. I have been in a sweet spot where I don't take work home with me, but if I move up I go to salary from hourly and would be expected to respond at all hours of the day. Screw all that. It's not worth the extra money. My boss's job and life sucks IMO.
-
Working in academia, I was very much one of those people who checked emails and answered questions outside of work hours, until I realised I was burning myself out. Now i am much more strict, while still allowing it occasionally, and my work/life balance is waaaayyy better. Especially during the pandemic, where working from home you really had to place a hard line between work and home life lest it all blur into a constant state of being "on-call".
Stuff like this is why I haven't tried to move up in my company. I have been in a sweet spot where I don't take work home with me, but if I move up I go to salary from hourly and would be expected to respond at all hours of the day. Screw all that. It's not worth the extra money. My boss's job and life sucks IMO.
Dude, same! I'm having so much trouble with this at my job. My boss' boss is relatively new here (to my department anyway) and he's in charge of some enterprise-wide mentoring program for internals. He's been hounding me for weeks now about signing up for the program (mainly so he can tell his boss "look how many people participate in this thing I run"). I don't care about expanding my professional network, and every year when I have to fill out my annual goals and objectives, I always come off as an under-achiever, and it's not a lie. I have ZERO desire to climb the ranks here. I don't want to grind. When I shut my laptop, my day is over. I'm doing fine financially. I don't need more money. If there's anything in this life I want more of, it's time off the clock.
I'm sure many see that as lazy, or poor planning for the future, but I'm alright with that. I've been maxing out my 401K contributions since the week I turned 21, plus the employer match. So even if my career goes tits up and I don't have a stellar roadmap laid out because I didn't spend years brown-nosing and giving up nights and weekends, I'm still retiring with more than enough to get me by.
-
When lying on your deathbed, you aren't going to regret the fact you didn't answer more emails.
-
physical representation of what this thread is about:
(https://i.imgur.com/tvkmaMF.jpeg)
-
I see a lot of people nonchalantly pat themselves on the back for never taking off, never leaving the office on time, checking emails while on vacation, and so on...
Do people like this really assume everyone with boundaries is just lazier than they are?
Ok, well, if people want to make it about personal judgments, I'd like to think I'm a better husband and dad than that.
I'm one of them, sort of. I don't pat myself on the back, but I think it's a part of the value I bring. But be careful that you don't do the same thing in terms of creating a false dichotomy. I don't necessarily think people that don't do those things are "lazier". Some are, some aren't. Some have different jobs that don't require what I do. Some don't need to be on call; in the sense that I am a risk manager - i.e. one who manages the risk for my company - the world doesn't really conform to my schedule, nor should it. Some have bosses or colleagues that can take the load for a week. All circumstances are different.
But when you don't get the promotion, or you're working for a boss who "blows" and "whose job you could do ten times better", don't fucking complain. It all comes down to a risk/reward balance that we all have to make. I do answer emails on vacation, but I wasn't willing to relocate wherever the company wanted me to go when they wanted back when I was 26, so I didn't accept the offer from the FBI. That was my choice. I do the emails now in the morning, over coffee, while the fam sleeps. No big deal and I enjoy what I do, so there's that. I wasn't willing/able to practice guitar four or five hours a day every day like Ynqwie or Zakk Wylde, and so I suck at guitar. I accept that and move on.
-
physical representation of what this thread is about:
(https://i.imgur.com/tvkmaMF.jpeg)
The neighbour who doesn't offer to cut the grass or the neighbour who refuses to allow his neighbour to cut his grass?
-
Well, now you're adding things. "Pay and benefits".
I only added benefits because you mentioned them first. :huh:
Read what I said: "BASE RATE (i.e. "pay") isn't the only benefit you get from working". How many people actually quantify what their benefits cost them?
I mean, everyone should, IMO.
Interestingly, I've worked for the same hospital system for almost 30 years now. This year for the first time, HR sent me the breakdown of my benefits package. So maybe this is beginning to be more standard with larger employers.
-
physical representation of what this thread is about:
(https://i.imgur.com/tvkmaMF.jpeg)
I know this is meant in jest, and I do find it funny. But I just have to comment that at least to me, helping or not helping your neighbor with their yard is very different than an employment situation where there seems to be a weird push for shaming people for not going above and beyond in situations where employers don't go above and beyond to give you anything extra back.
-
Well, now you're adding things. "Pay and benefits".
I only added benefits because you mentioned them first. :huh:
Read what I said: "BASE RATE (i.e. "pay") isn't the only benefit you get from working". How many people actually quantify what their benefits cost them?
I mean, everyone should, IMO.
Interestingly, I've worked for the same hospital system for almost 30 years now. This year for the first time, HR sent me the breakdown of my benefits package. So maybe this is beginning to be more standard with larger employers.
My company started doing this a few years ago. They call it your "Annual Total Compensation" and it lists out base pay, insurance costs covered, any bonus, or whatever benefits you may have that don't count as base pay but come at a cost. I'd say this comes out to be a quite a bit of money beyond what my base pay is.
-
I know this is meant in jest, and I do find it funny. But I just have to comment that at least to me, helping or not helping your neighbor with their yard is very different than an employment situation where there seems to be a weird push for shaming people for not going above and beyond in situations where employers don't go above and beyond to give you anything extra back.
100% agree. I saw that picture and thought of this thread. Completely different scenarios, but within the same concept of not doing more than what's required of you.
-
Being the age I am, working in a fast-food business, allowed me to observe the overall environment of this section of the food industry. In the fast food industry, it really does take everyone's effort to get out those orders in time. If no one has that enthusiasm to get those orders out, then those customers waiting in the long lines at places such as Taco Bell, will wait longer, especially that person who cut in front of someone already waiting in the line.
I have a co-worker who says, "They pay her enough for her not to quit, and she does enough so she won't get fired." There are also other workers who do go the extra mile and does things that aren't necessarily required of them, but they are things that should be considered about the work place, such as the deep cleansing of the stores and doing other stuff you aren't really required to do.
Some positions I have seen when applying also state that there are "other tasks" that may be asked of you to perform when on the clock. I like how they word it this way specifically because those other tasks could be those tasks that aren't part of what your job title is.
I personally just try and do my best to push out those orders, make sure they're correct, and have some time to spare before we have to make the other orders. Being short-staffed in these jobs doesn't help at all either, it only makes those wait times longer. I also understand what I signed up for, which does make me laugh because I had to pick the store that is the busiest one in the city. I am also fortunate to have a GM that is cool as well, and co-workers that are also pretty chill and understand what the job entails.
I'll just leave it at this for now, but I am fascinated by this discussion here with regards to work ethics, quitting, and the concept of working for pay.
-
Any sense that going above and beyond for your job just for the sake of "doing a good job" is noble/admirable is the result of decades of us as a society aggrandizing employers.
wat?
Animals are programmed to eat, reproduce, and maybe have some sort of social structure to them. Humans got to where they are, in part, because we rose above the minimum requirements for survival and built civilizations.
I understand that sending an extra couple emails a day might not do much to drive the species for, but if you aren't trying to do your best for its own sake, then how are you different from any other animal that farts around then dies?
Because employers take advantage of this for their own gain. My work ethic has been abused and used by managers to get ahead and take credit at their own will.
Going above and beyond your call of duty sometimes doesn't always lead to positive outcomes. Hasnt mattered in the past how many free hours I've done, I've been shat on.
Going into a company fresh with the attitude of doing bare minimum doesn't wash with me I agree with that, but sometimes toning it down and doing just what you're expected and no more is sometimes forced upon you in situations you are in.
I agree with you. but to go back to what I said before, doing more than the bare minimum is far more likely to result in a positive outcome (better pay, promotion, recognition, etc.) than doing just enough, wouldn't you agree?
The "work smarter. not harder" guy to whom I referred who left our company a while back was a 7-4 guy who openly joked off how he'd often get to work around 6:50-6:55 and sit in his car and play on his phone until 6:59 and then come inside and start work at 7 because he wasn't about to give anyone any extra minutes. That is such a terrible attitude. I am sorry, but if you are taking the "I am not giving the company 5 extra minutes" attitude, which trickles down into other areas, you pretty much have no one but yourself to blame when you don't get the raise or promotion you feel you "deserve," and I use deserve loosely since far too many nowadays seems to think they deserve the moon for doing jack squat. I am a salaried worker whose hours are technically 8-5, but I almost always get to work 10-20 minutes early and just get to it. Part of that is because I hate being late for anything, so I always leave early to ensure I am not late, but if I know I have a lot of work at the start of the day, I'd rather get to it and get rolling.
And back to Bill's point about there being more benefits than pay to working, there was a day a while back where I had to do a quick doctor's appointment at lunch. It was 10 minutes away, so with an hour, I figured I had time to get there and back, but I also gave my boss a heads up that I could run a little late back if there are any delays and he said that was fine. Naturally, there ended up being a delay and I got back after like an hour and 25 minutes, so I asked my boss if I should email HR about taking 25 minutes of personal time and he said, "nah, don't worry about it, I know you're always here early, so you are good." I know that same courtesy would not be extended to those who do as little as possible or who are never early (I know they can see what time we swipe our cards to get into the building). And, no, not all bosses are as good about that kind of stuff as mine, but this goes back to doing your best.
I guess that depends on where you work and the situation. If you're saying obviously doing a bit more gives you the better chances to excel, then of course, that's a given. If you're starting in a new company, you have to put your best foot forward and do the extra mile. I was talking from being at a company for over a decade.
With the benefits, it's the same with me. I want to go in late one morning, I just do it. There's times I have to work back, work early, works weekends that I don't account for so I take the time back when I can. I don't see it as a benefit though in my situation as I'm basically on call 24/7. I think that situation you describe though should be the norm, and any decent manager would be able to manage those situations with staff and not be anal about every single second someone is or isn't there. That's how you get more of out people without even trying.
-
Whether there's a formal contract in place or not, there's generally an understanding with a job that you will provide work/productivity X in exchange for compensation Y (inclusive of benefits). I don't see any inherent value in providing more than X unless there's something else at play. If there's a discretionary performance bonus, or if you're explicitly trying to prove that you can handle more than X so that they promote you and start paying you more than Y, then sure. But otherwise it's like going to the store and voluntarily paying more than the cost of the goods you're buying. Any sense that going above and beyond for your job just for the sake of "doing a good job" is noble/admirable is the result of decades of us as a society aggrandizing employers.
AND
Because employers take advantage of this for their own gain. My work ethic has been abused and used by managers to get ahead and take credit at their own will.
Going above and beyond your call of duty sometimes doesn't always lead to positive outcomes. Hasnt mattered in the past how many free hours I've done, I've been shat on.
Going into a company fresh with the attitude of doing bare minimum doesn't wash with me I agree with that, but sometimes toning it down and doing just what you're expected and no more is sometimes forced upon you in situations you are in.
I dunno. I think it's more complicated than that. It's also the same problem we see in so many places in P/R: how do you reconcile the individual experience with the collective experience? I would never say "you're wrong" Wolfking, because that's YOUR experience, and you own it. But I know for me, a component of my job is precisely to make my boss look good. Now, it's up to me to cultivate that relationship so that I get an appropriate level of recognition and return, which doesn't always happen, but I'm not sure that's a "corporate" problem or a "system" problem, any more than me going to a bar, seeing the hottest girl there and blaming someone else when she isn't interested in going back to my place. Now, I've been married twice and went to my senior prom with a date, so at least three women on this planet find me reasonably attractive. That others don't (and to spell it out, the analogy is, that other bosses don't see my value) doesn't necessarily mean the system is flawed, only that experience in the system.
We are in totally different situations and fields then Bill.
-
I think some managers take a sort of pride in "getting the most out of people", which sometimes can mean taking advantage of people who they feel they can run to the bone. They might feel like they are looking good to their superiors (and, short term, they probably are), but in my field, I've OFTEN seen how this can go awry. Especially if we are talking about special perks and treatment for employees who go above and beyond that do not apply to those who simply do what's asked. One person in this thread mentioned how their manager looked the other way while they coded their time incorrectly because they're "always putting in extra time". I personally would not be happy with this or the potential implications of it, at all, speaking from a compliance/HR perspective at least. In my experience, this type of thing has been at the crux of so many management issues, i.e., "So-and-so (who manager likes) is always getting special treatment! I do everything I'm supposed to so why don't I get the same!"
-
Speaking of quiet quitting, one of my bosses just did the opposite (I report to 3 VPs, since my position overlaps with different departments, but this is the one I interact with the most).
He gave his resignation at 9am, came to see me at 9:30 to talk, bounced by 10. While I'm happy for him, I am not looking forward to the next couple of months.
-
I think some managers take a sort of pride in "getting the most out of people", which sometimes can mean taking advantage of people who they feel they can run to the bone. They might feel like they are looking good to their superiors (and, short term, they probably are), but in my field, I've OFTEN seen how this can go awry. Especially if we are talking about special perks and treatment for employees who go above and beyond that do not apply to those who simply do what's asked. One person in this thread mentioned how their manager looked the other way while they coded their time incorrectly because they're "always putting in extra time". I personally would not be happy with this or the potential implications of it, at all, speaking from a compliance/HR perspective at least. In my experience, this type of thing has been at the crux of so many management issues, i.e., "So-and-so (who manager likes) is always getting special treatment! I do everything I'm supposed to so why don't I get the same!"
No manager looks to wear an employee down. I have a few employees I have to say no, I want you to have a few days off. You will burn yourself out.
-
I think some managers take a sort of pride in "getting the most out of people", which sometimes can mean taking advantage of people who they feel they can run to the bone. They might feel like they are looking good to their superiors (and, short term, they probably are), but in my field, I've OFTEN seen how this can go awry. Especially if we are talking about special perks and treatment for employees who go above and beyond that do not apply to those who simply do what's asked. One person in this thread mentioned how their manager looked the other way while they coded their time incorrectly because they're "always putting in extra time". I personally would not be happy with this or the potential implications of it, at all, speaking from a compliance/HR perspective at least. In my experience, this type of thing has been at the crux of so many management issues, i.e., "So-and-so (who manager likes) is always getting special treatment! I do everything I'm supposed to so why don't I get the same!"
No manager looks to wear an employee down. I have a few employees I have to say no, I want you to have a few days off. You will burn yourself out.
I would say I agree that they are not looking to wear an employee down, but some deff don't care if they do.
-
Just curious, how many people here have direct reports in their job? This is not a loaded question, nor a gotcha. I'm just honestly curious (for the record, I do not have any direct reports in my current role, though I have about 20 dotted line matrix people that... I wouldn't say "report to me" but are available for me to assign tasks to, with the concurrence of their solid line managers).
-
Never had direct reports.
Been "higher level" than other people that I've had to coordinate (apologies for the business jargon, not trying to power level too much)
-
Through my last 3 positions, my direct reports have gone down. I went from 22, to 4 and now 0. However, similar to you, there are about 20 employees now that don't report directly to me, but I can ask or assign things to them if needed.
-
Just curious, how many people here have direct reports in their job? This is not a loaded question, nor a gotcha. I'm just honestly curious (for the record, I do not have any direct reports in my current role, though I have about 20 dotted line matrix people that... I wouldn't say "report to me" but are available for me to assign tasks to, with the concurrence of their solid line managers).
20 for me.
-
I think some managers take a sort of pride in "getting the most out of people", which sometimes can mean taking advantage of people who they feel they can run to the bone. They might feel like they are looking good to their superiors (and, short term, they probably are), but in my field, I've OFTEN seen how this can go awry. Especially if we are talking about special perks and treatment for employees who go above and beyond that do not apply to those who simply do what's asked. One person in this thread mentioned how their manager looked the other way while they coded their time incorrectly because they're "always putting in extra time". I personally would not be happy with this or the potential implications of it, at all, speaking from a compliance/HR perspective at least. In my experience, this type of thing has been at the crux of so many management issues, i.e., "So-and-so (who manager likes) is always getting special treatment! I do everything I'm supposed to so why don't I get the same!"
No manager looks to wear an employee down. I have a few employees I have to say no, I want you to have a few days off. You will burn yourself out.
Yeah, let me rephrase that. There are some managers who will just never tell their employees to come down from the ledge, and will let them burn themselves out. They may or may not know the employee is close to burning out; they're just bad managers who don't care as long as they are looking good (and likely are not going to be around for much longer).
-
Just curious, how many people here have direct reports in their job? This is not a loaded question, nor a gotcha. I'm just honestly curious (for the record, I do not have any direct reports in my current role, though I have about 20 dotted line matrix people that... I wouldn't say "report to me" but are available for me to assign tasks to, with the concurrence of their solid line managers).
I have 11 direct reports right now.
-
I think some managers take a sort of pride in "getting the most out of people", which sometimes can mean taking advantage of people who they feel they can run to the bone. They might feel like they are looking good to their superiors (and, short term, they probably are), but in my field, I've OFTEN seen how this can go awry. Especially if we are talking about special perks and treatment for employees who go above and beyond that do not apply to those who simply do what's asked. One person in this thread mentioned how their manager looked the other way while they coded their time incorrectly because they're "always putting in extra time". I personally would not be happy with this or the potential implications of it, at all, speaking from a compliance/HR perspective at least. In my experience, this type of thing has been at the crux of so many management issues, i.e., "So-and-so (who manager likes) is always getting special treatment! I do everything I'm supposed to so why don't I get the same!"
No manager looks to wear an employee down. I have a few employees I have to say no, I want you to have a few days off. You will burn yourself out.
Yeah, let me rephrase that. There are some managers who will just never tell their employees to come down from the ledge, and will let them burn themselves out. They may or may not know the employee is close to burning out; they're just bad managers who don't care as long as they are looking good (and likely are not going to be around for much longer).
That seems to imply that a manager is to blame if an employee burns out. I disagree with that. I don't usually tell my bosses what's the what in my personal life. They don't know if I'm going through a divorce. I would certainly NEVER EVER disclose any substance issues I might have. Or issues with my children. "Burning out" is as much LIFE management as it is work management and I don't need nor want my boss involved in regulating my personal life.
-
I see it the opposite. When I got a guy working 6 days a week and is falling asleep on the forklift I will step in for all employees. All their safety is important. A forklift is dangerous if you are not fully awake and aware.
-
I see it the opposite. When I got a guy working 6 days a week and is falling asleep on the forklift I will step in for all employees. All their safety is important. A forklift is dangerous if you are not fully awake and aware.
No, no, I get that. But are you stepping in for that employee, or are you maintaining a safe work space? They are overlapping but not the same. If the guy says "fuck you, Joe" you still have an obligation to the rest of the team, so you might fire him. You wouldn't really have a choice. If he wasn't endangering the work force, it might be a different matter.
-
Just curious, how many people here have direct reports in their job? This is not a loaded question, nor a gotcha. I'm just honestly curious (for the record, I do not have any direct reports in my current role, though I have about 20 dotted line matrix people that... I wouldn't say "report to me" but are available for me to assign tasks to, with the concurrence of their solid line managers).
None. My last job I had 12 direct reports in 3 locations. My current boss has talked about hiring a direct report for me, but I don't see that happening in the near future.
-
I see it the opposite. When I got a guy working 6 days a week and is falling asleep on the forklift I will step in for all employees. All their safety is important. A forklift is dangerous if you are not fully awake and aware.
This is where I was going with that. I've worked for a manager who had a team cranking on 24+ continuous hours once. With his salaried staff. He pushed people to their absolute extremes, and if you couldn't hang, you could go find another job. One day a member of his team was leaving at 10am on a Tuesday (after working continuously from 8am Monday), fell asleep at the wheel on his way home, and got into an accident. Luckily he was fine.
Stadler makes a great point about life management - it's up to each individual to draw that line, and push back, and at some point say with confidence to their employers "no more". I have worked in environments where managers DO exploit people's eagerness to bring value. But that's almost besides the point - the point is that you, as the employee, decide what you will tolerate. And you must know that what is good for your manager is not always the same thing as what is good for you.
And I have no direct reports - but I'm currently working in a function where I spend most of my time reminding managers how they are supposed to be treating their employees (in reference to wages, attendance, time off, etc). So I would not say I'm unaware of what managers go through. I'm very aware of what things managers often are and are not concerned about.
-
I see it the opposite. When I got a guy working 6 days a week and is falling asleep on the forklift I will step in for all employees. All their safety is important. A forklift is dangerous if you are not fully awake and aware.
No, no, I get that. But are you stepping in for that employee, or are you maintaining a safe work space? They are overlapping but not the same. If the guy says "fuck you, Joe" you still have an obligation to the rest of the team, so you might fire him. You wouldn't really have a choice. If he wasn't endangering the work force, it might be a different matter.
I would send him home. Counsel him and then reach out to my boss and HR. they would direct after a conversation what to do.
-
Just curious, how many people here have direct reports in their job? This is not a loaded question, nor a gotcha. I'm just honestly curious (for the record, I do not have any direct reports in my current role, though I have about 20 dotted line matrix people that... I wouldn't say "report to me" but are available for me to assign tasks to, with the concurrence of their solid line managers).
About 20 in this quiet period. In the summer period it will at least double, usually around 40-50.
-
I've not known when to jump in on this thread. I've started typing responses but have been undecided on what I actually wanted to say. I am always fascinated by this subject, on worker motivations and management methods.
I read this thread daily.
I started working when I was 13 in the summers working for a guy that sold pizza and lemonade at small craft shows to large county fairs. I did this for 7 summers.
I started working at McDonald's when I was 16, and did so until I graduated college. I worked for two different franchisees.
After college, I started with a major chain supermarket chain and am still with them after 32 years. I was a Store Manager for half of those years.
I've worked with thousands of people, with all different circumstances. Some on their way up, some the way down. Superstars, slackers, and of course, I've worked with many different managers.
And most interesting of the whole thing, I have worked face to face with the general public my entire working life. And it's been an amazing experience.
Just curious, how many people here have direct reports in their job?
As a Service Manager I managed the front end, service desk, and the moneyroom. I think I had about 50 people in my department.
As an Assistant Store Manager, and then as a Store Manager, I had the entire store, typically with 7 or 8 Department Managers and about 80-100 total associates.
I then stepped down for family reasons and became a Grocery Department Manager with on average about 15 associates under me.
I now work as a Store Receiver, which I plan on riding out until I retire. No reports, no real responsibility. Just go in and do my thing.
-
And most interesting of the whole thing, I have worked face to face with the general public my entire working life. And it's been an amazing experience.
This is the most eye opening aspect a lot of others don't get to see, especially in my working life. Working with the public is next level and a true challenge and test of character. You see everything. I've had everything, death, been threatened to be killed multiple times, racial abuse between customers that I've mediated, drug and alcohol infected customers, confronting incest and situations of the like, dealing with people showing pedophile like behavior, fights between customers etc. It builds such a strength of character and mental resilience some never get the pleasure of really enduring. But it's so draining some days and does make one a cranky asshole. :lol
I now work as a Store Receiver, which I plan on riding out until I retire. No reports, no real responsibility. Just go in and do my thing.
I think I'm craving this situation so much at the moment after what I've been doing for so long.
-
And most interesting of the whole thing, I have worked face to face with the general public my entire working life. And it's been an amazing experience.
This is the most eye opening aspect a lot of others don't get to see, especially in my working life. Working with the public is next level and a true challenge and test of character. You see everything. I've had everything, death, been threatened to be killed multiple times, racial abuse between customers that I've mediated, drug and alcohol infected customers, confronting incest and situations of the like, dealing with people showing pedophile like behavior, fights between customers etc. It builds such a strength of character and mental resilience some never get the pleasure of really enduring. But it's so draining some days and does make one a cranky asshole. :lol
Er...what are you saying? :rollin
-
And most interesting of the whole thing, I have worked face to face with the general public my entire working life. And it's been an amazing experience.
This is the most eye opening aspect a lot of others don't get to see, especially in my working life. Working with the public is next level and a true challenge and test of character. You see everything. I've had everything, death, been threatened to be killed multiple times, racial abuse between customers that I've mediated, drug and alcohol infected customers, confronting incest and situations of the like, dealing with people showing pedophile like behavior, fights between customers etc. It builds such a strength of character and mental resilience some never get the pleasure of really enduring. But it's so draining some days and does make one a cranky asshole. :lol
Er...what are you saying? :rollin
I was speaking purely about myself. :lol
I do think constant dealings with the public though over a long period of time grinds you down. I guess its how you deal with it but dealing with people daily certainly hasn't made me an optimist in any way. :lol
-
In my last job I had 5-6 full time direct reports (6 ideally, but in most times I only had 5) and 4-5 part time direct supports.
-
I currently have 4 direct reports.
I fully believe in doing your best at your job as long as you are being valued by your employer. If your employer has shown that they don't value you, then I don't blame you for scaling back your effort level, but I also think you would both be better served if you just looked for a different employer rather than hang around and slack off.
-
I fully believe in doing your best at your job as long as you are being valued by your employer. If your employer has shown that they don't value you, then I don't blame you for scaling back your effort level, but I also think you would both be better served if you just looked for a different employer rather than hang around and slack off.
This summarizes my views pretty well.
-
As for contracts, I'm sure this is said somewhere else in the thread (but I haven't read it all yet), it is exceedingly rare for the average American to sign anything that could be construed as an "employment contract" at hiring. We are, generally, considered "at will" employees. Exceptions are for senior managers with incentive compensation (or deferred compensation), members of a board of directors, or officers of companies wherein they are responsible for activities beyond the normal course of the job description (though it should be noted I fall into more than one of those categories and I do not have a specific employment contract).
This was indeed something I was unaware of, since every place I have worked for from the UK/Sweden has had me sign something that details my wages, minimum hours, rights and so forth. Starting work without a mutual, legally binding agreement on the terms of employment is a bit insane from my perspective, but I never grew up in the USA's rather "different" work environment.
I get why you view the workplace as you do, and that contract employment is the norm where you have been. But for a bit of perspective, it is not the norm in most of the world and is a relatively new invention that has existed for a very small sliver of human history. For most of history, the employer's obligation has been no more than to pay the worker the agreed amount once the job was satisfactorily completed. And, yes, that's a bit of a generalization and oversimplification. But it's an accurate one.
-
Well sure, but for most of history most people couldn't read and write.
-
Not really relevant to my point, even if elements of that are true.
-
Not really relevant to my point, even if elements of that are true.
It's relevant to the point you made regarding how things have been done historically. It's hard to write and agree to a written contract if you are illiterate, so for the general populace the ability to even HAVE an easily accessible work contract that is recorded is a relatively recent occurrence. As to the rest of your point, I don't deny that is probably the most common way things are done, but that has no bearing on whether it is a good thing or not. Plenty of bad methods persist through tradition.
-
Many people do not have contracts but they should still have an idea of the job based on an offer letter, interview, the job description they actually based their application on, etc...
Unclear role and vague expectations are one of my least favorite things to do with as an employee. Usually in my experience I've found these are most common in corporate environments that are poorly managed. Unless I was really hard up for anything, I'd probably not accept any kind of offer from an employer who did not volunteer (let alone, "could not provide upon request") a relatively clear vision of what my responsibilities would entail.
-
I currently have 4 direct reports.
I fully believe in doing your best at your job as long as you are being valued by your employer. If your employer has shown that they don't value you, then I don't blame you for scaling back your effort level, but I also think you would both be better served if you just looked for a different employer rather than hang around and slack off.
From what I understand, "quiet quitting" isn't really slacking off though.
-
Here's my question though. What about when you're short staffed and you are required to do other jobs that are not necessarily on your contract or job requirements?
Just the other day we had more than enough people working. The shift leaders sent one guy home early, while me and one of the main shift leaders ended up "deep cleaning" some areas of the place.
I would consider that part of my job requirements, under the category of other tasks. I know there would be some that would not consider that part of their job requirements.
Honestly, it would depend on the type of job and whether a person feels if it's worth it to take on other duties. Sometimes, these duties are just things that have to be done though, someone has to do it or else it'll just pile on and up way worse than it was before.
-
As a manager dealing with this issue I tell my employees, "Do the best you can."
I will deal with upper management. It's not up to them to worry about that.
-
XJDenton, when you talk about contracts, do they include time frame? Because I think that's what most of us are thinking (US at least).
As I mentioned before, every job I had, I signed an offer letter, which states responsibilities, compensation, start date, etc.
-
Well if it's limited term, but I think "offer letter" would come under the same heading if it's signed/acknowledged by both parties.
-
I saw an article about this pop up on my feed and was surprised to learn that it's considered a national trend.
By "Quiet Quitting", I thought Kev meant "people who leave without giving notice". I had no idea that this was a national trend where people set firm boundaries to leave at 5pm and turn off work until the next day.
Honestly, I have no problem with it.
To people who think "Quiet Quitting" is a problem, I'd also pose some questions:
1. Are you married?
2. Do you have children?
3. If "Yes" to Questions 1 and 2, are you home to have dinner with your family every night? What about seeing kids off to extracurriculars?
4. If "No", do you have any other significant hobbies, or are you "all-in" on your career?
No judgment. Just curious. My Dad was never home for dinner, growing up. He thought we needed the money he could make working more than we needed him, I guess. It's something that I, as a father, just refuse to pass on.
I have another work buddy - we both started as single guys, no-kids, and are both are married with kids now. This buddy of mine typically left at 5 in the good ol' days but actually starting putting in LONGER days at the office after his first was born. It was kind of a shock to everyone and we've all joked with him about it now how it seems like he can't find an excuse to leave the office now that he's got little ones. Now he's got three, and he's regularly in the office until 7pm every night, so I guess he just leaves everything to his wife or other caregivers. He came in a bit higher than me, and his career is moving at a slightly faster clip, I'd say. But I can't say it'd be worth it, at all, to me.
Anyway, not for me to judge. But, speaking from personal experience, I know where I draw the line, and it's family-first 100% of the way. If that means someone determines I can't hang in corporate, then so be it, I'll happily move on to something else with the support of my family behind me.
-
Never had any dircet reports. Always been the bottom rung guy.
By "Quiet Quitting", I thought Kev meant "people who leave without giving notice". I had no idea that this was a national trend where people set firm boundaries to leave at 5pm and turn off work until the next day.
Now it's a new "National Trend?" Most at-will, non-managerial employees should be leaving at 5p and turning off work till the next day.
When lying on your deathbed, you aren't going to regret the fact you didn't answer more emails.
Love it. Think I've actually said this to my wife.
Interestingly, I've worked for the same hospital system for almost 30 years now. This year for the first time, HR sent me the breakdown of my benefits package. So maybe this is beginning to be more standard with larger employers.
I've only worked for one large employer, and that was years ago now, but we always got an annual statement breaking down our pay/benefits. I always wondered how many employees actually looked at theirs.
-
Here's my question though. What about when you're short staffed and you are required to do other jobs that are not necessarily on your contract or job requirements?
Just the other day we had more than enough people working. The shift leaders sent one guy home early, while me and one of the main shift leaders ended up "deep cleaning" some areas of the place.
I would consider that part of my job requirements, under the category of other tasks. I know there would be some that would not consider that part of their job requirements.
Honestly, it would depend on the type of job and whether a person feels if it's worth it to take on other duties. Sometimes, these duties are just things that have to be done though, someone has to do it or else it'll just pile on and up way worse than it was before.
Pretty much every formal job description I've ever seen has a line that states something along the lines of "Other tasks as assigned by supervisor". So that no one can ever claim that what they're being asked to do isn't in their job description.
-
Never had any dircet reports. Always been the bottom rung guy.
By "Quiet Quitting", I thought Kev meant "people who leave without giving notice". I had no idea that this was a national trend where people set firm boundaries to leave at 5pm and turn off work until the next day.
Now it's a new "National Trend?" Most at-will, non-managerial employees should be leaving at 5p and turning off work till the next day.
Completely agree. Unless it's stated at the job interview and in a job description that a person is expected to be available at all hours of the night, virtually everyone should refuse to do work in their off hours. Now there are are exceptions. I've done extra work late at night on a few occasions when there was a big project deadline coming up, but those have been very rare.
-
The way that people think about work has changed profoundly since COVID (my own opinions included). Some people think it's as simple as "people are lazy now" and others think it's as simple as "people aren't valued enough". I think the reality is much more complicated and I'm doubtful that we will ever figure out the perfect balance. I personally struggle with that - If I'm not particularly productive one week, I feel guilty, but if I have too much going on, I get super stressed. You just can't win, I guess. :lol
-
So, my customer has funding that expires, or the court has a deadline for filing, or there's an RFP that is due, or a law gets changed, or an accident happens with your product... do we all get to go home at 5:00?
I asked about direct reports, and I promised it wasn't a gotcha - and it's not - but how does that factor into this discussion? Does "checked out at five" ever factor in to an employee evaluation? If it doesn't, and the notion is, "we don't want to promote that toxic environment", how do you do it - meaning, how does everyone here handle the situation - where the right message - we don't need you to forego family - get sent and not the wrong message - we don't value you, or the fact that you went above and beyond? If you've got five employees and three promotions, or only $5,000 in raises to give out, what factors in? What if your company, like many do, force you to rack and stack your teams? How do you answer to YOUR bosses when that assignment doesn't get done because the team knocked off at five?
-
So, my customer has funding that expires, or the court has a deadline for filing, or there's an RFP that is due, or a law gets changed, or an accident happens with your product... do we all get to go home at 5:00?
For me, if this is a rare occasion, I just put in the extra time to make it happen. If this is something that happens on every project, clearly there is poor planning somewhere in the process and I work with others to fix that.
I asked about direct reports, and I promised it wasn't a gotcha - and it's not - but how does that factor into this discussion? Does "checked out at five" ever factor in to an employee evaluation? If it doesn't, and the notion is, "we don't want to promote that toxic environment", how do you do it - meaning, how does everyone here handle the situation - where the right message - we don't need you to forego family - get sent and not the wrong message - we don't value you, or the fact that you went above and beyond? If you've got five employees and three promotions, or only $5,000 in raises to give out, what factors in? What if your company, like many do, force you to rack and stack your teams? How do you answer to YOUR bosses when that assignment doesn't get done because the team knocked off at five?
Thankfully I've never worked at a company where the culture and workload involves putting in tons of extra hours. But, as a direct manager of a bunch of people, I would certainly try to reward people who were willing to go the extra mile and work late. BUT... I would also evaluate why they needed to work late. I have one engineer that does great work, but is generally more slow and methodical in his approach. So if he needs to work extra, it's likely a direct result of the way he works, rather than the workload. If my people were regularly having to work late and it appeared that the workload will require that going forward, I talk to my boss about adding another person to the team.
-
So, my customer has funding that expires, or the court has a deadline for filing, or there's an RFP that is due, or a law gets changed, or an accident happens with your product... do we all get to go home at 5:00?
No, but once solved I'd expect a few days where going home at 2-3 pm is fine.
-
So, my customer has funding that expires, or the court has a deadline for filing, or there's an RFP that is due, or a law gets changed, or an accident happens with your product... do we all get to go home at 5:00?
I get paid OT for exactly these types of situations. Shit happens, sometimes there's an emergency and I'm needed. It's not normal, but it happens from time to time. If I can't do it for whatever reason, my boss and/or coworkers will try to find a way to get things done. But otherwise, I'm usually out at 5:30 these days. My boss doesn't want us doing OT unless it's called for so I won't be responding to emails/chats once I'm out the door. If I have to come back online I will add my time in 15 minute increments and if I have to come back into the office that's an automatic 4 hours pay even if I'm back home before that time.
-
So, my customer has funding that expires, or the court has a deadline for filing, or there's an RFP that is due, or a law gets changed, or an accident happens with your product... do we all get to go home at 5:00?
No, but once solved I'd expect a few days where going home at 2-3 pm is fine.
This is the other thing I would expect of my job and would tell my folks. You put in extra hours this week, take a few extra off next week.
-
The requirement is 8 hrs/day, 40hrs/week (or any flex schedule equivalent). Overtime is a completely different thing altogether. It isn't quiet quitting if someone doesn't go beyond that and it doesn't mean doing the bare minimum either. It's simply fulfilling the requirements of the job, no more no less. The recent trend is mostly among the younger generation following the pandemic. If they don't want to put forth any extra effort, that's their call. It's a personal choice and personality factors into it. Some are ambitious and want to get ahead and move up. Some just want to do their job, go home and forget about it until tomorrow. Nothing wrong with that as long as the job gets done. The term "quiet quitting" is really pretty fucking meaningless because it doesn't have anything to do with quitting at all. People have been doing it for decades.
-
Yep, agreed with the above. What a terrible misnomer "Quiet Quitting" is. It makes me think of someone who leaves without giving notice or else someone who's just decided to not do anything while waiting to get fired. Obviously, that's not the case. It's just a (admittedly annoying - welcome to social media) way of describing what most people would find to be pretty normal and reasonable behavior.
-
I'd argue that's the point. It's a rebranding by corporate power of something innocuous as "damaging" and undesirable, and painting those who work their contracted hours as "under achievers" and "slackers".
-
So, my customer has funding that expires, or the court has a deadline for filing, or there's an RFP that is due, or a law gets changed, or an accident happens with your product... do we all get to go home at 5:00?
No, but once solved I'd expect a few days where going home at 2-3 pm is fine.
This is the other thing I would expect of my job and would tell my folks. You put in extra hours this week, take a few extra off next week.
This is how my team does it. Seems to work well.
-
So, my customer has funding that expires, or the court has a deadline for filing, or there's an RFP that is due, or a law gets changed, or an accident happens with your product... do we all get to go home at 5:00?
For me, if this is a rare occasion, I just put in the extra time to make it happen. If this is something that happens on every project, clearly there is poor planning somewhere in the process and I work with others to fix that.
Which is, in my opinion, the right way of doing things, since there will inevitably be efficiencies from the work to fix, and undoubtedly other things that come up that will demand "immediate" time.
I asked about direct reports, and I promised it wasn't a gotcha - and it's not - but how does that factor into this discussion? Does "checked out at five" ever factor in to an employee evaluation? If it doesn't, and the notion is, "we don't want to promote that toxic environment", how do you do it - meaning, how does everyone here handle the situation - where the right message - we don't need you to forego family - get sent and not the wrong message - we don't value you, or the fact that you went above and beyond? If you've got five employees and three promotions, or only $5,000 in raises to give out, what factors in? What if your company, like many do, force you to rack and stack your teams? How do you answer to YOUR bosses when that assignment doesn't get done because the team knocked off at five?
Thankfully I've never worked at a company where the culture and workload involves putting in tons of extra hours. But, as a direct manager of a bunch of people, I would certainly try to reward people who were willing to go the extra mile and work late. BUT... I would also evaluate why they needed to work late. I have one engineer that does great work, but is generally more slow and methodical in his approach. So if he needs to work extra, it's likely a direct result of the way he works, rather than the workload. If my people were regularly having to work late and it appeared that the workload will require that going forward, I talk to my boss about adding another person to the team.
That's a fantastic example of why this is not a cut-and-dry "fuck you I'm going home it's 5:00" question. As a manager, you can, to some degree, allocate work to accommodate that. Give him more time to begin with, or give him those projects that aren't on the critical path. So that if he DOES need extra time, it's as you said, a function of "him" and you can't make every choice for him. But like you need an offensive and defensive player on your team, like you need someone big and strong as well as someone small(er) and fast(er), so at work. There will always be someone who can pick up the slack when the world doesn't comply nicely with "9:00am to 5:00 pm, with a half an hour for lunch right at noon". I've made it a point now, at the stage I am in my career, that I want to not be the guy turning out contract after contract and filling out spreadsheets, but rather, I want to be the guy my boss goes to when he has no clue where to go. I've got a good working relationship with him now, so when I need to disappear, I can (and do) but I can't claim ignorance on a random Tuesday when the phone rings at 5:45 pm.
I will also add that most managers are human, and therefore susceptible to human foibles. By that I mean, as much as we try to be diverse, and as much as we try to be accepting, at the end of the day, more managers than not value traits in their employees that they value in themselves. It's the rare manager (and, IMO, the EXCEPTIONAL manager) that hires by pure psychological need and not factoring in the sort of "basic skills" that they value. In other words, if you have a tactical, detail oriented manager that is good with numbers, I would bet you a Dream Theater CD that more often than not, their team is laden with tactical, detail oriented personnel that are good with numbers. They might have complimentary experience, but with one notable exception, it's the rare manager that hires complementary psychology (the exception being the extremely strategic C-suite leader; many of the better CEOs hire number two's that wouldn't necessarily make great CEOs themselves. Jack Welch and Larry Bossidy are the first example that came to mind).
-
All my manager, and the Shift Leaders, care about is putting in effort. Effort to show up and do your best. Effort to listen and do what is asked without complaining about the task. Even if that means staying past closing time.
We have some new workers who seem to forget that they're hired as closers. Which means you're there till after the store closes for the general public, which can range from actually leaving on time to leaving an hour after. All that depends on how busy we are and how many workers are scheduled to work.
It sucks being short-staffed, busy and then have no other help to do the closing stuff. Which when we're short staffed, we can only get to when the store closes or is close to closing. It's why I always tell my coworkers, I'm sorry when I can't be in.
It's hilarious though, because of my work ethic and me showing up and getting to work without complaining, and doing the tasks that are asked on that day, I can ask my manager if I could get off and he usually does. But it depends on the day and who all shows up. If we do get more reliable workers who can do the job decent enough to handle some ticket orders on their own, then it's a job that isn't as stressful.
I actually love my job, only because I see and observe the human aspect of both my coworkers, the customers, the management, and the entire structure of the industry and how it works.
-
So, my customer has funding that expires, or the court has a deadline for filing, or there's an RFP that is due, or a law gets changed, or an accident happens with your product... do we all get to go home at 5:00?
For me, if this is a rare occasion, I just put in the extra time to make it happen. If this is something that happens on every project, clearly there is poor planning somewhere in the process and I work with others to fix that.
Which is, in my opinion, the right way of doing things, since there will inevitably be efficiencies from the work to fix, and undoubtedly other things that come up that will demand "immediate" time.
I asked about direct reports, and I promised it wasn't a gotcha - and it's not - but how does that factor into this discussion? Does "checked out at five" ever factor in to an employee evaluation? If it doesn't, and the notion is, "we don't want to promote that toxic environment", how do you do it - meaning, how does everyone here handle the situation - where the right message - we don't need you to forego family - get sent and not the wrong message - we don't value you, or the fact that you went above and beyond? If you've got five employees and three promotions, or only $5,000 in raises to give out, what factors in? What if your company, like many do, force you to rack and stack your teams? How do you answer to YOUR bosses when that assignment doesn't get done because the team knocked off at five?
Thankfully I've never worked at a company where the culture and workload involves putting in tons of extra hours. But, as a direct manager of a bunch of people, I would certainly try to reward people who were willing to go the extra mile and work late. BUT... I would also evaluate why they needed to work late. I have one engineer that does great work, but is generally more slow and methodical in his approach. So if he needs to work extra, it's likely a direct result of the way he works, rather than the workload. If my people were regularly having to work late and it appeared that the workload will require that going forward, I talk to my boss about adding another person to the team.
That's a fantastic example of why this is not a cut-and-dry "fuck you I'm going home it's 5:00" question. As a manager, you can, to some degree, allocate work to accommodate that. Give him more time to begin with, or give him those projects that aren't on the critical path. So that if he DOES need extra time, it's as you said, a function of "him" and you can't make every choice for him. But like you need an offensive and defensive player on your team, like you need someone big and strong as well as someone small(er) and fast(er), so at work. There will always be someone who can pick up the slack when the world doesn't comply nicely with "9:00am to 5:00 pm, with a half an hour for lunch right at noon". I've made it a point now, at the stage I am in my career, that I want to not be the guy turning out contract after contract and filling out spreadsheets, but rather, I want to be the guy my boss goes to when he has no clue where to go. I've got a good working relationship with him now, so when I need to disappear, I can (and do) but I can't claim ignorance on a random Tuesday when the phone rings at 5:45 pm.
I think you are confusing "leaving at 5 as a general rule" with "refusing to stay at work after 5 even on a by-exception basis".
-
I'd argue that's the point. It's a rebranding by corporate power of something innocuous as "damaging" and undesirable, and painting those who work their contracted hours as "under achievers" and "slackers".
So one side can issue their propaganda and push their agenda, but the other side can't? Please; you sound like Karl Marx sometimes. :) I'd bet a coffee at your favorite coffee place that it's NOT "corporate power" speaking, but the middle managers that are taking the heat for staff that won't color even one line outside the lines (reminding again that many of the people you're talking about DON'T have contracted hours).
-
1. My workplace provides free coffee. It's one of the benefits of having unions with actual power. :P
2. I wish I were 1/10th as eloquent and insightful as Marx was.
3. Middle managers are an arm of corporate power, and if they have insufficient person power or resources to provide it they are also free to demand it from upper management, or strike or quit if its not forthcoming. Its not an employee's job to use their own time and effort to compensate for bad management.
-
Totally agree with the 3rd point Doc.
-
1. My workplace provides free coffee. It's one of the benefits of having unions with actual power. :P
2. I wish I were 1/10th as eloquent and insightful as Marx was.
3. Middle managers are an arm of corporate power, and if they have insufficient person power or resources to provide it they are also free to demand it from upper management, or strike or quit if its not forthcoming. Its not an employee's job to use their own time and effort to compensate for bad management.
If only that's the way the world worked.
-
I mean I do get free coffee, so its how my world works.
-
I mean I do get free coffee, so its how my world works.
You had the coffee anyway. I don't agree with this general perception of "corporate power" (I've worked for one of the largest companies in the world, and it's not like most people think it is, at least those that point fingers at "Big Corporation!") but nonetheless, I'd enjoy the conversation.
-
Speaking of coffee, in one of my stores, I got a coffee maker for the lunchroom. I thought it was a nice idea. Free coffee.
So at one of my Department Manager's meetings, I pointed it out and encouraged them to let everyone know about it, and then one of my Department Managers looked me dead in the eye and asked, "but what about people who don't drink coffee?".
WTF?? You motherfucker.
So I got a water cooler, since we already sold the 5 gallon jugs.
-
You peeps need to use electric kettles more!
-
kSo....Who cleans the coffee machine? Or is that one of the things that is not a job requirement? :biggrin:
-
I haven't caught up with this entire thread yet but we do have someone who fits the definition of quiet quitting, sort of. Honestly we as a team have started to detest him. He can't take direction, or any form of constructice critism and actively brags about about he won't do xyz because it's not part of his job description.
The kicker is that the limited things he does do is often wrong or incomplete. My boss has tried over and over again to coach and work with him but now he is building a case to simply fire him.
Personally, I work hard but I also have boundaries, I won't take calls after 5pm, no emails outside of work hours and have a very defined role within my team. That said putting in extra work on projects has helped, since starting 5 years ago I've almost tripled my salary so I feel like there is value in volunteering to do more.
This doesn't work everywhere, my wife's company is the exact opposite and she has just given up doing anything more than the minimum and it's the right move. Her company is incredibly toxic and putting your neck out there often leads to being targeted.
Anyway, those are my ramblings. Please resume the coffee discussion
-
That's just a bad employee with bad work ethic. Not quiet quitting. Also, I've been working at the largest aerospace company in the world for 36+ years. Never heard of free coffee unless there's a company hosted conference of some kind.
-
That's just a bad employee with bad work ethic. Not quiet quitting. Also, I've been working at the largest aerospace company in the world for 36+ years. Never heard of free coffee unless there's a company hosted conference of some kind.
So how can you tell when someone is "quiet quitting" or just a bad employee?
-
Same thing.
-
I think the only potential difference could be intent. There's plenty of bad employees who don't realize they suck and aren't doing it on purpose.
As for coffee, I have free coffee at work. IN fact, I think it's a great work perk, because it's not just coffee. I get $60 a month to spend on food and drink for my office. About half of that goes to coffee and the rest goes to various snacks I may or may not leave in my office. The reason I get this perk is because I work remotely (not at home, but not in our main office). The main office has a full stocked kitchen for free coffee, drinks, and various snacks.
-
I think the only potential difference could be intent. There's plenty of bad employees who don't realize they suck and aren't doing it on purpose.
As for coffee, I have free coffee at work. IN fact, I think it's a great work perk, because it's not just coffee. I get $60 a month to spend on food and drink for my office. About half of that goes to coffee and the rest goes to various snacks I may or may not leave in my office. The reason I get this perk is because I work remotely (not at home, but not in our main office). The main office has a full stocked kitchen for free coffee, drinks, and various snacks.
It's not easy to know someone's intent though. All humans have different reasons for choosing to work at the place they do.
But with all things, these entities are reliant on humans and humans are not perfect beings. We humans have emotions, intentions, and desires that all factor into how we work the job or the career.
For myself, I know what I did to only end up working where I do.
The issue though is when the entire sustenance of living isn't being met by these minimum wage jobs. People just can't afford payments for all the things necessary to sustain themselves in a good, decent, livelihood.
Some people don't have the luxury of "quiet quitting". This is what I feel was reassessed when the pandemic hit. How human emotions and mental health is handled within the workplace. And this is something that has always been there in workplaces since the Industrial Revolution where people moved closer to their factory jobs and created urbanization.
But, our world is a business and if we humans wat these comforts and all these products we desire. People need to understand, someone has to do those "dirty" jobs that most people feel are below them.
-
That's just a bad employee with bad work ethic. Not quiet quitting. Also, I've been working at the largest aerospace company in the world for 36+ years. Never heard of free coffee unless there's a company hosted conference of some kind.
So how can you tell when someone is "quiet quitting" or just a bad employee?
One you can work with HR and build a case against the employee to justify their firing, the other you can not. With the bad employee you can find all kinds of places where they're slacking and actually demonstrate how the work they are doing is unsatisfactory. They are likely costing the company money and that should be quantifiable. With the quiet quitting employee, you can't really do that. The work is getting done. They are at work when they're supposed to be. They're doing the work they were brought in to do. The argument against them is basically "They're doing their job and we aren't receiving any complaints, but they're wearing the minimum pieces of flare that we ask them to. No matter what I do, I can't get them to wear 37 like pretty boy Brian over there".
-
In my experience (and I have been on BOTH sides of the equation…both the one who was valued and protected, and the one who was targeted) it can get to a point of them basically not liking you and wanting you gone. I’ve personally witnessed HR (under the guidance of management) apply the strict “letter of the law” rules to people they don’t like and not being that stringent with everyone. Which is at times almost impossible to prove. “We’ve been noticing you came back a minute late from break” is just one of many ticky tack examples of how they can start inventing write ups for someone who “not wearing enough flair.”
-
That's just a bad employee with bad work ethic. Not quiet quitting. Also, I've been working at the largest aerospace company in the world for 36+ years. Never heard of free coffee unless there's a company hosted conference of some kind.
So how can you tell when someone is "quiet quitting" or just a bad employee?
One you can work with HR and build a case against the employee to justify their firing, the other you can not. With the bad employee you can find all kinds of places where they're slacking and actually demonstrate how the work they are doing is unsatisfactory. They are likely costing the company money and that should be quantifiable. With the quiet quitting employee, you can't really do that. The work is getting done. They are at work when they're supposed to be. They're doing the work they were brought in to do. The argument against them is basically "They're doing their job and we aren't receiving any complaints, but they're wearing the minimum pieces of flare that we ask them to. No matter what I do, I can't get them to wear 37 like pretty boy Brian over there".
:lol
-
Same thing.
No, it isn't.
That's just a bad employee with bad work ethic. Not quiet quitting. Also, I've been working at the largest aerospace company in the world for 36+ years. Never heard of free coffee unless there's a company hosted conference of some kind.
So how can you tell when someone is "quiet quitting" or just a bad employee?
Well, for one thing "quiet quitting" is a misnomer. It's the difference between someone still doing their job effectively without going above and beyond the call of duty and someone who just isn't doing their job or not doing it right. It's definitely a distinguishable difference.
-
Same thing.
A "quiet quitter" works to the specification of their contract. This is not actionable. An employee who does not work to spec, or consistently fails to complete their assigned work can have action brought against them. The problem of course is employers from countries whose work cultures who think that if you aren't over achieving, you are underachieving, tend to conflate these two things.
-
Just did some quiet quitting myself personally :lol
-
Same thing.
A "quiet quitter" works to the specification of their contract. This is not actionable. An employee who does not work to spec, or consistently fails to complete their assigned work can have action brought against them. The problem of course is employers from countries whose work cultures who think that if you aren't over achieving, you are underachieving, tend to conflate these two things.
You make it sound like "2+2=4" and that's never really the case. There's no fault with "working to the specification of your contract" if that's what's being done. Even the great Jack Welch recognized that 70% of the work force was going to be "B" players, and that the work force needed/needs those folks for the whole thing to work smoothly. What's the problem is the inevitable disconnect between what the manager thinks the "contract" (in quotes because there is no written contract, more often than not, and the job description is a Chinese menu of things written for the job posting, not a set checklist for success) is and what the employee thinks the "contract" is, and the rewards that are supposed to be attached to it. There are MILLIONS of people that come to work every day and work to the specifications of their "contract" and it's not "quiet quitting", it's people doing their job. This - IMO constructed - term is meant to communicate something else, and ISN'T those 70% working diligently for their livelihood.
-
This - IMO constructed - term is meant to communicate something else, and ISN'T those 70% working diligently for their livelihood.
It isn't? How do you know that?
Look, you're obviously annoyed by the term, but don't take it a step further and make it out to be something insidious when it isn't.
It's just people (mostly very young ones) online reaffirming for one another that they set their own boundaries.
I'm not anti-labor, nor am I naive enough to think that organized labor fixes everything. But it's a shame to me that many people, including yourself apparently, can be so wired against labor that even the most tepid and harmless signals of workers organizing around memes and symbols bothers you that much.
Genuinely wonder how you feel about other sort of "viral" trends young workers are doing like salary transparency.
-
This - IMO constructed - term is meant to communicate something else, and ISN'T those 70% working diligently for their livelihood.
It isn't? How do you know that?
Look, you're obviously annoyed by the term, but don't take it a step further and make it out to be something insidious when it isn't.
It's just people (mostly very young ones) online reaffirming for one another that they set their own boundaries.
I'm not anti-labor, nor am I naive enough to think that organized labor fixes everything. But it's a shame to me that many people, including yourself apparently, can be so wired against labor that even the most tepid and harmless signals of workers organizing around memes and symbols bothers you that much.
Genuinely wonder how you feel about other sort of "viral" trends young workers are doing like salary transparency.
Well, I don't know for a fact. But labels are meant to make a statement, aren't they? Else why the label? I'm not "anti-labor", really, I'm "anti-anti-corporate" if anything. I see a LOT of anti-corporate sentiment around here that isn't indicative of my experience, and isn't really reflective of what I see the motivations of most corporations and more importantly the people in those corporations. I worked for GE for a number of years, and am very proud of that association. I learned more about people and how the world works from that experience than almost any other. And it wasn't like I was a VP or got all the fat-pig corporate perks. I was at best a middle manager, yet, I took it for what it was. I was in the environmental group and did, I believe, great things in terms of stewardship, and my ultimate boss is well-known for pushing the boundaries of what can happen and what should be expected from environmental stewardship in a major US corporation.
On topic, there were plenty of people who "set boundaries" but it wasn't a statement. It wasn't an affirmation. I'm going to push my luck here, but if anything it's not about "corporate" versus "labor", it's about the reactions of people. I sense a bit of the "insecurity" I speak of so much over in P/R in this incessant need to define and to carve out "specialness". It's not the boundaries, per se, it's the CELEBRATION. It's the need to have it broadcast, to have it be a sign or symbol. Just fucking do it, for god's sake, and don't make a big production about it. We're 331 million people and it seems in recent years, there are too many people who feel this is a country of one. Everyone has to be "special" and "extreme" and "super" or whatever. It's not sufficient to be "normal" or "one of the group" for too many people.
-
On topic, there were plenty of people who "set boundaries" but it wasn't a statement. It wasn't an affirmation. I'm going to push my luck here, but if anything it's not about "corporate" versus "labor", it's about the reactions of people. I sense a bit of the "insecurity" I speak of so much over in P/R in this incessant need to define and to carve out "specialness". It's not the boundaries, per se, it's the CELEBRATION. It's the need to have it broadcast, to have it be a sign or symbol. Just fucking do it, for god's sake, and don't make a big production about it. We're 331 million people and it seems in recent years, there are too many people who feel this is a country of one. Everyone has to be "special" and "extreme" and "super" or whatever. It's not sufficient to be "normal" or "one of the group" for too many people.
Well, yeah, I'm with you there. I hate social media. Funny enough, I also work in corporate at a fairly large corporation (7,000+ employees, 3 million customers, included in certain large indexes, etc.,), and OVERWHELMINGLY I hear about "specialness" from my superiors. I&D, self-identifications, "being your authentic self" is the new big thing. I wonder if GE is currently the same.
Personally, I'd much rather not be bothered; do my job, keep personal and identity things to a minimum, and go home. In my mind, this kind of stuff is designed to get more of younger employees at work; like superiors thing that's going to be the difference between getting an employee who pours their entire identity into the company, and an employee who is with what you've called the 70%.
You're not, as you said, "anti-corporate", but you've been on the opposite sites of a lot of what I'd call the "identity stuff" that creeps its way into the daily zeitgeist. I would be curious to hear why you think that it's corporate america often at the forefront of absorbing so many of this stuff, whether it be I&D, BLM, whatever.
-
On topic, there were plenty of people who "set boundaries" but it wasn't a statement. It wasn't an affirmation. I'm going to push my luck here, but if anything it's not about "corporate" versus "labor", it's about the reactions of people. I sense a bit of the "insecurity" I speak of so much over in P/R in this incessant need to define and to carve out "specialness". It's not the boundaries, per se, it's the CELEBRATION. It's the need to have it broadcast, to have it be a sign or symbol. Just fucking do it, for god's sake, and don't make a big production about it. We're 331 million people and it seems in recent years, there are too many people who feel this is a country of one. Everyone has to be "special" and "extreme" and "super" or whatever. It's not sufficient to be "normal" or "one of the group" for too many people.
Well, yeah, I'm with you there. I hate social media. Funny enough, I also work in corporate at a fairly large corporation (7,000+ employees, 3 million customers, included in certain large indexes, etc.,), and OVERWHELMINGLY I hear about "specialness" from my superiors. I&D, self-identifications, "being your authentic self" is the new big thing. I wonder if GE is currently the same.
Personally, I'd much rather not be bothered; do my job, keep personal and identity things to a minimum, and go home. In my mind, this kind of stuff is designed to get more of younger employees at work; like superiors thing that's going to be the difference between getting an employee who pours their entire identity into the company, and an employee who is with what you've called the 70%.
You're not, as you said, "anti-corporate", but you've been on the opposite sites of a lot of what I'd call the "identity stuff" that creeps its way into the daily zeitgeist. I would be curious to hear why you think that it's corporate america often at the forefront of absorbing so many of this stuff, whether it be I&D, BLM, whatever.
I owe you $20 for the softball. I have STRONG ideas about that. I think it's all related; part of being "special", part of being "super" is the notion that any of the bad things that happen aren't your fault. There's a victim-ness to all this that is, IMO, perpetuating. My dad was handicapped; he was LITERALLY told once at a job interview, "we're looking for someone a bit more... physical." He didn't complain, he didn't bring a lawsuit, he didn't go on social media or Yelp! and give that company one star, he went to the next job interview and fucking nailed it. It wasn't about him, or any of that.
It's easy to blame corporations because it absolves us of our own culpability in all this. I don't want to speak for him, but El Barto talks about this a fair amount in a different context: we are who we are, and we're not ready to accept that we've done this - our divisiveness, our acrimony, our violence, our insecurity, our need for affirmation - to ourselves. The Congressional approval rating right now is something like 17%. I said long ago - during the negotiations for the ACA (and this is in part why I'm so for the single payer system, even though it runs afoul of my general ideology) - that one of the top three things we should do is sever the work/healthcare benefit nexus. Corporations are not our life and shouldn't be. We go to work - at whatever level of effort we feel is appropriate, given that we accept the consequences of that effort - we get paid and we go home. It should be OUR responsibility to get healthcare, not our company's. We see this in the identity politics arena now too; I've often cited the example of Altressa Cox-Blackwell, the education administrator that handed my stepdaughter her diploma. This is a woman that, not long after Sandy Hook (in our own state) was handed a box of live ammunition and put it in her desk and forgot about it. Didn't report it, didn't raise any red flags - all required by Connecticut law - and later, when she was disciplined, claimed it was because she was black, and a woman, and of age. The trifecta. Now, I'm not saying that every incident of discrimination is bogus, far from it, but the INSTINCT should be to take responsibility FIRST, and find the excuses later, and in America now, "responsibility" only comes when all other avenues are fully exhausted. There is no better example of that than the general malaise towards corporations. And the nomenclature reflects that; "Big Pharma"; "Big Oil", "Big Healthcare". Please. People talk all the time about "obscene profits" in healthcare. I haven't talked to him in years now, but I used to joke with my ex-wife's current husband, a senior executive at a major national (international) healthcare insurance provider that the profitability he gets stock options for would get me fired at GE selling electrical components and trains (both notoriously low-profit margin industries).
-
Yeah, Stadler's right. First off, there's no "contract" in most American employment, so I'm not going to address that nonsense. I'm also not really interested in debating the semantics of the term this thread is about, as the thread starter made it pretty clear what they are talking about. The definition I have seen that I am relying on is "doing the minimum amount of possible work while keeping the job." That is similar to "having boundaries" and "not going above and beyond." But, as Stadler rightly pointed out, it subtly includes a bit more than that. As mentioned, employees are almost always expected to fill duties not expressly enumerated in their job descriptions. Those additional duties are in fact part of the job, and not doing them can sometimes get one disciplined or even fired. I handle cases like this all the time, and, unless there is more to the employer's decision that entails discrimination, etc., the employees usually lose them.
And, again, this isn't just about "having boundaries." Provided it is the type of job that allows that (many jobs don't--you are essentially "on call" all the time), employees should have those boundaries and try to keep work life out of personal life. That's healthy. It's more about the attitude of "if it's not specifically enumerated in my job description, I'm not doing it even if you tell me to." That attitude reveals a deeper character flaw and, more relevant to the discussion, often isn't going to fly if the supervisor wants to call the employee out on it.
-
@Stads, totally agree with everything you've written. Glad we could come to the middle.
@Bosk1, I think I just disagree with your underlying definition. Don't get me wrong, I do see a LOT of "doing the bare minimum while keeping the job" being praised on social media (for example, remote workers bragging about having the thingy that moves your mouse for you so that you always show as "active"), but that, IMO, is not at all the same thing as "Quiet Quitting" - I just think it's too broad to judge that everyone who embraces the idea has a "character flaw". Not that you are saying that, for sure, but there's a nuance there - many people who do "share the hashtag" really just mean that they have boundaries. (I'm not on social media, but I know this for a fact based on other people in my life who have embraced it and are more active on social media, for whatever reason).
-
Yeah, Stadler's right. First off, there's no "contract" in most American employment, so I'm not going to address that nonsense.
This is not a uniquely American phenomenon, and in many European countries formal employment contracts are law, not nonsense. So you'll forgive me if I continue to discuss from this perspective.
-
Yeah, Stadler's right. First off, there's no "contract" in most American employment, so I'm not going to address that nonsense.
This is not a uniquely American phenomenon, and in many European countries formal employment contracts are law, not nonsense. So you'll forgive me if I continue to discuss from this perspective.
That's fair; my responses are generally focused on American employment.
-
Related question: as an "at-will" employee, do you ever have to sign anything or make an agreement confirming that status with your employer? Or is it just implicit?
-
Related question: as an "at-will" employee, do you ever have to sign anything or make an agreement confirming that status with your employer? Or is it just implicit?
Confirming status? I don't know what you mean; I sign a W-9 in order to have appropriate taxes withheld.
-
Following the discussion earlier I was surprised that people said they had no contract, but assumed it was probably just a miscommunication over what was meant by having a contract.
For those who are employees with "no contract" - is there any documentation that either you or your employer have (or should have) that confirms you are indeed an employee? Let's say you went for a job interview, and then were told over the phone or in person that you were successful, what would you literally do to "accept" the job? Would you just show up somewhere on a verbal agreement? If you showed up and the employer said actually you don't work here, or actually your pay is half what you thought it was, would there be something you would be able to point to to contradict them?
(These are not rhetorical questions, I am just trying to establish what the actual differences are between these things).
-
Related question: as an "at-will" employee, do you ever have to sign anything or make an agreement confirming that status with your employer? Or is it just implicit?
Confirming status? I don't know what you mean; I sign a W-9 in order to have appropriate taxes withheld.
As in, how do you (the employee) and the employer both agree that you are indeed an "at-will employee"?
-
Related question: as an "at-will" employee, do you ever have to sign anything or make an agreement confirming that status with your employer? Or is it just implicit?
It varies. In California, a common practice is for employer's to state affirmatively that employees have "at-will" status and there is no contract, and there is typically an acknowledgement that the employee signs. That isn't the case everywhere, but it is a common practice. The reason is that, even though that is the default provided for by law, that still did not prevent employees from trying to sue for "breach of an implied contract." Employees lose those cases. But even having to engage in litigation in the first place costs employers time and money, so it is easier to pre-empt them in the first place by having those acknowledgements. Often (again, in CA anyway), that acknowledgement is part of an offer letter that the employee signs and returns or is part of an acknowledgement of the employer's handbook or policies.
So, short answer: It is the default position under the law, but yes, it is often repeated in a signed acknowledgement.
And the above is why, despite that I have been practicing specifically in the area of employment law for over 20 years, I have only had a handful of cases where the employee tried to allege breach of contract. For the types of contracts we are talking about, those cases are (almost) always losers in the U.S.
Following the discussion earlier I was surprised that people said they had no contract, but assumed it was probably just a miscommunication over what was meant by having a contract.
For those who are employees with "no contract" - is there any documentation that either you or your employer have (or should have) that confirms you are indeed an employee? Let's say you went for a job interview, and then were told over the phone or in person that you were successful, what would you literally do to "accept" the job? Would you just show up somewhere on a verbal agreement? If you showed up and the employer said actually you don't work here, or actually your pay is half what you thought it was, would there be something you would be able to point to to contradict them?
(These are not rhetorical questions, I am just trying to establish what the actual differences are between these things).
I get where you are coming from, but we are kind of talking about two different things. The employment "contract" we are talking about is a specific agreement about duties that must be performed and the employer's agreement not to discipline or terminate if the employee follows the letter of that. That isn't the case in most jobs in the U.S. The default is that employment is at-will and not by contract in most states, unless the employer and employee agree otherwise (which they are free to do, and does happen in some jobs).
That being said, there is typically an offer letter specifying that the employee is hired, what the basic position is that he/she is being hired for, and what the starting pay is. The employee typically signs an acceptance. So, yes, that is by the letter of the law, a written "contract" because it involves offer and acceptance. But the terms are typically VERY limited, and the offer letter will typically state explicitly that it does not create a contract of employment. Does that make sense?
-
Florida is an "at will" state. Not sure about the other states.
-
Yeah, Stadler's right. First off, there's no "contract" in most American employment, so I'm not going to address that nonsense. I'm also not really interested in debating the semantics of the term this thread is about, as the thread starter made it pretty clear what they are talking about. The definition I have seen that I am relying on is "doing the minimum amount of possible work while keeping the job." That is similar to "having boundaries" and "not going above and beyond." But, as Stadler rightly pointed out, it subtly includes a bit more than that. As mentioned, employees are almost always expected to fill duties not expressly enumerated in their job descriptions. Those additional duties are in fact part of the job, and not doing them can sometimes get one disciplined or even fired. I handle cases like this all the time, and, unless there is more to the employer's decision that entails discrimination, etc., the employees usually lose them.
And, again, this isn't just about "having boundaries." Provided it is the type of job that allows that (many jobs don't--you are essentially "on call" all the time), employees should have those boundaries and try to keep work life out of personal life. That's healthy. It's more about the attitude of "if it's not specifically enumerated in my job description, I'm not doing it even if you tell me to." That attitude reveals a deeper character flaw and, more relevant to the discussion, often isn't going to fly if the supervisor wants to call the employee out on it.
Well, if you're mentioning subtleties, that's basically debating semantics isn't it? For one thing, the OP is misleading. The term "quiet quitting" (ridiculous as it is) is not about bad, lazy, deadbeat employees who don't want to work (while still keeping their jobs). That's what the OP is implying. Hence, the fair amount of confusion in this thread. You're describing multiple scenarios and calling them the same thing. They're not. Work/life balance while fulfilling the job requirements is one thing (which is what this is actually about). Doing a bad job and being called out is entirely another discussion. Those scenarios don't intersect in the overall context of the term. Also, the category of folks who say, "that isn't my job" or "I'm not doing that" have been around a long time. That has nothing to do with this and is not relevant.
I just think it's too broad to judge that everyone who embraces the idea has a "character flaw".
It is very broad, but some like to lump everything into one category or turn it around and call it something else. It's not that simple.
-
Following the discussion earlier I was surprised that people said they had no contract, but assumed it was probably just a miscommunication over what was meant by having a contract.
For those who are employees with "no contract" - is there any documentation that either you or your employer have (or should have) that confirms you are indeed an employee? Let's say you went for a job interview, and then were told over the phone or in person that you were successful, what would you literally do to "accept" the job? Would you just show up somewhere on a verbal agreement? If you showed up and the employer said actually you don't work here, or actually your pay is half what you thought it was, would there be something you would be able to point to to contradict them?
(These are not rhetorical questions, I am just trying to establish what the actual differences are between these things).
I get where you are coming from, but we are kind of talking about two different things. The employment "contract" we are talking about is a specific agreement about duties that must be performed and the employer's agreement not to discipline or terminate if the employee follows the letter of that. That isn't the case in most jobs in the U.S. The default is that employment is at-will and not by contract in most states, unless the employer and employee agree otherwise (which they are free to do, and does happen in some jobs).
That being said, there is typically an offer letter specifying that the employee is hired, what the basic position is that he/she is being hired for, and what the starting pay is. The employee typically signs an acceptance. So, yes, that is by the letter of the law, a written "contract" because it involves offer and acceptance. But the terms are typically VERY limited, and the offer letter will typically state explicitly that it does not create a contract of employment. Does that make sense?
Yes, that all makes sense. This is sort of what I guessed was the case where some earlier said they had no contracts and others were surprised by it. I suspect most people talking about doing what is in the contract are talking about some agreement similar to this, except maybe with more legal protections on how quickly or for what reasons the employer can just end the agreement, rather than having a contract guaranteeing they must work for a length of time.
I knew about at-will employment in many US states but from my understanding I would have described that as meaning employment contracts were at-will, i.e. the employer could end it without any reason. It was only seeing some of this discussion I wondered if that meant there never was genuinely no contract or agreement of employment for those that were at-will employees.
With at-will employment being the default I can see why people would, when discussing employment, draw a stronger line between someone with a contract guaranteeing employment for a specific period of time and the usual at-will arrangement. But I would guess most people talking about an employment contract probably just mean whatever the agreement they signed when they accepted the job (at least that's what I would think of).
-
I would be curious to hear why you think that it's corporate america often at the forefront of absorbing so many of this stuff, whether it be I&D, BLM, whatever.
I'm not Stadler but the answers to this are not complicated:
- Amazon found that workers who are politicized by DEI are less likely to unionize. I'd bet other companies have either studied how DEI affects peoples' desire to ask the company for more money, or have intuited what I think is the obvious answer (less likely to ask)
- Especially for bigger companies, helps with ESG compliance, which makes them more visible to investors
- Corporate America is not known for its backbone in the face of zealotry. Better to give them their safe spaces than fight and risk a lawsuit. But they know not what they are unleashing internally
- In my experience at least, DEI programs are a way to smuggle in the kind of stuff that Stadler talks about, where you go to motivational seminars and feel like a beautiful snowflake. This causes workers to feel more like work is family, which makes them (IMO) less likely to leave or ask for higher salary. Corporate America knows not everyone grinds 100% anyway. It can accept that if it also means people aren't asking for too much (or, more darkly, corporate America is more willing to accept quiet quitting than it is having productive employees who think for themselves and ask for more money/better treatment)
- When you bring in any sort of DEI push, you're going to get a mix of cynics who go along with it for the money/power and the true believers. You might have a CEO who brings in a DEI team because they think it will make the company look good, but you bring in genuine believers who actually start changing the company top down with their HR power, and the CEO has now trapped themselves
- DEI is the current fad among, for lack of a better way of putting it, the upscale class. So for companies that want to hire those people, having a DEI culture looks more attractive
The error in thinking that businesses make (and one I see a lot of normal people make), is thinking that Woke/DEI is just the latest version of political correctness. Something that keeps people from saying outrageous things, you pay lip service to the underlying ideology, but society functions as normal. They do not properly understand that this kind of ideology, rather than clumsily papering over uncomfortable topics, openly brings them up in the most offensive way possible.
At my company, we had a big meeting about our new values where they began rolling out a new DEI push (something like, if you're not comfortable with these values you might want to consider your future with the company). But as a large % of the workforce is from red/purple America, it was met very poorly. The euphemism I heard used was "it wasn't really about business", but everyone understood the more central complaint. But I noticed that the topics have since not been pushed the same way. It also helps that my company is fully remote, which makes this stuff harder to execute.
I know a person at a different company who isn't so lucky. What started out as a few seminars has metastasized into a routine of messaging and meetings that sound like something the Babylon Bee would make up.
What's less clear is, almost none of what I've written about here has nothing to do with making money, which is the thing businesses live and die by. Why companies decided to care about all the things above rather than making money?
-
Genuinely wonder how you feel about other sort of "viral" trends young workers are doing like salary transparency.
I'd like to see this one unpacked a bit.
Maybe it is my age, but I feel that running your mouth too much about what you make or don't make is poor form. I get venting if you feel you didn't get the raise you feel you deserved or expressing happiness because you got a whatever-percent raise, but throwing out "I make this much a year," with giving the exact figure? I am not a fan. Far too often, it feels like either humble bragging ("look at how much money I make!!") or complaining that one doesn't make enough ("look at the job I do and all I make is such and such."). But, I know, it's a whole new world now, and everyone wants to put everything out there.
-
Genuinely wonder how you feel about other sort of "viral" trends young workers are doing like salary transparency.
I'd like to see this one unpacked a bit.
Maybe it is my age, but I feel that running your mouth too much about what you make or don't make is poor form. I get venting if you feel you didn't get the raise you feel you deserved or expressing happiness because you got a whatever-percent raise, but throwing out "I make this much a year," with giving the exact figure? I am not a fan. Far too often, it feels like either humble bragging ("look at how much money I make!!") or complaining that one doesn't make enough ("look at the job I do and all I make is such and such."). But, I know, it's a whole new world now, and everyone wants to put everything out there.
Agreed with all of the above.
The problem though is lack of salary transparency gives negotiating leverage to the company. One way you could maybe fix this without getting into what you're talking about is for the company to be transparent about whatever its compensation rubric is. But that feels like the kind of over-engineered solution that has unintended consequences.
-
In Sweden salary information has been public information since the mid 1700s, so the culture regarding salary discussions is obviously quite different.
-
In Sweden salary information has been public information since the mid 1700s, so the culture regarding salary discussions is obviously quite different.
Employee info or the compensation systems?
-
In Sweden salary information has been public information since the mid 1700s, so the culture regarding salary discussions is obviously quite different.
Employee info or the compensation systems?
Probably both, because all tax return related documents are public.
-
I would be curious to hear why you think that it's corporate america often at the forefront of absorbing so many of this stuff, whether it be I&D, BLM, whatever.
I'm not Stadler but the answers to this are not complicated:
- Amazon found that workers who are politicized by DEI are less likely to unionize. I'd bet other companies have either studied how DEI affects peoples' desire to ask the company for more money, or have intuited what I think is the obvious answer (less likely to ask)
- Especially for bigger companies, helps with ESG compliance, which makes them more visible to investors
- Corporate America is not known for its backbone in the face of zealotry. Better to give them their safe spaces than fight and risk a lawsuit. But they know not what they are unleashing internally
- In my experience at least, DEI programs are a way to smuggle in the kind of stuff that Stadler talks about, where you go to motivational seminars and feel like a beautiful snowflake. This causes workers to feel more like work is family, which makes them (IMO) less likely to leave or ask for higher salary. Corporate America knows not everyone grinds 100% anyway. It can accept that if it also means people aren't asking for too much (or, more darkly, corporate America is more willing to accept quiet quitting than it is having productive employees who think for themselves and ask for more money/better treatment)
- When you bring in any sort of DEI push, you're going to get a mix of cynics who go along with it for the money/power and the true believers. You might have a CEO who brings in a DEI team because they think it will make the company look good, but you bring in genuine believers who actually start changing the company top down with their HR power, and the CEO has now trapped themselves
- DEI is the current fad among, for lack of a better way of putting it, the upscale class. So for companies that want to hire those people, having a DEI culture looks more attractive
The error in thinking that businesses make (and one I see a lot of normal people make), is thinking that Woke/DEI is just the latest version of political correctness. Something that keeps people from saying outrageous things, you pay lip service to the underlying ideology, but society functions as normal. They do not properly understand that this kind of ideology, rather than clumsily papering over uncomfortable topics, openly brings them up in the most offensive way possible.
At my company, we had a big meeting about our new values where they began rolling out a new DEI push (something like, if you're not comfortable with these values you might want to consider your future with the company). But as a large % of the workforce is from red/purple America, it was met very poorly. The euphemism I heard used was "it wasn't really about business", but everyone understood the more central complaint. But I noticed that the topics have since not been pushed the same way. It also helps that my company is fully remote, which makes this stuff harder to execute.
I know a person at a different company who isn't so lucky. What started out as a few seminars has metastasized into a routine of messaging and meetings that sound like something the Babylon Bee would make up.
What's less clear is, almost none of what I've written about here has nothing to do with making money, which is the thing businesses live and die by. Why companies decided to care about all the things above rather than making money?
I agree with pretty much every word of this.
-
I've only had a few jobs, all of them at-will, but I cannot immediately recall ever signing anything before starting a job other than the required government forms (W9 and such).
Regarding "job duties" I have always operated on the belief that my job duties are whatever my boss tells me to do. I've never been asking to do something I felt was beyond reason, so it's never been a problem for me.
-
Regarding "job duties" I have always operated on the belief that my job duties are whatever my boss tells me to do. I've never been asking to do something I felt was beyond reason, so it's never been a problem for me.
I've written people up for "Failure to respond to a reasonable request" before. AKA Insubordination.
-
I've only had a few jobs, all of them at-will, but I cannot immediately recall ever signing anything before starting a job other than the required government forms (W9 and such).
Regarding "job duties" I have always operated on the belief that my job duties are whatever my boss tells me to do. I've never been asking to do something I felt was beyond reason, so it's never been a problem for me.
As far as I know, and I'll say I've been wrong before, the W-9 (TIN/ITIN verification) and W-4(Fed tax withholding instructions) docs are required at the start of employment. If you live in a state w income tax, there may be an additional form (paper or online) to confirm State tax withholding, as well.
-
Normally, other than the government/tax withholding docs you have to sign before getting paid, we have the offer letter that we send to new hires, which features the starting salary, benefits offered, and the job description for which they applied and we have accepted. But nothing is official until they sign the letter and return it.
Of course, these days it is normally sent by email in a DocuSign document, and they just click and send it back.
But that's not really a contract.
-
I work for a large bank and when I was hired on I had to sign a 3 page document that basically said "This is what you're being paid, and these are the general expectations of you." I don't know if I'd call it a contract but rather an acknowledgement that xyz will happen if I don't do abc.
For example if I fail to appear at work with no communication to my boss for 3 days in a row it could be considering job abandonment.
-
Many places provide an Associate Handbook with an acknowledgement form that the employee must sign. Your signature basically states that you have/will read the company's policies, and you will adhere to them.
-
Many places provide an Associate Handbook with an acknowledgement form that the employee must sign. Your signature basically states that you have/will read the company's policies, and you will adhere to them.
Yeah, we have something like that.
-
Yeah, there's lots of formalities like signing a "rules handbook" or similar as well as an offer letter. Also the tax papers you will have to sign. None of that, as far as I understand, is a contract. It's all just agreeing to the job/pay/rules and puts you in a position to be fired if you break the rules you signed the papers for. I think the offer letter may also state "at will" employment. I'd have to check, I had to recently sign an offer letter when my company was taken over a couple months ago.
-
Following the discussion earlier I was surprised that people said they had no contract, but assumed it was probably just a miscommunication over what was meant by having a contract.
For those who are employees with "no contract" - is there any documentation that either you or your employer have (or should have) that confirms you are indeed an employee? Let's say you went for a job interview, and then were told over the phone or in person that you were successful, what would you literally do to "accept" the job? Would you just show up somewhere on a verbal agreement? If you showed up and the employer said actually you don't work here, or actually your pay is half what you thought it was, would there be something you would be able to point to to contradict them?
(These are not rhetorical questions, I am just trying to establish what the actual differences are between these things).
I get where you are coming from, but we are kind of talking about two different things. The employment "contract" we are talking about is a specific agreement about duties that must be performed and the employer's agreement not to discipline or terminate if the employee follows the letter of that. That isn't the case in most jobs in the U.S. The default is that employment is at-will and not by contract in most states, unless the employer and employee agree otherwise (which they are free to do, and does happen in some jobs).
That being said, there is typically an offer letter specifying that the employee is hired, what the basic position is that he/she is being hired for, and what the starting pay is. The employee typically signs an acceptance. So, yes, that is by the letter of the law, a written "contract" because it involves offer and acceptance. But the terms are typically VERY limited, and the offer letter will typically state explicitly that it does not create a contract of employment. Does that make sense?
Yes, that all makes sense. This is sort of what I guessed was the case where some earlier said they had no contracts and others were surprised by it. I suspect most people talking about doing what is in the contract are talking about some agreement similar to this, except maybe with more legal protections on how quickly or for what reasons the employer can just end the agreement, rather than having a contract guaranteeing they must work for a length of time.
I knew about at-will employment in many US states but from my understanding I would have described that as meaning employment contracts were at-will, i.e. the employer could end it without any reason. It was only seeing some of this discussion I wondered if that meant there never was genuinely no contract or agreement of employment for those that were at-will employees.
With at-will employment being the default I can see why people would, when discussing employment, draw a stronger line between someone with a contract guaranteeing employment for a specific period of time and the usual at-will arrangement. But I would guess most people talking about an employment contract probably just mean whatever the agreement they signed when they accepted the job (at least that's what I would think of).
But don't fill in what Bosk said with what you think might be the case. There is no employment contract in most of the "at-will" situations in the States. He was describing California, and was clear that there was no set process. I've paid income taxes in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Connecticut, based on where I lived, and in all of those states I never signed ANYTHING that could be construed as an "employment contract". I have signed on-boarding documentation, I have signed paperwork to start healthcare coverages, I have signed acknowledgements of receipt of phones and computers. There are of course documentations of my employment, and they might even be "contracts" in the sense that Bosk stated (offer, acceptance, consideration), but they just don't serve as "employment contracts" in the strict legal sense of the words, and no spin of "well, that's sort of what I meant" changes that.
-
Following the discussion earlier I was surprised that people said they had no contract, but assumed it was probably just a miscommunication over what was meant by having a contract.
For those who are employees with "no contract" - is there any documentation that either you or your employer have (or should have) that confirms you are indeed an employee? Let's say you went for a job interview, and then were told over the phone or in person that you were successful, what would you literally do to "accept" the job? Would you just show up somewhere on a verbal agreement? If you showed up and the employer said actually you don't work here, or actually your pay is half what you thought it was, would there be something you would be able to point to to contradict them?
(These are not rhetorical questions, I am just trying to establish what the actual differences are between these things).
I get where you are coming from, but we are kind of talking about two different things. The employment "contract" we are talking about is a specific agreement about duties that must be performed and the employer's agreement not to discipline or terminate if the employee follows the letter of that. That isn't the case in most jobs in the U.S. The default is that employment is at-will and not by contract in most states, unless the employer and employee agree otherwise (which they are free to do, and does happen in some jobs).
That being said, there is typically an offer letter specifying that the employee is hired, what the basic position is that he/she is being hired for, and what the starting pay is. The employee typically signs an acceptance. So, yes, that is by the letter of the law, a written "contract" because it involves offer and acceptance. But the terms are typically VERY limited, and the offer letter will typically state explicitly that it does not create a contract of employment. Does that make sense?
Yes, that all makes sense. This is sort of what I guessed was the case where some earlier said they had no contracts and others were surprised by it. I suspect most people talking about doing what is in the contract are talking about some agreement similar to this, except maybe with more legal protections on how quickly or for what reasons the employer can just end the agreement, rather than having a contract guaranteeing they must work for a length of time.
I knew about at-will employment in many US states but from my understanding I would have described that as meaning employment contracts were at-will, i.e. the employer could end it without any reason. It was only seeing some of this discussion I wondered if that meant there never was genuinely no contract or agreement of employment for those that were at-will employees.
With at-will employment being the default I can see why people would, when discussing employment, draw a stronger line between someone with a contract guaranteeing employment for a specific period of time and the usual at-will arrangement. But I would guess most people talking about an employment contract probably just mean whatever the agreement they signed when they accepted the job (at least that's what I would think of).
But don't fill in what Bosk said with what you think might be the case. There is no employment contract in most of the "at-will" situations in the States. He was describing California, and was clear that there was no set process. I've paid income taxes in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Connecticut, based on where I lived, and in all of those states I never signed ANYTHING that could be construed as an "employment contract". I have signed on-boarding documentation, I have signed paperwork to start healthcare coverages, I have signed acknowledgements of receipt of phones and computers. There are of course documentations of my employment, and they might even be "contracts" in the sense that Bosk stated (offer, acceptance, consideration), but they just don't serve as "employment contracts" in the strict legal sense of the words, and no spin of "well, that's sort of what I meant" changes that.
Point being that I suspected that the other people talking about what it says in their contracts were referring to something closer to the ' "contracts" in the sense that Bosk stated (offer, acceptance, consideration)' than the stricter "employment contract" you refer to here. Though I can easily see why there might be more detail and terms in the offer of employment in countries where at-will employment is not the default.
It was only seeing a few posts saying people never signed anything that made me question for a moment that people actually didn't usually have any written offer letter or equivalent in the US - one of those things that you don't realise is different in another country until you hear about it. But bosk's description was close to what I originally assumed to be the case and I believe I understand the differences that were explained in bosk's post. If you want to refer to me saying that as "spin", I'll leave that to you.
-
None of that, as far as I understand, is a contract. It's all just agreeing to the job/pay/rules and puts you in a position to be fired if you break the rules you signed the papers for.
In a formal sense that may be correct, but to me it sound a bit like saying "She's not my girlfriend, she's just a woman I live with, go out on dates with, make love with, and am comfortable enough to fart in front of".
-
None of that, as far as I understand, is a contract. It's all just agreeing to the job/pay/rules and puts you in a position to be fired if you break the rules you signed the papers for.
In a formal sense that may be correct, but to me it sound a bit like saying "She's not my girlfriend, she's just a woman I live with, go out on dates with, make love with, and am comfortable enough to fart in front of".
How did you get your hands on my vows?!
-
None of that, as far as I understand, is a contract. It's all just agreeing to the job/pay/rules and puts you in a position to be fired if you break the rules you signed the papers for.
In a formal sense that may be correct, but to me it sound a bit like saying "She's not my girlfriend, she's just a woman I live with, go out on dates with, make love with, and am comfortable enough to fart in front of".
How did you get your hands on my vows?!
I can neither confirm nor deny.
-
None of that, as far as I understand, is a contract. It's all just agreeing to the job/pay/rules and puts you in a position to be fired if you break the rules you signed the papers for.
In a formal sense that may be correct, but to me it sound a bit like saying "She's not my girlfriend, she's just a woman I live with, go out on dates with, make love with, and am comfortable enough to fart in front of".
Goddamn Doc, you're killin' me man! :lol
-
None of that, as far as I understand, is a contract. It's all just agreeing to the job/pay/rules and puts you in a position to be fired if you break the rules you signed the papers for.
In a formal sense that may be correct, but to me it sound a bit like saying "She's not my girlfriend, she's just a woman I live with, go out on dates with, make love with, and am comfortable enough to fart in front of".
How did you get your hands on my vows?!
I thought I was writing your vows?!?!?
-
I'm available to write the rest of the wedding, Adami, as several can attest to. :D
-
I'm available to write the rest of the wedding, Adami, as several can attest to. :D
We definitely took a few ideas from yours.
-
I have written and delivered a best man's speech which was received well. The first 2 minutes of the speech was a detailed description of the scientific capabilities, hull specifications and characteristics of the RSS Sir David Attenborough (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RRS_Sir_David_Attenborough), but it was received well.
-
Something I can't discern when reading this thread - Who here lives/works in America and is talking to get some kind of shared understanding of their experiences with employment vs. the foreigners who are genuinely unfamiliar with American law/work culture.
-
I'm in America!
Live a half hour south of Boston, and work in the Hyde Park section of the city.
-
All cultures and religions. I have a Nigerian working for me now. He is so introverted and doesn't respond to communication with others that it causes issues. No one wants to work with him.
He wants to do things his way without being a team player with others. I've had many conversations with him. Counseled him a few times too with his actions.
All employees are on equal footing and need to be team players. How I handle them is different but with the same goals.
-
Many places provide an Associate Handbook with an acknowledgement form that the employee must sign. Your signature basically states that you have/will read the company's policies, and you will adhere to them.
Yep.
And to circle back to benefits that Bill referred to for doing your best (vs doing the bare minimum), our handbook clearly states that all employees get two paid days off for bereavement for a close family member (spouse, parent, sibling). As many of you know, my mother passed away earlier this year. I left work on a Wednesday morning about an hour or so into my shift when I found out the end was near (it happened that evening). My boss texted me and told me to take as much time as I needed (and he meant it, as he even said when I was back that I ever needed to leave if I was ever having a bad day while still dealing with it, it would be fine). I went back to work the following Monday (there is no way I could have worked that Thursday or Friday) and then the funeral was eight days later on a Tuesday, so, all in all, I missed almost four days of work...and I was paid for all of it and did not have to use any vacation or sick/personal time. And that is obviously not meant to be a "I am such a good employee, look at what I got!" post, but merely meant to illustrate that there are benefits to going the extra mile sometimes.
-
All cultures and religions. I have a Nigerian working for me now. He is so introverted and doesn't respond to communication with others that it causes issues. No one wants to work with him.
He wants to do things his way without being a team player with others. I've had many conversations with him. Counseled him a few times too with his actions.
All employees are on equal footing and need to be team players. How I handle them is different but with the same goals.
I believe Kev to be right, and as for the above, when I worked for GE it was like being in a gang of sorts. It wasn't JUST about you or your review... there was a feeling from most of the people that "I don't want to be the weak link, I don't want to be the guy that let's the team down". My best working years were the first five or so I was at GE, and while I know you can never go back, and right now I'm a better employee (with better balance) than I was then, that was a magical time. The magic didn't adhere to a strict, 9:00a to 5:00p with a half hour for lunch format.
-
Many places provide an Associate Handbook with an acknowledgement form that the employee must sign. Your signature basically states that you have/will read the company's policies, and you will adhere to them.
Yep.
And to circle back to benefits that Bill referred to for doing your best (vs doing the bare minimum), our handbook clearly states that all employees get two paid days off for bereavement for a close family member (spouse, parent, sibling). As many of you know, my mother passed away earlier this year. I left work on a Wednesday morning about an hour or so into my shift when I found out the end was near (it happened that evening). My boss texted me and told me to take as much time as I needed (and he meant it, as he even said when I was back that I ever needed to leave if I was ever having a bad day while still dealing with it, it would be fine). I went back to work the following Monday (there is no way I could have worked that Thursday or Friday) and then the funeral was eight days later on a Tuesday, so, all in all, I missed almost four days of work...and I was paid for all of it and did not have to use any vacation or sick/personal time. And that is obviously not meant to be a "I am such a good employee, look at what I got!" post, but merely meant to illustrate that there are benefits to going the extra mile sometimes.
Glad that your boss gave you a few extra days, but two days for the death of a parent is pathetic. To me this just highlights how much things are tilted in favor of the employer. As an employee you are guaranteed the bare minimum, and anything more that you get is a perk that your employer will never be held to. We see this with the entire discussion that people are having about contracts also. I for one am glad that I live in a state where the state guarantee strong family leave.
-
Are merit increases still a thing? While I get that the normal yearly raise is usually not a substantial amount of money, going the extra mile could get you a little more.
-
Are merit increases still a thing? While I get that the normal yearly raise is usually not a substantial amount of money, going the extra mile could get you a little more.
We have merit increases. But my experience is that 90% of people get the baseline raise our company recommends. A few people get higher and a few people get lower, but not a whole lot. Promotions are the only place where we can get more than a token 2-3% raise every year.
-
Yep, I've long since decided that annual reviews are a formality. If the company like you, you get a little bit more. If they don't particularly care for you, you get what everyone else gets. The actual "process" part - looking at your goals over the last year, checking off which ones you have and have not accomplished - is pretty much just a bunch of BS. I never sweat my annual goals, because my I have a good relationship with my manager and they know what I have and have not done, as well as the million other tiny things that I HAVE done that are not in my formal goals.
-
Are merit increases still a thing? While I get that the normal yearly raise is usually not a substantial amount of money, going the extra mile could get you a little more.
We do at my company + bonus in most positions. The raises have been pretty spectacular for the past couple of years because our bank went through a large round of layoffs but then quickly faced the problem of people leaving on their own so we are short staffed. They are trying to retain people through pay increases. My raise was 13% this year, 8% last year.
Bonuses are just that. Picking up extra projects and things of that nature will get you bonus of up to 20% of your salary. Every position has difference bonus eligibility but that's covered when you're hired.
This is old man boomer Karolis talking but it's pretty wild to see how many people expect a bonus at my work while barely doing the things that they are tasked to do. I spent my 20's running a hotel and while it was fun, it was also brutal work, cleaning rooms sucks, hiring staff that didn't want to be there sucked, old people falling down stairs in the middle of the night sucks, having the us marshalls raid a room sucked. I'm in an office 8-5 typing away making double what I did work 6-7 days a week at the hotel. I feel some people need perspective.
-
Yep, I've long since decided that annual reviews are a formality. If the company like you, you get a little bit more. If they don't particularly care for you, you get what everyone else gets. The actual "process" part - looking at your goals over the last year, checking off which ones you have and have not accomplished - is pretty much just a bunch of BS. I never sweat my annual goals, because my I have a good relationship with my manager and they know what I have and have not done, as well as the million other tiny things that I HAVE done that are not in my formal goals.
Even worse is when some kind of political something influences how they go. I remember when me and the people I worked with all went from Meets Expectations one year to Above Expectations another year because of this. First year, we supposedly weren't going out of our way to do anything (don't mind the overtime being put in, some overtime is expected you see). Second year, we had just gone through layoffs and our manager needed the record to show why we were kept. If I remember right, he even said something like, "we kept you guys for a reason" when discussing the review.
-
I am very lucky to work in a competitive industry where you can basically always find a higher-paying job. Because of this, my employer basically has no other option than to take care of their people as best they can. High performers typically receive some pretty decent merit increases to try and make sure they stay. It can still be tough though because inflation is so high right now. Five years ago, a 10% bump would have been a lot, but when factoring in inflation (and the fact my area is one of the fastest-growing in the country), it's not as glamorous as it appears. I don't envy HR for some of the conversations that they have to have with people about this stuff.
-
Many places provide an Associate Handbook with an acknowledgement form that the employee must sign. Your signature basically states that you have/will read the company's policies, and you will adhere to them.
Yep.
And to circle back to benefits that Bill referred to for doing your best (vs doing the bare minimum), our handbook clearly states that all employees get two paid days off for bereavement for a close family member (spouse, parent, sibling). As many of you know, my mother passed away earlier this year. I left work on a Wednesday morning about an hour or so into my shift when I found out the end was near (it happened that evening). My boss texted me and told me to take as much time as I needed (and he meant it, as he even said when I was back that I ever needed to leave if I was ever having a bad day while still dealing with it, it would be fine). I went back to work the following Monday (there is no way I could have worked that Thursday or Friday) and then the funeral was eight days later on a Tuesday, so, all in all, I missed almost four days of work...and I was paid for all of it and did not have to use any vacation or sick/personal time. And that is obviously not meant to be a "I am such a good employee, look at what I got!" post, but merely meant to illustrate that there are benefits to going the extra mile sometimes.
Glad that your boss gave you a few extra days, but two days for the death of a parent is pathetic. To me this just highlights how much things are tilted in favor of the employer. As an employee you are guaranteed the bare minimum, and anything more that you get is a perk that your employer will never be held to. We see this with the entire discussion that people are having about contracts also. I for one am glad that I live in a state where the state guarantee strong family leave.
In Sweden you are guaranteed 10 days of paid leave (i.e two full weeks) if a family member dies, by law. So while I am exceptionally glad Kev was in a position where a death did not see him out of pocket, I also think bereavement leave is not something that should be subject to the whims of your employer and their general opinion of you. You deserve time to mourn, regardless of how shit an employee you are.
-
Many places provide an Associate Handbook with an acknowledgement form that the employee must sign. Your signature basically states that you have/will read the company's policies, and you will adhere to them.
Yep.
And to circle back to benefits that Bill referred to for doing your best (vs doing the bare minimum), our handbook clearly states that all employees get two paid days off for bereavement for a close family member (spouse, parent, sibling). As many of you know, my mother passed away earlier this year. I left work on a Wednesday morning about an hour or so into my shift when I found out the end was near (it happened that evening). My boss texted me and told me to take as much time as I needed (and he meant it, as he even said when I was back that I ever needed to leave if I was ever having a bad day while still dealing with it, it would be fine). I went back to work the following Monday (there is no way I could have worked that Thursday or Friday) and then the funeral was eight days later on a Tuesday, so, all in all, I missed almost four days of work...and I was paid for all of it and did not have to use any vacation or sick/personal time. And that is obviously not meant to be a "I am such a good employee, look at what I got!" post, but merely meant to illustrate that there are benefits to going the extra mile sometimes.
Glad that your boss gave you a few extra days, but two days for the death of a parent is pathetic. To me this just highlights how much things are tilted in favor of the employer. As an employee you are guaranteed the bare minimum, and anything more that you get is a perk that your employer will never be held to. We see this with the entire discussion that people are having about contracts also. I for one am glad that I live in a state where the state guarantee strong family leave.
In Sweden you are guaranteed 10 days of paid leave (i.e two full weeks) if a family member dies, by law. So while I am exceptionally glad Kev was in a position where a death did not see him out of pocket, I also think bereavement leave is not something that should be subject to the whims of your employer and their general opinion of you. You deserve time to mourn, regardless of how shit an employee you are.
We deserve nothing. Discuss.
-
Nah.
-
Many places provide an Associate Handbook with an acknowledgement form that the employee must sign. Your signature basically states that you have/will read the company's policies, and you will adhere to them.
Yep.
And to circle back to benefits that Bill referred to for doing your best (vs doing the bare minimum), our handbook clearly states that all employees get two paid days off for bereavement for a close family member (spouse, parent, sibling). As many of you know, my mother passed away earlier this year. I left work on a Wednesday morning about an hour or so into my shift when I found out the end was near (it happened that evening). My boss texted me and told me to take as much time as I needed (and he meant it, as he even said when I was back that I ever needed to leave if I was ever having a bad day while still dealing with it, it would be fine). I went back to work the following Monday (there is no way I could have worked that Thursday or Friday) and then the funeral was eight days later on a Tuesday, so, all in all, I missed almost four days of work...and I was paid for all of it and did not have to use any vacation or sick/personal time. And that is obviously not meant to be a "I am such a good employee, look at what I got!" post, but merely meant to illustrate that there are benefits to going the extra mile sometimes.
Glad that your boss gave you a few extra days, but two days for the death of a parent is pathetic. To me this just highlights how much things are tilted in favor of the employer. As an employee you are guaranteed the bare minimum, and anything more that you get is a perk that your employer will never be held to. We see this with the entire discussion that people are having about contracts also. I for one am glad that I live in a state where the state guarantee strong family leave.
In Sweden you are guaranteed 10 days of paid leave (i.e two full weeks) if a family member dies, by law. So while I am exceptionally glad Kev was in a position where a death did not see him out of pocket, I also think bereavement leave is not something that should be subject to the whims of your employer and their general opinion of you. You deserve time to mourn, regardless of how shit an employee you are.
We deserve nothing. Discuss.
Slaves?
-
Well, that's part of the discussion. I suppose there's a base level at which we all deserve to be treated as human beings; but what does that mean? I hear this a lot lately; I "deserve" this or I "deserve" that, and I think if there is a bar to something that is by definition an ENTITLEMENT, it's a lot lower than what many Americans perceive it to be today. Having just gone through the loss of a beloved parent, and being in some ways fucked up by it (my therapist is earning her stripes lately) and now watching my mom fading before my eyes, I don't know that I "deserve" time off. Why is it my company's problem? Why is it anyone else's problem but mine? My boss is like Kev's boss - all the time you need, bro, no sweat - and I believe he means it, but the world goes on.
I can (and would, since I don't believe in slavery, as such) formulate an argument that certain rights are, as Jefferson said, inalienable, meaning they cannot be given or taken away. We've codified them here as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". But does that translate into time off for bereavement? I watch a certain reality TV show and this one woman keeps calling herself a "boss" because she owns some rental property and keeps saying she "deserves" love. Really? I don't see how the three of those exist on the same plane.
There's also the concept of sort of unofficially expressing support; I can say that kid who hugged the pitcher in the Little League world series "deserves" to win it all (his team lost) but does he REALLY. He still has to play. He still has to be a teammate. That's different; that's not an entitlement, that's a sentiment.
-
"Deserve" just means what values, rights, and protections we, as members of our various societies and the human race, collectively decide we wish to value and ensure. The universe itself is an uncaring shit. When I say "humans deserve time to grieve their dead without fear of being fired" I'm just fighting to add something to the list.
-
We deserve what we're willing to fight for and earn for ourselves, with no upper limits to what that might entail.
For some in this thread, it seems like the slider tipped so far in the direction of bias toward employers ("owners"), that the underlying assumption is actually that the employer "deserves everything", and that labor deserves nothing, except unlimited scorn for any demonstration of self-interest, let alone any earned protections.
Edit: This post is not meant to be inflammatory, but if you're going to levelset whatever discourse has occurred in the first 8 pages with "We deserve nothing", why do I have to accept that as the starting point? Let's flip it; employers deserve nothing. And go from there. We can play the same game from both sides of the polemic.
-
We deserve what we're willing to fight for and earn for ourselves, with no upper limits to what that might entail.
For some in this thread, it seems like the slider tipped so far in the direction of bias toward employers ("owners"), that the underlying assumption is actually that the employer "deserves everything", and that labor deserves nothing, except unlimited scorn for any demonstration of self-interest, let alone any earned protections.
As a mind that tends to think strategically, your viewpoint is, I think (respectfully, I'm not digging at you) not widely shared. By that definition, many of the rich deserve their wealth, but we certainly don't act that way. And "deserve" seems to, in our society, work in another direction that your definition doesn't cover. Did OJ "deserve" all that time in jail? Did Epstein "deserve" to die in jail? Many believe that. Does Trump "deserve" the harassment he's undergoing now? Many very MUCH think so, and in fact, don't think it's enough. I have a really hard time when "deserve" really just boils down to one person's opinion one way or another.
Edit: This post is not meant to be inflammatory, but if you're going to levelset whatever discourse has occurred in the first 8 pages with "We deserve nothing", why do I have to accept that as the starting point? Let's flip it; employers deserve nothing. And go from there. We can play the same game from both sides of the polemic.
Well, while you ask an exceedingly fair question, I'm not making the distinction between employers and employees. In my question they were both included. That's part of my overall point; "deserve" doesn't - or shouldn't - be directional or based on some third party's viewpoint.
-
"Deserve" just means what values, rights, and protections we, as members of our various societies and the human race, collectively decide we wish to value and ensure. The universe itself is an uncaring shit. When I say "humans deserve time to grieve their dead without fear of being fired" I'm just fighting to add something to the list.
Other than I don't believe that your specific item should be there on the list, I can't argue with any of the rest of that, though.
-
We deserve what we're willing to fight for and earn for ourselves, with no upper limits to what that might entail.
For some in this thread, it seems like the slider tipped so far in the direction of bias toward employers ("owners"), that the underlying assumption is actually that the employer "deserves everything", and that labor deserves nothing, except unlimited scorn for any demonstration of self-interest, let alone any earned protections.
As a mind that tends to think strategically, your viewpoint is, I think (respectfully, I'm not digging at you) not widely shared. By that definition, many of the rich deserve their wealth, but we certainly don't act that way. And "deserve" seems to, in our society, work in another direction that your definition doesn't cover. Did OJ "deserve" all that time in jail? Did Epstein "deserve" to die in jail? Many believe that. Does Trump "deserve" the harassment he's undergoing now? Many very MUCH think so, and in fact, don't think it's enough. I have a really hard time when "deserve" really just boils down to one person's opinion one way or another.
Edit: This post is not meant to be inflammatory, but if you're going to levelset whatever discourse has occurred in the first 8 pages with "We deserve nothing", why do I have to accept that as the starting point? Let's flip it; employers deserve nothing. And go from there. We can play the same game from both sides of the polemic.
Well, while you ask an exceedingly fair question, I'm not making the distinction between employers and employees. In my question they were both included. That's part of my overall point; "deserve" doesn't - or shouldn't - be directional or based on some third party's viewpoint.
Ok, fair enough. Apologies if it seemed like I was interpreting your post in bad faith.
-
In Sweden you are guaranteed 10 days of paid leave (i.e two full weeks) if a family member dies, by law. So while I am exceptionally glad Kev was in a position where a death did not see him out of pocket, I also think bereavement leave is not something that should be subject to the whims of your employer and their general opinion of you. You deserve time to mourn, regardless of how shit an employee you are.
XJ, is there any distinction there between large and small companies? I am by no means an expert but it seems like whenever a new law is passed with regards to employment it applies differently between large and small companies (I think the cutoff is 50 employees). For instance, my current company is family owned and employs 6 employees, plus the two owners. If one of us is off on paid leave for 2 weeks it is a more significant impact than if a Microsoft employee is out.
-
In Sweden you are guaranteed 10 days of paid leave (i.e two full weeks) if a family member dies, by law. So while I am exceptionally glad Kev was in a position where a death did not see him out of pocket, I also think bereavement leave is not something that should be subject to the whims of your employer and their general opinion of you. You deserve time to mourn, regardless of how shit an employee you are.
XJ, is there any distinction there between large and small companies? I am by no means an expert but it seems like whenever a new law is passed with regards to employment it applies differently between large and small companies (I think the cutoff is 50 employees). For instance, my current company is family owned and employs 6 employees, plus the two owners. If one of us is off on paid leave for 2 weeks it is a more significant impact than if a Microsoft employee is out.
Well turns out I misread the guidance on this, and its not actually law but instead collective bargaining agreements that cover the extended bereavement. (I am not fully fluent in Swedish, and it turns out the English language source I used was misleading, so I apologise for that.) So for extremely small companies that are not part of a union or have an industry representative, I would imagine it does not hold. However a significant majority of jobs in the country are subject to some sort of collective bargaining agreement, so I think its more common than not that this right would be extended to employees.
-
Ah yes, the necessary evil that are unions.
Not quite sure what the industry standard is for bereavement here in the States, but 10 seems on the absurdly high side. I think 3-5 sounds about right. And I say that while conceding that you cannot put grieving on a time table. It depends on what kind of job you have as well. If you are working directly with the public, going back to work right away can be pretty difficult, as it is not always so easy to break away in an instant if you feel a moment coming on. Since I have an office job, going back to work five days (three business days) was about right. Working was a welcome distraction.
-
Ah yes, the necessary evil that are unions.
Not quite sure what the industry standard is for bereavement here in the States, but 10 seems on the absurdly high side. I think 3-5 sounds about right. And I say that while conceding that you cannot put grieving on a time table. It depends on what kind of job you have as well. If you are working directly with the public, going back to work right away can be pretty difficult, as it is not always so easy to break away in an instant if you feel a moment coming on. Since I have an office job, going back to work five days (three business days) was about right. Working was a welcome distraction.
Well, you aren't required to take them, you just have them available. I think the 10 days per year also covers some other scenarios when it comes to family matters.
-
Ah yes, the necessary evil that are unions.
Not quite sure what the industry standard is for bereavement here in the States, but 10 seems on the absurdly high side. I think 3-5 sounds about right. And I say that while conceding that you cannot put grieving on a time table. It depends on what kind of job you have as well. If you are working directly with the public, going back to work right away can be pretty difficult, as it is not always so easy to break away in an instant if you feel a moment coming on. Since I have an office job, going back to work five days (three business days) was about right. Working was a welcome distraction.
Here in NYC, it's 3 days, but the employee can grant more at its own discretion. Honestly, to me, 3 is too little. I think 2 weeks is a fair amount to mourn the lost of a close relative. If the employee feels ready before the 2 weeks are done, then the employee can go back. But anything less than that feels insensitive to me. Just my opinion.
-
My wife, a child, or parent: 3 days is obsurdly low. Grandma, uncle Joe, etc: 3 days is either OK or too high. So it really depends on who the person is and the impact their death has on my family.
My wife dies and I'm for weeks largely to grieve, but also to figure out a lot of logistics of what to do with our kids since she's a stay at home mom.
-
My wife, a child, or parent: 3 days is obsurdly low. Grandma, uncle Joe, etc: 3 days is either OK or too high. So it really depends on who the person is and the impact their death has on my family.
My wife dies and I'm for weeks largely to grieve, but also to figure out a lot of logistics of what to do with our kids since she's a stay at home mom.
I agree with the principle of this post completely with the caveat that individual relationships should be case by case. You can’t blanket familial relationships on the general public. What if my father was so abusive that I was taken away from him as a child and then raised by Uncle Joe? Maybe person A never knew grandma while person B grew up with grandma living with them and there was a much deeper bond than most people get with their grandma’s.
-
And even within that it's person by person. I know a person that on some levels hasn't fully come to grips with a death that happened in 1997. I know I'm just basically starting the process. I'm still very much in the denial phase and I'm north of two months now. I just cannot believe my dad isn't here anymore. But again, I feel that's a "me" problem, not a [Stadler's Company's] problem.
-
Agreed that it can often be a case by case thing.
Apologies if I am not remember it exactly correct, but there was a story from earlier this year about a family of six (married couple and four kids, IIRC) that were in Nebraska (I think) and a tornado struck and one of the parents and three of the kids died. If you are the remaining parent and child, I cannot imagine how you go on living after that, much less the living parent finding a way to work again any time soon. Granted, most deaths do not occur as the result of (what I would call) a random tragedy like that, but I think you will all get what I am saying.
I asked my cousin, who is an HR guru, about this, and he said 5 days seems to be the industry standard now here in the US, but the company for which he works is located all over the world, and he did say that the people in Europe always marvel at how limited our vacation and bereavement days are compared to theirs, so it is definitely different here vs there, and I think that explains the disconnect we are seeing between some of us here, as we all look at it through the lens of how it is in our country, job, state, etc.
-
My wife, a child, or parent: 3 days is obsurdly low. Grandma, uncle Joe, etc: 3 days is either OK or too high. So it really depends on who the person is and the impact their death has on my family.
My wife dies and I'm for weeks largely to grieve, but also to figure out a lot of logistics of what to do with our kids since she's a stay at home mom.
I agree with the principle of this post completely with the caveat that individual relationships should be case by case. You can’t blanket familial relationships on the general public. What if my father was so abusive that I was taken away from him as a child and then raised by Uncle Joe? Maybe person A never knew grandma while person B grew up with grandma living with them and there was a much deeper bond than most people get with their grandma’s.
Yeah, it is really an individual thing relationship to relationship. I know if I brought it up with HR at my company they'd say "that's why you have PTO" if I need more time off than the bereavement policy allows. My boss would probably cut me some slack and not be too picky about it. But in the end HR is right. I have a pool of time off that isn’t just there for vacations as I'd like it to be, but for any reason I need time off.
-
Saw this in my Youtube feed this morning. It's Mike Rowe on the Brian Kilmeade show talking about Quiet Quitting, and a little bit about paying off debt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e62M3_pwuBI
Rowe comes in about the 35s mark.
He says something quite interesting. "We believe today that job satisfaction has something to do with the job, and it really doesn't."
-
Saw this in my Youtube feed this morning. It's Mike Rowe on the Brian Kilmeade show talking about Quiet Quitting, and a little bit about paying off debt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e62M3_pwuBI
Rowe comes in about the 35s mark.
He says something quite interesting. "We believe today that job satisfaction has something to do with the job, and it really doesn't."
There's something to be said about finding ways to make life better for the working man and working woman, instead of too many being worked to death for peanuts, but there is value in hard work and going the extra mile, and it feels like that is lost on too many people. In their effort to make things better, the quiet quitters are swinging the pendulum too far to the other side.
-
Well, I suppose it's possible for someone to really hate their job. Go find another one.
You cash 100% of your check, then I'm not accepting 50% of your effort.
You show me a quiet quitter, and I'll show you a slacker.
-
Friend and I were just talking the other day and I mused out loud that I truly feel bad for the workers on the lower rungs of the ladder. Because that work *IS* abusive in nature. No matter what you choose to do, low end jobs always have been intrinsically intertwined with either an abusive boss or an abusive public…sometimes both. But when I was doing those jobs, I at least took home enough pay to be relatively independent. I could afford my rent, my bills, and still scrape together couch change for that new CD or show. I lived in a cheap apartment in the ghetto parts of the suburbs and my apartment complex had roaches, but it was mine and I got by.
But today, crap jobs don’t even allow you to do that. Today’s crap jobs expect you to go through that same horrible abusive situations…and then to find out that your pay DOESN’T give you enough to make ends meet? It’s no wonder people are just saying “F this” and moving back home.
-
But don't you know how much you're going to be paid before you take the job?
And how do you define a "shit job"?
-
Well, I suppose it's possible for someone to really hate their job. Go find another one.
You cash 100% of your check, then I'm not accepting 50% of your effort.
You show me a quiet quitter, and I'll show you a slacker.
Quiet Quitting is not the same thing as "slacking" or "putting in 50% effort".
It's saying "I'll put in 100%, but maybe not 110%". It's saying "I could stay late and answer a few more emails, but the difference to the business is negligible whether that happens at 6pm today or 8am tomorrow."
There's no reason to name-call like that, and be judgmental. People have explained what it means. If you don't get it, or don't want to get it, fine, but to call someone a "slacker" is just totally untrue.
-
I could go down a laundry list of reasons. But it’s usually a variation of young people getting jobs with an idealized version of how it will work and then finding out it won’t. Or being promised that something has a future when it may or may not. And then there’s just the expectation that “this is what you’re supposed to do”
After going through a smattering of throw away jobs, I finally landed myself in the trades (electrician) and while I’m thankful today that my knowledge of the industry has allowed me to be in the comfortable job I’m in today, I wouldn’t wish what I went through to get here on my worst enemy. One of my first bosses called all apprentices “poop-stain” and ALL construction bosses give the apprentices the crappiest work on the job site that no one wants to do. But it’s the culture of “paying your dues” and toughening you up that’s been around for decades.
It’s no wonder women very often don’t stick with the trades. They often sign up because they hear how much money you can make, and often walk away because of the abuse. And I personally think they are smart for leaving and men are dumb for staying…but here we are.
-
Well, I suppose it's possible for someone to really hate their job. Go find another one.
You cash 100% of your check, then I'm not accepting 50% of your effort.
You show me a quiet quitter, and I'll show you a slacker.
Quiet Quitting is not the same thing as "slacking" or "putting in 50% effort".
It's putting in "100% effort", but not always "110%".
I really don't understand the need to be outraged, upset, judgmental about something you clearly do not understand.
Plenty in here and out there have tried to explain what it means, you just want to ignore it and keep rolling with your initial biases not even trying to come to some kind of mutual understanding with what others are saying.
Well, if you're giving 100%, then I have no problem at all.
Actually, there seems to be some confusion ITT about the actual definition. Maybe it's in the term, "quiet quitting". Quitting to me means pulling back. Not failure to reach forward. You are telling me I have this wrong?
And sorry, I don't equate doing the "bare minimum" with 100% at all.
-
It’s no wonder women very often don’t stick with the trades. They often sign up because they hear how much money you can make, and often walk away because of the abuse. And I personally think they are smart for leaving and men are dumb for staying…but here we are.
Then there's a lot of dumb men driving around because all I see are plumbing vans, construction company vans, electrician vans...
-
And Skeever, you're right. I have biases. I admit it.
If you're at Work Level 1, let's call it, and you have no desire to get to Work Level 2, does that fall into Quiet Quitting? And if so, I have no issue with that. We need people in ALL roles, even in Work Level 1. But my expectation is that if you're in Work Level 1, then you're giving 100% in your role.
Does that make sense?
-
And Skeever, you're right. I have biases. I admit it.
If you're at Work Level 1, let's call it, and you have no desire to get to Work Level 2, does that fall into Quiet Quitting? And if so, I have no issue with that. We need people in ALL roles, even in Work Level 1. But my expectation is that if you're in Work Level 1, then you're giving 100% in your role.
Does that make sense?
This is how I look at quiet quitting actually. Maybe people look at it in different ways but for me it's exactly that, being at level one and then not wanting to get to level two.
Also I think people go through phases where work is more or less of there life. When I was at level one I was working all the time to get to level two, now I would say I'm at level three and I am not even thinking about level four, I'm just thinking about how to do my job well and then make time in my life for other priorities. That's not to say it will always be that way, that's just how it is now for me.
-
And Skeever, you're right. I have biases. I admit it.
If you're at Work Level 1, let's call it, and you have no desire to get to Work Level 2, does that fall into Quiet Quitting? And if so, I have no issue with that. We need people in ALL roles, even in Work Level 1. But my expectation is that if you're in Work Level 1, then you're giving 100% in your role.
Does that make sense?
This is how I look at quiet quitting actually. Maybe people look at it in different ways but for me it's exactly that, being at level one and then not wanting to get to level two.
Also I think people go through phases where work is more or less of there life. When I was at level one I was working all the time to get to level two, now I would say I'm at level three and I am not even thinking about level four, I'm just thinking about how to do my job well and then make time in my life for other priorities. That's not to say it will always be that way, that's just how it is now for me.
When I was a manager, I made sure that everyone knew that every job in the store is important. Some people worked to become supervisors because that was important to them. Others wanted no part of it, but that didn't mean they weren't valued.
Quiet quitting is a dumb fucking term. It's just when I've seen it, and there's dumb tiktok videos and shit, it's usually being muttered by someone that seems to be crossing their arms and stomping their feet going "I'm not doing anything extra." It just comes off as so whiney. I'm sure that contributed to my bias against the term.
Not everyone is programmed to get ahead. That's fine. An organization needs everyone.
-
That's where I met in the middle with Stadler too. Yes it's dumb. Social media sucks.
-
I feel like there is this really inconvenient hump to get over when discussing things like this. Quiet Quitting, Cancel Culture, CRT, BLM, Me too, etc. etc. etc. All of these terms are just created buzzwords that have become shorthand for different things depending on which side of any discussion you're on. This level of obfuscation makes it hard to really discuss the specifics about what the disagreements are actually about.
Also quiet quitting can mean completely different things depending on the position. For example quiet quitting in a my web developer position probably looks wildly different than quiet quitting for someone working retail. Like for example, I'd imagine someone quiet quitting in my position would be putting in the bare minimum amount of effort to barely meet deadlines. They may even go so far as the over employed route to game the system that way. Someone in retail may see quiet quitting as simply refusing to answer the inevitable texts and calls on their days off asking for them to come in on short notice.
-
I could go down a laundry list of reasons. But it’s usually a variation of young people getting jobs with an idealized version of how it will work and then finding out it won’t. Or being promised that something has a future when it may or may not. And then there’s just the expectation that “this is what you’re supposed to do”
After going through a smattering of throw away jobs, I finally landed myself in the trades (electrician) and while I’m thankful today that my knowledge of the industry has allowed me to be in the comfortable job I’m in today, I wouldn’t wish what I went through to get here on my worst enemy. One of my first bosses called all apprentices “poop-stain” and ALL construction bosses give the apprentices the crappiest work on the job site that no one wants to do. But it’s the culture of “paying your dues” and toughening you up that’s been around for decades.
It’s no wonder women very often don’t stick with the trades. They often sign up because they hear how much money you can make, and often walk away because of the abuse. And I personally think they are smart for leaving and men are dumb for staying…but here we are.
The abuse isn't because of the jobs, it's because of the managers. The idea that because you can DO a task then you can MANAGE that task is both outdated and dangerous. It's also not helped by the "Doers" belief that "you don't know what I do" and "I can do your [management] job better than you because I know how to sweep floors/write code/whatever", as if that's all that management is. Bill Belichick cannot and never was able to chase down quarterbacks like Lawrence Taylor, but he did a bang-up job in managing him.
"Management" is a skill independent of the skill being managed. Remember that.
-
I feel like there is this really inconvenient hump to get over when discussing things like this. Quiet Quitting, Cancel Culture, CRT, BLM, Me too, etc. etc. etc. All of these terms are just created buzzwords that have become shorthand for different things depending on which side of any discussion you're on. This level of obfuscation makes it hard to really discuss the specifics about what the disagreements are actually about.
Also quiet quitting can mean completely different things depending on the position. For example quiet quitting in a my web developer position probably looks wildly different than quiet quitting for someone working retail. Like for example, I'd imagine someone quiet quitting in my position would be putting in the bare minimum amount of effort to barely meet deadlines. They may even go so far as the over employed route to game the system that way. Someone in retail may see quiet quitting as simply refusing to answer the inevitable texts and calls on their days off asking for them to come in on short notice.
I think you and Skeever are spot on; most of the disagreement here is really about mis-applied nomenclature. I have ZERO problem with people that have their job, give 100% FOR THAT JOB, draw boundaries and are perfectly fine with not advancing. That to me is the perfect solution; establish your boundaries, accept the consequences for those boundaries, and put in your effort. Can't ask for more than that, and in fact we NEED those people. Eddie Van Halen can't be Eddie Van Halen without Michael Anthony or Alex Van Halen knowing their role in the organization. Dave Murray in Iron Maiden is an even better example. Does his thing, to a high level, and lets Bruce and Steve do all the interviews and take the glory/abuse. NO PROBLEM AT ALL. Where I ran afoul of the definition is in all the nooks and crannies that the term seems to suggest. There's nothing "quitting" about giving your best for the current job but having no desire to be VP.
-
I could go down a laundry list of reasons. But it’s usually a variation of young people getting jobs with an idealized version of how it will work and then finding out it won’t. Or being promised that something has a future when it may or may not. And then there’s just the expectation that “this is what you’re supposed to do”
After going through a smattering of throw away jobs, I finally landed myself in the trades (electrician) and while I’m thankful today that my knowledge of the industry has allowed me to be in the comfortable job I’m in today, I wouldn’t wish what I went through to get here on my worst enemy. One of my first bosses called all apprentices “poop-stain” and ALL construction bosses give the apprentices the crappiest work on the job site that no one wants to do. But it’s the culture of “paying your dues” and toughening you up that’s been around for decades.
It’s no wonder women very often don’t stick with the trades. They often sign up because they hear how much money you can make, and often walk away because of the abuse. And I personally think they are smart for leaving and men are dumb for staying…but here we are.
The abuse isn't because of the jobs, it's because of the managers. The idea that because you can DO a task then you can MANAGE that task is both outdated and dangerous. It's also not helped by the "Doers" belief that "you don't know what I do" and "I can do your [management] job better than you because I know how to sweep floors/write code/whatever", as if that's all that management is. Bill Belichick cannot and never was able to chase down quarterbacks like Lawrence Taylor, but he did a bang-up job in managing him.
"Management" is a skill independent of the skill being managed. Remember that.
The peter principle?
-
I could go down a laundry list of reasons. But it’s usually a variation of young people getting jobs with an idealized version of how it will work and then finding out it won’t. Or being promised that something has a future when it may or may not. And then there’s just the expectation that “this is what you’re supposed to do”
After going through a smattering of throw away jobs, I finally landed myself in the trades (electrician) and while I’m thankful today that my knowledge of the industry has allowed me to be in the comfortable job I’m in today, I wouldn’t wish what I went through to get here on my worst enemy. One of my first bosses called all apprentices “poop-stain” and ALL construction bosses give the apprentices the crappiest work on the job site that no one wants to do. But it’s the culture of “paying your dues” and toughening you up that’s been around for decades.
It’s no wonder women very often don’t stick with the trades. They often sign up because they hear how much money you can make, and often walk away because of the abuse. And I personally think they are smart for leaving and men are dumb for staying…but here we are.
The abuse isn't because of the jobs, it's because of the managers. The idea that because you can DO a task then you can MANAGE that task is both outdated and dangerous. It's also not helped by the "Doers" belief that "you don't know what I do" and "I can do your [management] job better than you because I know how to sweep floors/write code/whatever", as if that's all that management is. Bill Belichick cannot and never was able to chase down quarterbacks like Lawrence Taylor, but he did a bang-up job in managing him.
"Management" is a skill independent of the skill being managed. Remember that.
I agree, but I think we might be talking past each other here.
I’m trying to say that it’s not just a few managers, but an ENTIRE CULTURE of management across ALL trades in the construction industry.
Yes, you could pick out some rare exceptions that don’t do things that way, but the overwhelming culture of the industry is, “suck it up and get it done or I’ll find someone who will!”
There’s a very “drill sergeant/private” relationship between the old school and the new arrivals. And if you don’t fall into line, you’re out. So you take the hazing or go elsewhere.
-
Yes, you could pick out some rare exceptions that don’t do things that way, but the overwhelming culture of the industry is, “suck it up and get it done or I’ll find someone who will!”
There’s a very “drill sergeant/private” relationship between the old school and the new arrivals. And if you don’t fall into line, you’re out. So you take the hazing or go elsewhere.
I have literally never had manager like this. From my high school jobs, through my entry level engineering jobs, up to today where I am middle management. Maybe I've just been exceedingly lucky, but I think the majority of manager value their employees and want them to have work life balance. I would guess you see more managers like that when they're employing easily replaceable people in low pay jobs.
-
I was specifically speaking of the construction trades. My bad if I didn’t make that clear.
-
I was specifically speaking of the construction trades. My bad if I didn’t make that clear.
:tup The context was probably buried in the quotes which I didn't bother to reread.
-
I was specifically speaking of the construction trades. My bad if I didn’t make that clear.
I've experienced that; I started in the heavy construction industry and it was like that. But again, that's because of the managers. I've lived that. My first job was as a laborer at a local construction company and EVERY foreman there was someone who was, as little as a year or so before, one of the regular laborers or tradesmen. None had any special training in management, and in fact, one or two had about zero respect from the group because they were all friends in the same clique.
It might be a little different in the unions, but while I learned certain management skills in school, most of the people I worked with in the trades had little to no management skills and survived largely on whatever people skills they had.
-
I saw this earlier, and thought it was great.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/25/opinion/business-economics/work-office-whole-self.html
So many corporate I.D.E. programs want to act like you can just "be yourself" at work. It's all we hear these days, where I am. I loved this part:
But “bringing your whole self to work” is a cheap benefit — easier for employers to provide than, say, a raise — and one vague enough to be largely meaningless. Nor is it available to the majority of the American work force. Nobody is asking a line worker or customer service representative to add more personal vulnerability to the enterprise. For most gainfully employed people, it’s not work’s job to provide self-fulfillment or self-actualization. It’s to put food on the table.
After all, the office isn’t the only place you exist — why should they get to have all of you? If you only bring the best parts of you or at the very least, the part of you that does the actual work, you’re more likely to get rewarded for it.
-
I saw this earlier, and thought it was great.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/25/opinion/business-economics/work-office-whole-self.html
So many corporate I.D.E. programs want to act like you can just "be yourself" at work. It's all we hear these days, where I am. I loved this part:
But “bringing your whole self to work” is a cheap benefit — easier for employers to provide than, say, a raise — and one vague enough to be largely meaningless. Nor is it available to the majority of the American work force. Nobody is asking a line worker or customer service representative to add more personal vulnerability to the enterprise. For most gainfully employed people, it’s not work’s job to provide self-fulfillment or self-actualization. It’s to put food on the table.
After all, the office isn’t the only place you exist — why should they get to have all of you? If you only bring the best parts of you or at the very least, the part of you that does the actual work, you’re more likely to get rewarded for it.
What if "all of me" is that I don't want even HALF of you? If I need you to complete a task (or not do something stupid), I'm not interested in your "real self", I'm interested in whether that task gets completed, or if it can't, that you give me a heads up so I'm not caught with my pants down. I have friends at work, and I value some of them, but I have to work with ALL my co-workers whether I'm friends with them or not. To me, some of this stuff distracts from the matter at hand. if your "real self" HELPS getting the task done, then fine, but if it hinders, I'm not interested.
-
I work with some great coworkers but their work ethic isn't that great enough to get things done when we need to sometimes. Our store gets busy, especially now for football, and we need everyone to be on their game or at least show effort in trying. Us being busy is why each of us in the BoH should understand and know how to do mostly every position of BoH, so if needed, we can step in if someone needs to step out.
It's not a hard job, it's why I wonder why they don't bother doing this, which does help us out a lot when we get someone who does. I am glad we have more people with the attitude and understanding of what this job entails regarding being efficient in getting these orders out correctly and without receiving any complaints.
Basically, it's a good day when there isn't a lot of complaints about missing food, or other items like forks, straws, ketchup, and sides of ranch, blue cheese, or honey mustard.
A lot of us really are ourselves, especially the teens and as long as their work ethic keeps everything running smoothly, then the shift leaders and managers don't have a problem with "being yourself."
-
If being yourself at work is taking the absolute piss, then a have a few below me and above me that are all over it.
-
I can't read the article without signing in to something.
-
I can't read the article without signing in to something.
Same. Few things are more infuriating than seeing a link to an article that everyone cannot read. Not everyone wants to sign up to the NY freaking Times or knows the magic link to bypass it.
-
Yeah, no good for me either. I ain't signing up to ya NYTimes, get fucked.
-
I saw this earlier, and thought it was great.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/25/opinion/business-economics/work-office-whole-self.html
So many corporate I.D.E. programs want to act like you can just "be yourself" at work. It's all we hear these days, where I am. I loved this part:
But “bringing your whole self to work” is a cheap benefit — easier for employers to provide than, say, a raise — and one vague enough to be largely meaningless. Nor is it available to the majority of the American work force. Nobody is asking a line worker or customer service representative to add more personal vulnerability to the enterprise. For most gainfully employed people, it’s not work’s job to provide self-fulfillment or self-actualization. It’s to put food on the table.
After all, the office isn’t the only place you exist — why should they get to have all of you? If you only bring the best parts of you or at the very least, the part of you that does the actual work, you’re more likely to get rewarded for it.
What if "all of me" is that I don't want even HALF of you? If I need you to complete a task (or not do something stupid), I'm not interested in your "real self", I'm interested in whether that task gets completed, or if it can't, that you give me a heads up so I'm not caught with my pants down. I have friends at work, and I value some of them, but I have to work with ALL my co-workers whether I'm friends with them or not. To me, some of this stuff distracts from the matter at hand. if your "real self" HELPS getting the task done, then fine, but if it hinders, I'm not interested.
That's just the thing, at my job it means the oversharers are more empowered and entitled to overshare. And the people who need a little nudge to be drawn out fade Into the backdrop even further.
-
I quiet quit a couple years ago, but not totally.
My job is life or death in a hospital. The staffing is inconsistent and random on a daily basis. And the average co-worker combination is usually not good. So I got really tired of doing all the work and being told no and getting attitude by techs that don't feel like working.
So I'm pretty checked out now. I do my job, but am no longer going above and beyond. And also don't get as frustrated when the ship sinks. I just laugh it off. I also found a way to take as much time off as possible, removing myself from the bad environment, which has been the solution so far.
All the problems were brought up by me to management multiple times over multiple years with no change. They let the inmates run the asylum and I'm not gonna let it mess me up mentally anymore.
-
I quiet quit a couple years ago, but not totally.
My job is life or death in a hospital. The staffing is inconsistent and random on a daily basis. And the average co-worker combination is usually not good. So I got really tired of doing all the work and being told no and getting attitude by techs that don't feel like working.
So I'm pretty checked out now. I do my job, but am no longer going above and beyond. And also don't get as frustrated when the ship sinks. I just laugh it off. I also found a way to take as much time off as possible, removing myself from the bad environment, which has been the solution so far.
All the problems were brought up by me to management multiple times over multiple years with no change. They let the inmates run the asylum and I'm not gonna let it mess me up mentally anymore.
I've been at a crossroads most of this year. This situation seems similar to me but in different ways.
My issue is moving forward, how does one stop going above and beyond what they are doing to step back, do the minimum to still fulfill your role just to get paid? I mean, I get why that transition takes place, I'm there but then don't you lose a sense of worth, purpose and sense of achievement and fulfilment by taking so much of your investment out of your work. This question isn't specifically aimed at you mate just in general.
Does one feel a sense of emptiness and hollowness because of this shift? I know how invested I've been in years so maybe on a whole it wouldn't be as huge a shift as the masses, who knows.
I know there's probably a sense of freedom with it all but personally I can see it going the other way. This is why employers take advantage of employees like me, I do get that.
-
I've been at a crossroads most of this year. This situation seems similar to me but in different ways.
My issue is moving forward, how does one stop going above and beyond what they are doing to step back, do the minimum to still fulfill your role just to get paid? I mean, I get why that transition takes place, I'm there but then don't you lose a sense of worth, purpose and sense of achievement and fulfilment by taking so much of your investment out of your work. This question isn't specifically aimed at you mate just in general.
Does one feel a sense of emptiness and hollowness because of this shift? I know how invested I've been in years so maybe on a whole it wouldn't be as huge a shift as the masses, who knows.
I know there's probably a sense of freedom with it all but personally I can see it going the other way. This is why employers take advantage of employees like me, I do get that.
Personally, I feel like "doing the bare minimum" is never an option, even if you're setting strong work/life boundaries. You've got to find some way to make your job worthwhile to you while you're there, and if you really can't do that, you've got to be dedicating yourself to finding a new job, or else have some other hobby that's driving you to advance. I can't imagine going to work, phoning it in for 8 hours, and then vegging out in front of a videogame or sports binge for the rest of the waking hours of the day.
-
I can't read the article without signing in to something.
Same. Few things are more infuriating than seeing a link to an article that everyone cannot read. Not everyone wants to sign up to the NY freaking Times or knows the magic link to bypass it.
Yeah, no good for me either. I ain't signing up to ya NYTimes, get fucked.
For future use, you can input the link here and bypass the sign up.
https://archive.ph/
Here is the article:
https://archive.ph/3BRSY
-
I've been at a crossroads most of this year. This situation seems similar to me but in different ways.
My issue is moving forward, how does one stop going above and beyond what they are doing to step back, do the minimum to still fulfill your role just to get paid? I mean, I get why that transition takes place, I'm there but then don't you lose a sense of worth, purpose and sense of achievement and fulfilment by taking so much of your investment out of your work. This question isn't specifically aimed at you mate just in general.
Does one feel a sense of emptiness and hollowness because of this shift? I know how invested I've been in years so maybe on a whole it wouldn't be as huge a shift as the masses, who knows.
I know there's probably a sense of freedom with it all but personally I can see it going the other way. This is why employers take advantage of employees like me, I do get that.
Personally, I feel like "doing the bare minimum" is never an option, even if you're setting strong work/life boundaries. You've got to find some way to make your job worthwhile to you while you're there, and if you really can't do that, you've got to be dedicating yourself to finding a new job, or else have some other hobby that's driving you to advance. I can't imagine going to work, phoning it in for 8 hours, and then vegging out in front of a videogame or sports binge for the rest of the waking hours of the day.
I agree that doing the bare minimum isn't an option for me during the work day, but limiting myself to 8 hours a day and not touching my phone or computer for work related things after hours is 100% reasonable. There are plenty of things to do after hours that are more fulfilling that watching tv or playing video games.
-
I guess it's the stripping things back and doing less but still finding a strong sense of purpose and ownership of something in what you do is what I struggle with. You take that away then yeah, you're almost just turning up and killing your 8 hours waiting to leave again, that's not worth any amount of money IMO.
-
I guess it's the stripping things back and doing less but still finding a strong sense of purpose and ownership of something in what you do is what I struggle with. You take that away then yeah, you're almost just turning up and killing your 8 hours waiting to leave again, that's not worth any amount of money IMO.
That's a good point and it's a distinguishable difference. By that, I mean the difference between someone coming into a job, doing the bare minimum and never really establishing their identity otherwise; as opposed to someone who has worked hard, put in the time, and eventually found a way to make their job/life balance easier but still providing the same results. It's the old adage of "work smarter, not harder" and people can do that but not without putting in the initial work first.
On a similar note, but not really the same thing as "quiet quitting"; just learned today that a company executive (where I work) came in one day, packed up his shit and quit the same day. Now, he's a CEO for another company within days of the announcement of his departure. You can put 2 and 2 together on that one. If executives are pulling this kind of shit, how can they blame regular employees for doing it? What a shitty leader by example and I wonder if the company he works for now even knows about it. He could end up doing the same thing to them.
-
I guess we can add "rage applying" to the list...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2023/01/09/rage-applying-to-jobs-is-the-newest-tiktok-trend/?utm_source=ForbesMainTwitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialflowForbesMainTwitter&sh=3820e2995c42
This all just feels like "I want to get paid a lot of money, but to hell with it if you expect me to work hard." But what do you expect from a concept that originated on TikTok. :rollin :rollin :rollin
-
To me it feels like they are feeling undervalued for the work they already do. I'm not certain the concept of "looking to move jobs if your current one doesn't value you" originated on tiktok.
-
chuckling at young people on tik tok thinking they're re-inventing the wheel every couple of weeks. Or maybe it's the coverage that makes it sound like that? Anyway yeah it seems they just "invented" ... looking for a job.
-
I'm not certain the concept of "looking to move jobs if your current one doesn't value you" originated on tiktok.
Correct. Neither did complaining about it. The only new thing here is doing in all on social media believing the rest of the world cares about your problems.
-
Younger people expect the world to work like school - put the effort in, get rewarded, and progress.
Unfortunately, most organizations aren't run like that at all, with very little to offer overachievers.
Thus "quiet quitting" and "rage applying" are two sides of the same coin - reactions the young people have when they realize that most workplaces are stale structures stuck in a 50s hierarchal paradigm. "This place can't make the most of my talents or help me grow, and putting in extra gets me nothing, so I'll either focus on life outside work and work-life balance (quiet quitting) or find some place that values me (rage applying)."
-
I'm not certain the concept of "looking to move jobs if your current one doesn't value you" originated on tiktok.
Correct. Neither did complaining about it. The only new thing here is doing in all on social media believing the rest of the world cares about your problems.
Great post.
It reminds me that my dad told me at 16, “Son…NO ONE CARES!”
At the time, I thought that was “so cruel”. After all, what kind of parent would tell their child such a horrible thing!! Only decades later did it dawn on me that he was right. And he was trying to prepare me for the reality of life. And it was one of the most important things he ever taught me.
-
To me it feels like they are feeling undervalued for the work they already do. I'm not certain the concept of "looking to move jobs if your current one doesn't value you" originated on tiktok.
The important part of all this is that ever-pervasive "feeling undervalued". That's a mindset, pure and simple. I can't imagine where this idea came from that third parties have to coddle you and tell you how great you are, and make you feel appreciated and "valued". My god. Do they wipe your ass for you when you go to the can?
I don't mean this to be cruel or "old man"; it's just the reality of the false expectations that permeate our society today. I need to be loved at work. I need perfect strangers to call me the exact pronoun I demand. I need my television to be perfectly non-offensive, regardless of what anyone else wants. I need my social media to tell me in real time how much I'm liked. We've morphed into a society that is like Skeever said; that you do a task and get a reward. Life isn't a video game like that. You don't defeat the boss and get a chest of gold and neat swords as a reward.
I can count on two hands the number of people that I really, well and truly care what they think about my value and two of them passed this past year. Yeah, I care that my friends - bigger than two hands, blessed - feel appreciated, but at the end of the day, if my friends aren't rewarding me with sufficient praise, that's between me and my therapist. They don't exist to build my ego. Work is well on the other side of that.
-
Younger people expect the world to work like school - put the effort in, get rewarded, and progress.
I think this is exactly it. I don't think its limited to young people, though it's certainly more prevalent."
Employee: "Job description for Peon I says 0-2 years of experience. Peon II says 3-5 years of experience. I have been a Peon I for three years therefore I deserve a promotion."
Boss: "But you've never shown me you are capable of performing the additional duties a Peon II would perform."
Employee: "Well, those duties weren't in my job description."
Boss: "I'm giving the promotion to the guy who was willing to go a little above and beyond on Project X to show he's capable of performing at the next level."
Employee: "But I've been a Peon I for 3 years!"
-
To me it feels like they are feeling undervalued for the work they already do. I'm not certain the concept of "looking to move jobs if your current one doesn't value you" originated on tiktok.
The important part of all this is that ever-pervasive "feeling undervalued". That's a mindset, pure and simple. I can't imagine where this idea came from that third parties have to coddle you and tell you how great you are, and make you feel appreciated and "valued". My god. Do they wipe your ass for you when you go to the can?
I don't mean this to be cruel or "old man"; it's just the reality of the false expectations that permeate our society today. I need to be loved at work. I need perfect strangers to call me the exact pronoun I demand. I need my television to be perfectly non-offensive, regardless of what anyone else wants. I need my social media to tell me in real time how much I'm liked. We've morphed into a society that is like Skeever said; that you do a task and get a reward. Life isn't a video game like that. You don't defeat the boss and get a chest of gold and neat swords as a reward.
I can count on two hands the number of people that I really, well and truly care what they think about my value and two of them passed this past year. Yeah, I care that my friends - bigger than two hands, blessed - feel appreciated, but at the end of the day, if my friends aren't rewarding me with sufficient praise, that's between me and my therapist. They don't exist to build my ego. Work is well on the other side of that.
I hear you.
I have never felt undervalued at all. I actually have never even considered myself something that has currency worth. I am not a commodity that can be bought or sold for a price. But the way I look at it, we live in a capitalist society, therefore, I am only worth the amount of work effort I put in. If I show a high work ethic of getting the job done, doing what the job entails, even better if it's efficient and correct, then that's what should be valued.
I applied at a fast food place to work and make money. My main priority when I am clocked in is making that money. I just recently became a shift lead, which I could've been earlier, they were waiting for me to ask about it but I told them I felt I wasn't quite ready yet (mainly because I have to deal with customer/coworker bullshit). Now that I am sure I can handle my emotions when dealing with customer/coworker interactions, it aligned that my boss asked me to take on that position because it was needed and I was the only one he could think of. This is because I am there to do the job, I don't complain, I actually get along with my other coworkers (amazingly), and I can handle running the line on all the stations.
When I applied, I understood what this kind of job would entail, I didn't go in expecting anything less. I was also told upon hiring that our store is the busiest store in our city, compared to the other stores where they don't even come close to amount of customers our store gets. So straight off the bat, I understood there's going to be times where it's going to be constant orders coming, and you will have to prioritize certain tasks while also multitasking to get those orders out on time, and that there will be times where you can't get a break at all.
But, with regards to those younger people on tik-tok. They're just realizing the reality of how this system works. How work is just one cog in the wheel that keeps the system running. And they are realizing the many other cogs in the wheel and how each one has an effect on the other. Such as the housing market, and how that cog isn't functioning correctly, and it's rising costs for apartment housing is starting to rise above the amount of income they are getting from working at these places. It's to the point where they are questioning whether to continue working there or to search for something better. And honestly, I feel some are feeling helpless and don't want to work harder to achieve a better life. It's like they don't understand, the more work and effort you put into it, the more you will be worth. You're building an empire for yourself, your placing value in your skills/talents and utilizing those to make an income.
-
To me it feels like they are feeling undervalued for the work they already do. I'm not certain the concept of "looking to move jobs if your current one doesn't value you" originated on tiktok.
The important part of all this is that ever-pervasive "feeling undervalued". That's a mindset, pure and simple. I can't imagine where this idea came from that third parties have to coddle you and tell you how great you are, and make you feel appreciated and "valued". My god. Do they wipe your ass for you when you go to the can?
I don't mean this to be cruel or "old man"; it's just the reality of the false expectations that permeate our society today. I need to be loved at work. I need perfect strangers to call me the exact pronoun I demand. I need my television to be perfectly non-offensive, regardless of what anyone else wants. I need my social media to tell me in real time how much I'm liked. We've morphed into a society that is like Skeever said; that you do a task and get a reward. Life isn't a video game like that. You don't defeat the boss and get a chest of gold and neat swords as a reward.
I can count on two hands the number of people that I really, well and truly care what they think about my value and two of them passed this past year. Yeah, I care that my friends - bigger than two hands, blessed - feel appreciated, but at the end of the day, if my friends aren't rewarding me with sufficient praise, that's between me and my therapist. They don't exist to build my ego. Work is well on the other side of that.
I can get on board with this. I don't quite understand why people need people in the organisations and managers and the like to value them. Why the fuck would I care what they think? I know I do my job to the best of my ability and get results that are needed.
Saying that, the last few weeks for me have been a real eye opener at work. Not that I need many more but I've truly come to understand that people need to realise that no one gives a fuck or really values you and nor should one go looking for it. I've never cared about it, my own self satisfaction and ethic is more important than what others think of me, but it's incredible how bosses and organisations give such little fucks no matter how much you put in. I've thought myself 'I do so much extra and they still don't give a fuck,' but at the end of the day, I'm the stupid one really. Fighting to get paid overtime when its warranted is what's pissing me off currently, but that's a different story.
Nevertheless, the skewed view of younger generations I feel is really taking a hold. They do want to feel valued all the time and get rewarded for every little thing. They get fucking paid well, do fuck all and when they do something work realted or slightly outside the box DURING THEIR PAID SHIFT, they want a pat on the back and think they can get ahead.
-
The important part of all this is that ever-pervasive "feeling undervalued". That's a mindset, pure and simple. I can't imagine where this idea came from that third parties have to coddle you and tell you how great you are, and make you feel appreciated and "valued". My god. Do they wipe your ass for you when you go to the can?
Undervalued as in "my boss seems to be getting a larger and larger slice of the pie, while I seem to be getting less, and what I do get seems to buy far less nowadays", but okay old-timer.
-
The important part of all this is that ever-pervasive "feeling undervalued". That's a mindset, pure and simple. I can't imagine where this idea came from that third parties have to coddle you and tell you how great you are, and make you feel appreciated and "valued". My god. Do they wipe your ass for you when you go to the can?
Undervalued as in "my boss seems to be getting a larger and larger slice of the pie, while I seem to be getting less, and what I do get seems to buy far less nowadays", but okay old-timer.
I've come to accept that this is simply what happens everywhere no matter where you work. It's just the way it is. This scenario fits me too. I've tried fighting for years, but it gets you fucking nowhere.
-
That's the joy of youth, the hope of a better tomorrow hasn't yet been crushed. :P
-
That's the joy of youth, the hope of a better tomorrow hasn't yet been crushed. :P
Or maybe not understanding how reality works..
-
Excellent post, Stadler. :tup :tup
-
The important part of all this is that ever-pervasive "feeling undervalued". That's a mindset, pure and simple. I can't imagine where this idea came from that third parties have to coddle you and tell you how great you are, and make you feel appreciated and "valued". My god. Do they wipe your ass for you when you go to the can?
Undervalued as in "my boss seems to be getting a larger and larger slice of the pie, while I seem to be getting less, and what I do get seems to buy far less nowadays", but okay old-timer.
That's not the fault of the job.
-
Or maybe not understanding how reality works..
How reality works is, of course, famously immune to ever changing through policy, decision making, community effort and economic reforms. "Understanding" and "accepting" are not the same thing.
-
What's the option if you don't accept it then? The stress you put on yourself but not accepting things and trying and hoping to change things you have no control over is a far bigger detriment to your own well being and mental headspace.
-
I can live with failure. I can't live with not trying.
-
I can live with failure. I can't live with not trying.
I can relate to that. I've tried myself for years to change things and stick it to 'the man.' Would always speak up, call the bosses out, that sort of shit. Never got walked over. Luckily, I'm good at my job and people doing my role around here are hard to come by cause I'd be fired more times than I've had hot dinners. It's only been the last month and few series of events at work to finally say to myself that I've done all I can to change what's above me and get them to see things from my point of view. It's a losing battle and only getting worse IMO.
I need to change my thinking and point of view before I do something stupid and ruin my career. Acceptance is not failure, but just take it from me, don't focus your life on it, because as Tim said, it's all reality and no one gives a shit about you, your point of view, or what you do. You can't change the world as much as you think it needs to. It's easier to change yourself.
-
That's the joy of youth, the hope of a better tomorrow hasn't yet been crushed. :P
Or maybe not understanding how reality works..
Slow clap
-
People also get blinded by their own ego and confidence thinking they are more important than what they are too. I went through it, you think you SHOULD be valued more giving the perception you ARE more valuable than you actually are. People are cannon fodder. Everyone is replaceable and organisations and bosses don't give a shit. Loyalty isn't much of a thing anymore if you ask me.
-
That's the joy of youth, the hope of a better tomorrow hasn't yet been crushed. :P
This is exactly how you become a bitter old person. :P
-
People also get blinded by their own ego and confidence thinking they are more important than what they are too. I went through it, you think you SHOULD be valued more giving the perception you ARE more valuable than you actually are. People are cannon fodder. Everyone is replaceable and organisations and bosses don't give a shit. Loyalty isn't much of a thing anymore if you ask me.
A longtime friend and I have talked about that for years, about how far too many think they are irreplaceable at their job, when, in reality, the percentage of people who actually are is probably in the single digits.
And it feels like the younger generation nowadays thinks they are entitled to a great wage just because and get upset when they put forth a less-than-great effort and then don't get coddled, a monthly raise and a weekly seat at the dinner table with the bosses.
-
I think job dissatisfaction is as old as having a job.
If we're talking about the tiktok generation, they really come across like a bunch of crybabies. My homepage is MSN, and there's a ton of stories based on the tiktoks. I never watch because I'm not giving a "view".
Employer/employee dynamics is something that interests me, so sometimes, there's an interesting dynamic in the videos, but for the most part, it's just people wining about one thing or another.
Businesses have budgets and it is what it is. I'm not defending that, but you either work there or you don't. Just fucking get on with it, either way.
-
People also get blinded by their own ego and confidence thinking they are more important than what they are too. I went through it, you think you SHOULD be valued more giving the perception you ARE more valuable than you actually are. People are cannon fodder. Everyone is replaceable and organisations and bosses don't give a shit. Loyalty isn't much of a thing anymore if you ask me.
A longtime friend and I have talked about that for years, about how far too many think they are irreplaceable at their job, when, in reality, the percentage of people who actually are is probably in the single digits.
And it feels like the younger generation nowadays thinks they are entitled to a great wage just because and get upset when they put forth a less-than-great effort and then don't get coddled, a monthly raise and a weekly seat at the dinner table with the bosses.
Can't argue with that. The younger generation sometimes also think that just turning up is enough to warrant getting paid, let alone putting in an effort. Some come across like I am the privileged one that they are giving their time to me.
-
I think job dissatisfaction is as old as having a job.
If we're talking about the tiktok generation, they really come across like a bunch of crybabies. My homepage is MSN, and there's a ton of stories based on the tiktoks. I never watch because I'm not giving a "view".
Employer/employee dynamics is something that interests me, so sometimes, there's an interesting dynamic in the videos, but for the most part, it's just people wining about one thing or another.
Businesses have budgets and it is what it is. I'm not defending that, but you either work there or you don't. Just fucking get on with it, either way.
I think this is the simple reality. Underlings don't see this part most of the time and think the bosses are being asshole just because. Sometimes that may be the case but the guy above you has deadlines and budgets to meet too. Sometimes the human factor gets lost which I see a lot of but it's just the way it is.
The thing I do find fascinating is how those people get the people under them to work for them and deliver the results they need. That's the true test of good management. Anyone can impose whatever they want to meet targets but down the line that will more than likely catch up with them if they aren't a leader and simply a dictator in getting what they need.
But at the end of the day, you get on with it, accept it or you move on. Simple. I've struggled with this and still do, but that's the cold hard truth.
-
And the thing is, it's not like these complaints are new, but with so many social media outlets now, people now have multiple places online to bitch about stuff that maybe some us bitched about we were young, just to each other at lunch or happy hour. I get it.
But, people with the "I want to get paid a lot while doing as little as possible" mentality are going to be in for a rude awakening when they reach a certain age and realize that shit doesn't fly 99% of the time.
-
(https://www.thelines.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/ravens-7.jpg)
-
As a manager, I value my employees and view them as essential parts of the team. I try to show my appreciation of their efforts through my words and buying them treats and lunch every now and then. But the reality is, I can't do a whole lot more than that. If I want to give a promotion it needs to get approved by three people above me (the top two of whom would not know the person I'm trying to promote at all) with me providing a lengthy justification. I am given my budget for annual raises and I cannot deviate from that. Giving one person more means another person gets less. It's kind of a crappy system and leave me fairly powerless.
Funnily enough, another way a show people I value them is to give them tasks that may be a little bit a stretch for them to show that I value their abilities and input. This allows them to shine and gives me motivation to push for promotions. I always make sure its something that can be done during their normal working hours though. If anyone ever came back to me and said "I'm not going to do that because it's not in my job description" I can assure you they would be at the very bottom of my list of potential promotions.
-
The important part of all this is that ever-pervasive "feeling undervalued". That's a mindset, pure and simple. I can't imagine where this idea came from that third parties have to coddle you and tell you how great you are, and make you feel appreciated and "valued". My god. Do they wipe your ass for you when you go to the can?
Undervalued as in "my boss seems to be getting a larger and larger slice of the pie, while I seem to be getting less, and what I do get seems to buy far less nowadays", but okay old-timer.
It's still a mindset.
The key words in your phrase are "boss" and "seems to". One, if I had a nickel for every time I heard someone say "my boss is an idiot, I could absolutely do what they do!" I'd be living with Margot Robbie on a beach somewhere. If I had another penny for every time that person got promoted and FAILED, I'd OWN the island. SO WHAT? You're either going to live your life enjoying what you have, or you're going to live your life envying that which others MIGHT have. Wish in one hand, shit in the other, and see which one fills up first. This is the social media mentality; we see all these curated lives on Facebook, and it's affecting our psyche. The mindset you are describing is not a good thing, it's not something to be proud of; it is, in my opinion, a key part of the "mass insecurity" that I write about all the time. That personal envy, that feeling of being screwed over. You, it may lead you to find another job, maybe chronically (like job jumpers). Someone else, it might lead them to drink. Others, to suicide. Still others, to shoot up their workplace. That's not on the corporation to fix. That's on US to fix. There's almost 400 MILLION people in the US/UK. The odds are absolutely in the favor of the company in terms of finding someone that can do what you and I do. We are not unicorns, we are not unique, we are not precious little jewels to be coddled and swaddled. if the corporation makes a decision that that other person is worth more, the quicker we get to the mirror and reassess that it's not their problem, it's OUR problem, the better we will all be.
-
If I had a nickel for every time young people's legitimate concerns about (rising) economic inequality, lowered spending power and erosion of workplace rights were dismissed by a variant of "this is how the world works" I'd be able to afford the moon base and giant laser I would need to solve the problem permanently. :P
-
Going back to "Rage applying", I never really understood this mentality. When I am in the market for a new job, I am very careful and selective to which jobs I apply to. But yet, I know people that would sit on Linked-In, and apply to a hundred jobs in a day with the whole "click to apply" or whatever it is. I would not be able to just apply to something without carefully consider everything that comes with it. But that's just me, I guess
-
Depends on the individual I guess. I can certainly see how casting a wide net might yield you a better catch in the end.
-
Pretty poor article from Forbes :lol like this is anything new. I guess they are just putting a title to the idea of looking for a new job when you don't like your current one. Similar to putting the title "quiet quitting" to something that has always existed.
-
Here's what I've always wondered:
Let's say that Uncle Sam decides to give every person in the country making less than $200K a year - $5K a month in universal income. And let's assume that prior to this program, 75% of this subset of people were in a constant cycle of debt due a multitude of various reasons. What % of this subset of people's lives would be changed for the better? Or would their shortcomings surrounding budgets, expenses, obligations, spending, etc. - all of which existed prior to the universal income and caused their issues in the first place - prevent them from digging out of a hole.
Basically I'm asking if they would piss away the $5K every month and still be in exactly the same boat.
BTW, this is in regards to equity. If every employer were mandated to pay the $5K a month to everybody instead of Uncle Sam, the results would be the same. I think you're either built and hard-wired to succeed and apply logic to your finances, or you're not.
I welcome all opposing pov's.
-
If I had a nickel for every time young people's legitimate concerns about (rising) economic inequality, lowered spending power and erosion of workplace rights were dismissed by a variant of "this is how the world works" I'd be able to afford the moon base and giant laser I would need to solve the problem permanently. :P
Except they aren't legitimate. "Erosion of work place rights"? As opposed to when? I'm old but I'm not THAT old and the workplace of today is Disneyworld compared to even twenty years ago. There's a component - only a component - where things weren't perfect, and aren't perfect now, and perhaps can be better with awareness and focus (equal pay for women, for one). There's a much larger component, though, that is simply a misplaced sense of importance - hubris, one might say - and an unwillingness to accept the realities of an economic system that has an underlying order and set of inviolate rules. There's room to move within those rules, but it's not unlimited.
-
There's a much larger component, though, that is simply a misplaced sense of importance - hubris, one might say - and an unwillingness to accept the realities of an economic system that has an underlying order and set of inviolate rules.
And here's the crux. They are only inviolate to the dogmatic. ;)
-
Here's what I've always wondered:
Let's say that Uncle Sam decides to give every person in the country making less than $200K a year - $5K a month in universal income. And let's assume that prior to this program, 75% of this subset of people were in a constant cycle of debt due a multitude of various reasons. What % of this subset of people's lives would be changed for the better? Or would their shortcomings surrounding budgets, expenses, obligations, spending, etc. - all of which existed prior to the universal income and caused their issues in the first place - prevent them from digging out of a hole.
Basically I'm asking if they would piss away the $5K every month and still be in exactly the same boat.
BTW, this is in regards to equity. If every employer were mandated to pay the $5K a month to everybody instead of Uncle Sam, the results would be the same. I think you're either built and hard-wired to succeed and apply logic to your finances, or you're not.
I welcome all opposing pov's.
I think most people who can't handle $30k would be unable to handle $80k. Most people would continue to spend every penny and not save or invest for the future. If that $5k a month came with basic financial education, people would do better. But the government really doesn't want people to save and invest much. They need us to buy stuff to beef up the economy. That said, it's a lot easier to save and plan for the future at $80k than $30k and many people would do significantly better.
-
Here's what I've always wondered:
Let's say that Uncle Sam decides to give every person in the country making less than $200K a year - $5K a month in universal income.
I'd say we'd see inflation the likes that we've never seen before.
-
(https://www.thelines.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/ravens-7.jpg)
Fucking awesome. Can't even give the guy credit for having that pic from this weekend. He didn't even travel with the team.
-
Here's what I've always wondered:
Let's say that Uncle Sam decides to give every person in the country making less than $200K a year - $5K a month in universal income. And let's assume that prior to this program, 75% of this subset of people were in a constant cycle of debt due a multitude of various reasons. What % of this subset of people's lives would be changed for the better? Or would their shortcomings surrounding budgets, expenses, obligations, spending, etc. - all of which existed prior to the universal income and caused their issues in the first place - prevent them from digging out of a hole.
Basically I'm asking if they would piss away the $5K every month and still be in exactly the same boat.
BTW, this is in regards to equity. If every employer were mandated to pay the $5K a month to everybody instead of Uncle Sam, the results would be the same. I think you're either built and hard-wired to succeed and apply logic to your finances, or you're not.
I welcome all opposing pov's.
I'm in your corner on this; for a significant number of people, their lack of wealth/security is not on the income side of the equation. It's on the outflow side of the equation. It's not a coincidence that the bankruptcy rate for lottery winners is several multiples higher than the general population.
I've written this before: my college friend found an early Excel spreadsheet for his finances. It had one input (his salary) and it had like four or five outputs - rent, car, gas, food, utilities. Ask the kids today what theirs looks like: cellphone, Spotify, Netflix, etc. Yeah, they are low-dollar each, but it's a death by 1,000 cuts.
-
Going back to "Rage applying", I never really understood this mentality. When I am in the market for a new job, I am very careful and selective to which jobs I apply to. But yet, I know people that would sit on Linked-In, and apply to a hundred jobs in a day with the whole "click to apply" or whatever it is. I would not be able to just apply to something without carefully consider everything that comes with it. But that's just me, I guess
Same with me. I remember saying in an interview something like "I am here beacuse I'm interested in what you do, in a sense I have already chosen you, now it's up to you to choose me".
-
There's a much larger component, though, that is simply a misplaced sense of importance - hubris, one might say - and an unwillingness to accept the realities of an economic system that has an underlying order and set of inviolate rules.
And here's the crux. They are only inviolate to the dogmatic. ;)
No. Cash in has to exceed cash out is not a dogmatic principle. Supply and demand is not a dogmatic principle. This is true, in principle, even in communist/socialist structures. it may take on a different form, but resources are limited, and any endeavor that seeks to use more resources than it creates - and I'll include utility in that equation - is destined for failure.
-
If I had a nickel for every time young people's legitimate concerns about (rising) economic inequality, lowered spending power and erosion of workplace rights were dismissed by a variant of "this is how the world works" I'd be able to afford the moon base and giant laser I would need to solve the problem permanently. :P
I personally believe that the game is rigged to the advantage of the ultra rich and that should be fixed to some extent. But I also accept that I can still have tremendous success with actually not that much effort if I play the game too. It has never been easier to be educated on how the financial system works and how to use it to your advantage.
While it's admirable to try and fix things and make things more equitable (and we should try to do something about the ultra wealthy pulling away from the rest of us at an alarming pace) focusing too much on how the game is rigged against you is a self fulfilling thing. If you think you can't win, you won't (generic you, not you specifically).
-
Let's say that Uncle Sam decides to give every person in the country making less than $200K a year - $5K a month in universal income.
Unless I read this wrong, then those people would quit their jobs. and our society would crumble.
Re: Indiscriminate applying. If you are poor, you don't have the luxury to carefully cultivate your job search. You get to a point any job is better than no job, and the quicker the better.
-
If I had a nickel for every time young people's legitimate concerns about (rising) economic inequality, lowered spending power and erosion of workplace rights were dismissed by a variant of "this is how the world works" I'd be able to afford the moon base and giant laser I would need to solve the problem permanently. :P
I personally believe that the game is rigged to the advantage of the ultra rich and that should be fixed to some extent. But I also accept that I can still have tremendous success with actually not that much effort if I play the game too. It has never been easier to be educated on how the financial system works and how to use it to your advantage.
While it's admirable to try and fix things and make things more equitable (and we should try to do something about the ultra wealthy pulling away from the rest of us at an alarming pace) focusing too much on how the game is rigged against you is a self fulfilling thing. If you think you can't win, you won't (generic you, not you specifically).
Why? Why is that admirable? The real solution here is to realize that it's not a zero sum game, and Jeff Bezos making more money in 10 minutes than you'll make in a lifetime doesn't take ONE DIME out of your pocket. You maximize YOU. YOU'RE the captain of your financial ship, not the billionaires or the government.
The "income equality" argument is really just feeding envy and jealousy, and promoting that feeling of insecurity I've been preaching about for years now. It's another way for the propagandists to create more in-groups and out-groups. It's the main beef I have with Bernie Sanders and his ilk; I like Bernie as a man, but he's a politician; he's not interested in REALLY helping people. If he was, he'd be spending his time teaching everyone to be Jeff Bezos, more or less. But he's not, because that takes work, it's not immediate enough for our society today, and it doesn't generate votes. It's more fun to be the victim.
-
I'm in your corner on this; for a significant number of people, their lack of wealth/security is not on the income side of the equation. It's on the outflow side of the equation. It's not a coincidence that the bankruptcy rate for lottery winners is several multiples higher than the general population.
I've written this before: my college friend found an early Excel spreadsheet for his finances. It had one input (his salary) and it had like four or five outputs - rent, car, gas, food, utilities. Ask the kids today what theirs looks like: cellphone, Spotify, Netflix, etc. Yeah, they are low-dollar each, but it's a death by 1,000 cuts.
(https://media.tenor.com/2H0wzVOd2DsAAAAC/dbatc-death-by-a-thousand-cuts.gif)
(had to do it :P :lol)
-
Pretty poor article from Forbes :lol like this is anything new. I guess they are just putting a title to the idea of looking for a new job when you don't like your current one. Similar to putting the title "quiet quitting" to something that has always existed.
So it's like Forbes using terminology of the times to target young adults with this article?
-
Here's what I've always wondered:
Let's say that Uncle Sam decides to give every person in the country making less than $200K a year - $5K a month in universal income. And let's assume that prior to this program, 75% of this subset of people were in a constant cycle of debt due a multitude of various reasons. What % of this subset of people's lives would be changed for the better? Or would their shortcomings surrounding budgets, expenses, obligations, spending, etc. - all of which existed prior to the universal income and caused their issues in the first place - prevent them from digging out of a hole.
Basically I'm asking if they would piss away the $5K every month and still be in exactly the same boat.
BTW, this is in regards to equity. If every employer were mandated to pay the $5K a month to everybody instead of Uncle Sam, the results would be the same. I think you're either built and hard-wired to succeed and apply logic to your finances, or you're not.
I welcome all opposing pov's.
I'm in your corner on this; for a significant number of people, their lack of wealth/security is not on the income side of the equation. It's on the outflow side of the equation. It's not a coincidence that the bankruptcy rate for lottery winners is several multiples higher than the general population.
I've written this before: my college friend found an early Excel spreadsheet for his finances. It had one input (his salary) and it had like four or five outputs - rent, car, gas, food, utilities. Ask the kids today what theirs looks like: cellphone, Spotify, Netflix, etc. Yeah, they are low-dollar each, but it's a death by 1,000 cuts.
I was just about to post the other costs that became integral for how life works now. The internet isn't cheap either and most all things require an internet connection. Add to that the additional services and entertainment people are subscribed to now. Adding up the costs of all the things people pay for, it does add up.
-
I'm in your corner on this; for a significant number of people, their lack of wealth/security is not on the income side of the equation. It's on the outflow side of the equation. It's not a coincidence that the bankruptcy rate for lottery winners is several multiples higher than the general population.
I've written this before: my college friend found an early Excel spreadsheet for his finances. It had one input (his salary) and it had like four or five outputs - rent, car, gas, food, utilities. Ask the kids today what theirs looks like: cellphone, Spotify, Netflix, etc. Yeah, they are low-dollar each, but it's a death by 1,000 cuts.
(https://media.tenor.com/2H0wzVOd2DsAAAAC/dbatc-death-by-a-thousand-cuts.gif)
(had to do it :P :lol)
I'm never going to quit Taylor, quiet or otherwise. Man is she attractive in that video.
-
Taylor stinks. No wonder the dang youth are so flim-flammy and with so many weird expectations about reality, when their biggest star is the type of person who pens a schmaltzy (and typically very petty) ballad every time one of her adult relationships goes south. :biggrin:
-
Taylor stinks. No wonder the dang youth are so flim-flammy and with so many weird expectations about reality, when their biggest star is the type of person who pens a schmaltzy (and typically very petty) ballad every time one of her adult relationships goes south. :biggrin:
Sure. But she looks good doing it. :)
-
Mischaracterizations about Ms. Swift aside (2014 was the last time she wrote a new song about an ex, but a negative narrative, like spelling, is fun :P), there probably is a lot to be said for younger celebrities, both from the acting and musical world, affecting the minds of younger folks these days especially when it comes to expectations, more so than in years past thanks to social media.
-
I didn't comment on her looks. I said she stinks!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEi1hcasphk
-
I didn't comment on her looks. I said she stinks!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEi1hcasphk
Haha, I've never seen that before! Great stuff.
If it matters, I imagine she smells like lavender and vanilla. :)
EDIT: Is that creepy? That seems creepy to me. :) :)
-
If I had a nickel for every time young people's legitimate concerns about (rising) economic inequality, lowered spending power and erosion of workplace rights were dismissed by a variant of "this is how the world works" I'd be able to afford the moon base and giant laser I would need to solve the problem permanently. :P
I personally believe that the game is rigged to the advantage of the ultra rich and that should be fixed to some extent. But I also accept that I can still have tremendous success with actually not that much effort if I play the game too. It has never been easier to be educated on how the financial system works and how to use it to your advantage.
While it's admirable to try and fix things and make things more equitable (and we should try to do something about the ultra wealthy pulling away from the rest of us at an alarming pace) focusing too much on how the game is rigged against you is a self fulfilling thing. If you think you can't win, you won't (generic you, not you specifically).
Why? Why is that admirable? The real solution here is to realize that it's not a zero sum game, and Jeff Bezos making more money in 10 minutes than you'll make in a lifetime doesn't take ONE DIME out of your pocket. You maximize YOU. YOU'RE the captain of your financial ship, not the billionaires or the government.
The "income equality" argument is really just feeding envy and jealousy, and promoting that feeling of insecurity I've been preaching about for years now. It's another way for the propagandists to create more in-groups and out-groups. It's the main beef I have with Bernie Sanders and his ilk; I like Bernie as a man, but he's a politician; he's not interested in REALLY helping people. If he was, he'd be spending his time teaching everyone to be Jeff Bezos, more or less. But he's not, because that takes work, it's not immediate enough for our society today, and it doesn't generate votes. It's more fun to be the victim.
I agree with you about it not being a zero sum game. I don't think wealth inequality is a problem for me or you as individuals since we can play the game and build wealth as well, though at a much smaller scale that the multi-billionaires. But I don't see much positive to us as a society having a handful of people controlling a huge portion of the wealth of our nation. I'm open to evidence that it's actually a good thing, though.
-
So, I just learned a new term: Bare Minimum Mondays (Or BMM for short).
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/bare-minimum-monday-marks-latest-quiet-quitting-trend/story?id=97493760
-
If I had a nickel for every time young people's legitimate concerns about (rising) economic inequality, lowered spending power and erosion of workplace rights were dismissed by a variant of "this is how the world works" I'd be able to afford the moon base and giant laser I would need to solve the problem permanently. :P
I personally believe that the game is rigged to the advantage of the ultra rich and that should be fixed to some extent. But I also accept that I can still have tremendous success with actually not that much effort if I play the game too. It has never been easier to be educated on how the financial system works and how to use it to your advantage.
While it's admirable to try and fix things and make things more equitable (and we should try to do something about the ultra wealthy pulling away from the rest of us at an alarming pace) focusing too much on how the game is rigged against you is a self fulfilling thing. If you think you can't win, you won't (generic you, not you specifically).
Why? Why is that admirable? The real solution here is to realize that it's not a zero sum game, and Jeff Bezos making more money in 10 minutes than you'll make in a lifetime doesn't take ONE DIME out of your pocket. You maximize YOU. YOU'RE the captain of your financial ship, not the billionaires or the government.
The "income equality" argument is really just feeding envy and jealousy, and promoting that feeling of insecurity I've been preaching about for years now. It's another way for the propagandists to create more in-groups and out-groups. It's the main beef I have with Bernie Sanders and his ilk; I like Bernie as a man, but he's a politician; he's not interested in REALLY helping people. If he was, he'd be spending his time teaching everyone to be Jeff Bezos, more or less. But he's not, because that takes work, it's not immediate enough for our society today, and it doesn't generate votes. It's more fun to be the victim.
I agree with you about it not being a zero sum game. I don't think wealth inequality is a problem for me or you as individuals since we can play the game and build wealth as well, though at a much smaller scale that the multi-billionaires. But I don't see much positive to us as a society having a handful of people controlling a huge portion of the wealth of our nation. I'm open to evidence that it's actually a good thing, though.
Sorry I missed this the first time; I don't think it's a matter of "good" or "bad". It just is.
-
So, I just learned a new term: Bare Minimum Mondays (Or BMM for short).
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/bare-minimum-monday-marks-latest-quiet-quitting-trend/story?id=97493760
Either I'm finally getting old and can't keep up with these new terms, or I swear news outlets make up catchy phrases for people to get mad at. I want it to be the latter, but seems it's the former. :lol
Édit: Or maybe it's both because apparently 145k views on TikTok counts as viral and report worthy now.
-
So, I just learned a new term: Bare Minimum Mondays (Or BMM for short).
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/bare-minimum-monday-marks-latest-quiet-quitting-trend/story?id=97493760
I think "BMM" is an overcorrection, but I work in a company where Mondays are a madhouse. I gets people irritable at the start of the week and ruins the ability to get their bearings/set an agenda for the week ahead.
In our context there's some justification because we need to get last week's results together. But this does not justify the ever shifting explanations required to avoid political fallout.
There's also the problem of leadership coming in Monday with all the ideas they cooked up over the weekend and dumping them on the staff.
A better suggestion I think would be to keep Monday tasks consistent and treat it as a ramp in for the rest of the week.
-
So, I just learned a new term: Bare Minimum Mondays (Or BMM for short).
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/bare-minimum-monday-marks-latest-quiet-quitting-trend/story?id=97493760
So another Euphemism for "Lazy Mondays"
-
So, I just learned a new term: Bare Minimum Mondays (Or BMM for short).
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/bare-minimum-monday-marks-latest-quiet-quitting-trend/story?id=97493760
For whatever reason, I've always tried to come out strong on Monday. I kind of like that feeling of getting back to it after recharging over the weekend. However, I am pretty spent come Friday. :lol
-
So, I just learned a new term: Bare Minimum Mondays (Or BMM for short).
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/bare-minimum-monday-marks-latest-quiet-quitting-trend/story?id=97493760
Not quoting you, Victor, just capturing the link...
I'm a student of communication, of phraseology. This poster, in my opinion, betrays their own rationalization and resulting insecurity in their own words. I love how they change the perspective from the first person - the only one they can reasonably speak to, and (on the other side of the coin) the only one that puts accountability and responsibility directly on them - to the third person, thus falsely implying a universality to the position and creating a false sense of acceptance of the stated position, while also abdicating any direct personal culpability for being a slacker. I've actually talked about this with my therapist; to me that arbitrary application of the third person is a solid sign of insecurity and a way of feigning credibility for what doesn't otherwise merit it.
From the post: "You'd make a to-do list that was way too long thinking you could over-achieve your way out of the stress -- but you never did," she said in the post. "You've always put more pressure on yourself than any boss, so you started to wonder why," she added. "You knew it was time for something new."
Would you make that list? I never did that. Would you put more pressure on yourself than any boss? Maybe, but why is that bad, first, and what's that got to do with the subject at hand? Why I did it is because I'm the only one that can or should motivate me. I SHOULD be striving to be the best my capacity allows me to be at any given time. Don't try to make this more applicable than it really is: the US workforce is currently somewhere in the 165,000,000 people (https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/labor-force-projections-to-2022-the-labor-force-participation-rate-continues-to-fall.htm) range. 145k people who "like" that post are not anywhere near a statistically meaningful representation of that set of people.
-
So, I just learned a new term: Bare Minimum Mondays (Or BMM for short).
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/bare-minimum-monday-marks-latest-quiet-quitting-trend/story?id=97493760
My organistation takes this to the extreme and just doesn't come in on Mondays for the majority. They also have lazy Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays. It's doing great things for our organisation and productivity has skyrocketed.......
-
(https://i.imgur.com/qO93mQm.jpg)
-
So, I just learned a new term: Bare Minimum Mondays (Or BMM for short).
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/bare-minimum-monday-marks-latest-quiet-quitting-trend/story?id=97493760
My organistation takes this to the extreme and just doesn't come in on Mondays for the majority. They also have lazy Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays. It's doing great things for our organisation and productivity has skyrocketed.......
So you have a 4 day work week?
-
Fun fact: If you worked 4 days a week rather than 5 (assuming an 8 hour day), over an average working life that's an extra 2.33 years of free time to do other stuff.
-
We work 5 days, but only 5.5 hours on Friday, so a total of 37.5 for the week.
-
Fun fact: If you worked 4 days a week rather than 5 (assuming an 8 hour day), over an average working life that's an extra 2.33 years of free time to do other stuff.
What the hell other stuff should you be doing? We are on this planet to work and be productive and if we HAPPEN to have any other time at all, we should be grateful. But asking for more than the minimum?
God damn commie!
-
Fun fact: If you worked 4 days a week rather than 5 (assuming an 8 hour day), over an average working life that's an extra 2.33 years of free time to do other stuff.
What the hell other stuff should you be doing? We are on this planet to work and be productive and if we HAPPEN to have any other time at all, we should be grateful. But asking for more than the minimum?
God damn commie!
Pretty much.
-
We work 5 days, but only 5.5 hours on Friday, so a total of 37.5 for the week.
That's actually really nice.
Fun fact: If you worked 4 days a week rather than 5 (assuming an 8 hour day), over an average working life that's an extra 2.33 years of free time to do other stuff.
That certainly would be nice. One day maybe society will change to a 4 day work week. Even 4 days at 10 hours, I'd rather do that than 5 by 8. I didn't hate when I did 12 hour days 3/4 days a week, but it does make doing anything else on those days kind of difficult so I'd rather do 4 x 10.
-
8 hrs/day is my limit. It always has been. I won't even work a 9/80 schedule cause if I wanted every other Friday off, I'd just take PTO since I earn 4.92 hrs/week and have 324 hrs banked. 4/10's completely out of the question.
-
8 hrs/day is my limit. It always has been. I won't even work a 9/80 schedule cause if I wanted every other Friday off, I'd just take PTO since I earn 4.92 hrs/week and have 324 hrs banked. 4/10's completely out of the question.
I am with you on this. The mere idea of working a 10 hour day sends me into convulsions. I mean, most people where I work (State IT) are not head's down busy with work for 8hrs much less 10hrs.
We have long passed the need for a 5 day work week. BTW - I fully recognize this cannot apply to all jobs.
-
So, I just learned a new term: Bare Minimum Mondays (Or BMM for short).
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/bare-minimum-monday-marks-latest-quiet-quitting-trend/story?id=97493760
My organistation takes this to the extreme and just doesn't come in on Mondays for the majority. They also have lazy Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays. It's doing great things for our organisation and productivity has skyrocketed.......
So you have a 4 day work week?
I was slightly exaggerating but all full time employees (except me and a couple others as we are on a different award) get a 9 day fortnight. The culture around the joint too like a lot of places I assume is to take sick days at will.
-
8 hrs/day is my limit. It always has been. I won't even work a 9/80 schedule cause if I wanted every other Friday off, I'd just take PTO since I earn 4.92 hrs/week and have 324 hrs banked. 4/10's completely out of the question.
What does these mean mate? Maybe I'm stupid or maybe it's an American thing?
-
If I had a nickel for every time young people's legitimate concerns about (rising) economic inequality, lowered spending power and erosion of workplace rights were dismissed by a variant of "this is how the world works" I'd be able to afford the moon base and giant laser I would need to solve the problem permanently. :P
I personally believe that the game is rigged to the advantage of the ultra rich and that should be fixed to some extent. But I also accept that I can still have tremendous success with actually not that much effort if I play the game too. It has never been easier to be educated on how the financial system works and how to use it to your advantage.
While it's admirable to try and fix things and make things more equitable (and we should try to do something about the ultra wealthy pulling away from the rest of us at an alarming pace) focusing too much on how the game is rigged against you is a self fulfilling thing. If you think you can't win, you won't (generic you, not you specifically).
Why? Why is that admirable? The real solution here is to realize that it's not a zero sum game, and Jeff Bezos making more money in 10 minutes than you'll make in a lifetime doesn't take ONE DIME out of your pocket. You maximize YOU. YOU'RE the captain of your financial ship, not the billionaires or the government.
The "income equality" argument is really just feeding envy and jealousy, and promoting that feeling of insecurity I've been preaching about for years now. It's another way for the propagandists to create more in-groups and out-groups. It's the main beef I have with Bernie Sanders and his ilk; I like Bernie as a man, but he's a politician; he's not interested in REALLY helping people. If he was, he'd be spending his time teaching everyone to be Jeff Bezos, more or less. But he's not, because that takes work, it's not immediate enough for our society today, and it doesn't generate votes. It's more fun to be the victim.
I am not a Progressive but I do think Bernie is very motivated by strong desire to shrink the enormous wealth gap in the US. I think he is genuinely offended and disgusted by it - rightly or wrongly. I never voted for the guy because I don't think he would be able to govern effectively, but he has been remarkably consistent on this topic for decades, relatively speaking.
The reality is that not everyone can be Jeff Bezos. It's only a ultra thin slice of the population who will start a business that eventually becomes worth nearly a trillion dollars.
edit - i did not mean to bold what got bolded
-
If I had a nickel for every time young people's legitimate concerns about (rising) economic inequality, lowered spending power and erosion of workplace rights were dismissed by a variant of "this is how the world works" I'd be able to afford the moon base and giant laser I would need to solve the problem permanently. :P
I personally believe that the game is rigged to the advantage of the ultra rich and that should be fixed to some extent. But I also accept that I can still have tremendous success with actually not that much effort if I play the game too. It has never been easier to be educated on how the financial system works and how to use it to your advantage.
While it's admirable to try and fix things and make things more equitable (and we should try to do something about the ultra wealthy pulling away from the rest of us at an alarming pace) focusing too much on how the game is rigged against you is a self fulfilling thing. If you think you can't win, you won't (generic you, not you specifically).
Why? Why is that admirable? The real solution here is to realize that it's not a zero sum game, and Jeff Bezos making more money in 10 minutes than you'll make in a lifetime doesn't take ONE DIME out of your pocket. You maximize YOU. YOU'RE the captain of your financial ship, not the billionaires or the government.
The "income equality" argument is really just feeding envy and jealousy, and promoting that feeling of insecurity I've been preaching about for years now. It's another way for the propagandists to create more in-groups and out-groups. It's the main beef I have with Bernie Sanders and his ilk; I like Bernie as a man, but he's a politician; he's not interested in REALLY helping people. If he was, he'd be spending his time teaching everyone to be Jeff Bezos, more or less. But he's not, because that takes work, it's not immediate enough for our society today, and it doesn't generate votes. It's more fun to be the victim.
I am not a Progressive but I do think Bernie is very motivated by strong desire to shrink the enormous wealth gap in the US. I think he is genuinely offended and disgusted by it - rightly or wrongly. I never voted for the guy because I don't think he would be able to govern effectively, but he has been remarkably consistent on this topic for decades, relatively speaking.
The reality is that not everyone can be Jeff Bezos. It's only a ultra thin slice of the population who will start a business that eventually becomes worth nearly a trillion dollars.
edit - i did not mean to bold what got bolded
Look, I like Bernie as a person (as much as you can a public figure you've never met) but I have, in the past, called him an "economic fifth grader". Harsh, I know, and I don't stand by that for other reasons, but that he's disgusted by it doesn't make it "bad" or legislatively actionable.
No, NOT everyone can be Jeff Bezos. And that's okay. We don't want or need everyone to be Jeff Bezos. it's the unfortunate reality of a social construct; everyone is equal in terms of their... how shall we say it, "place"? I'm trying not to use the word "rights" here. But not everyone is equal in terms of their output or their outcome. We all have our role in society. Van Halen couldn't be if there were four Eddie Van Halen's, or four David Lee Roth's. Michael Anthony was crucial specifically because he WASN'T Eddie V.
You can't replace an Eddie Van Halen. You can approximate, but there's a point at which the uniqueness is defining. As good as I am at what I do - and I am - I came to the understanding long ago that I can be replaced in a fortnight. Not everyone can do what I do, but I'm far from the only one that can do what I do. And I'm paid accordingly. Like it or not, there's not a company on the planet like Amazon; there never was, either. Jeff Bezos was not waiting around for "see him, be him" nonsense. He is literally going where no man has gone before, in ways similar, but IMO beyond, what Gates and Jobs did back in the '80s. Why that should arbitrarily mean his income should be capped at some multiple of the people loading boxes onto the trucks makes no sense in any context.
-
8 hrs/day is my limit. It always has been. I won't even work a 9/80 schedule cause if I wanted every other Friday off, I'd just take PTO since I earn 4.92 hrs/week and have 324 hrs banked. 4/10's completely out of the question.
What does these mean mate? Maybe I'm stupid or maybe it's an American thing?
I think it means 80 hours divided by 9 days, so 5/40 would be the normal work week.
-
8 hrs/day is my limit. It always has been. I won't even work a 9/80 schedule cause if I wanted every other Friday off, I'd just take PTO since I earn 4.92 hrs/week and have 324 hrs banked. 4/10's completely out of the question.
What does these mean mate? Maybe I'm stupid or maybe it's an American thing?
I think it means 80 hours divided by 9 days, so 5/40 would be the normal work week.
Yeah, I mentioned doing 4x 10 hour work week as preferable for me than 5x 8 hours.
I work in IT and it's quite normal to put in extended hours during projects so 10 hours isn't a big deal to me. I wouldn't be surprised if I put 100 hours on the clock next week on a business trip.
-
8 hrs/day is my limit. It always has been. I won't even work a 9/80 schedule cause if I wanted every other Friday off, I'd just take PTO since I earn 4.92 hrs/week and have 324 hrs banked. 4/10's completely out of the question.
What does these mean mate? Maybe I'm stupid or maybe it's an American thing?
I think it means 80 hours divided by 9 days, so 5/40 would be the normal work week.
Yeah, I mentioned doing 4x 10 hour work week as preferable for me than 5x 8 hours.
I work in IT and it's quite normal to put in extended hours during projects so 10 hours isn't a big deal to me. I wouldn't be surprised if I put 100 hours on the clock next week on a business trip.
Do you get comp. time?
-
No, I will get paid OT and I just got a raise effective yesterday so I'm very much looking forward to a fat pay check.
-
No, I will get paid OT and I just got a raise effective yesterday so I'm very much looking forward to a fat pay check.
Not OT but comp time. On one project we were travelling and working on the weekends so my boss told me to take time off at my discretion.
-
No, I will get paid OT and I just got a raise effective yesterday so I'm very much looking forward to a fat pay check.
Not OT but comp time. On one project we were travelling and working on the weekends so my boss told me to take time off at my discretion.
Still, no comp time. But my job has flexible PTO. I'll likely take a couple days off when I get back from the trip that will neither be PTO or comp time, just my boss looking the other way. Although the company did just move to unlimited PTO policy. It just doesn't apply to me as an hourly worker, but my boss already said we can take whatever we want off regardless of our PTO hours in the bank. (I also may be going salary before the end of the year which makes it all moot).
-
8 hrs/day is my limit. It always has been. I won't even work a 9/80 schedule cause if I wanted every other Friday off, I'd just take PTO since I earn 4.92 hrs/week and have 324 hrs banked. 4/10's completely out of the question.
What does these mean mate? Maybe I'm stupid or maybe it's an American thing?
I think it means 80 hours divided by 9 days, so 5/40 would be the normal work week.
8 hrs/day is my limit. It always has been. I won't even work a 9/80 schedule cause if I wanted every other Friday off, I'd just take PTO since I earn 4.92 hrs/week and have 324 hrs banked. 4/10's completely out of the question.
What does these mean mate? Maybe I'm stupid or maybe it's an American thing?
I think it means 80 hours divided by 9 days, so 5/40 would be the normal work week.
Yeah, I mentioned doing 4x 10 hour work week as preferable for me than 5x 8 hours.
I work in IT and it's quite normal to put in extended hours during projects so 10 hours isn't a big deal to me. I wouldn't be surprised if I put 100 hours on the clock next week on a business trip.
Okay, pretty self explanatory now lol. :facepalm:
Our standard week for full time employees is 38 hours. It's pretty silly if you ask me.
-
I asked this a few weeks ago but no bites so I want to ask again as my work situation is getting worse. Has anyone ever experienced management trying to force you and manage you out of your job? I mean to the point where everything you do is scrutinised and management pretty much will target you and find faults in every single thing you do and where you make decisions where you know you're damned if you do and damned if you don't?
Also getting driven so hard you know they are wanting to get an emotional response where you explode so they can punish you? Even contacting HR seems like a dead end. Never in 14 years have I needed to but I did and even there I feel like I'm getting the run around currently. It's a long story but now I'm starting to even get victimized because of my accident a year ago because the investigation is still ongoing and the organisation are scrambling. It's a long story.
-
Several coworkers in my office do that. They work 9 hr days and then every other Thursday, they kick off one hour early and then get Friday off. I’ve been offered that as an option, but I don’t like getting up any earlier than I have to.
-
I asked this a few weeks ago but no bites so I want to ask again as my work situation is getting worse. Has anyone ever experienced management trying to force you and manage you out of your job? I mean to the point where everything you do is scrutinised and management pretty much will target you and find faults in every single thing you do and where you make decisions where you know you're damned if you do and damned if you don't?
Also getting driven so hard you know they are wanting to get an emotional response where you explode so they can punish you? Even contacting HR seems like a dead end. Never in 14 years have I needed to but I did and even there I feel like I'm getting the run around currently. It's a long story but now I'm starting to even get victimized because of my accident a year ago because the investigation is still ongoing and the organisation are scrambling. It's a long story.
Kade, I'd start recording every conversation you have with management. Not necessarily audio recording, but just what is being said. Start compiling a list of comments.
Not getting anywhere with HR? I am not sure what you talked about with them or how it was presented. If you went to them to vent, then yeah, you're not getting anywhere. If you feel that you are actually being harassed, then they have to investigate. Venting and filing a complaint are two whole different animals for them.
-
It was a formal complaint via email. I had a phone call from them saying they will investigate but it's been well over a week and I just feel I'm getting the run around. I'll just wait and see. I'm not silly, I'm definitely getting targeted by the manager, and my accident and the ongoing things behind it is coming into play against me more and more, even though I've really done nothing wrong. I'll keep pushing if I hear nothing.
You're right though about documenting stuff. I really need to be better with that.
-
I'd give HR a little more time. Maybe you are getting the runaround, but resolving or investigating a complaint can take time. Be vigilant, but be patient too.
-
I'd give HR a little more time. Maybe you are getting the runaround, but resolving or investigating a complaint can take time. Be vigilant, but be patient too.
That's good advice. To be honest, it's been a rough couple of months and shit yesterday just escalated with other colleagues who are basically ring ins and in kahootz with the manager. I know I sound paranoid but it's true. :lol
Organisations like mine just really don't like people thinking for themselves or having an opinion. And managers are spineless weak fucks who can't be men. Hiding behind policies and procedures and stabbing anyone in the back they need to to keep their skin clean.
Sorry, rant over.
-
Cover your ass.
-
Yep. It's funny, we cover our asses and they still try and find policies we are breaking. It's fucked. Anyway, apologies, you're right. I'll be better with that shit.
-
Have you considered having a consultation with an employment lawyer? They might be able to help you identify the types of behaviors that you want to document and if they are doing anything illegal that you could sue over if they do terminate you at some point. I wouldn't put it past them to be documenting poor performance to justify terminating you for cause at some point down the road.
That being said, if you're not already, start looking for a new job immediately.
-
A co-worker was fired this past week. She was promoted like 4-5 months ago, and she had been in over her head since from what I was told, not retaining anything, never taking notes, and constantly making the same mistakes over and over. The straw was apparently last weekend when she was on call and did very little of what needed to be checked.
To unpack that a little, all of us have be on call like 4-5 weekends a year, and it is not bad at all. You take any calls about any work-related emergency (you forward the after hours phone to your cell on Friday) and check on anything that picks up or delivers on the weekend. Most weekends are relatively stress-free, but a handful a year can be a pain in the ass, and that is luck of the draw. This co-worker who was fired had long complained about it, always saying, "I don't like having to work all weekend when I am not getting paid for it." Uh, we are all salary, not hourly employees! That is part of the job, which was made clear to all of us, including you, when you took the job!! If you didn't like that part of the job, you should have gone and worked somewhere else.
But hey, maybe she was looking to get the axe and loafing it last weekend was her way of quiet quitting. :lol :lol
-
Have you considered having a consultation with an employment lawyer? They might be able to help you identify the types of behaviors that you want to document and if they are doing anything illegal that you could sue over if they do terminate you at some point. I wouldn't put it past them to be documenting poor performance to justify terminating you for cause at some point down the road.
That being said, if you're not already, start looking for a new job immediately.
I have been thinking about the legal avenue. It's just not really my thing though but they are certainly pushing me. It would be difficult for them to terminate me. He's gone down that path and realised this one individual is not bigger than the company, but there's so many behaviours that's along the lines of pushing my buttons so much that it would force most people to walk away.
This one particular guy is certainly documenting every single move I make. The funny thing is, he tries to use things but he will come unstuck because he's starting to try and ping me for things that would make people above him go WTF?! I'm hoping anyway.
-
I'm biased, of course, but nothing bad can come from just talking to an attorney. Worst case, you're right where you are. Best case, you get some money and a breather to find your new job (as well as an answer at your next interview; you're best off leaving on your own on good terms, but absent that, it's better to show their malfeasance than to have to explain why you were let go unceremoniously).
-
Hard to imagine the stress that one would feel knowing that you've been targeted. I'm very fortunate to have never been in that position but if I were EVERYTHING would be documented. I hope everything works out OK for you.
-
I'm biased, of course, but nothing bad can come from just talking to an attorney. Worst case, you're right where you are. Best case, you get some money and a breather to find your new job (as well as an answer at your next interview; you're best off leaving on your own on good terms, but absent that, it's better to show their malfeasance than to have to explain why you were let go unceremoniously).
That's where I'm at currently I think. The outcome of the investigation is getting still pending, probably a couple of months away, but the organisation will be getting pinged. I'm starting to think, shouldn't I get some compensation out of that, especially since they have made my life difficult trying to cover their asses even though it's too late, plus target me where ever they can.
Hard to imagine the stress that one would feel knowing that you've been targeted. I'm very fortunate to have never been in that position but if I were EVERYTHING would be documented. I hope everything works out OK for you.
I'm mentally pretty tough, so while at times it can be a little overwhelming, my mindset kinda gets a kick out of it. It's frustrating since I'm essentially the victim and just doing my job for the organisation, especially without kicking up any dust after the last 12 months over it all, but they are now digging their own graves I feel and my situation has a lot more weight now. Thanks for the well wishes. It's hard to see where things will go, especially being somewhere for so long, but change will come, I'll just play things out day by day.
I'm hoping I get some HR contact this week. Nothing yesterday.