Leaving work on time frowned upon. Mod warning post 1

Water John

I think balance is important.
Working extra for no reward, on a regular basis is not a good idea.
Being flexible and staying to finish a particular project is fine too.

I worked in one job, where the boss regularly approached me to discuss a project 20 mins before normal finishing time.

It really pissed me off. He needed my expertise to assess the issue. But he started often well knowing it could not be finished without extending time.

I always made sure I came in late the following morning. Not because I begrugded the time, but not to be taken advantage of.

In many other ways he was fine.

A bit of give and take is best. But all take is not on.

I do hope Buddha enjoys the gold watch and the kick up the arse that he gets when he reaches 65. Because that what awaits everyone in companies like the one he works in.

PizzamanIRL

Stay til 4:31 to keep him happy.

road_high

It still astounds me, and I'll make this pomt again, that some managers think staff staying physically in the office beyond the set hours equals more productivity???!
I'm a manager myself and my own experience and approach is very much of the give and take / trust model. I really find i get the most from them when I really need it rather than getting their backs up by nit picking over time.

Azalea

BreadnBuddha wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes, as I said, you are advocating people being forced to work for nothing - I know.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No it isn't. How on earth can you just state as fact that there is nobody at all whatsoever who is successful career-wise that starts and finishes at the times they are scheduled for and doesn't work for nothing?

It depends on what the job is. I like the sneery way someone referred to jobs that aren't minimum wage to be "grown-up jobs". :rolleyes:

Yes there are jobs where it has to be accepted that the working day could go on until well beyond what you thought it might be that morning - a person cannot complain about that happening in areas like medicine, law, finance, sales... but they should be paid for it or get the time in lieu.

It's astounding that there are people actually defending the practice of not paying people for working/helping to develop the business. Absolutely astounding.
They are literally saying that exploitation is ok, and even laudible - I thought that was a thing of the past in the West...

And yes, as I said, there are jobs where sometimes staying on simply has to be done - it could be, literally, a matter of life and death.

But endorsing that people stay on when they don't actually need to, but simply because "it looks better" - as if managers would respect that kind of toadying.

BreadnBuddha

Water John wrote: »

I think balance is important.
Working extra for no reward, on a regular basis is not a good idea.
Being flexible and staying to finish a particular project is fine too.

I worked in one job, where the boss regularly approached me to discuss a project 20 mins before normal finishing time.

It really pissed me off. He needed my expertise to assess the issue. But he started often well knowing it could not be finished without extending time.

I always made sure I came in late the following morning. Not because I begrugded the time, but not to be taken advantage of.

In many other ways he was fine.

A bit of give and take is best. But all take is not on.

I do hope Buddha enjoys the gold watch and the kick up the arse that he gets when he reaches 65. Because that what awaits everyone in companies like the one he works in.

I'll enjoy a comfortable and financially secure retirement at 60, a decade earlier than the average clock puncher will, if increasing retirement ages continue on trend. I'll enjoy having contributed to my own success while tired and sorry old bones are still lamenting and whining about how their employers wouldn't hand them an easy life just because they turned up for X hours per day.

The work ethic displayed by so many, along with the propensity to blame everyone else for the direct consequences of their own failure to invest time and effort into their own futures and success is a recipe for disaster.

The same people who have such a screwed up idea of what they're entitled to, just because they go to work, are the very people who will spend their lives wallowing at the bottom while those who put in the extra effort early on will have reaped the rewards for the rest of their working lives.

The same is true for people who like to complain about how they can't get a job or a promotion because they've no degree, despite never having made the effort and personal investment to study in the evenings and weekends if they never went to university before beginning their careers.

The choice is yours. Put in the effort and open doors for yourself. If you don't, the people who actually do/did won't have any time for your excuses and whining when you find yourself being left behind or unable to progress beyond a certain level.

Azalea

How does working within your allocated hours automatically = not making an effort/having a poor work ethic/having a sense of entitlement?

I just work from my start time to my finish time and work my ass off.

Strange leaps of logic here.

dslamjack

BreadnBuddha wrote: »

I'll enjoy a comfortable and financially secure retirement at 60, a decade earlier than the average clock puncher will, if increasing retirement ages continue on trend. I'll enjoy having contributed to my own success while tired and sorry old bones are still lamenting and whining about how their employers wouldn't hand them an easy life just because they turned up for X hours per day.

The work ethic displayed by so many, along with the propensity to blame everyone else for the direct consequences of their own failure to invest time and effort into their own futures and success is a recipe for disaster.

The same people who have such a screwed up idea of what they're entitled to, just because they go to work, are the very people who will spend their lives wallowing at the bottom while those who put in the extra effort early on will have reaped the rewards for the rest of their working lives.

The same is true for people who like to complain about how they can't get a job or a promotion because they've no degree, despite never having made the effort and personal investment to study in the evenings and weekends if they never went to university before beginning their careers.

The choice is yours. Put in the effort and open doors for yourself. If you don't, the people who actually do/did won't have any time for your excuses and whining when you find yourself being left behind or unable to progress beyond a certain level.

Hard work is rewarded ok, Clery's workers, Waterford Glass workers,the staff at the Texaco petrol station in Ballyvolane, Cork,the workers of Vita Cortex - enough said I rest my case.

The Randy Riverbeast

Azalea wrote: »

How does working within your allocated hours automatically = not making an effort/having a poor work ethic/having a sense of entitlement?

I just work from my start time to my finish time and work my ass off.

Strange leaps of logic here.

I don't really get it. If you have person A who works their contracted hours and goes home and person B stays an hour later each day, then B is the better worker who will be more "successful".

People seem to be ignoring anything like what A and B are doing during those hours. A has come up with ideas and processes to make things better and tales shorter breaks while B takes longer breaks and struggles with the work.

I expect people to say of course what they are doing matters now but seeing the comments about people being unambitious and unsuccessful show what they really value, the appearance of working.

Azalea

And if I did have to stay on late to get things finished, it would be because of having poor time management/prioritisation skills, end of.

BreadnBuddha

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

I don't really get it. If you have person A who works their contracted hours and goes home and person B stays an hour later each day, then B is the better worker who will be more "successful".

People seem to be ignoring anything like what A and B are doing during those hours. A has come up with ideas and processes to make things better and tales shorter breaks while B takes longer breaks and struggles with the work.

I expect people to say of course what they are doing matters now but seeing the comments about people being unambitious and unsuccessful show what they really value, the appearance of working.

Your argument assumes managers are blind to that kind of thing. Any manager who has done the same work as their employees/team in the past should be able spot the difference.

People who are good at looking busy survive in big organisations. In a small business, they'll be found out and dealt with much sooner.

Kettleson

MPFGLB wrote: »

I agree...working to the clock is fine if your job lends to that ... examples like assembly line or manufacturing roles or other reactive roles with set boundaries..including several admin , receptionist roles,etc

But you would hardly expect a surgeon in the middle of an operation to walk out at 5.30pm because he has fulfilled his hours or a fireman to walk away in the middle of a fire if he has completed his hours for the day. What is called for in many roles is flexibility

It also depends on what you want from life and what you want to achieve in your career. I do believe that during any probation period you need to go above and beyond to secure the job especially if you are learning and not yet fully proficient (as the OP seems to be).Once you settle into the role , about 6 months in then you should be able to complete your work in the allotted time and if not then you can at least be in a position to negotiate with your employer

As said previously not all productivity is not based on long hours.

Also there is the issue of who you work for ...if its non profit or a government role or even a large corporation then there are usually set working hours that staff and employers adhere to ..

However if its a small company (though sometimes large) where the company is fighting for business and turnover is limited then rigidly sticking to set hours is not always supported or possible.

You can decide for yourself which company and role suits you and find a job accordingly. It is a good idea at the interview to ascertain the culture of the company and be clear about what is expected of you including the policy on overtime...

But there is a very serious issue here that some of the people abusing BreadnBuddha are ignoring
And this is it … in today’s capitalist global markets where the Chinese & Indians, Koreans, etc are prepared to go above and beyond and work long hours for less pay then if you are in competition for the same markets then your company and workforce need to very flexible otherwise you can go home. This is one of the main issues of capitalism ..its all about profit margins …The same capitalism that has allowed western people to buy cheap TVs, trainers, microwave ovens,etc made by people in sweat shops in Asia …Its also makes for a very difficult environment for all manufacturing and associated industry in the west. It is also why China and India’s wealth is growing and west is falling from a place of dominance. And now these emerging economies are beginning ot perform better in other non manufacturing industries. Its is why the west has to borrow to meet government budgets. Its may be fine to say I am going home at 4.30pm on the dot but how long will you have a job if someone in India can do it better for a cheaper wage… And its all well and good to say I don’t want to live like that but look at the alternatives ? Unemployment? More expensive Irish goods ? I am sure no manager in China is bothered about your need to be in the parking lot at 4.30pm

WTF! Can someone tell me if this is worth reading?

BreadnBuddha

dslamjack wrote: »

Hard work is rewarded ok, Clery's workers, Waterford Glass workers,the staff at the Texaco petrol station in Ballyvolane, Cork,the workers of Vita Cortex - enough said I rest my case.

Waterford Glass? An effectively outdated, unprofitable and ultimately insolvent business, riddled with trade union interference during its operation and the proposal to sell it to new owners, after it had been propped up by taxpayer funding via the IDA for years and ultimately run into the ground as a burning wreck while the trade unions tied the hands of it owners and prevented them saving the business. Everyone got burned there. Not to worry though, the unions put their back into it once more and the Irish taxpayer will foot the pensions bill. What's new. Clery's. More of the same. Another outdated, unprofitable business model and an exit option was seized by the owners before there was nothing left to salvage.

The workers bear the brunt, I know. It's shocking to see people so badly affected by the crappy way the message was finally laid out, when the talking was all finished and the decision was made. But they're workers. Not substantial shareholders. Not directors with personal liabilities tied to the businesses financial performance.

You can go on and so can I. Personally, I think the decisions to shut the doors should have been taken earlier in both instances, instead of pandering to the wants and desires of employees and vested interests from their unions. It shouldn't have been allowed get to the point where it was a borderline knee jerk decision to cease operation the way they did at those sites.

What can you do though when straight talking and calling it like it is gets the backs up on the floor, with people acting as though they're akin to owners, as though they've the right to make demands and direct a business on what it can and cannot do, to hell with profitability.

Private businesses are not some kind of a social enterprise. If you don't like it, go start your own. See how long you last, especially with unions and collective bargaining leaving you hobbled and unable to react to shifting market conditions.

I won't excuse for a minute failure to adequately protect employees pension contributions. That's not business, that's a different thing altogether. Jail time is what that deserves. The jobs though? Gone. Nobody needs employees when you're not going to make the profits you need to make it worthwhile continuing business. Forget the unions. It's time every single worker in every single company learned to embrace that fact. Profitability isn't something a manager and owner can create if the employees aren't prepared to put in the effort first.

Employees don't value ownership though for the most part. They want a paycheck and they want to go home. How many of you would trade pay for shares and direct input into how the company you work for is operated? Few and far between, at least when it comes to the whingers.

BreadnBuddha

Kettleson wrote: »

WTF! Can someone tell me if this is worth reading?

Yes, it is. Especially if you're the kind of person who likes someone else to put in the effort you wouldn't.

Fluffy Cat 88

Kettleson wrote: »

WTF! Can someone tell me if this is worth reading?

If you are interested in people's opinions on this topic, then - yes.

BreadnBuddha

Azalea wrote: »

How does working within your allocated hours automatically = not making an effort/having a poor work ethic/having a sense of entitlement?

I just work from my start time to my finish time and work my ass off.

Strange leaps of logic here.

There are lots of jobs where just working diligently and doing the basic hours is perfectly good enough. If that's what you have and you're happy, good for you.

There are lots of jobs where that's just not enough. I'm referring to those and I've already made that quite clear. I'm also not referring to union shops, also quite clearly.

Depending on what that work is and importantly the size and profitability of the company that employs you, you may find yourself out on your ear if you take the kind of rigid approach to working hours that would be perfectly acceptable in another kind of job.

Plenty of examples were given earlier, all valid.

If you're working in one of those roles and someone senior (meaning, what they say or think is more influencial in the context of the running of the business than what you say or think) says something that suggests you're not making a good impression, the response should be to either adapt your behaviour and work to meet the expectation or get ready to leave if you're planning on pushing it. This relates to a new hire or equally to someone resisting a necessary change in business practices and objectives. The expectation isn't going to change just because you don't like it.

Unfortunately, most of the jobs that facilitate fixed working hours and other inflexible expectations from a workplace bring with them risks to long term continuous employment, as encountered by those laid off from specialist manufacturing roles or low paid retail positions in contracting industries and markets.

When that happens, only those who show a real track record in adapting quickly, pushing for higher productivity or efficiency and willingness to put lots of work in to get themselves up to speed in new roles are likely to get back on track in short order.

JRant

BreadnBuddha wrote: »

Private businesses are not some kind of a social enterprise.

Nobody needs employees when you're not going to make the profits you need to make it worthwhile continuing business.

Yet you are quick enough to tell us that your minions should do as there told and stay late if required even if there is no financial gain for them.

People like you with that uppity attitude always get whats coming in the long run. Who knows, the next shïte talking hotshot could be only around the corner waiting to replace you. Then it's out the door with you like all those people before you.

It's quite a SME based attitude in this country. It's like they're doing people a favour by hiring them and they should be thankful for every second they get to work there.

Throw in a sales role on top and I'd rather gouge out my eyes with a rusty spoon than work in a place like that.

GFT

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.

This.

BreadnBuddha

Who says there's no financial gain for them? Did you miss where I said every one of my sales team earns over 40 grand a year base salary?

If they're not bringing in the numbers, that needs to be fixed. They either put in a bit more effort when the opportunity is there, without holding their hands out, or put themselves and everyone else at risk.

There's financial gain for everyone, when the alternative is that they lose their jobs and everyone else pays their social welfare allowances.

Once you get over your own notions about how these things work, you'll realise that it's not at all a bad deal, even if you'd still find a reason to whinge about it.

As for the dismissive attitude to sales? If you're employed by a company, the great likelihood is that a sales person is responsible for you being there in the first place. A bit more respect for the role and what it provides for you alone would go a long way.

JRant

BreadnBuddha wrote: »

Who says there's no financial gain for them? Did you miss where I said every one of my sales team earns over 40 grand a year base salary?

If they're not bringing in the numbers, that needs to be fixed. They either put in a bit more effort when the opportunity is there, without holding their hands out, or put themselves and everyone else at risk.

There's financial gain for everyone, when the alternative is that they lose their jobs and everyone else pays their social welfare allowances.

Once you get over your own notions about how these things work, you'll realise that it's not at all a bad deal, even if you'd still find a reason to whinge about it.

As for the dismissive attitude to sales? If you're employed by a company, the great likelihood is that a sales person is responsible for you being there in the first place. A bit more respect for the role and what it provides for you alone would go a long way.

Wow, 40k a year, break out the red panties, we've made it.

The threat of losing your job is not a financial gain and no amount spin will change that.

I know perfectly well how it operates. Work all the hours you can when the company is busy and when things slow down you'll still be out the door with others if there's no enough work.

You are quite right that businesses are not a charity, no profits, no job. By the same logic then workers should not be seen as a charity, no pay for additional hours, no work done.

Lets get one thing straight. I'm responsible for me being where I am. it's that typical ****ehawk response that makes me dislike sales. "Well if it wasn't for me you wouldn't have a job" attitude. I provide a real tangible product a Client requires. Just because you put on a suit and slick your hair up every morning does not make you any more important than the next person.

BreadnBuddha

JRant wrote: »

Wow, 40k a year, break out the red panties, we've made it.

The threat of losing your job is not a financial gain and no amount spin will change that.

I know perfectly well how it operates. Work all the hours you can when the company is busy and when things slow down you'll still be out the door with others if there's no enough work.

You are quite right that businesses are not a charity, no profits, no job. By the same logic then workers should not be seen as a charity, no pay for additional hours, no work done.

Lets get one thing straight. I'm responsible for me being where I am. it's that typical ****ehawk response that makes me dislike sales. "Well if it wasn't for me you wouldn't have a job" attitude. I provide a real tangible product a Client requires. Just because you put on a suit and slick your hair up every morning does not make you any more important than the next person.

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.

asteroids over berlin

Move on, cheek of them, in my place there are a number of folk who put in an hour extra a day, fair play to them, maybe it does help with promotion or increased salary when reviewed. Personally I prefer to specialise in my role and get really good/expert and make it hard to replace me, strictly business hours for me apart from the odd time when I have a deadline to meet and I am not meeting it or some other person is struggling, then I will do what is necessary - few and far between though

0ph0rce0

Worked for a multi national. There years. Always under resourced meaning I had to work a half hour here or an hour there every day. Also doing work from other departments.

Never paid for it, Never thanked for it.

Asked for a salary increase based on this, and to be brought up in line to the same salary of the others whos work im doing. Obviously I sold myself to them and didn't just say pay me more. Didn't get it.

Was an hour late one morning first time ever never had a sick day and was told I was getting a warning and all this ****e. I said your having a laugh after the extra 100s of hours I put in.

So I printed off my job description went to managment and said that's my job that's what I'm doing. Everything else you can go shove it. I'll be in at 8 and i'll be gone at 4.

Best feeling of my life. I was happy, stress free. I did leave in the end.

But just goes to show most companies don't give a **** about you, always do thier best to underpay and overwork you. While the management do **** all and get paid 3 times what you do.

I will never give any company any time after my hours ever again.

Money and titles mean nothing to me if I can't enjoy my life, family and friends

Azalea

JRant wrote: »

Yet you are quick enough to tell us that your minions should do as there told and stay late if required even if there is no financial gain for them

Heh, exactly. "don't forget, you're replaceable" and simultaneously "you're badly needed, to the point that you won't get paid". Hell of a mixed message.

Disgusting greed and exploitation. No wonder there are so many people depressed and suffering from anxiety.

Dyr

GreeBo wrote: »

Perhaps your definition of successful differs from mine.

Or its possible that you should just consult a dictionary and report back

Zillah

road_high wrote: »

It still astounds me, and I'll make this pomt again, that some managers think staff staying physically in the office beyond the set hours equals more productivity???!

It's not about productivity. It's about neurotic lack of trust, and power. They want to see you chained to your job because they think they own you, and want to be able to make you do anything they want you to. People that aren't chained to their desks are far too hard to take advantage of.

Dyr

Zillah wrote: »

People that aren't chained to their desks are far too hard to take advantage of.

From what I've heard it's often this, process of natural selection for people who are willing to be leaned on constantly. I thought office space was actually a comedy.

_Kaiser_

It depends on the job and the level you're at to be honest.

I'm at middle-management level myself in IT and have responsibility for a global team. That sometimes means early calls, or late calls with the US, and Dublin in between.
I don't have set hours and I have the ability to work from home as well, so what I normally do is check emails when I get up, respond to anything urgent that came in overnight, drive to work for 10 (thus missing the traffic), work till about 7 (getting my US calls in and again missing the traffic) so that when I DO get home I can relax (most of the time )

Where the team is concerned there's set hours (because it's a support function) but I don't clock-watch them either.. I've fostered an upfront open-door policy and as long as the work is getting done as expected, I've no problems with accommodating people if they need to drop the kids off on the way, or leave a little earlier etc. It's paid back by them genuinely buying into what we're trying to do and they put whatever extra effort (or hours) is needed when it's needed. Morale is good, productivity is high and attrition is low so it works for me anyway

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

KlausFlouride

Managers who expect consistent unpaid extra hours are fools and bullies. They flourished in the recession because they could. Companies have no loyalty to their employees and give nothing for nothing, why should the reverse be true?

dslamjack

BreadnBuddha wrote: »

Waterford Glass? An effectively outdated, unprofitable and ultimately insolvent business, riddled with trade union interference during its operation and the proposal to sell it to new owners, after it had been propped up by taxpayer funding via the IDA for years and ultimately run into the ground as a burning wreck while the trade unions tied the hands of it owners and prevented them saving the business. Everyone got burned there. Not to worry though, the unions put their back into it once more and the Irish taxpayer will foot the pensions bill. What's new. Clery's. More of the same. Another outdated, unprofitable business model and an exit option was seized by the owners before there was nothing left to salvage.

The workers bear the brunt, I know. It's shocking to see people so badly affected by the crappy way the message was finally laid out, when the talking was all finished and the decision was made. But they're workers. Not substantial shareholders. Not directors with personal liabilities tied to the businesses financial performance.

You can go on and so can I. Personally, I think the decisions to shut the doors should have been taken earlier in both instances, instead of pandering to the wants and desires of employees and vested interests from their unions. It shouldn't have been allowed get to the point where it was a borderline knee jerk decision to cease operation the way they did at those sites.

What can you do though when straight talking and calling it like it is gets the backs up on the floor, with people acting as though they're akin to owners, as though they've the right to make demands and direct a business on what it can and cannot do, to hell with profitability.

Private businesses are not some kind of a social enterprise. If you don't like it, go start your own. See how long you last, especially with unions and collective bargaining leaving you hobbled and unable to react to shifting market conditions.

I won't excuse for a minute failure to adequately protect employees pension contributions. That's not business, that's a different thing altogether. Jail time is what that deserves. The jobs though? Gone. Nobody needs employees when you're not going to make the profits you need to make it worthwhile continuing business. Forget the unions. It's time every single worker in every single company learned to embrace that fact. Profitability isn't something a manager and owner can create if the employees aren't prepared to put in the effort first.

Employees don't value ownership though for the most part. They want a paycheck and they want to go home. How many of you would trade pay for shares and direct input into how the company you work for is operated? Few and far between, at least when it comes to the whingers.

Obviously learned nothing from the last 10 years, the workers of the IFA are to blame for what management did? the workers in AIB + BOI were also to blame for what management and directors did,yes indeed I can just see the union lad's in IBOA insisting on Mr Buckley and cronies getting massive ''golden hand shakes'' and ''recompense'' for the AIB and BOI shower that brought themselves and the other financial houses to ruin.
Ye obviously don't remember the Eircom flotation , the workers there were responsible for that fiasco too.
It was of course the unions that brought the western world's economy to near implosion and ruination.
Incompetence , Greed ,Stupidity,Arrogance,recklessness ,Spineless, irresponsible only a few words to describe some of the filth and scum that posed as pillars of the community, captains of industry,management icons with egos to match that drove the company's they were running head front in to financial ruination.
How many people that are homeless today have these''management' to blame for some part of their predicament.
How many workers over the last few years have gone to retire only to find their pensions no longer exist,frittered away on bent policy's /product's etc,the workers in those company's were responsible there too.
Unions may not have covered themselves in glory over the last ten years,but without workers organising unions in the first place , there would be no pensions , or annual leave,equal pay or sick pay etc,employers and government did not suddenly become benevolent over night.
All these Rights were hard fought for over generations,they were never freely given,yes won from boss's and managements that built huge profits and bonus's for them selves on the backs of those they did't care tuppence for.
Has anything changed No, will there be another financial crash ,Yes with the smug know all attitudes that obviously still prevail in management ethos,and yes of course it will be the workers who will be left to carry the can , while the silk suited, silk fingered brigade ,make for the sun set with carpet bags of money and ill gotten loot.