The Daily WTF: Curious Perversions in Information Technology

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

This phenomena is particularly obnoxious when the (highly compensated) exec/partner/etc always arrives at 9:30 and leaves at 3:30 to get to his scheduled tee time. This guy will usually demand 16 hour days from the (very underpaid) worker bees and, of course, the exec's plan succeeds or the workers execution fails.

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

s73v3r:
Again, your drivel sounds good IN THEORY. But the fact of the matter is, it doesn't happen like that in REALITY. For the vast majority of situations, a person losing their ability to support themselves is far, far, far more debilitating that a company losing an employee.

Would like to politely point out that there are companies who go through a great deal of trouble to make sure that people don't get fired for stupid reasons. As these companies grow (because it's harder to fire people), it becomes increasingly difficult to process terminations, and more exceptions occur that create more regulation on firing policies. In worst cases, such companies wind up with a ton of shit, parasite employees that they can't get rid of. This, I would argue, is very counter productive for the company because they gain a reputation of hiring a bunch of losers, and it's not as productive as other companies who strategically (as in correctly and appropriately) fire non-performers when necessary.

I would say that the capacity to fire people at will is a very helpful tool for both sides. But like many things, it can very easily be abused.

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

Correction: The capacity to sever employment terms at will is a very useful tool for both sides.

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

jay:
Poo 'Stache:
Well the real WTF, of course, is continuing to live in a country with no workers' rights whatsoever. If my boss tries to make me work over 37,5 hours a week I can just tell them "no"; I don't have to quit over it.

Why do I need the government to tell me whether or not I like my job? If my boss makes unreasonable demands, I just quit. I don't have to run to some nanny government agency crying like a child.

Uh. Where did Stache say that he had to run to a nanny government agency? And where did he say that he needs the government to tell him when he's working too much? You seem to be putting a lot of words in his mouth in the name of "small government."

In his country there's a predefined upper limit on the number of hours his boss can ask him to work. That limit was set once by the government and, after that point, the government isn't involved. If his boss asks him for more hours, he just says "no." The government doesn't come in and verify that his boss asked him for more than the limit; he doesn't have to go to a government agency to get them to say no to his boss for him. He just... says no, and gets to keep his job, and his boss can either deal with it or hire more people.

Are you people really so afraid of big government that you see it even where it doesn't exist? Sad.

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

fennec:
[ The US, at its best, in right-to-work states, operates on the principles of ownership and freedom. Someone owns the business and its associated property (e.g. factories) and they are free to decide whether or not to hire you or keep you working. You are free to decide whether or not to work there, or whether to work somewhere else, or stay home and grow vegetables.
Substantially-nobody in the US is forced to work for free. You can be required to work stupid hours if you want to get additional money from your employer, certainly. But you can also just walk out the door. Of course, walking out the door is a big deal, more so when you're in a recession, and staying home and growing vegetables isn't the most attractive option... all the more reason to build a functioning economy where employers are willing to hire people. Which is the only solution that really works well in the long run.

heh, you sound young.

in right to work states, it's generally a case of do what I say or find something else. There's very little wiggle room when you know your boss can just shitcan you for fun.
lots of people work for free because the alternative is to find another job that's about the same. And your current job will say you're a no-rehire, screwing you twice.

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

Herp:
Correction: The capacity to sever employment terms at will is a very useful tool for both sides.

Mostly for the employer, who typically doesn't give notice. A mutual required notice period would be really nice, as would health care not tied to employement.

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

PROTIP: Never, ever, ever make a joke about the place you're interviewing at.

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

Publius:
Lawrence ignored way Frank’s expression said ‘ramming speed’, and concluded “That’s probably why they quit. Anyway, thank you for your time, today.”
Zing! I didn't understand the article until this part, then I realized everyone has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo....

chubertdev · 2012-10-30 Reply Admin

John:
PROTIP: Never, ever, ever make a joke about the place you're interviewing at.

Never burn bridges. The bat**** insane CFO at the company that you'd never work for may play golf with the CFO of the company that will offer you your dream job.

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

zelmak:
Bitter Like Quinine:
I was recently handed a company laptop and told to provide out-of-hours cover to the current death march. When I pointed out that I had my own (better) machines at home, I was told that the company doesn't allow "foreign" hardware to connect to their network.
My answer was, "Neither do I."

+1 must remember

I don't get it. You don't allow foreign hardware to connect to their network either? That sounds like a win/win - both of you agree that you'll only use their hardware.

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

Publius:
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

Scary man.

So what's gorilla warfare and how long did you fight with monkeys? Oh, and touchy too.

Incidentally, I'll save you some effort, I'm sitting at bust stop 39 Commercial Road, Port Adelaide just out the front of KFC. Please advise how long I have to wait for this shitstorm.

Cheers,

Freddie

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

Anathos:
Paul:
ObiWayneKenobi:
in the US the company has all the power and your options are usually "Take it or leave it"
Actually, you have exactly the same power. You can go to your boss and say "I will not work more than 39.6 hours per week." Or whatever your demand is. "Take it or leave it." If they take it, great. If not, what do you suppose "leave it" means? Sever the relationship. You do not have mutually agreeable terms, so why would you continue? No one is forcing you to remain.
But force is actually what you prefer. You want to force the employer to keep paying you even though you aren't willing to provide what they want to buy at the price they want to buy it.

Suppose your grocery store went to the government and said "I want you to force ObiWayneKenobi to keep buying $100 worth of groceries from us every week, even though we have stopped carrying the brand of diapers he prefers to wipe his nose from all his whining." After all, the store's employees are depending on you for their livelihood. We can't allow that to be threatened, can we?
Brilliant! And then while you're sitting around without a job (and unable to find a new one) and the bills are piling up, your old boss has just handed your former responsibilities over to your former coworkers and is enjoying the bonus he'll be receiving for cutting his payroll while considering whether or not he really needs to replace you.

There is a power imbalance here.

The world is full of imbalance. get used to it.

The employer wants a job done, and is prepared to offer a particular amount of money to get that done. If you don't like it don't go there - sure someone else will and he'll get away with it, but that's life.

At the end of the day, the choice is ENTIRELY with you.

Do you want a job
how picky you are about what you want to do
how capable you are of doing the sort of jobs you want
how much you expect from such a role etc....

If you're not able to get the job of your dreams, you either settle for less, or you re-assess your criteria.

I'm always astounded by the "I have a right to get the job I want at the rate I want, even if it offers no value to my employer". Sometimes pay is crap or hours are long because that's the nature of the industry. Sometimes it's because the boss is an asshole. In either case, you have to decide whether you're happy putting up with it or not, and make the call on your future. It is entirely your decision to make.

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

Publius:
Barry:
Publius:
I have over 300 confirmed kills... I can kill you in over seven hundred ways
Sounds like all your training didn't include math. Either that, or over half the "ways" you think you know haven't been tested.
Say, have you considered a tour of Pakistan? Or for that matter *.any-istan? They could use your skillz over there, and you could put some proof behind your hollow claims.

Have you heard of combinatorial explosion? It's what my fist will do to your face, tough guy. You wanna be a tough guy? YEAH I BET YOU'RE REAL TOUGH HIDING BEHIND YOUR COMPUTER SCREEN NERD-O.

Captcha: genitus

Pot - meet kettle.

Rhywden · 2012-10-30 Reply Admin

Silas:
It is entirely your decision to make.

What decision? The decision to work myself to death or starve?

Granted, it's an exaggeration but this "decision" is really not as easy as you make it out to be. You make it sound like good jobs lie around on the street, just waiting for you.

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

Come to the United States of America, they said. The job will be good, they said.

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

Hm, depends on what the employee is being fired for. Certain issues, such as illegal activity, theft, assault, or leaking of confidential information, constitute immediate termination. But for things like "we're not satisfied with your performance," absolutely should get advance notice.

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

Rhywden:
Silas:
It is entirely your decision to make.

What decision? The decision to work myself to death or starve?

Granted, it's an exaggeration but this "decision" is really not as easy as you make it out to be. You make it sound like good jobs lie around on the street, just waiting for you.

Not at all.

I never said it's an easy decision, but it is a decision.

My point was more to point out that when you think your job is crap, you can either accept it or move on. Sometimes moving on might mean going to a shit job in a factory or as a kitchen hand or as a garbage collector while you look for work in your chosen field. Not every job is perfect (in fact probably no job is perfect), but it's up to the individual to weigh up satisfaction, reward (salary) etc against their own needs (to make a living, stay sane etc) and decide whether to stay in the job or not. Government intervention (or regulation) does not necessarily fix the problem. If employers are forced to pay more, they may hire fewer people - so you may not have a job anyway. If you don't like your work, always be looking elsewhere - you don't have to walk out saying "shove it up your arse" in the heat of the moment, but it's a cop-out to be blaming the government or your employer for conditions you;re not happy with - look elsewhere, and if you have an appropriate skillset (and most people find they do for something) you might eventually find a job that's less bad.

We all whinge about our work, but I know if I was in the position where I was complaining to the point a lot of people here seem to be, I'd be at least sending out daily resume's and possibly even rethinking the type of work I do...

I have never (and will never) understand people who think every issue in their life is because someone else is a meanie. At some point, we all have to accept the WE control OUR OWN destiny.

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

Herp:
Hm, depends on what the employee is being fired for. Certain issues, such as illegal activity, theft, assault, or leaking of confidential information, constitute immediate termination. But for things like "we're not satisfied with your performance," absolutely should get advance notice.

You would hope that someone is made aware they are underperforming before they are fired, although I would sort of expect that someone would sort of work out when they're not performing. Of course, when your salary is based on the lies you told in your resume, it's possible that you don't realise the boss expects you to work at the level implied by your resume' experience, not your actual competency level.

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

Silas:
Rhywden:
Silas:
It is entirely your decision to make.

What decision? The decision to work myself to death or starve?

Granted, it's an exaggeration but this "decision" is really not as easy as you make it out to be. You make it sound like good jobs lie around on the street, just waiting for you.
Not at all.

I never said it's an easy decision, but it is a decision.

My point was more to point out that when you think your job is crap, you can either accept it or move on. Sometimes moving on might mean going to a shit job in a factory or as a kitchen hand or as a garbage collector while you look for work in your chosen field. Not every job is perfect (in fact probably no job is perfect), but it's up to the individual to weigh up satisfaction, reward (salary) etc against their own needs (to make a living, stay sane etc) and decide whether to stay in the job or not. Government intervention (or regulation) does not necessarily fix the problem. If employers are forced to pay more, they may hire fewer people - so you may not have a job anyway. If you don't like your work, always be looking elsewhere - you don't have to walk out saying "shove it up your arse" in the heat of the moment, but it's a cop-out to be blaming the government or your employer for conditions you;re not happy with - look elsewhere, and if you have an appropriate skillset (and most people find they do for something) you might eventually find a job that's less bad.

We all whinge about our work, but I know if I was in the position where I was complaining to the point a lot of people here seem to be, I'd be at least sending out daily resume's and possibly even rethinking the type of work I do...

I have never (and will never) understand people who think every issue in their life is because someone else is a meanie. At some point, we all have to accept the WE control OUR OWN destiny.

Just over a century ago it was standard for small children to work in factories where they lost fingers and even limbs while working ridiculously long days. It took government intervention to put an end to that.

Seriously, without the government breathing down the neck of industry we'd still be dealing with that sort of shit. Don't sell government regulation short.

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

Jim:
Herp:
Hm, depends on what the employee is being fired for. Certain issues, such as illegal activity, theft, assault, or leaking of confidential information, constitute immediate termination. But for things like "we're not satisfied with your performance," absolutely should get advance notice.
You would hope that someone is made aware they are underperforming before they are fired, although I would sort of expect that someone would sort of work out when they're not performing. Of course, when your salary is based on the lies you told in your resume, it's possible that you don't realise the boss expects you to work at the level implied by your resume' experience, not your actual competency level.

Why? Why? Why do people need notice?

It's probably polite to give notice, and it would probably be wise to counsel employees the moment underperformance is noticed and only sack them if they show consistent underperformance, but why should this be a requirement?

AS you yourself point out - if I hire someone who claims they can excel, and then they don't then they are probably costing me money (because I pay them to excel as they claimed they could).

I suspect a lot of people whinge because they feel the Giants of the world screw the employee (as well they might) but they need to remember that the employer might equally be a small firm that's struggling. If I pay you big bucks, then I expect big performance - and that would hoepfully be clear from the time you are interviewed to the time you leave (whether on your terms, our terms or mutual terms). Ultimately, you are paid to perform a job that you have claimed to be capable of. If you are struggling with this, we need to know (because we may have misrepresented the job). Otherwise, we will assume any performance below expectation is because you simply weren't adequately qualified for the job we pay you for. As a multi-national we might be able to absorb the cost of giving a chance to improve performance (potentially at a reduced pay), or we might feel we cannot afford to maintain your services because they weren't at the level we understood to have agreed at....

Rhywden · 2012-10-30 Reply Admin

Silas:
Rhywden:
Silas:
It is entirely your decision to make.

What decision? The decision to work myself to death or starve?

Granted, it's an exaggeration but this "decision" is really not as easy as you make it out to be. You make it sound like good jobs lie around on the street, just waiting for you.
Not at all.

I never said it's an easy decision, but it is a decision.

My point was more to point out that when you think your job is crap, you can either accept it or move on. Sometimes moving on might mean going to a shit job in a factory or as a kitchen hand or as a garbage collector while you look for work in your chosen field. Not every job is perfect (in fact probably no job is perfect), but it's up to the individual to weigh up satisfaction, reward (salary) etc against their own needs (to make a living, stay sane etc) and decide whether to stay in the job or not. Government intervention (or regulation) does not necessarily fix the problem. If employers are forced to pay more, they may hire fewer people - so you may not have a job anyway. If you don't like your work, always be looking elsewhere - you don't have to walk out saying "shove it up your arse" in the heat of the moment, but it's a cop-out to be blaming the government or your employer for conditions you;re not happy with - look elsewhere, and if you have an appropriate skillset (and most people find they do for something) you might eventually find a job that's less bad.

We all whinge about our work, but I know if I was in the position where I was complaining to the point a lot of people here seem to be, I'd be at least sending out daily resume's and possibly even rethinking the type of work I do...

I have never (and will never) understand people who think every issue in their life is because someone else is a meanie. At some point, we all have to accept the WE control OUR OWN destiny.

Right. You actually suggest getting work as a kitchen helper. That's funny, considering that such low-skill jobs might also not be as plentiful as you make them out to be.

I take it you don't have a family, don't have downpayments on a house and a car, and generally don't have any such longterm investments?

Simply uproot everything in the hopes that the new job might be better?

If you're single and no one depends on you, it's a rather easy decision. As soon as you're not alone anymore, that's not quite so simple.

And you don't control your own destiny. That's an illusion. As I said: Family. Just one example how suddenly your grand freedom is subject to quite a lot of factors outside your control.

For example, due to your shitty healthcare system - do you really want to quit your job (and thus lose the company-provided healthcare or lose the ability to pay your own health care or ...) when your child is seriously sick, maybe even long-term? Just one example, where suddenly your "freedom" is not such a grandiose thing.

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

Anathos:
Silas:
Rhywden:
Silas:
It is entirely your decision to make.

What decision? The decision to work myself to death or starve?

Granted, it's an exaggeration but this "decision" is really not as easy as you make it out to be. You make it sound like good jobs lie around on the street, just waiting for you.
Not at all.

I never said it's an easy decision, but it is a decision.

My point was more to point out that when you think your job is crap, you can either accept it or move on. Sometimes moving on might mean going to a shit job in a factory or as a kitchen hand or as a garbage collector while you look for work in your chosen field. Not every job is perfect (in fact probably no job is perfect), but it's up to the individual to weigh up satisfaction, reward (salary) etc against their own needs (to make a living, stay sane etc) and decide whether to stay in the job or not. Government intervention (or regulation) does not necessarily fix the problem. If employers are forced to pay more, they may hire fewer people - so you may not have a job anyway. If you don't like your work, always be looking elsewhere - you don't have to walk out saying "shove it up your arse" in the heat of the moment, but it's a cop-out to be blaming the government or your employer for conditions you;re not happy with - look elsewhere, and if you have an appropriate skillset (and most people find they do for something) you might eventually find a job that's less bad.

We all whinge about our work, but I know if I was in the position where I was complaining to the point a lot of people here seem to be, I'd be at least sending out daily resume's and possibly even rethinking the type of work I do...

I have never (and will never) understand people who think every issue in their life is because someone else is a meanie. At some point, we all have to accept the WE control OUR OWN destiny.
Just over a century ago it was standard for small children to work in factories where they lost fingers and even limbs while working ridiculously long days. It took government intervention to put an end to that.

Seriously, without the government breathing down the neck of industry we'd still be dealing with that sort of shit. Don't sell government regulation short.

Ok, so you have found an example where some intervention helped. I never said government should never jump in.

As with everything there is a time and a place for it. I'll also add that I think Government involvement is important to avoid monopolies and to get rid of colluding that allows large companies to drive market value down by agreeing on how they compete (eg: A and B get together and agree they can both save money by paying engineers less, and because of their size, the savings they make make it impossible for the smaller C to compete without also cutting wages).

That said, the "I hate my job because my employer screws me" is not immediately a reason for intervention. If it irks you so much, move on to other work (and other types of work). If you REALLY feel strongly about it, campaign your local politician (and good luck with that). But just because a few people feel like they're getting screwed, doesn't mean the entire world is half as fucked as they claim.

I have worked with many people who have complained about how outrageous their conditions are, and all too often the bottom line is that they're struggling to stay afloat, or their skills are a massive mismatch against what the job requires. This is not the employers fault, and the employer should not be punished by being forced to pay a higher premium to retain their services. I remember a bus driver who complained his bosses were always hassling him. Turns out he always ran late (on routes others didn't); had some hygiene issues (well, sort of - pick your nose and eat it in front of the passengers); and had a high number of complaints from the general public. Eventually he was let go, and he caused enormous stink, but everyone seemed to forget the company had a contract to deliver a service, and he was retarding their ability to successfully fulfill their contractual obligation (and perhaps tarnishing the companies professional reputation at the same time). Ultimately, I think it would have been unfair if the comapny were not allowed to fire him.

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

Rhywden:
Silas:
Rhywden:
Silas:
It is entirely your decision to make.

What decision? The decision to work myself to death or starve?

Granted, it's an exaggeration but this "decision" is really not as easy as you make it out to be. You make it sound like good jobs lie around on the street, just waiting for you.
Not at all.

I never said it's an easy decision, but it is a decision.

My point was more to point out that when you think your job is crap, you can either accept it or move on. Sometimes moving on might mean going to a shit job in a factory or as a kitchen hand or as a garbage collector while you look for work in your chosen field. Not every job is perfect (in fact probably no job is perfect), but it's up to the individual to weigh up satisfaction, reward (salary) etc against their own needs (to make a living, stay sane etc) and decide whether to stay in the job or not. Government intervention (or regulation) does not necessarily fix the problem. If employers are forced to pay more, they may hire fewer people - so you may not have a job anyway. If you don't like your work, always be looking elsewhere - you don't have to walk out saying "shove it up your arse" in the heat of the moment, but it's a cop-out to be blaming the government or your employer for conditions you;re not happy with - look elsewhere, and if you have an appropriate skillset (and most people find they do for something) you might eventually find a job that's less bad.

We all whinge about our work, but I know if I was in the position where I was complaining to the point a lot of people here seem to be, I'd be at least sending out daily resume's and possibly even rethinking the type of work I do...

I have never (and will never) understand people who think every issue in their life is because someone else is a meanie. At some point, we all have to accept the WE control OUR OWN destiny.

Right. You actually suggest getting work as a kitchen helper. That's funny, considering that such low-skill jobs might also not be as plentiful as you make them out to be.

I take it you don't have a family, don't have downpayments on a house and a car, and generally don't have any such longterm investments?

Simply uproot everything in the hopes that the new job might be better?

If you're single and no one depends on you, it's a rather easy decision. As soon as you're not alone anymore, that's not quite so simple.

And you don't control your own destiny. That's an illusion. As I said: Family. Just one example how suddenly your grand freedom is subject to quite a lot of factors outside your control.

For example, due to your shitty healthcare system - do you really want to quit your job (and thus lose the company-provided healthcare or lose the ability to pay your own health care or ...) when your child is seriously sick, maybe even long-term? Just one example, where suddenly your "freedom" is not such a grandiose thing.

On the contrary:

I have worked a plethora of jobs in a large variety of industries (and in this neck of the wood, there's always work for dishlickers - which I'll admit might be a step below kitchenhands)
I have 3 kids, and am paying off both a house and a car (and have diddly-squat in savings)

I have twice now tried to emphasise look for work while you are still employed not uproot everything - but perhaps I've not bee clear enough. I understand the importance of a continual income, but if conditions really are impossible, then at the very least you'd be sending off some resumes.

I'll let you not control your destiny if you so choose. There are (without a doubt) factors that affect you that you have no control over, but how you react to them will affect how they turn out. Granted you can't control 100% how things will turn out - or plan with any certainty how certain things turn out, but you can certainly maximise the chances of things going the way you want. Want a new job? You won't get one without putting the effort into writing and sending resume's. etc.

I don't really know much about the Health Care system, other than I have (personally paid for) private health cover (and I'm not sure what that gets me - every time I've been to the doctor, the Governemnt has paid most of it and I contribute $20-$50). I'm vaguely aware other countries have more complex systems.

I simply don't really see the doom and gloom picture being created. Rather it sounds like you're upset about your current work, but not really looking into doing anything about it....

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

silent bob:
This phenomena is particularly obnoxious when the (highly compensated) exec/partner/etc always arrives at 9:30 and leaves at 3:30 to get to his scheduled tee time. This guy will usually demand 16 hour days from the (very underpaid) worker bees and, of course, the exec's plan succeeds or the workers execution fails.

Wow! Sounds like a sweet life! If it is that easy, why don't you do it instead of bitching all the time? Just go start your own company, pay yourself megabucks, and recruit a bunch of slaves to do all the real work.

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

Hughlander:
Marches imply a destination. This is more of a death treadmill.

Well said.

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

Jazz:
In his country run by a government there's a predefined upper limit set by the government on the number of hours his boss can ask him to work. That limit was set once by the government (see?) and, after that point, the government isn't involved (say what?!) If his boss asks him for more hours, he just says "no." The government doesn't come in and verify that his boss asked him for more than the limit; he doesn't have to go to a government agency to get them to say no to his boss for him. He just... says no, and gets to keep his job, and his boss can either deal with it or hire more people.
Are you people really so afraid of big government that you see it even where it doesn't exist? Sad.

So when the boss tells him to work more hours, and he says no, and the boss fires him, the government doesn't do anything about that? How is it that he magically "gets to keep his job" without any intervention?

Are you people really so enamored of big government that you don't see it even where it dominates and controls every facet of your life? Sad.

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

That's the way most laws work: the only time the government gets involved is when someone breaks them.

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

Franz Kafka:
in right to work states, it's generally a case of do what I say or find something else. There's very little wiggle room when you know your boss can just shitcan you for fun.

And why does a boss who likes to shitcan people "for fun" spend his good money to hire people in the first place? Just so he can torture them later? Do you really believe such a fucked-up asshole can waste enough money for one or more full time salaries and still outperform his competitors who are treating their employees with respect?

Or maybe an employer needs some help running the business, in which case he can't fire people without hurting his business, unless of course they are lazy slackoff bitchy jerks who aren't doing any useful work.

Adanine · 2012-10-30 Reply Admin

There's a lot of debate about government intervention in job rights...

I understand a lot of people don't want it. It's not where government belongs, and it can seriously damage many things, to both people and co-operations.

A lot of people are argueing that it's useless aswell. Anyone who is feeling mistreated or abused should just talk to their boss about it. I completely understand and agree.

The problem is that you [Opposer of Government intervention] are not everyone. Some people have issue with doing this. Some people (Ie, Sandy, in this case) have a sense of Loyalty or Fear that prevents them from comfortably doing so. No doubt Sandy tried, but probably gave up very soon in the conversation, and surrendered back to her desk. I've certainly done this before aswell.

The purpose of Government is to serve everyone that is covered by that government. You may not need help in this case, and it may even affect you negatively, but all Government tries to do is create equal ground to all people. You may classify Sandy's lack-of-boldness as a weakness, but that's off-topic. In all honesty, how many people do/did you know were being exploited by companies because of lack of knowlledge? My first developer job was full time, with a ton of unpaid overtime, netting me less then 35k a year. I was too dumb to know that I was being exploited. Again, maybe you can make the arguement that I should have done more research, but many people (Especially at the age I was) are not as forward-thinking like that.

The argument I'm trying to make, is that Government may have a place in Business rights, but to what extent, and is it worth it? Better yet, will it actually affect you?

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

Rhywden:
You make it sound like good jobs lie around on the street, just waiting for you.

One of the following must be true:

There are good jobs lying around on the street just waiting for talented people like you. (The supply of jobs exceeds the supply of valuable workers.) --or--
There are talented people lying around on the street just waiting for someone to make a healthy profit on those talents. (The supply of valuable workers exceeds the number of people who know how to monetize that value.)

If you believe the economy is currently in state 2, the only sane thing for you to do is start a company to employ this glut of skilled underpriced workers.

I guess there might be a couple other possibilities:

You aren't as talented and valuable as you think you are.
You aren't smart enough to figure out how to extract value from skilled underpriced workers. So maybe you should go kiss the toes of the nearest person who is, and thank them for providing jobs for losers like you.

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

Rhywden:
I take it you don't have a family, don't have downpayments on a house and a car, and generally don't have _any_ such longterm investments?
... As soon as you're not alone anymore, that's not quite so simple.

And you don't control your own destiny. That's an illusion. As I said: Family. Just one example how suddenly your grand freedom is subject to quite a lot of factors outside your control.

Did this family come up and hijack you one day, perhaps with an assault rifle? Or was this a choice you made, even though you knew you couldn't afford it?

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

ruggerio:
Why? Why? Why do people need notice?
It's probably polite to give notice, and it would probably be wise to counsel employees the moment underperformance is noticed and only sack them if they show consistent underperformance, but why should this be a requirement?

AS you yourself point out - if I hire someone who claims they can excel, and then they don't then they are probably costing me money (because I pay them to excel as they claimed they could).

I suspect a lot of people whinge because they feel the Giants of the world screw the employee (as well they might) but they need to remember that the employer might equally be a small firm that's struggling. If I pay you big bucks, then I expect big performance - and that would hoepfully be clear from the time you are interviewed to the time you leave (whether on your terms, our terms or mutual terms). Ultimately, you are paid to perform a job that you have claimed to be capable of. If you are struggling with this, we need to know (because we may have misrepresented the job). Otherwise, we will assume any performance below expectation is because you simply weren't adequately qualified for the job we pay you for. As a multi-national we might be able to absorb the cost of giving a chance to improve performance (potentially at a reduced pay), or we might feel we cannot afford to maintain your services because they weren't at the level we understood to have agreed at....

So this is an interesting point, but you seem to be making the assumptions that the employee is either a) deliberately under-performing and/or b) incapable of meeting your expectations. These seems like a very unsafe and costly assumptions to make. Perhaps the employee is used to the work flow of their previous job and doesn't quite understand the needs that you have? Perhaps you haven't made your expectations for the employee perfectly clear? Naturally, there is the possibility that the employee is indeed lazy, unable to meet your needs, and should be thrown out. But I think its worth it to communicate your expectations, make sure they know that they are not meeting them, and give them a chance to improve themselves.

Releasing an employee does have consequences, such as increases in turnover, HR involvement (which could imply lots of documentation for them and pain for you, or in the worst case them overturning your decision), a potential rehiring cycle, redistribution of their work (what little there is), and if you do it too often a negative stigma of your management style, among other things. I would argue that it's cheaper to try and salvage a bad employee than to just give up on them and throw them out the door without giving them a shot. Naturally, if they fail to improve, then you should toss them out. You gave them fair warning and they still sucked.

That's just my opinion though.

Adanine · 2012-10-30 Reply Admin

Fred:
3. You aren't as talented and valuable as you think you are. 4. You aren't smart enough to figure out how to extract value from skilled underpriced workers. So maybe you should go kiss the toes of the nearest person who is, and thank them for providing jobs for losers like you.

Why do all arguments have to descend to childish name-calling? Any weight your argument had was just washed away calling by calling someone you don't know a loser, simply because he has a different opinion then you?

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

Fred:
Rhywden:
You make it sound like good jobs lie around on the street, just waiting for you.
One of the following must be true:

There are good jobs lying around on the street just waiting for talented people like you. (The supply of jobs exceeds the supply of valuable workers.) --or--

There are talented people lying around on the street just waiting for someone to make a healthy profit on those talents. (The supply of valuable workers exceeds the number of people who know how to monetize that value.)

If you believe the economy is currently in state 2, the only sane thing for you to do is start a company to employ this glut of skilled underpriced workers.

I guess there might be a couple other possibilities:

You aren't as talented and valuable as you think you are.

You aren't smart enough to figure out how to extract value from skilled underpriced workers. So maybe you should go kiss the toes of the nearest person who is, and thank them for providing jobs for losers like you.

...or

You don't have the resources to start that business and those who do have the resources are unwilling to loan them to you.
There is insufficient demand for the goods or services those under priced workers will produce (probably because those workers don't have any money to purchase goods and services with because they don't have jobs).

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

Anathos:
...or 5) You don't have the resources to start that business and those who do have the resources are unwilling to loan them to you.

because they don't believe you will be able to provide a positive return on their investment. If they believed you knew how to make a better profit than what they can get elsewhere, they'd be fighting to be first in line to lend you money. That's how investment works. That's how the economy works.

When you have a huge number of voters that don't understand how the economy works, don't be surprised when the economy doesn't work so well after all, thanks to their ignorant votes that choke wealth creation.

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

Anathos:
those workers don't have any money to purchase goods and services with because they don't have jobs

Try this:

Isolate 10 people on a desert island, in a circle around the campfire pit. Give the first one a large pile of paper. Make the paper green, just for fun. Order him to give it all to the person on his right. And so on, all around the circle. Now you have a thriving economy! Everyone is rich!

Won't they all be surprised when they starve to death?

You're confused about how to create wealth. You don't start by giving people "jobs". You start by producing things of value. If not for someone else, then for yourself. When you've produced more than you need, you trade with someone else who has something you want more than what you've already got. Production and trade is the driver of all the goods and services that keep you alive and even, sometimes, happy. Work and freedom. Not handing out cash or forcing transactions to occur that wouldn't otherwise.

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

Fred:
Anathos:
...or 5) You don't have the resources to start that business and those who do have the resources are unwilling to loan them to you.
because they don't believe you will be able to provide a positive return on their investment. If they believed you knew how to make a better profit than what they can get elsewhere, they'd be fighting to be first in line to lend you money. That's how investment works. That's how the economy works.
When you have a huge number of voters that don't understand how the economy works, don't be surprised when the economy doesn't work so well after all, thanks to their ignorant votes that choke wealth creation.

Investors are neither perfectly rational nor omniscient. What they think you are capable of has very little to do with what you are actually capable of. See every stock market crash ever for evidence.

Also, good job completely ignoring the bit about insufficient demand due to high unemployment. It really shows you know what you're talking about.

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

Fred:
Anathos:
those workers don't have any money to purchase goods and services with because they don't have jobs
Try this:
Isolate 10 people on a desert island, in a circle around the campfire pit. Give the first one a large pile of paper. Make the paper green, just for fun. Order him to give it all to the person on his right. And so on, all around the circle. Now you have a thriving economy! Everyone is rich!

Won't they all be surprised when they starve to death?

You're confused about how to create wealth. You don't start by giving people "jobs". You start by producing things of value. If not for someone else, then for yourself. When you've produced more than you need, you trade with someone else who has something you want more than what you've already got. Production and trade is the driver of all the goods and services that keep you alive and even, sometimes, happy. Work and freedom. Not handing out cash or forcing transactions to occur that wouldn't otherwise.

We live in a world where people need money to buy things. When people have no money (because they are unemployed) they cannot buy anything. It doesn't matter how many things of value you produce, if no one will buy them you're going to go out of business.

2012-10-30 Reply Admin

Anathos:
Investors are neither perfectly rational nor omniscient.

I didn't say they were. I only said they don't believe you. They may or may not be right. If you want their money, it's your job to persuade them to part with it.

Anathos:
good job completely ignoring the bit about insufficient demand due to high unemployment. It really shows you know what you're talking about.

Maybe you were writing your critique even as I was writing the answer you sought. Or maybe you read it but didn't understand.

You implied that the solution is to create jobs from thin air by handing out cash that comes popping out of a black hole, I guess. Then, with their newfound money, the workers go off to buy stuff, creating the demand which creates the jobs. It's kinda circular, like a perpetual motion machine.

I showed that doesn't work by cutting off your foundation. Meaningless money being forced around in circles is not the answer. Production and trade is.

2012-10-31 Reply Admin

Fred:
Anathos:
Investors are neither perfectly rational nor omniscient.
I didn't say they were. I only said they don't believe you. They may or may not be right. If you want their money, it's your job to persuade them to part with it.
Anathos:
good job completely ignoring the bit about insufficient demand due to high unemployment. It really shows you know what you're talking about.
Maybe you were writing your critique even as I was writing the answer you sought. Or maybe you read it but didn't understand.
You implied that the solution is to create jobs from thin air by handing out cash that comes popping out of a black hole, I guess. Then, with their newfound money, the workers go off to buy stuff, creating the demand which creates the jobs. It's kinda circular, like a perpetual motion machine.

I showed that doesn't work by cutting off your foundation. Meaningless money being forced around in circles is not the answer. Production and trade is.

Meaningless production without a demand for products is not the answer. Believe it or not, the "perpetual motion machine" is exactly how the Great Depression was ended. The government printed a bunch of money and handed it out to people working on roads to nowhere (or building bombs and guns during WWII); those people then used that money to purchase the goods they couldn't previously afford, jump starting the economy.

2012-10-31 Reply Admin

Ken:
I turned in my notice after working 17 days straight. My boss seemed puzzled when I gave that as one of my reasons for leaving.

How is that even legal??!

2012-10-31 Reply Admin

jay:
Poo 'Stache:
Well the real WTF, of course, is continuing to live in a country with no workers' rights whatsoever. If my boss tries to make me work over 37,5 hours a week I can just tell them "no"; I don't have to quit over it.

Why do I need the government to tell me whether or not I like my job?

Why do you ask me a question that has nothing to do with my post?

Anyway, the government doesn't really factor into it. WE GOT UNIONS, BITCH! (I mean that literally, you are a little bitch.)

2012-10-31 Reply Admin

when I was in sales

Watson · 2012-10-31 Reply Admin

Carl:
Rhywden:
I take it you don't have a family, don't have downpayments on a house and a car, and generally don't have _any_ such longterm investments?
... As soon as you're not alone anymore, that's not quite so simple.

And you don't control your own destiny. That's an illusion. As I said: Family. Just one example how suddenly your grand freedom is subject to quite a lot of factors outside your control.
Did this family come up and hijack you one day, perhaps with an assault rifle? Or was this a choice you made, even though you knew you couldn't afford it?

I don't know about you, but I didn't get to choose my family.

Or maybe it was a choice made when Rhywden believed it was affordable Whether it has proven to be or not is irrelevant, since knowing that at the time the choice was made would have been impossible.

As the joke puts it: How do you make God laugh?

2012-10-31 Reply Admin

That's what happens when you employ a mismanager...

2012-10-31 Reply Admin

Laurie:
zelmak:
Bitter Like Quinine:
I was recently handed a company laptop and told to provide out-of-hours cover to the current death march. When I pointed out that I had my own (better) machines at home, I was told that the company doesn't allow "foreign" hardware to connect to their network.
My answer was, "Neither do I."

+1 must remember
I don't get it. You don't allow foreign hardware to connect to their network either? That sounds like a win/win - both of you agree that you'll only use their hardware.

From "Bitter Like Quinine"'s view, s/he don't want company's laptop to connect to his/her home's network. (Note that his/her boss give the laptop to him/her because the boss wanted him/her to work at home)

2012-10-31 Reply Admin

Congratulations, you just failed the Turing test.

2012-10-31 Reply Admin

PedanticCurmudgeon:
C-Derb:
Publius:
I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces.
Did you mean guerrilla warfare? That would make more sense.
TRWTF is expecting someone of Publius' intelligence level to spell guerrilla correctly.

TRWTF is so many people responding to literally the most famous and overused copypasta.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+the+fuck+did+you+just+fucking+say+about+me%2C+you+little+bitch%3F

Uh oh. Akismet says your comment was spam. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. But I'm taking their word on it. Try again!

2012-10-31 Reply Admin

jay:
Poo 'Stache:
Well the real WTF, of course, is continuing to live in a country with no workers' rights whatsoever. If my boss tries to make me work over 37,5 hours a week I can just tell them "no"; I don't have to quit over it.

Why do I need the government to tell me whether or not I like my job? If my boss makes unreasonable demands, I just quit. I don't have to run to some nanny government agency crying like a child.

And when they don't pay my wages that week, I just go over to their house after work with my gun and point it at them until they pay up. I don't have to run to some nanny government agency crying like a child.

2012-10-31 Reply Admin

ruggerio:
Why? Why? Why do people need notice?

Assuming you're being serious, do you really think it's possible to walk straight into a new job on a similar pay-scale, without any prior warning, before you've lost any significant earnings?

Quitters Never Win

Leave a comment on “Quitters Never Win”