Posted on 10/16/2022 10:32:40 AM PDT by EBH
We agree on this then, that there is no doubt certain jobs are well suited to working from home, and that to increase employee satisfaction (by improving the work-life balance) where it works well, it is in a company’s interests to offer it.
I am a believer in at least some work from home for everyone who it can apply to. Even if it is one day a week, most people find that to be a positive thing.
I am just not a believer that working from home all the time is itself a positive thing.
No apology necessary! Was just pointing it out.
Only clock-watchers just want to put in the time for the paycheck and otherwise be left alone.
I don't doubt or deny your experience in the least! But that is all that it is: Your experience!
We were not "clock-watchers." We were people who were told that excellence would pay off. Besides working hard, we were encouraged to launch smaller, independent, unbudgeted projects (to restructure work flows, boost efficiency, etc.) on our own initiative. We were encouraged to prepare presentations. We were urged to engage in "mentoring programs." We were required to undergo training programs (Six Sigma et al.).
After a few years, we noticed that, aside from a lot of "attaboys," these efforts were going unrewarded. We noticed that some of our sister plants were being closed and operations shifted to Third-World countries. We noticed that the annual evaluations had become farces. The occasional department head to whom one might have a particularly close and trusting relationship might let drop, "We have to give everyone the same grade: A 'B.' The overall average of all grades for each dept. isn't allowed to be above a 'B.'"
But I'll cede you this one point: the company was full of life-long employees who brought their 1980s ethos with them.
That was true of my factory, too. Lots of workers who had experienced the deprivations of post-war Germany first-hand! Who still remembered ration cards!
I've been trying to avoid saying this, but you sound disgruntled.
I am trying valiantly to state the facts as objectively as possible. As I said: My experience simply differs from yours. (That doesn't make me want to discount or question your experience, or engage in innuendo about your mental state.)
They did it because they were not paying attention to their careers, like the poor nephew working the graveyard shift so he can be left alone to play with his phone.
Yes, "inner exile" (abandoning all hopes and ambitions and simply "putting in one's time" and performing the bare minimum required of one) is NOT the only alternative. Others spent a big chunk of their time "networking," burnishing their vitae, sending out job applications like crazy, etc. (Needless to say, their job performance may have been negatively impacted by all of this.) These were the coworkers who, in the cafeteria, would exhort their fellows to be less optimistic about the future, who would, e.g., opine that our plant, too, might soon be closed - and then smugly state that they had "already taken the necessary steps."
Older coworkers with families and mortgages and deep roots in the area had little choice but to clench their teeth grimly.
The more-mobile and dynamic coworkers thus vanished. These "short-termers" (mostly young, with no children, etc.) were the "smart ones," you would probably say. The guy with 38 years at the same company, with deep roots in the town, should have been "on the bounce" and been looking around for new opportunities, you would probably say. He should have recognized that the annual evaluations were a sham, and that the extra effort he put in training (online) 20-something Indians to do our jobs was self-destructive. He should have dropped out of the mentoring program, refused the voluntary training programs (all very company-specific), not bothered to master the new spare parts management software (that was scheduled for obsolescence in 5 years anyway!), quit the company soccer team, etc.
Anyone who works for a corporation understands that the first obligation of a corporation is to its shareholders.
It's funny, but NONE of the "inspirational posters" hung demonstratively around our factory mentioned that. Instead, they talked about "continual striving for excellence" and "our workers are our true capital!"
A "smart cookie" like yourself would have seen through this malarky. But you neglect to remember that a lot of people are good-natured, trusting, maybe also on the lower end of the I.Q. range. That doesn't mean that they "had it coming" when the company shutters the plant and they find themselves jobless at age 58.
Regards,
I find this an incredibly interesting thread to come back to and read through the comments.
I would say that the idea of work has radically changed due to the pandemic and technology.
I managed a workforce pre-pandemic that all work alone, get assigned clients to manage themselves. As long as the clients were taken care of very well and to standard/above, little interference from me in how they did their job.
Post-pandemic? I am seeing a lot of new hires thinking they can run their client based business and do ‘other things.’ Basically multi-task a job not fit for multi-tasking as we work with animals. We have changed software to address some of these issues that includes GPS tracking. A lot of people “think” they can manage independently, when really they need to be back in their office cubicle focused on the job at hand.
By the way, I felt more sadness and sympathy than anger at your stance on this. I have some reasons to resent and feel anger at my current employer, but I can’t imagine working for them if I felt the way you do.
I feel like that burden would be more than would be worth bearing.
Save it. When you’ve been in the work force long enough you’ll get it too.
And there is no switching to a better company/job. A handful of times in my life I have actually seen good corporate governance. It has a very short half life before the orcs get back in charge.
Human organizations promote based on bullying, deception and greed. As a result, the worst of the worst tend to wind up leading institutions.
I was trying to be conciliatory, but okay. I’ll save it.
I’ve been working in the work force longer than you, no doubt about it. I get it. You don’t, and the way you don’t get it speaks volumes about who and what you are.
Good luck until you can retire. You’re going to need it.
How is it stealing again?
Person works at two companies. Get’s performance reviewed and those reviews are in the very good to excellent range, and is not falling behind on work in either job.
At what point did accepting a job turn into the company hiring you telling you what you can or can’t do with the rest of the hours of your day?
That this forum is opposed to anyone maximizing their value in the marketplace says a lot about why this country, and world, is in the shape it is in.
I think it’s funny in light of how this forum feels about slavery reparations. Employment contracts should not mean the same as indenturement. Do what you want on your own time. My dad worked three jobs to make ends meet growing up. I know execs sitting on literally 17 boards at once.
What the f*ck happened to this forum?!?
“the worst of the worst tend to wind up leading institutions.”
Sadly, that wasn’t the case a couple decades ago. There used to be a loyalty factor that went both ways between employer and employee. When employers got a new attitude, employees did, too. It took them too long to figure it out, though.
The crap I saw from management when I worked in H.R. Made me ill. After 14 years of retirement, I still get chills thinking about it.
Yeah. I say exactly the same thing when I read responses like yours.
Do this little test if you are honest enough to engage in this behavior: Tell your employer what you do, and see if they approve. If they do, it is all good.
But the people rationalizing this won't do that. I would confidently say the percentage approaches zero. They won't inform an employer, because they know what they are doing is dishonest, they know it is wrong, and they know it is stealing.
Prove me wrong. Find me five people who rationalize this who are open and up front with it with BOTH employers, and I will reconsider.
The rationalization for this dishonesty is eye-opening. I expect this from Leftists. Not from "Conservatives".
Well, you’ve got one. Both employers know and have signed off.
If I were in management, I could see the issue, but I’m not. I can introduce you to two, three, and four if you’d like.
Oh, and surgeons work all kinds of different hospitals, yet no one complains.
Still, no explanation as to how this is dishonest. At all.
I guess it depends on whether or not you signed a contract that this would be your one-and-only job for the duration.
If yiu do your job, and do it well, then that’s the only thing employer needs to care about.
Of course, if your other job(s) is working for the competition, that could be an issue.
It’s like marriage vs. prostitution. The company thinks you’re married to them but dumps you like a ho when they don’t need you anymore. No pension, no severance, no alimony and no child support. So you’re just a Ho to a company. Then they shouldn’t be surprised when their employees act like one.
In the absence of a contract for a specific term of employment, the employees were "at will," which means they can be terminated for any reason or no reason at all, as long as the termination not for an illegal reason (i.e., termination because the person belongs to a protected class or is a whistleblower).
You cleared it with your employers. That is not dishonest at all, everybody is on the same page, everybody understands. That is how it should be done. And by the way, surgeons working at different hospitals do not belong in this discussion, neither do board members as some people seem to think.
If an employer hires you for 40 hour week, and they say that the hours you need to be working are 9 AM to 5 PM Monday or Friday, those are their terms. They should be able to reach you by phone and have you pick up during that time, unless you were on the phone with somebody else from the same organization, or if they schedule you for meetings, you should be able to make every meeting except when there is a conflict within the organization. No if ands or buts about it. If they do their business between 9 AM and 5 PM, that is what they pay you for.
If you clear it in advance (as you did) perfect. Power to you. Full respect, full honesty.
If you do not, it is dishonest rationalization. In your case, there is no rationalization going on. You’re out in the open about what you’re doing, and both employers agree.
But in these cases, especially like the ones outlined in the article, it is clear that this is not cleared with one or both of the employers. That’s dishonest, and there is no way around it unless your employer has specifically not defined your hours of employment.
From my experience, that is exceedingly rare unless one is doing contract work that is specifically task oriented.
There are so few people in the space I’m in that working multiple gigs has become an expectation. Recruiters ask and disclose to prospective hiring clients what the situation is and so far nobody has uttered a peep.
I think ‘Overemployment’ is a bad way to characterize it. My situation is such that I’m working from 4AM to 5PM remotely. I do work some on the weekend, and while I’m on an hourly contract, I’ve been instruct to bill eight, and no more than eight, for the non-salary role.
I’m staff augmentation, and the expectation is that I solve problems on demand. Sometimes that takes weekends. Sometimes I’m off at 3PM. Sometimes I’m up past 8PM.
It’s a lot like being a surgeon.
I also have another contract to help develop a service product for a mid-size consultancy. They’re aware, and extremely excited, about my other gigs.
In any practice-based profession, the more exposure you get to a diverse set of cases and situations, the more valuable you are.
I see this as a new way to work. Ultimately, my contract employer got a screaming deal on my service because it was a staff augmentation gig. Normally they’d be paying another 40%. They’re tickled.
I think it is great-and there are indeed jobs that an employer would be perfectly fine with.
Like I said, I don’t think it fits all jobs, and most employers in most situations may not agree to it, but if it fits, it is the best of all worlds for everyone.
These are self promoting narcissists that are all talk and no show. LinkedIn is another Facebook for the corporate business wankers, the kind that screw the little guy trying to do an honest 9-5. Too many office hoes and office dicks self promoting on the backs of others. Baseball bats to all of them!
I don't think that's the discussion here.
-PJ
Full Time at one, contract at the other (2, actually).
To be fair: Try the reverse, too!
Try to imagine the Corporate Board of Directors telling the rank and file:
"Over the next five years, we are going to shift all of our operations in this entire country to Bulgaria. Yes, it is our sincere intention to fire the lot of you and replace you with Bulgarians whom you will have to train before you are unceremoniously canned. All of those training seminars we're sending you to? It's all for show! The annual evaluations? Have no real-world consequences!"
Regards,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.