• Dogsworth (cs)

    ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

  • RandomGuy (unregistered) in reply to Dogsworth
    Dogsworth:
    ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
    You misspelled "frist".
  • Anon (unregistered)

    Ahh, the good old "I don't get unicode right".. ä

  • Kuli (unregistered) in reply to Anon

    Or ä

  • Davor (unregistered)

    Maybe he wanted to use the Ångstrom Å?

  • Unisol (unregistered)

    I was witnessing similar situation couple of months ago. In our company, there is a proprietary platform, abundance of projects on that platform, and lack of developers who know ins and outs of that platform. Managers, not willing to lose money by postponing some of the projects until resources are available, try to compensate the lack of developers by transfering us from project to project as need arises. Understandably, clients don't like hearing new voice every week - for them, that means slowed development speed while the new guy learns the ropes of particular project. In order not to disturb the client, one of more... unorthodox managers decided that one dev could totally imitate the voice of another to the point of no one noticing. Fortunately, he soon realized how bad the idea was, but we'll never forget the acting sessions we were put to...

  • Remy Porter (cs)

    We've had a contracting company try to pull this on us. They send experienced, well prepped candidates, with excellent spoken English skills to the phone interview. Somebody else ends up actually doing the work.

  • Herr Otto Flick (unregistered) in reply to Remy Porter
    Remy Porter:
    We've had a contracting company try to pull this on us. They send experienced, well prepped candidates, with excellent spoken English skills to the phone interview. Somebody else ends up actually doing the work.

    Er, this is the purpose and aim of contracting companies. You pay a hideous day rate to the nice super-smart consultant who pops in for a couple of weeks to go to meetings, decide the spec.

    The work is then done (offshore or onshore) by the cheapest developers that the contractor can find. The only time you'll see the consultant again is when you do the project again - sorry, "update the requirements for phase 2".

  • TGV (cs)

    Good story & write-up.

  • chris (unregistered)

    "Sorry about the bag; didn't have time to shave!"

  • Remy Porter (cs) in reply to Herr Otto Flick

    No, we actually use the contractors for staffing. We're trying to hire a resource to work on a project, and they bait and switch the resource. We have a lot more work than we have employees, but the amount of work is so highly variable that we can't justify expanding our headcount- we'd end up idling employees for months at a time.

    Our customers also want us to use offshore resources, but that's because of internal billing which is its own WTF.

  • Jasper (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    Ahh, the good old "I don't get unicode right".. ä
    No, it was really his doppelgänger, not his doppelgänger.
  • Gigaplex (unregistered)
    These were simpler times, before Cisco's robust line of telepresence solutions.
    TRWTF
  • Nagesh (cs) in reply to Remy Porter
    Remy Porter:
    We've had a contracting company try to pull this on us. They send experienced, well prepped candidates, with excellent spoken English skills to the phone interview. Somebody else ends up actually doing the work.

    Yes this is a sad practice adopting by a few companies in India.

  • Nagesh (cs) in reply to Remy Porter
    Remy Porter:
    No, we actually use the contractors for staffing. We're trying to hire a resource to work on a project, and they bait and switch the resource. We have a lot more work than we have employees, but the amount of work is so highly variable that we can't justify expanding our headcount- we'd end up idling employees for months at a time.

    Our customers also want us to use offshore resources, but that's because of internal billing which is its own WTF.

    Obvious offshore resource like Nagesh is giving more profit margin to his employers.

  • golddog (unregistered) in reply to Dogsworth
    Dan Adams-Jacobson:
    With no choice but to play his part in the charade...

    Patently false. There are always alternatives. In this case, grow a pair and refuse to take part.

    One thing management doesn't seem to realize is that jobs are, by and large, disposable. You'll just go find another one if this one doesn't work out for some reason. No reason to stay in a bad environment.

  • Coyne (cs)

    Gee, I hope the Architect doesn't decide to put out a hit on his evil competition...

  • English Man (cs)

    Eat your breakfast on your own time, nobody wants to watch you slurp cereal just so you can proudly claim to be in at 8.30 every day.

  • eViLegion (cs) in reply to English Man
    English Man:
    Eat your breakfast on your own time, nobody wants to watch you slurp cereal just so you can proudly claim to be in at 8.30 every day.
    Pfft. When you're his boss, fine. Until then, STFU.
  • Ben Jammin (unregistered) in reply to English Man
    English Man:
    Eat your breakfast on your own time, nobody wants to watch you slurp cereal just so you can proudly claim to be in at 8.30 every day.
    8:30? What are you doing with the first 4 hours of your day?
  • xaade (cs) in reply to English Man
    English Man:
    Eat your breakfast on your own time, nobody wants to watch you slurp cereal just so you can proudly claim to be in at 8.30 every day.

    When you stop forcing me to waste 2 hours of my life driving in to work instead of just working from home, then you won't see me eating at my desk.

    If that isn't good enough, when you stop caring about ensuring I make 40 hours a week no matter how variable the workload, expecting me to work overtime when the workload is high, and find extra work when the workload is low, then I'll take my lunch on my own time.

    When you stop babysitting me, then I'll stop eating meals at my desk.

  • stew (unregistered)

    I see that day of whistle-blowing and ethics training paid off. I guess as long as nobody was taking office pens home at the end of the day....

  • markfiend (cs) in reply to xaade
    xaade:
    When you stop forcing me to waste 2 hours of my life driving in to work instead of just working from home, then you won't see me eating at my desk.
    Move closer to where you work or get a job closer to where you live. You're the one "forcing" yourself to do all that travelling.
  • Cyberzombie (unregistered) in reply to stew
    stew:
    I see that day of whistle-blowing and ethics training paid off. I guess as long as nobody was taking office pens home at the end of the day....
    Pens? What are those?
  • Chuck Lester (unregistered) in reply to stew
    stew:
    I see that day of whistle-blowing and ethics training paid off. I guess as long as nobody was taking office pens home at the end of the day....

    Or copper cables from the walls...

  • F (unregistered) in reply to Cyberzombie
    Cyberzombie:
    stew:
    I see that day of whistle-blowing and ethics training paid off. I guess as long as nobody was taking office pens home at the end of the day....
    Pens? What are those?

    Known in some offices as "cubicles".

  • eViLegion (cs) in reply to Cyberzombie
    Cyberzombie:
    stew:
    I see that day of whistle-blowing and ethics training paid off. I guess as long as nobody was taking office pens home at the end of the day....
    Pens? What are those?

    Friends. Pens are my friends. If they don't work you shake 'em... if they still don't work YOU THROW 'EM AWAAAAAY.

  • Thanatos Complex (unregistered)

    Tap live on Kaeps.

  • operagost (cs) in reply to markfiend
    markfiend:
    xaade:
    When you stop forcing me to waste 2 hours of my life driving in to work instead of just working from home, then you won't see me eating at my desk.
    Move closer to where you work or get a job closer to where you live. You're the one "forcing" yourself to do all that travelling.
    What if they move your office? Go on unemployment?
  • xaade (cs) in reply to markfiend
    markfiend:
    xaade:
    When you stop forcing me to waste 2 hours of my life driving in to work instead of just working from home, then you won't see me eating at my desk.
    Move closer to where you work or get a job closer to where you live. You're the one "forcing" yourself to do all that travelling.

    If we're going to split hairs then let's do.

    I know there's a point where I make my decisions and have to live with them. But there's also the point that work for pay is to be a just exchange.

    The rules, pay them, 40 hours a week, time as work done. However, those rules don't take into account that I drive 2 hours to work and back. Who's to pay for those two hours (the time). Suppose it's fair that I do. Now, I'm also supposed to pay time for the lunch I have to eat, because they must get my 40 hours. Now, I'm also supposed to pay time for any restroom break? Water break? Stop to think break? Is brainstorming mine or theirs, because there's no measurable work done during a brainstorming session that produces no ideas.

    If we're going to get this pedantic over time, then, why when your business is busy, do I have to spend over 40 hours to accommodate the owner, but if we're not busy I still have to accommodate the owner's need to feel productive and complete 40 hours of work done, which I can't do anyway. (Run-on is there on purpose to show the disconnect in thought).

    At this point, I think it can be deduced that the common salary system is not just.

    Which, I would hope that any reasonable employer would understand, and to promote compensation for that lack of justice in a salary situation, allow their employees courtesies like not counting time in the restroom against them. Which, in my opinion, is no different than the courtesy to allow an employee to eat at their desk.

    Because, in all fairness, if I were to take lunch on my time, would I have to charge time back against the company for any productive thought occurring during my lunch "break"?

  • jay (unregistered) in reply to operagost
    operagost:
    markfiend:
    xaade:
    When you stop forcing me to waste 2 hours of my life driving in to work instead of just working from home, then you won't see me eating at my desk.
    Move closer to where you work or get a job closer to where you live. You're the one "forcing" yourself to do all that travelling.
    What if they move your office? Go on unemployment?

    If every time you show up for work the company moves the office, I think you should take that as a hint.

  • Ronald (unregistered) in reply to xaade
    xaade:
    markfiend:
    xaade:
    When you stop forcing me to waste 2 hours of my life driving in to work instead of just working from home, then you won't see me eating at my desk.
    Move closer to where you work or get a job closer to where you live. You're the one "forcing" yourself to do all that travelling.

    If we're going to split hairs then let's do.

    I know there's a point where I make my decisions and have to live with them. But there's also the point that work for pay is to be a just exchange.

    The rules, pay them, 40 hours a week, time as work done. However, those rules don't take into account that I drive 2 hours to work and back. Who's to pay for those two hours (the time). Suppose it's fair that I do. Now, I'm also supposed to pay time for the lunch I have to eat, because they must get my 40 hours. Now, I'm also supposed to pay time for any restroom break? Water break? Stop to think break? Is brainstorming mine or theirs, because there's no measurable work done during a brainstorming session that produces no ideas.

    If we're going to get this pedantic over time, then, why when your business is busy, do I have to spend over 40 hours to accommodate the owner, but if we're not busy I still have to accommodate the owner's need to feel productive and complete 40 hours of work done, which I can't do anyway. (Run-on is there on purpose to show the disconnect in thought).

    At this point, I think it can be deduced that the common salary system is not just.

    Which, I would hope that any reasonable employer would understand, and to promote compensation for that lack of justice in a salary situation, allow their employees courtesies like not counting time in the restroom against them. Which, in my opinion, is no different than the courtesy to allow an employee to eat at their desk.

    Because, in all fairness, if I were to take lunch on my time, would I have to charge time back against the company for any productive thought occurring during my lunch "break"?

    Unless you work for a fly-by-night basement shop you take zero financial risk when you work on a salary. The hiring party is making the financial commitment, not knowing for sure if it will pay off.

    Why don't you start your own company and hire people to work for yourself. While you try to balance the books or drum up some business and one of your employee starts bitching about not being paid for his commute time you will get a better understanding of what a whiny and childish behavior it is.

  • C-Derb (unregistered) in reply to xaade
    xaade:
    markfiend:
    xaade:
    When you stop forcing me to waste 2 hours of my life driving in to work instead of just working from home, then you won't see me eating at my desk.
    Move closer to where you work or get a job closer to where you live. You're the one "forcing" yourself to do all that travelling.

    If we're going to split hairs then let's do.

    I know there's a point where I make my decisions and have to live with them. But there's also the point that work for pay is to be a just exchange.

    The rules, pay them, 40 hours a week, time as work done. However, those rules don't take into account that I drive 2 hours to work and back. Who's to pay for those two hours (the time). Suppose it's fair that I do. Now, I'm also supposed to pay time for the lunch I have to eat, because they must get my 40 hours. Now, I'm also supposed to pay time for any restroom break? Water break? Stop to think break? Is brainstorming mine or theirs, because there's no measurable work done during a brainstorming session that produces no ideas.

    If we're going to get this pedantic over time, then, why when your business is busy, do I have to spend over 40 hours to accommodate the owner, but if we're not busy I still have to accommodate the owner's need to feel productive and complete 40 hours of work done, which I can't do anyway. (Run-on is there on purpose to show the disconnect in thought).

    At this point, I think it can be deduced that the common salary system is not just.

    Which, I would hope that any reasonable employer would understand, and to promote compensation for that lack of justice in a salary situation, allow their employees courtesies like not counting time in the restroom against them. Which, in my opinion, is no different than the courtesy to allow an employee to eat at their desk.

    Because, in all fairness, if I were to take lunch on my time, would I have to charge time back against the company for any productive thought occurring during my lunch "break"?

    Don't forget the lack of energy and motivation that you bring into the office with you after fighting your way through traffic for an hour. Any employer who is flexible on work schedule and location is doing themselves a favor.

    It's easy to say that you can just move closer to work, but the reality is a different story when you have a mortgage and kids.

  • jugis (unregistered) in reply to English Man
    English Man:
    Eat your breakfast on your own time, nobody wants to watch you slurp cereal just so you can proudly claim to be in at 8.30 every day.

    Says the man who entertains himself throughout the day on company's time.

  • chubertdev (cs)

    A lot of frustrated people commenting today...

  • jay (unregistered) in reply to xaade
    xaade:
    markfiend:
    xaade:
    When you stop forcing me to waste 2 hours of my life driving in to work instead of just working from home, then you won't see me eating at my desk.
    Move closer to where you work or get a job closer to where you live. You're the one "forcing" yourself to do all that travelling.

    If we're going to split hairs then let's do.

    I know there's a point where I make my decisions and have to live with them. But there's also the point that work for pay is to be a just exchange.

    The rules, pay them, 40 hours a week, time as work done. However, those rules don't take into account that I drive 2 hours to work and back. Who's to pay for those two hours (the time). Suppose it's fair that I do. Now, I'm also supposed to pay time for the lunch I have to eat, because they must get my 40 hours. Now, I'm also supposed to pay time for any restroom break? Water break? Stop to think break? Is brainstorming mine or theirs, because there's no measurable work done during a brainstorming session that produces no ideas.

    If we're going to get this pedantic over time, then, why when your business is busy, do I have to spend over 40 hours to accommodate the owner, but if we're not busy I still have to accommodate the owner's need to feel productive and complete 40 hours of work done, which I can't do anyway. (Run-on is there on purpose to show the disconnect in thought).

    At this point, I think it can be deduced that the common salary system is not just.

    Which, I would hope that any reasonable employer would understand, and to promote compensation for that lack of justice in a salary situation, allow their employees courtesies like not counting time in the restroom against them. Which, in my opinion, is no different than the courtesy to allow an employee to eat at their desk.

    Because, in all fairness, if I were to take lunch on my time, would I have to charge time back against the company for any productive thought occurring during my lunch "break"?

    I've never had a job where the company monitored how much time I spent in the restroom or on coffee breaks. Or reading tdwtf.

    I don't know about you, but when I take a job, I try to take into account all the pros and cons of that job. How many hours will I really have to work? How long is the commute? Is the work interesting or boring? What is the base pay? Are there bonuses, and if so, how much? What are the benefits?

    If a job requires you to work 50 hours per week but you judged the salary as if you were working 40 hours per week, then you've miscalculated the rate of pay. If the company lied to you about how much work was involved, you have grounds for complaint. If not, if they told you it would be 50 hours per week at such-and-such a salary and you accepted that as adequate compensation for that much work, then what is it that you're complaining about?

    Likewise, when you took the job you surely knew, or could have figured out, how long it would take to get to work each morning. If you miscalculated that, there's no way that that's the company's fault. Well, not unless they moved the office after you took the job.

    If at the time you made the deal you thought it was fair, then what's your complaint now? If you didn't think it was fair at the time, why did you take the job? And if your answer is, "Because it was the best I could get" or "Because the alternative was starving to death", then apparently you thought that, given the actual state of the universe, it was a good deal, much as you might have liked a better one.

    Hey, I'd love to have a job that pays twice what I'm making now for half the work. Wouldn't we all? But the reality is, my current employer gives me a fair deal, and if I didn't think so, I'd be looking for another job.

  • Doctor_of_ineptitude (unregistered) in reply to eViLegion
    eViLegion:
    Cyberzombie:
    stew:
    I see that day of whistle-blowing and ethics training paid off. I guess as long as nobody was taking office pens home at the end of the day....
    Pens? What are those?

    Friends. Pens are my friends. If they don't work you shake 'em... if they still don't work YOU THROW 'EM AWAAAAAY.

    // Pens are easy to understand class Pen: public WritingInstruments { static bool isPen(class Object &obj){ return dynamics_cast<Instruments&>).isMightierThanSword(); } explicit Pen(){} ~Pen(){} virtual void write() =0; virtual void shakeThem() =0; virtual void use() throw (Object&) =0; };

  • ThatSlyQuarian (unregistered) in reply to jay
    jay:
    xaade:
    markfiend:
    xaade:
    When you stop forcing me to waste 2 hours of my life driving in to work instead of just working from home, then you won't see me eating at my desk.
    Move closer to where you work or get a job closer to where you live. You're the one "forcing" yourself to do all that travelling.

    If we're going to split hairs then let's do.

    I know there's a point where I make my decisions and have to live with them. But there's also the point that work for pay is to be a just exchange.

    The rules, pay them, 40 hours a week, time as work done. However, those rules don't take into account that I drive 2 hours to work and back. Who's to pay for those two hours (the time). Suppose it's fair that I do. Now, I'm also supposed to pay time for the lunch I have to eat, because they must get my 40 hours. Now, I'm also supposed to pay time for any restroom break? Water break? Stop to think break? Is brainstorming mine or theirs, because there's no measurable work done during a brainstorming session that produces no ideas.

    If we're going to get this pedantic over time, then, why when your business is busy, do I have to spend over 40 hours to accommodate the owner, but if we're not busy I still have to accommodate the owner's need to feel productive and complete 40 hours of work done, which I can't do anyway. (Run-on is there on purpose to show the disconnect in thought).

    At this point, I think it can be deduced that the common salary system is not just.

    Which, I would hope that any reasonable employer would understand, and to promote compensation for that lack of justice in a salary situation, allow their employees courtesies like not counting time in the restroom against them. Which, in my opinion, is no different than the courtesy to allow an employee to eat at their desk.

    Because, in all fairness, if I were to take lunch on my time, would I have to charge time back against the company for any productive thought occurring during my lunch "break"?

    I've never had a job where the company monitored how much time I spent in the restroom or on coffee breaks. Or reading tdwtf.

    I don't know about you, but when I take a job, I try to take into account all the pros and cons of that job. How many hours will I really have to work? How long is the commute? Is the work interesting or boring? What is the base pay? Are there bonuses, and if so, how much? What are the benefits?

    If a job requires you to work 50 hours per week but you judged the salary as if you were working 40 hours per week, then you've miscalculated the rate of pay. If the company lied to you about how much work was involved, you have grounds for complaint. If not, if they told you it would be 50 hours per week at such-and-such a salary and you accepted that as adequate compensation for that much work, then what is it that you're complaining about?

    Likewise, when you took the job you surely knew, or could have figured out, how long it would take to get to work each morning. If you miscalculated that, there's no way that that's the company's fault. Well, not unless they moved the office after you took the job.

    If at the time you made the deal you thought it was fair, then what's your complaint now? If you didn't think it was fair at the time, why did you take the job? And if your answer is, "Because it was the best I could get" or "Because the alternative was starving to death", then apparently you thought that, given the actual state of the universe, it was a good deal, much as you might have liked a better one.

    Hey, I'd love to have a job that pays twice what I'm making now for half the work. Wouldn't we all? But the reality is, my current employer gives me a fair deal, and if I didn't think so, I'd be looking for another job.

    Hey its good to know the world handed you your jobs on a silver paltter. But for the rest of us we have to fight to get our jobs even if they are 2 hours away. Now I understand where the guy is coming from. Trying to justify eating his breakfast at work. Lets say even if he had a 5 minute commute he may still do it. It all depends on his situation at home. Maybe he has an abusive wife and wants to get away for a while. Or maybe hes alone and just figures it'd be more convenient to just at at work.

    Regardless on why he does it. What gives you the right to complain about it? If he slurps, so what listen to someone elses life then. Captcha: Populus - The group most people here think they are above.

  • RFoxmich (unregistered)

    Shouldn't this have been called the Architect sketch?

  • Chelloveck (unregistered) in reply to eViLegion
    eViLegion:
    Friends. Pens are my friends. If they don't work you shake 'em... if they still don't work YOU THROW 'EM AWAAAAAY.

    Ah. Just like children, then.

  • Ronald (unregistered) in reply to ThatSlyQuarian
    ThatSlyQuarian:
    Now I understand where the guy is coming from. Trying to justify eating his breakfast at work. Lets say even if he had a 5 minute commute he may still do it. It all depends on his situation at home. Maybe he has an abusive wife and wants to get away for a while.

    If he has an abusive wife he could do like everyone else and bury her in the forest and pretend she went back to Russia.

    ThatSlyQuarian:
    Regardless on why he does it. What gives you the right to complain about it? If he slurps, so what listen to someone elses life then.

    You sir obviously never had a coworker slurping away in the next cubicle. Besides ice crunching and cracking knuckles this is probably the most annoying sound to be heard in a workplace. Mouth breathing is a runner up.

    Let it be known: slurping in the office is a big breach of the implicit rules of decency and respect for coworkers. DOWN WITH SLURPERS! DOWN WITH SLURPERS!

  • erat (unregistered)

    Is it just me, or is there nothing worse in this world than having to beg forgiveness for someone else's screwup (which is what "real Pat" had to do).

  • Chelloveck (unregistered)

    Okay, I'll grant that Real Pat was dumb enough to get snookered into this job. I'll even grant (grudgingly) that Archibald was dumb enough to take part. But I refuse to believe that Real Pat was dumb enough to join the conference call by himself. I don't care that Bob called and told him to. If Bob and Evil Pat are out having their hissy fit, fuck 'em. Let them weasel out of trouble on their own. Hell, even Bob should know that it's better to come up with some "out sick" type excuse and miss the call than to risk blowing their cover by having Real Pat impersonate Evil Pat impersonating Real Pat. That's nothing but dumb-ass sitcom material there.

  • s73v3r (unregistered) in reply to Ronald
    Ronald:
    xaade:
    markfiend:
    xaade:
    When you stop forcing me to waste 2 hours of my life driving in to work instead of just working from home, then you won't see me eating at my desk.
    Move closer to where you work or get a job closer to where you live. You're the one "forcing" yourself to do all that travelling.

    If we're going to split hairs then let's do.

    I know there's a point where I make my decisions and have to live with them. But there's also the point that work for pay is to be a just exchange.

    The rules, pay them, 40 hours a week, time as work done. However, those rules don't take into account that I drive 2 hours to work and back. Who's to pay for those two hours (the time). Suppose it's fair that I do. Now, I'm also supposed to pay time for the lunch I have to eat, because they must get my 40 hours. Now, I'm also supposed to pay time for any restroom break? Water break? Stop to think break? Is brainstorming mine or theirs, because there's no measurable work done during a brainstorming session that produces no ideas.

    If we're going to get this pedantic over time, then, why when your business is busy, do I have to spend over 40 hours to accommodate the owner, but if we're not busy I still have to accommodate the owner's need to feel productive and complete 40 hours of work done, which I can't do anyway. (Run-on is there on purpose to show the disconnect in thought).

    At this point, I think it can be deduced that the common salary system is not just.

    Which, I would hope that any reasonable employer would understand, and to promote compensation for that lack of justice in a salary situation, allow their employees courtesies like not counting time in the restroom against them. Which, in my opinion, is no different than the courtesy to allow an employee to eat at their desk.

    Because, in all fairness, if I were to take lunch on my time, would I have to charge time back against the company for any productive thought occurring during my lunch "break"?

    Unless you work for a fly-by-night basement shop you take zero financial risk when you work on a salary. The hiring party is making the financial commitment, not knowing for sure if it will pay off.

    Why don't you start your own company and hire people to work for yourself. While you try to balance the books or drum up some business and one of your employee starts bitching about not being paid for his commute time you will get a better understanding of what a whiny and childish behavior it is.

    I'm sorry, but that's pure horseshit and you know it. 1). There is plenty of risk in being a salaried person. You have no job security these days.

    2). What the actual fuck does "balancing the books" have to do with you being better than someone complaining about their commute? I could just as easily say that next time you're bitching about "balancing the books", you should think of the person that has to constantly deal with your asinine and poorly thought out requirements, and refusal to hire a proper amount of developers, thus causing overtime, so you should STFU.

  • Paul Neumann (unregistered) in reply to ThatSlyQuarian
    ThatSlyQuarian:
    Hey its good to know the world handed you your jobs on a silver paltter. But for the rest of us we have to fight to get our jobs even if they are 2 hours away. Now I understand where the guy is coming from. Trying to justify eating his breakfast at work. Lets say even if he had a 5 minute commute he may still do it. It all depends on his situation at home. Maybe he has an abusive wife and wants to get away for a while. Or maybe hes alone and just figures it'd be more convenient to just at at work.

    Regardless on why he does it. What gives you the right to complain about it? If he slurps, so what listen to someone elses life then. Captcha: Populus - The group most people here think they are above.

    Employment is a two way street. One chooses their employer just the same as an employer chooses its employees. I've been hired, passed over (and may even be fired someday) for positions every bit as much as I have accepted, declined, and/or vacated those very same positions.

    If you're not enough of a professional to understand that, than it is obvious why you would consider someone is to have been "handed you your jobs on a silver paltter". It has nothing to do with thinking one is above the populus and everything to do with being secure in one's abilities and talents.

  • Ronald (unregistered) in reply to s73v3r
    s73v3r:
    Ronald:
    xaade:
    markfiend:
    xaade:
    When you stop forcing me to waste 2 hours of my life driving in to work instead of just working from home, then you won't see me eating at my desk.
    Move closer to where you work or get a job closer to where you live. You're the one "forcing" yourself to do all that travelling.

    If we're going to split hairs then let's do.

    I know there's a point where I make my decisions and have to live with them. But there's also the point that work for pay is to be a just exchange.

    The rules, pay them, 40 hours a week, time as work done. However, those rules don't take into account that I drive 2 hours to work and back. Who's to pay for those two hours (the time). Suppose it's fair that I do. Now, I'm also supposed to pay time for the lunch I have to eat, because they must get my 40 hours. Now, I'm also supposed to pay time for any restroom break? Water break? Stop to think break? Is brainstorming mine or theirs, because there's no measurable work done during a brainstorming session that produces no ideas.

    If we're going to get this pedantic over time, then, why when your business is busy, do I have to spend over 40 hours to accommodate the owner, but if we're not busy I still have to accommodate the owner's need to feel productive and complete 40 hours of work done, which I can't do anyway. (Run-on is there on purpose to show the disconnect in thought).

    At this point, I think it can be deduced that the common salary system is not just.

    Which, I would hope that any reasonable employer would understand, and to promote compensation for that lack of justice in a salary situation, allow their employees courtesies like not counting time in the restroom against them. Which, in my opinion, is no different than the courtesy to allow an employee to eat at their desk.

    Because, in all fairness, if I were to take lunch on my time, would I have to charge time back against the company for any productive thought occurring during my lunch "break"?

    Unless you work for a fly-by-night basement shop you take zero financial risk when you work on a salary. The hiring party is making the financial commitment, not knowing for sure if it will pay off.

    Why don't you start your own company and hire people to work for yourself. While you try to balance the books or drum up some business and one of your employee starts bitching about not being paid for his commute time you will get a better understanding of what a whiny and childish behavior it is.

    I'm sorry, but that's pure horseshit and you know it. 1). There is plenty of risk in being a salaried person. You have no job security these days.

    2). What the actual fuck does "balancing the books" have to do with you being better than someone complaining about their commute? I could just as easily say that next time you're bitching about "balancing the books", you should think of the person that has to constantly deal with your asinine and poorly thought out requirements, and refusal to hire a proper amount of developers, thus causing overtime, so you should STFU.

    If you don't understand that no having job security is different from taking a financial risk then keep your union job because you are not ready for real life.

  • Matt Westwood (cs) in reply to Ronald
    Ronald:
    s73v3r:
    Ronald:
    xaade:
    markfiend:
    xaade:
    When you stop forcing me to waste 2 hours of my life driving in to work instead of just working from home, then you won't see me eating at my desk.
    Move closer to where you work or get a job closer to where you live. You're the one "forcing" yourself to do all that travelling.

    If we're going to split hairs then let's do.

    I know there's a point where I make my decisions and have to live with them. But there's also the point that work for pay is to be a just exchange.

    The rules, pay them, 40 hours a week, time as work done. However, those rules don't take into account that I drive 2 hours to work and back. Who's to pay for those two hours (the time). Suppose it's fair that I do. Now, I'm also supposed to pay time for the lunch I have to eat, because they must get my 40 hours. Now, I'm also supposed to pay time for any restroom break? Water break? Stop to think break? Is brainstorming mine or theirs, because there's no measurable work done during a brainstorming session that produces no ideas.

    If we're going to get this pedantic over time, then, why when your business is busy, do I have to spend over 40 hours to accommodate the owner, but if we're not busy I still have to accommodate the owner's need to feel productive and complete 40 hours of work done, which I can't do anyway. (Run-on is there on purpose to show the disconnect in thought).

    At this point, I think it can be deduced that the common salary system is not just.

    Which, I would hope that any reasonable employer would understand, and to promote compensation for that lack of justice in a salary situation, allow their employees courtesies like not counting time in the restroom against them. Which, in my opinion, is no different than the courtesy to allow an employee to eat at their desk.

    Because, in all fairness, if I were to take lunch on my time, would I have to charge time back against the company for any productive thought occurring during my lunch "break"?

    Unless you work for a fly-by-night basement shop you take zero financial risk when you work on a salary. The hiring party is making the financial commitment, not knowing for sure if it will pay off.

    Why don't you start your own company and hire people to work for yourself. While you try to balance the books or drum up some business and one of your employee starts bitching about not being paid for his commute time you will get a better understanding of what a whiny and childish behavior it is.

    I'm sorry, but that's pure horseshit and you know it. 1). There is plenty of risk in being a salaried person. You have no job security these days.

    2). What the actual fuck does "balancing the books" have to do with you being better than someone complaining about their commute? I could just as easily say that next time you're bitching about "balancing the books", you should think of the person that has to constantly deal with your asinine and poorly thought out requirements, and refusal to hire a proper amount of developers, thus causing overtime, so you should STFU.

    If you don't understand that no having job security is different from taking a financial risk then keep your union job because you are not ready for real life.

    The WTF that is eating at your desk is not about stealing time from the company by eating while you should be working. It's about common courtesy to your colleagues. If I'm concentrating on an intellect-intensive task (happens on occasion) I do not want to be distract by the sight, sound and stink of you gobbling away at the disgusting vomit that calls itself "cereal". Think on that, you selfish cunts.

  • Matt Westwood (cs) in reply to xaade
    xaade:
    markfiend:
    xaade:
    When you stop forcing me to waste 2 hours of my life driving in to work instead of just working from home, then you won't see me eating at my desk.
    Move closer to where you work or get a job closer to where you live. You're the one "forcing" yourself to do all that travelling.

    If we're going to split hairs then let's do.

    I know there's a point where I make my decisions and have to live with them. But there's also the point that work for pay is to be a just exchange.

    The rules, pay them, 40 hours a week, time as work done. However, those rules don't take into account that I drive 2 hours to work and back. Who's to pay for those two hours (the time). Suppose it's fair that I do. Now, I'm also supposed to pay time for the lunch I have to eat, because they must get my 40 hours. Now, I'm also supposed to pay time for any restroom break? Water break? Stop to think break? Is brainstorming mine or theirs, because there's no measurable work done during a brainstorming session that produces no ideas.

    If we're going to get this pedantic over time, then, why when your business is busy, do I have to spend over 40 hours to accommodate the owner, but if we're not busy I still have to accommodate the owner's need to feel productive and complete 40 hours of work done, which I can't do anyway. (Run-on is there on purpose to show the disconnect in thought).

    At this point, I think it can be deduced that the common salary system is not just.

    Which, I would hope that any reasonable employer would understand, and to promote compensation for that lack of justice in a salary situation, allow their employees courtesies like not counting time in the restroom against them. Which, in my opinion, is no different than the courtesy to allow an employee to eat at their desk.

    Because, in all fairness, if I were to take lunch on my time, would I have to charge time back against the company for any productive thought occurring during my lunch "break"?

    If you have a real job then office hours are just a convenient base for negotiation such that it gives an opportunity to interact with colleagues: "Oh good, ten thirty, a.m. already? Think I'll give Derek a call, he should be awake and working, wonder if he's seen this problem before" and "I'm scheduling a teleconf for 11 a.m. - please let us know if you have other plans for that time" and so on.

    The complication arises if some of your colleagues are in India and some in America - in which case either the latter have to ensure they're up insanely early in the morning or the latter must work rather later than is considered usual.

    Technically (at least, in Europe) you have to be given, by your employer, at least half an hour's lunch break. Whether you take it or not is up to you, but if you are regularly skipping lunch your boss ought to be aware of it and offer you the opportunity to discuss your propensity for presenteeism.

    In these circumstances, unless you have your own personal office space, it is considered good manners to limit the food you eat at your desk to non-smelly, non-messy and non-noisy. Cheese sandwiches are fine, a plate of Louisiana gumbo or a full Indian takeaway are generally considered not.

  • katastrofa (unregistered)

    The story is very typical of the insanely political atmosphere of financial sector IT departments.

  • Dirk (unregistered) in reply to Ronald
    Ronald:
    If he has an abusive wife he could do like everyone else and bury her in the forest and pretend she went back to Russia.
    TRWTF

Leave a comment on “Speak No Evil, Pat”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article