Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Leaving work on time frowned upon. Mod warning post 1
Options
Comments
-
Failure to Accept Responsibility is a Failure to Lead ... a link https://hbr.org/2008/12/failure-to-accept-responsibili0
-
BreadnBuddha wrote: »Forget the unions.
Should we go back to working six day weeks, no pensions, no workers rights, no child labour laws, no holidays?
Unions contributed to the better world we have now. Think most people would agree they haven't changed with the times but something is necessary as counterweight to the pressure of capitalism/globalisation etc.. Given governments have abdicated any responsibility in this area, someone needs to stand for the rights of individual workers. Otherwise, it's just a race to the bottom.0 -
BreadnBuddha I want to ask you a question , and anyone else of a similar mind set
hypothetically
if 2 people worked for you both started same time etc,
same personal situation
both work same shift and same production situation
both on 10 euros an hour for 8 hours
worker A works his hours doesn't rush but works at a good safe pace they do what is asked of their jib nothing more .
worker B does the same but decides to stay late every evening and work an extra hour but still gets paid the same a worker A
which worker do you prefer. its worker B because you are getting more production out of him but with the same wages
situation 2
same conditions
worker 1 works all 8 hours and get all the product built
worker 2 works 10 hours and gets the same amount of product built.
who is your preferred worker. 2 of corse because they are looking like better worker , staying late to get the job finished etc , showing determination and all that other crap.
but worker 1 was more efficient and cost you less to make the same amount in overheats etc and dint burn them selves out as much and are in a better position to work fully tomorrow
situation 3
worker x works 8 hours to assemble 1000 products
worker Y works 8 hours to do the same.
then Worker Y sees a way to make 1000 in 7 hours buy making up jigs and fixture to align the parts better
worker Y can now is producing more than his co-worker but the system cant take the extra production because the next worker X cant keep up and now there is a bottleneck. so worker Y has to slow down so as not to make X look bad and not clog up the production line.
who is the preferred worker. X because he is flat out even thow he is the problem. Y looks lazy even thow he is more efficient.
these are 3 examples where management are wrong0 -
BreadnBuddha wrote: »Put on a suit and slick up my hair? You watch too many old movies.
40k+ as a base salary in a largely office based sales role is decent money. Don't believe me? Just ask here. Plenty of people here no matter what else they might think about what I'm saying, will tell you, that's decent money.
I'm no more important than the next person, as long as we're all doing what's required of us, we're all important.
And that ability of yours to provide a tangible product a client requires? Unless it's literally bending over backwards and flying a flag from your half mast, you can be replaced and likely a lot easier than you'd like to think, if you bring that crappy attitude to bear on your employer.
That's assuming you're standing on your own merit and not hiding behind a union in a hobbled workplace.
My role is in specialist area that requires a hell of a lot of training but nevertheless I am under no illusions, nobody is irreplaceable.
We coming under more and more pressure to perform to the same standards with shorter deadlines and tighter margins. Despite this our manager has a completely different approach to management that is worlds away from the authoritarian approach seen in many SME companies. They refuse to let standards slip as a mistake by our team could cost the Client millions in lost revenue or worse still could cost somebody their life.
I'm not in a union, some of my colleagues are but I don't see it as hiding behind anything. They are there for a reason, sometimes I don't agree with what they are doing. Especially this recent trend of screwing over new entrants to protect senior workers but on the whole they have greatly improved workers terms and conditions over the past few decades.
40k is not much more than the average industrial wage and is nothing to be bragging about. It's a decent wage but would leave a family struggling on if that was all they had to support them on."Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
WTF! Can someone tell me if this is worth reading?
Can you not read for yourself ?
BTW don't read it ....its beyond your obvious attention span and it may include some points that lie beyond your comprehension or focus..you strike me a the kind of person who has made their mind up already0 -
I've done that so many times they just gave up addressing me nearing quitting time.0 -
the_pen_turner wrote: »BreadnBuddha I want to ask you a question , and anyone else of a similar mind set
hypothetically
if 2 people worked for you both started same time etc,
same personal situation
both work same shift and same production situation
both on 10 euros an hour for 8 hours
worker A works his hours doesn't rush but works at a good safe pace they do what is asked of their jib nothing more .
worker B does the same but decides to stay late every evening and work an extra hour but still gets paid the same a worker A
which worker do you prefer. its worker B because you are getting more production out of him but with the same wages
situation 2
same conditions
worker 1 works all 8 hours and get all the product built
worker 2 works 10 hours and gets the same amount of product built.
who is your preferred worker. 2 of corse because they are looking like better worker , staying late to get the job finished etc , showing determination and all that other crap.
but worker 1 was more efficient and cost you less to make the same amount in overheats etc and dint burn them selves out as much and are in a better position to work fully tomorrow
situation 3
worker x works 8 hours to assemble 1000 products
worker Y works 8 hours to do the same.
then Worker Y sees a way to make 1000 in 7 hours buy making up jigs and fixture to align the parts better
worker Y can now is producing more than his co-worker but the system cant take the extra production because the next worker X cant keep up and now there is a bottleneck. so worker Y has to slow down so as not to make X look bad and not clog up the production line.
who is the preferred worker. X because he is flat out even thow he is the problem. Y looks lazy even thow he is more efficient.
these are 3 examples where management are wrong
You say you want to ask a question, but then just go ahead and assume the answers.0 -
December2012 wrote: »You say you want to ask a question, but then just go ahead and assume the answers.
yes I have but its from my experience that this is the way managers see situation0 -
the_pen_turner wrote: »BreadnBuddha I want to ask you a question , and anyone else of a similar mind set
hypothetically
if 2 people worked for you both started same time etc,
same personal situation
both work same shift and same production situation
both on 10 euros an hour for 8 hours
worker A works his hours doesn't rush but works at a good safe pace they do what is asked of their jib nothing more .
worker B does the same but decides to stay late every evening and work an extra hour but still gets paid the same a worker A
which worker do you prefer. its worker B because you are getting more production out of him but with the same wages
situation 2
same conditions
worker 1 works all 8 hours and get all the product built
worker 2 works 10 hours and gets the same amount of product built.
who is your preferred worker. 2 of corse because they are looking like better worker , staying late to get the job finished etc , showing determination and all that other crap.
but worker 1 was more efficient and cost you less to make the same amount in overheats etc and dint burn them selves out as much and are in a better position to work fully tomorrow
situation 3
worker x works 8 hours to assemble 1000 products
worker Y works 8 hours to do the same.
then Worker Y sees a way to make 1000 in 7 hours buy making up jigs and fixture to align the parts better
worker Y can now is producing more than his co-worker but the system cant take the extra production because the next worker X cant keep up and now there is a bottleneck. so worker Y has to slow down so as not to make X look bad and not clog up the production line.
who is the preferred worker. X because he is flat out even thow he is the problem. Y looks lazy even thow he is more efficient.
these are 3 examples where management are wrong
I'm generally not concerned with production except where there are delays or increases in cost because of employees being practically incapable of understanding that any time they screw up, it costs more than they think. When delays or production problems occur, I'm not happy, because my customers aren't happy. Fixing the problem on the shop floor is not my concern. I have a job to do and another part of the business to manage. I just want it fixed and that's for someone else to handle. Production is only ever an input cost for me. I want to know what the product costs me, sitting at the back door ready to send out, then I turn my focus to how it's being sold.
So for 1 and 2, presume what you want. I don't have a strong enough opinion to voice it. You might be right, but I'm not concerned enough to give it any more thought. There are too many variables.
The one thing I can say is that for situation 3, worker Y has potential. A smart move like that would put him on my radar for a BPI or supervisory position and if he could tie in a basic calculation on savings and productivity increase in euro terms, I'd probably endorse a pay-rise or a bonus for him. If he's not a one trick pony, he might go the distance. Worker X missed the boat and will probably complain. Worker Y could end up running the factory if he could keep making improvements like that.
Unfortunately, if it's the kind of place where employees organise, negotiate pay rates collectively and that kind of thing, worker Y wouldn't get a cent extra because then everyone else would feel they were entitled to something because they do the same job and they're all on the same grade.
I like a guy who's clever and looks for ways to get more done. Every employer wants that.0 -
Advertisement
-
BreadnBuddha wrote: »I'm generally not concerned with production except where there are delays or increases in cost because of employees being practically incapable of understanding that any time they screw up, it costs more than they think. When delays or production problems occur, I'm not happy, because my customers aren't happy. Fixing the problem on the shop floor is not my concern. I have a job to do and another part of the business to manage. I just want it fixed and that's for someone else to handle. Production is only ever an input cost for me. I want to know what the product costs me, sitting at the back door ready to send out, then I turn my focus to how it's being sold.
So for 1 and 2, presume what you want. I don't have a strong enough opinion to voice it. You might be right, but I'm not concerned enough to give it any more thought. There are too many variables.
The one thing I can say is that for situation 3, worker Y has potential. A smart move like that would put him on my radar for a BPI or supervisory position and if he could tie in a basic calculation on savings and productivity increase in euro terms, I'd probably endorse a pay-rise or a bonus for him. If he's not a one trick pony, he might go the distance. Worker X missed the boat and will probably complain. Worker Y could end up running the factory if he could keep making improvements like that.
Unfortunately, if it's the kind of place where employees organise, negotiate pay rates collectively and that kind of thing, worker Y wouldn't get a cent extra because then everyone else would feel they were entitled to something because they do the same job and they're all on the same grade.
I like a guy who's clever and looks for ways to get more done. Every employer wants that.
But how about the variables, will they not stop you caring about all workers.0 -
Russell Nutty Socialism wrote: »But how about the variables, will they not stop you caring about all workers.
I don't care about all workers in general. I only care about workers who reciprocate, who show me they care about our profitability, efficiency and bottom line. Those are good employees.
I care that we can hire and retain only good employees and that when they stop being good employees that it's dealt with before it harms our business, thereby protecting all of our remaining good employees, which ultimately feeds back into protecting our business and so it goes on.
Great employees create or protect a companies cashflow and profits. It's the lifeblood of any business. The wrong people bleed your profits. I don't care about any that aren't good or great employees.
Why should I?0 -
BreadnBuddha wrote: »I don't care about all workers in general.
id highly recommend you check out economists such as ellen brown, ha-joon chang, bill black, etc etc but i fear you're too far gone. they might just make your realise where your thinking is going wrong. some of your posts are actually quite worrying!0 -
Wanderer78 wrote: »id highly recommend you check out economists such as ellen brown, ha-joon chang, bill black, etc etc but i fear you're too far gone. they might just make your realise where your thinking is going wrong. some of your posts are actually quite worrying!
My thinking isn't going wrong. I'm giving my perspective and I've already set out the context in which I'm doing so. Our firm are profitable, we provide good pay and conditions for employees, we support their own career development and we encourage and provide support for them to have a healthy and productive working life.
Our factory closed today and reopens on the 6th of January. All factory employees were given this time off as additional paid holidays, a €200 christmas hamper, a decent goretex jacket, family cinema tickets and their company performance bonus payout. We paid their salaries now, not at the end of the month so they have instant access to this extra income. The 4 owner-managers are investing what should have been a dividend into expanding the factory and we'll hire 4 additional fulltime permanent production guys in the new year.
We look after our employees, because the only employees we keep are the ones that make a real effort here. Anyone else isn't here long enough to benefit from the fruits of everyones collective efforts.
I'd have let someone go just as easily today as any other day if it was right for this business.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
BreadnBuddha wrote: »My thinking isn't going wrong....
i beg to differ. i have seen long serving, hard working, intensely dedicated high level managers being discarded as soon as, well as soon as the company said thats it! one of these managers had by some miracle, just survived cancer, but the company said, you're outta there! your thinking promotes this kind of behaviour. this kind of economic and indeed this kind of managerial system has little or no regard for humans. is this what we want going forward as a species? is this what we call progression? do we all just want to be 'discarded' as soon as we become 'unproductive'. believe it or not, you will more than likely end up at some stage in your career, 'unproductive'! and if you're lucky, yes if you're 'lucky', you will still have your health to be able deal with it. also, if you're lucky, your family will still be beside you for support. be very very careful!0 -
I never saw a problem with doing a bit of extra work for free. In the end I've always been rewarded. Bonuses, when the brown stuff hit the fan a few years ago the guys and girls who did a bit were kept. If I needed to do something during the day I was never docked money, dentists, doctor, nct etc.
I'd encourage any person starting working in a company to just do what ever little bit needs to be done before leaving if it is needed because it doesn't go unnoticed. Just don't let them take the p1ss0 -
Wanderer78 wrote: »i beg to differ. i have seen long serving, hard working, intensely dedicated high level managers being disregarded as soon as, well as soon as the company said thats it! one of these managers had by some miracle, just survived cancer, but the company said, you're outta there! your thinking promotes this kind of behaviour. this kind of economic and indeed this kind of managerial system has little or no regard for humans. is this what we want going forward as a species? is this what we call progression? do we all just want to be 'disregarded' as soon as we become 'unproductive'. believe it or not, you will more than likely end up at some stage in your career, 'unproductive'! and if you're lucky, yes if you're 'lucky', you will still have your health to be able deal with it. also, if you're lucky, your family will still be beside you for support. be very very careful!
I don't call it anything other than one part of a career. Not a job, a career. I'm realistic. Values and priorities change the whole time, with age, health, family circumstances and for a host of other reasons. My own have changed many times. But no business of any real size can afford in any way to meet all of the expectations or demands which would be made by their employees without compromising the business itself.
Having a high level of expectation from a workforce and absolute focus on sustainable profitability is at the heart of any SME if they're to be around for a long time.
I said it a long way back in this thread, that I personally take it very seriously that my team brings in the money to pay everyones salaries. I won't accept somebody discounting just how important that is by walking out the door when they haven't achieved the goal yet. And if they can't do it when others do, they've no right to a job that entrust them with that responsibility. I'll hold them accountable. I must.
This isn't a secret. No matter where anyone works within the private sector, the reality is the same. I'm not giving that message a spit and a polish here. It is what it is.
It takes all sorts to make the world go around and some people are suited better than others to work in this kind of place. I worked for a US multinational years ago where two of us out of 30 regularly did extra work unpaid. When the function was outsourced a year later, 28 were made redundant. None of these guys would ever do more work or longer hours than the core contract specified. They were asked, but it was left up to them to walk at shift end if that's what they wanted to do. The 2 of us who had put in the extra effort and personal investment in terms of an hour or two here or there were 'rewarded' with senior roles in another department and substantial pay rises.
It's all too easy for people to say that the lick-arses were retained, or that we were mugs or had to work late to get our basic work done. All wrong. The fact of the matter is that we were liked and respected by managers at the time because we WANTED to show we were in effect deserving of better pay and perks and had put in the graft without making demands. We made damned sure that the extra we did was measured and noted, even if it didn't show on the monthly salary slip.
It paid off, because we managed the situation ourselves, rather than complaining and waiting for something to change all by itself.
My family, my friends and my colleagues today know I'd do the same thing again. It's a progressive and productive work ethic. I was smart enough to show I had one. 10 years later, I'm still reaping the benefits of wanting to do better and making the effort for my own ultimate benefit.
More context for you there. I'm not wrong, not in the context of my 27 years of employment. I've had good and bad employers, great and absolutely terrible co-workers. Today, the only kind of person I have any interest in managing is someone who has the same approach to their employer as I've had to mine, and I give all the same assistance and rewards I've been granted in return.
If somebody works for me and can't share that approach, they'll hate the experience and we'll both count down the days until they leave.
I'm pleased to work for guys who have the same work ethic and expectations as I have and to have a team who 'get it' also. We all know where we stand.0 -
Wanderer78 wrote: »i beg to differ. i have seen long serving, hard working, intensely dedicated high level managers being discarded as soon as, well as soon as the company said thats it! one of these managers had by some miracle, just survived cancer, but the company said, you're outta there! your thinking promotes this kind of behaviour. this kind of economic and indeed this kind of managerial system has little or no regard for humans. is this what we want going forward as a species? is this what we call progression? do we all just want to be 'discarded' as soon as we become 'unproductive'. believe it or not, you will more than likely end up at some stage in your career, 'unproductive'! and if you're lucky, yes if you're 'lucky', you will still have your health to be able deal with it. also, if you're lucky, your family will still be beside you for support. be very very careful!
No It doesn't ...it promotes the need to work hard to get on in life and business and that is something different ...It s about pro actively developing your career and business . I am not sure you can grasp the subtle difference ...you seem hell bent on sticking it to 'da man'
As for being discarded as soon as you are unproductive ...its called retirement and it has being going on for decades ...its not some progression of human behavior that we are walking into . But I am not sure what you want ...a company to continue to employ people who are no longer productive?
Private sector companies are in business to make money...This is capitalism...and those who don't like this may also think about giving up the perks that they get under that capitalist system that has benefited people in the west for so long to the detriment of those in other parts of the globe...
And your "this kind of managerial system has little or no regard for humans. is this what we want going forward as a species?" speech makes me laugh when the lifestyle you propose has to be supported but how ? It is already by lack of regard for humans in other parts of the world who work round the clock for a month for a fraction of what we earn in a day so we can buy cheap goods, holidays and lead a relatively pampered lifestyle
As an employee in the west you have benefits and salary based on a contract of employment. If you are lucky (as you say) then you have insurance & pension.If you get a serious illness then most companies will provide sick leave and may keep you role open until you return
But if you can no longer do the role why would you expect continued employment ? And as you live in the west you have social welfare/state benefits
After all an athlete who once won his club major trophies and who gets injured and no longer can do the role would not expect to be employed indefinitely no matte his contribution ?
It also makes me laugh that so many people that pooha wealth creation nevertheless benefit from it .They have no concept that a country has to create wealth to pay teachers, doctors, police, civil servants, social workers, road builders, care workers, etc ...and you cannot go on indefinitely borrowing money to do so ..All owners and mangers are bad . all workers are put on...These same people never take a risk with their own money to create jobs. But they sneer at those who take the risk and do....So we can have a 'society' where the few in the west get all the perks...The lack of regard for humans is not something we may have ...its been here for generations ..its just the humans don't live in Europe or America0 -
BreadnBuddha wrote: »I don't care about all workers in general. I only care about workers who reciprocate, who show me they care about our profitability, efficiency and bottom line. Those are good employees.
I care that we can hire and retain only good employees and that when they stop being good employees that it's dealt with before it harms our business, thereby protecting all of our remaining good employees, which ultimately feeds back into protecting our business and so it goes on.
Great employees create or protect a companies cashflow and profits. It's the lifeblood of any business. The wrong people bleed your profits. I don't care about any that aren't good or great employees.
Why should I?
Its not possible to give every employee a promotion, so how do you keep your team motivated. If the answer is paying them well I think you might be misunderstanding what this thread is about.0 -
Advertisement
-
BreadnBuddha wrote: »I don't call it anything....No It doesn't ...
apologies but i didnt read both your responses fully as i struggle to read large amounts of text in one go. i ll try later.
what both of you are basically talking about are economic models called neoclassical and neoliberalism. both of which have serious fundamental flaws but we re hell bent on pursuing these systems which is causing serious harm to both humans and our environment. south korean economist ha-joon chang believes capitalism is the best system compared to the other systems but the problem with our current version of it is the neoliberalism bit. he thinks that this system is causing major problems globally particularly to developing nations but i think this is causing major problems globally. there are actually alternative systems that would probably be more beneficial to both humans and the planet but our current system is unsustainable. if we persist with these methods, we will ultimately self destruct. the accumulation of wealth is not being evenly distributed. this is causing incredible inequality problems globally. this in turn is creating serious social issues even here in ireland. our current economic system is actually inducing serious health problems both physical and mentally into society, im particularly concerned about the induction of mental health problems into society as they are extremely difficult to understand, treat and in fact extremely costly to deal with. i believe there is a massive increase in mental health problems due to these economic methods. this is unsustainable. it is also immoral to treat any human with disrespect. we have to come up with a better system that treats humans and indeed our planet better. this bottom line thinking isnt working. i understand where you're coming from though, a company more than likely wont survive if it doesnt prioritise the bottom line. is this system working for us? i suspect this system only truly works for the richest people on the planet and basically screws everybody else, but if you look a bit closer, its actually screwing everybody as we are causing irreversible damage to the planet in the process. i believe, if we keep pursuing these methods of wealth creation, we ll actually eventually make this planet uninhabitable and it wont matter a damn how much wealth one or indeed collectively we ll have as we ll have no home, period!
on a lighter note and more to the point of the thread, i may have mentioned this before on the thread but i was recently listening to an interview with paul mccully:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_McCulley
https://soundcloud.com/bloombergview/paul-mcculley-masters-in-business
very interesting conversation but at the end of it he was asked what would he change if he had his time over. his response, nobody ever says, when they are retiring, i never spend enough time in the office!
i personally think, one of the most valuable things you have if not the most important thing, is time. time is something none of us have any control over and we only have so much of it, as when its up, its up. we never get back time. when every passing second is gone, its gone for good. do not spend too much of your time doing things that make you unhappy. spend as much time as possible pursuing things that make you happy with those that love and respect you. work is generally a means to an end. its more or less robbing you of your time but its something most of us have to do in order to survive.
i ll try read your full posts properly later. maybe im misinterpreting what you're both getting to0 -
Someone on this thread is advocating that people do "a few hours here and there" for NOTHING - they claim the staff's "inevitable" time-wasting is compensation enough.
Your example is not at all the same thing as the latter.
You think that someone 3 weeks in is fully up to speed?
They're being paid full-whack while underperforming for the first period of their employment.
I don't consider a few free hours to be at all unreasonable given that you're (for the time being) not giving material benefit to the company in line with what you're being paid.
If i'm paying you 12 an hour, i expect 12 an hours' work. If you're giving me less than that, while saying "screw you" then yeah, you'd not last long.0 -
Ah Wanderer, you complain about long text and then put on your own. Please break it up.
With all the goodwill in the world, I can't read that. I just lose the lines.
Still say a bit of give and take is best for both parties.
Extremes on both sides don't actually make for a long term good relationships at work or at home.0 -
Water John wrote: »Ah Wanderer, you complain about long text and then put on your own. Please break it up.
With all the goodwill in the world, I can't read that. I just lose the lines.
Still say a bit of give and take is best for both parties.
Extremes on both sides don't actually make for a long term good relationships at work or at home.
apologies, im actually dyslexic. i find reading and writing extremely difficult at the best of times.
very good points there alright but i think we ve created a pro wealth system that almost anti-human. if this is the case, why bother? we have to come up with something better quickly.0 -
Thanks for the explanation Wanderer. Know that is a limitation for you.
Your brain is working very well though, Ha.
Remember, many of these Gordon Gekos are sociopaths and trying to dictate to the majority of society what is their perception of 'normal'.0 -
Op what does your contract state regarding work hours? It's an unwritten rule that private sector employees on salaries are expected to do whatever hours it takes to get the work done and as a salaried employee you get paid what you get paid. If you're getting everything done in the normal hours that's great. If your company offers a bonus scheme though don't be surprised to see people who work extra hours for free and getting more work done getting bigger bonuses and moved up the ladder quicker than you. That's the way it works.0
-
Wanderer78 wrote: »what both of you are basically talking about are economic models called neoclassical and neoliberalism. both of which have serious fundamental flaws but we re hell bent on pursuing these systems which is causing serious harm to both humans and our environment. south korean economist ha-joon chang believes capitalism is the best system compared to the other systems but the problem with our current version of it is the neoliberalism bit. he thinks that this system is causing major problems globally particularly to developing nations
I agree that capitalism has major problems that need addressing as you point out.But its going to be very difficult when nearly half the earths population (in China & India alone) have grasped our model (that we have benefited from for over 100 years) ...They want what we have and who can blame them as we have not been intelligent and equitable in sharing.0 -
Russell Nutty Socialism wrote: »Its not possible to give every employee a promotion, so how do you keep your team motivated. If the answer is paying them well I think you might be misunderstanding what this thread is about.
In sales, it's simple enough. Perform against targets and you are demonstrating your value, to varying degrees. If you miss one target (revenue), you still have other targets and ways to show you're worth the cost of keeping you employed (margin/product mix/business development or growth related activity). The latter is only possible when enough people ARE bringing in enough money to make continuation of the business possible. It's one of the most unforgiving roles where inconsistent or poor performance is concerned. So, the primary motivator in sales is ALWAYS to keep your job first, with whatever floats your boat coming afterwards.
Not all companies can afford or would be prepared to bend to the personal motivations of their employees. Why should they? If you have a guy who wants to bring his kids to school on his way to work, or take time off at short notice because his child is sick and he can't get a minder, or work longer days and take more days off during school holidays, that's not always going to be possible depending on what your core business needs may be from the guy filling that position. No matter what else you would do, a guy who values that flexibility above his pay and benefits package will always feel you're a bad employer because you don't value his work life balance.
I might sympathise on a personal level with the guy, but that would be put completely aside when I was back at my desk doing my job if it was quite apparent that the business would ultimately suffer if it tried to accommodate his individual motivations in life. If they're not compatible with a particular role, in a particular business, that's his problem. Not his co-workers, employers or customers. There are some careers which people just shouldn't pursue if they have expectations that can't be met in the workplaces and business cultures they'll encounter.
Falling into a job or picking it just because it's local, easy to do or because someone else says it's a great career are common. Look at all of those graduating from University recently, those who had to make a choice when they were largely inexperienced children ticking boxes on their CAO/CAS application forms. They've ended up entering an employment market in which they're for the most part having to take jobs doing things they'd never have wanted to, before the reality of working life and past decisions kicked in.
That's hardly the fault of managers in the companies they apply to work for, or of the owners of those businesses. Yet just a few years later, despite having plenty of chances to learn how to adapt and progress, to create better opportunities for themselves, a great number just settle into a routine of grumbling on a daily basis or else they skit from one job to the next.
Experience in the workplace itself and then in managing a workforce of any size is enough to enable most people to get a feel for whether or not a particular employee wants to do well in the job. If they do the things they need to, show they're trying to improve their own lot in life through work instead of complaining and making unrealistic demands, any business that's profitable enough to be able to do something is likely to WANT to do something to keep that employee.
If you're a low margin, high cost, borderline profitable business, operating at the arse end of the market, aspirations of providing a cracking workplace for your employees will not become reality. Some workplaces are destined to be crap places to work because of where they draw the line on what they'll do for you. Just the same as some people are destined to be lousy employees because of what they are prepared to do for you.
It's like complaining that a donkey you bought won't run as fast as a champion race horse, no matter how hard you beat it with a stick, or how many carrots you dangle in front of it's face.
I'll be damned if I'm going to buy donkeys and waste my time trying to use the stick and the carrots, when what I need are race horses, and our business success means we can afford to pay for them, or replace them when they stop winning races.0 -
Buddha, I think your full colours come out when you refer to a child being sick in the family. The job still comes first.
I remember Ivan Yates a few years ago spouting similar on the radio, in relation to his business at the time. Don't think his workers got any reward for putting the co before family.
Cop on. I have worked 18 hour days on the road. I will push to solve a problem irrespective of time. But if something serious and personal happens, I expect and will take it anyway, the time to sort it out.
I a child is sick and needs to go to the doctor of a morning, one of the parents must do it. That is part of their social contract.
I remember hearing recently also on radio, an engineer talking about a very sick child. He worked with a major engineering company in the middle east. They gave him time off and also trnasferred his work place to their Manchester office as the child was being treated there.
That's simply being human.0 -
Advertisement
-
Water John wrote: »Buddha, I think your full colours come out when you refer to a child being sick in the family. The job still comes first.
I remember Ivan Yates a few years ago spouting similar on the radio, in relation to his business at the time. Don't think his workers got any reward for putting the co before family.
Cop on. I have worked 18 hour days on the road. I will push to solve a problem irrespective of time. But if something serious and personal happens, I expect and will take it anyway, the time to sort it out.
I a child is sick and needs to go to the doctor of a morning, one of the parents must do it. That is part of their social contract.
I remember hearing recently also on radio, an engineer talking about a very sick child. He worked with a major engineering company in the middle east. They gave him time off and also trnasferred his work place to their Manchester office as the child was being treated there.
That's simply being human.
Depends on the job you do to be honest and what's wrong.
I'd let a guy go home, but I'd expect him to make the necessary arrangements to be back in work the next day unless there was something very serious going on.
It's not always so simple though. Things go wrong. Fine. But if you have kids, you need to have a plan-B that's not centered on expecting it will always be possible to just leave work.
I've worked with people who were regularly out because their kids were sick and the school was sending them home, out the next day or for two or three days later because they couldn't get a child minder or whatever. Whether or not that was considered acceptable by both the team and the manager depended on the individual concerned.
Fine if the rest of the guys on the team can cover what NEEDS to be done, and the person who's walking out the door is happy to put in the work to catch up on the things the others can't do while they're out. Not at all okay if they're expecting to take on the one hand, but never give back on the other hand, because they believe they're entitled to put family before the responsibilities of their role in the company in which they work, without trying to balance it reasonably. Most people look to repay the favour, rather than view it as an entitlement, which it's not.
So in your case, working long days and putting in the extra effort, any reasonable employer will value that and WANT to help you where they can by being flexible. But if you were the kind of guy who hid behind his contracted hours, then took off every time something came up and expected not to have to put anything back in for everyone's benefit, you'd be right down at the bottom of the list when it came to giving you anything extra.
So, cop on yourself. True colours are something that are very difficult to gauge when you're interacting with people on the internet, so don't be trying to personalise this. We're strangers and depending on individual circumstances and factors, it's quite likely we can both be right in how we view things, in our own personal context.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qifUYP234c
Advertisement