Quiet quitting?

[Stadler]

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.

[XJDenton]

Well, now you're adding things.  "Pay and benefits".

I only added benefits because you mentioned them first. 

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.

[Skeever]

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.

[Lonk]

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 

[XJDenton]

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".

[Skeever]

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?

[cramx3]

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. 

[Chino]

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.

[XJDenton]

When lying on your deathbed, you aren't going to regret the fact you didn't answer more emails.

[Lonk]

physical representation of what this thread is about:

[Stadler]

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.

[XJDenton]

physical representation of what this thread is about:

The neighbour who doesn't offer to cut the grass or the neighbour who refuses to allow his neighbour to cut his grass?

[Harmony]

Well, now you're adding things.  "Pay and benefits".

I only added benefits because you mentioned them first. 

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.

[Implode]

physical representation of what this thread is about:

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.

[cramx3]

Well, now you're adding things.  "Pay and benefits".

I only added benefits because you mentioned them first. 

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. 

[Lonk]

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.

[Ben_Jamin]

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.

[wolfking]

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.

[wolfking]

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.

[Skeever]

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!"

[Lonk]

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.

[King Postwhore]

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.

[Lonk]

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.

[Stadler]

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).

[ReaPsTA]

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)

[Lonk]

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.

[King Postwhore]

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.

[Skeever]

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).

[lordxizor]

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.

[Stadler]

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.

[King Postwhore]

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.

[Stadler]

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.

[cramx3]

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.

[Skeever]

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.

[King Postwhore]

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.