Leaving work on time frowned upon. Mod warning post 1

CruelCoin

Russell Nutty Socialism wrote: »

Why are people scared of having children, its like they dont want to grow up, become adults and they give answers like you did above to try and explain it away.
My advice to People who say they dont want kids whether they are working at a basic wage or any wage, whatever the excuse you will regret it as you get older.

I don't feel the urge to reproduce. It has nothing to do with growing up.

I have never been the paternal sort, and generally don't like being around children.

I would much rather spend the money on myself. Horses for courses.

MPFGLB

Russell Nutty Socialism wrote: »

I feel sorry for people who have picked a Job over children, really sorry. What is the point of working crazy hours to earn highly taxed wages to spend on what, yourself. Bizarre.

Not everyone can have children for various reasons including medical, etc And not everyone should have children ...And in an overcrowded world not everyone wants to and that is fine

One can only hope you imbue some sensitivity for others in those .'precious' children of yours as its lacking in you

CruelCoin

Russell Nutty Socialism wrote: »

What is the point of working crazy hours to earn highly taxed wages to spend on what, yourself. Bizarre.

Whats bizarre is that most people on this thread harp on about the evils of working for something other than your own benefit.

Then you come along.

screamer

KomradeBishop wrote: »

We're not talking about tenure of employment. Nor minimum wage, or right to work, or internships - it's about overtime.
In fact - the US's poor standards when it comes to worker rights, should make their better standards on overtime than Ireland and the EU, even more notable.

Id rather have no legislated overtime than have what they have in the US. Zero certainty, pathetic holidays, awful maternity leave, and knowing you can be told to clear your desk out any day you're fired. Overtime is a nice extra on top but I think most people like to rely on the certainty that their wage gives them. I get your point about overtime but in the grand scheme of things the US is no yard stick for anywhere. I'd rather our laws any day.

GreeBo

Zillah wrote: »

Maybe we're not all sociopaths obsessed with having power and money?

"I wish...I had spent...more time...in the office..." said no one on their death bed ever.

Where does obsession come into anything I said?

If you want to work to live thats fine, but then I dont want to hear you moaning about your low pay and crappy working conditions.

You cant have it all people.

"I wish I had a better job" said most people who cant live how they want to.

Nody

//MOD

People's will or not to procreate is not the topic of this thread; back to original topic.

//MOD

Caliden

Bit short sighted for the director to say this to be honest.

I've worked in places where almost everyone stayed on late and eventually everyone gets burnt out either by taking extended holidays or get sick for extended periods of time.

I'm now with a startup where staying on isn't encouraged but actually frowned upon and is interpreted as 'you can't get your work done within the normal working day'.

Now there are times (very very rarely) where additional hours are required for major projects on a tight time constraint but that's only happened twice in the 3 years I've been here.

The team I'm with has quite a bit of experience between them and they've seen what late hours does to people. Productivity may be up but the quality of work coming out as a result is below par.



With regards advice OP, perhaps the director said what he said because you were just sitting in your car rather than just getting on with it. A bit like standing around the clock in machine until it's time to work.

It's hard to know what he meant by it to be honest. IF you're doing your work and meeting/exceeding your targets then there's not a lot he can do.

NUTLEY BOY

Back to the original post - the director's attitude was that of a bully.

You will not get credit for allowing yourself to be played. People like that make you wonder what it would be like if you were a full time employee in such a place.

I once worked for a company with good annual holidays. I was going on a three week trip so I had to book a three week block of leave. My manager told me that other managers might not be so generous in allowing their staff to take as much as three weeks holidays in one go. That was the usual management bullying trick of making you feel under a compliment for getting that to which you are actually entitled. I told my manager that staff who allowed their managers to deal with them like that were fools. I got my three weeks leave and had no more trouble from that manager.

The point is that managers who try to intimidate with these variant versions of snide bullying tactics deserve no respect. You will actually be thought more of in the long run if you can show that you don't take nonsense and can assert yourself. If you are too pliable in the face of intimidatory tactics you will be seen as a push over and be walked on.

That said, the practical reality is that there is too much of it going on in the work place generally.:mad:

skallywag

This director was way off the mark to make such a comment, and I'm very glad to work in an organization where people are not treated in such a way.

That said, I must admit that I would myself be reluctant to be seen to be doing the bare minimum during a trial phase, particularly if the bulk of my colleagues seemed to be putting in more effort. Once the trial phase is over, in my experience at least, it tends to be the same usual suspects who tend to work the most, with the bulk of them doing it more out of the love for it rather than any pressure to do so.

I don't mind putting in extra effort as long as it's not every week, and that I can then work less than the contractual minimum during a quiet time.

I think that it also depends on the general mood within the company, and ones level of happiness there. During a recent online poll ca 95% of employees where I work said that they were proud to be working here. If you treat your people very well then they will tend to make an extra effort when it is needed, and not count the cost.

Stheno

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Back to the original post - the director's attitude was that of a bully.

You will not get credit for allowing yourself to be played. People like that make you wonder what it would be like if you were a full time employee in such a place.

I once worked for a company with good annual holidays. I was going on a three week trip so I had to book a three week block of leave. My manager told me that other managers might not be so generous in allowing their staff to take as much as three weeks holidays in one go. That was the usual management bullying trick of making you feel under a compliment for getting that to which you are actually entitled. I told my manager that staff who allowed their managers to deal with them like that were fools. I got my three weeks leave and had no more trouble from that manager.

The point is that managers who try to intimidate with these variant versions of snide bullying tactics deserve no respect. You will actually be thought more of in the long run if you can show that you don't take nonsense and can assert yourself. If you are too pliable in the face of intimidatory tactics you will be seen as a push over and be walked on.

That said, the practical reality is that there is too much of it going on in the work place generally.:mad:

You do know that legally you are not actually entitled to take three weeks off alltogether?

screamer

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

That was the usual management bulletin trick of making you feel under a compliment for getting that to which you are actually entitled.:

At the ould entitlement rears it's head. So let's set it straight then your manager was not bullying you. You are allowed to take holidays 20 in the year statutory BUT your manager does not have to give you 3 week blocks of holiday. If for example they had others already on leave at the same time and granting you 3 weeks in a row would cause shortage of resources they are well within their rights to not approve it or offer you 3 other weeks. So long as you get your statutory 20 days off that's your entitlement. Configuration of those days is not your entitlement. Bullying ..... sheesh.

Coat22

C4Kid wrote: »

This morning one of the directors came out to me while sitting in my car before work and said people who do the 8-4:30 don't last long around here.

Were you actually sitting in your car waiting for 8:30 to come along before you went in? I'd have to say if I were the employer and saw someone sitting there waiting to clock on rather than rocking in and getting going (even if it was just getting a cup of tea) I'd have reservations about you.

Mrs OBumble

Russell Nutty Socialism wrote: »

My advice to People who say they dont want kids whether they are working at a basic wage or any wage, whatever the excuse you will regret it as you get older.

I read an article the other week, giving the perspective of a mother in the US, whose son turned into a mass-murderer. She said some similar things to a friend of mine whose son only killed one other guy in a car crash.

Lets just say there are worse things in life than not having children.




Back on topic, in a previous life I actually have worked with some incredibly committed special-education professionals who would dearly have loved to spend every hour of the day working. Mostly older women whose own children were grown up, who were delighted to spend their time making the world better for other people.

They were inspirational. But I had not problem accepting that they worked 80 hours/week to my 40.

Captain Flaps

It would be bullying if the manager forced this employee to take patchy days here or there whilst allowing other employees to block book, but in even the most accommodating company they're not going to let everyone take the same 2 week break.

wardides

I work in a similar place at the moment. It's widely known that many staff should try stay and leave after one of the Directors leave, at least once or twice a week. I find it absolutely insane. Grown men, meant to be top line management, in the biggest company within our industry, advising new & younger staff to stay until 6/6.30 just to give a good impression. Madness.

ixus

There are many points of view to this sort of thing. It depends on a persons attitude to a work/life balance, working for "the man", doing the bare minimum, drive to get ahead etc.

I've been on both sides of the "perception" thing.

I worked for a multi-national where you were expected to work beyond the 9-5. I used to do 7-5, leaving on the dot. Others used to arrive at 9 or just after and work until 6. Guess who was viewed as the harder worker? Perception is a powerful thing.

I work in a results based business now. You get out of it what you put in. If your results are strong and you want to reduce hours, thats ok. If your results are poor and you don't put in the hours to rectify, you won't be around long.

Decide what you want from a job and find one that fits your personality.

KlausFlouride

wardides wrote: »

I work in a similar place at the moment. It's widely known that many staff should try stay and leave after one of the Directors leave, at least once or twice a week. I find it absolutely insane. Grown men, meant to be top line management, in the biggest company within our industry, advising new & younger staff to stay until 6/6.30 just to give a good impression. Madness.

Certain people have a martyr complex about staying on late. I had one clown of a manager who would give you the evil eye if you left before he did. Would spend most of the day on his mobile to his family. He left, became obvious afterwards the guy had done **** all all day long.

ixus

wardides wrote: »

I work in a similar place at the moment. It's widely known that many staff should try stay and leave after one of the Directors leave, at least once or twice a week. I find it absolutely insane. Grown men, meant to be top line management, in the biggest company within our industry, advising new & younger staff to stay until 6/6.30 just to give a good impression. Madness.

It's not really. It is probably what they did to get to the top. They probably think they are giving sound advice to help someone at the start of their career. What they don't realise is that not everyone wants to be like them. Different strokes etc...

KomradeBishop

screamer wrote: »

Id rather have no legislated overtime than have what they have in the US. Zero certainty, pathetic holidays, awful maternity leave, and knowing you can be told to clear your desk out any day you're fired. Overtime is a nice extra on top but I think most people like to rely on the certainty that their wage gives them. I get your point about overtime but in the grand scheme of things the US is no yard stick for anywhere. I'd rather our laws any day.

You're presenting a false dichotomy - I did not argue for zero certainty, pathetic holidays, awful maternity leave, and being able to be fired without notice - and you know this.

Given how abysmal the US laws are regarding workers rights, the fact that even though their laws are still bad, they still legislate for mandatory overtime payments, shows how bad our laws are regarding overtime and unpaid work.

If the US is so bad and even they legislate to protect workers from unpaid overtime, it goes a long way to showing our own standards on unpaid overtime are in serious need of reform.

Sunny Disposition

ixus wrote: »

It's not really. It is probably what they did to get to the top. They probably think they are giving sound advice to help someone at the start of their career. What they don't realise is that not everyone wants to be like them. Different strokes etc...

I think he means that the fact it is good advice is crazy, that people are judged by not leaving instead of or as well as the quality of what they do.
It's true about some people feeling they are martyrs, a one in my place spends half the day gossiping and then boasts/complains that she needs to work late.
I think the treatment of the OP is v bad, I'd rate it as a passive aggressive type of bullying. If there's a problem with his work address it, but trying to subtly make him do unpaid overtime for an undefined purpose is ridiculous, far from manly behaviour.

KomradeBishop

All this talk of entitlement: Why the hell should employers feel entitled to free work out of their employee's? It takes bugger all effort to just pay workers for the extra hours they put in - the primary reason not to, is money. As I showed earlier as well, this costs the workforce overall, up to €90 million a week in stolen wages, amounting to over €4+ billion in stolen wages a year:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/employees-losing-out-on-millions-by-working-for-free-30359278.html

Wanderer2010

ixus wrote: »

It's not really. It is probably what they did to get to the top. They probably think they are giving sound advice to help someone at the start of their career. What they don't realise is that not everyone wants to be like them. Different strokes etc...

But ARE there many managers out there who, having seen an employee in the office at half 6 and just before they leave, are actually IMPRESSED by that? Merely being at your desk at a certain time doesn't mean you are working hard, you could be on the internet for all the boss knows. It would be a naïve and stupid manager who equates long hours with hard work, given the fact to become a manager you have to work hard yourself..

davo10

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're presenting a false dichotomy - I did not argue for zero certainty, pathetic holidays, awful maternity leave, and being able to be fired without notice - and you know this.

Given how abysmal the US laws are regarding workers rights, the fact that even though their laws are still bad, they still legislate for mandatory overtime payments, shows how bad our laws are regarding overtime and unpaid work.

If the US is so bad and even they legislate to protect workers from unpaid overtime, it goes a long way to showing our own standards on unpaid overtime are in serious need of reform.

No they didn't legislate for mandatory overtime payments. They legislated for certain sectors under certain conditions, it is by no means mandatory in any way shape or form.

And it is precisely because this is 2015 and not 2000 that Wikipedia should not be used as a way of backing up a particular viewpoint, Wikipedia is open source which means it can be edited by readers. If you want to lose an argument, use Wikipedia as your only source.

KomradeBishop

davo10 wrote: »

No they didn't legislate for mandatory overtime payments. They legislated for certain sectors under certain conditions, it is by no means mandatory in any way shape or form.

And it is precisely because this is 2015 and not 2000 that Wikipedia should not be used as a way of backing up a particular viewpoint, Wikipedia is open source which means it can be edited by readers. If you want to lose an argument, use Wikipedia as your only source.

You're being deliberately obtuse here - yes they did legislate for mandatory overtime payments, accounting for 40%+ of industry.

You aren't even disagreeing with the facts presented in the Wikipedia article - you're using the article yourself, to try and back up your argument - so it's obvious you're using that as a tactic to try and pour doubt on the argument overall.

You're deliberately trying to act 'slow' and discount easily-verified information, just to try and pour doubt - if you disagree with the facts presented in the Wikipedia article, about the Fair Labour Standards Act, then say so.

If you don't even disagree with the facts put forward in the Wikipedia article - which you don't appear to - then stop wasting time trying to obstruct a valid argument, with nonsense.

KomradeBishop

Also, the talk about trying to 'impress' employers, by putting extra work in: How about employers try to impress workers, by respecting them enough, to pay them for the overtime they put in?

The overall air of a lot of the debate here, is encouraging workers to be deferential to their employers, discarding their own self-respect in the process.
This is then usually backed up by pointing out the imbalanced power relations between workers and employers: Unemployment is high enough, that workers can be fired and replaced fairly easily - greatly reducing the bargaining position of workers, and allowing easier mistreatment of them.

People shouldn't stand for that at all - it's a very easy problem to rectify, through political lobbying, and enacting laws like in the US, that mandate overtime payments (while still allowing for alternatives, like time in lieu etc.).

wardides

ixus wrote: »

It's not really. It is probably what they did to get to the top. They probably think they are giving sound advice to help someone at the start of their career. What they don't realise is that not everyone wants to be like them. Different strokes etc...

Not different strokes at all. I earn a salary, not an hourly rate. I base my performance off results & projects I'm able to get over the line. Working 8-6 everyday doesn't mean you will get ahead of someone who does 9-5. I come in at 8:30 everyday, organise my day & get through it. For example one of the employees in question was rushing around trying to print & bind a hard copy of a presentation he was due to give at 12.30. He was doing this at 12.20.

Someone who leaves at 5:15 shouldn't be viewed as being less hard working than someone who leaves at 6.30. It's moronic.

KlausFlouride

wardides wrote: »

Someone who leaves at 5:15 shouldn't be viewed as being less hard working than someone who leaves at 6.30. It's moronic.

Precisely, some companies have a "culture" of presenteeism, which is possibly the case where the original poster has joined. There doesn't seem to be much point for a new hire to do extra hours, because frankly, they won't know enough yet to contribute anything useful. Places that "encourage" working extra hours for appearances sake are to be avoided, as it's likely a symptom of wider problems in the business

ixus

wardides wrote: »

Not different strokes at all. I earn a salary, not an hourly rate. I base my performance off results & projects I'm able to get over the line. Working 8-6 everyday doesn't mean you will get ahead of someone who does 9-5. I come in at 8:30 everyday, organise my day & get through it. For example one of the employees in question was rushing around trying to print & bind a hard copy of a presentation he was due to give at 12.30. He was doing this at 12.20.

Someone who leaves at 5:15 shouldn't be viewed as being less hard working than someone who leaves at 6.30. It's moronic.

Read my previous post on perception. We are on the same wavelength. What i meant on different strokes, is that a manager or director is most likely trying to get a junior to do what they did as they view that as the right way because it worked for them. They don't necessarily understand how different personalities tick just because they are managers. As in they don't understand different strokes.

wardides

ixus wrote: »

Read my previous post on perception. We are on the same wavelength. What i meant on different strokes, is that a manager or director is most likely trying to get a junior to do what they did as they view that as the right way because it worked for them. They don't necessarily understand how different personalities tick just because they are managers. As in they don't understand different strokes.

100% agree. I personally just don't understand the thought process. If anything it has alienated myself and another colleague to the point that we've only joined the company several months ago and look to leave. It's only a small matter, but to feel like you're not trusted that you can manage your work and produce top performances and results within a normal working week is a tad annoying.

Alf Veedersane

The last company my wife worked at, she was told by a manager that leaving at 5.30 every day created a bad impression/perception...that you should be seen to be there until 6 at least.

More often than not herself and other colleagues would be wasting their time sitting at their desks because they had done a day's work and there was no point starting something new that you'd only get half an hour into.

It probably the first sign of a certain culture in that place. She wound up hating it there to the point where she'd rather not have a job than work there. Even thought that the career wasn't right for her, with the atmosphere and the culture fostered in the place.

A few years later she's still in that career but in a company where you're trusted and your value is based on what you do rather than how long you're at your desk.

Tl;dr staying late for the sake of staying late is absolute horsesh*t