You Know What Really Grinds My Gears? Now with 3x more gears...

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Okay, fair enough. I mean, I guess I'm still just basing my comments on what you've said. You belittled Gen Z for not working past 5, but I think if you want to take people's personal time that's exploitation or time theft. If you want them to work past 5 and you are willing to pay them overtime, I think they can still say 'no thanks' and that should be respected, not admonished.

Again, I'll re-iterate since you seem to have ignored my other posts since - no one is expected to work past five - at all. If you have a deadline though, sometimes overtime may be required. That's just the nature for some industries, though. We also make it very clear when people are hired that it is a possibility sometimes. If people didn't like that, they wouldn't take the job.

Originally Posted by Sliver

But, like, missing work for appointments? Yeah, most things are open during business hours, so that's when people have to make their appointments. What's wrong with that? I don't get it.

Nothing wrong with missing work for appointments. That's not the issue at all here, and never has been.

Originally Posted by Sliver

Anyway, apparently your industry is special. I do hear that a lot and perhaps success for you requires working your people beyond what they want to work in order to please your customers. I suppose at the end of the day they're good enough to keep around and you're good enough of an employer to prevent them from quitting.

Sounds like an uncomfortable relationship, but as you say, I don't know what you do and I do come at this from a bit of a place of privilege in that I get to call my own shots here. I will say I am speaking from experience, though. I took over this company from a boomer that operated it very much in boomer fashion with an upstairs/downstairs mindset between ownership and staff. It has taken a long time to turn it around and come up with options to give people more flexibility/perks/pay/privileges without grenading the company in the process. Plus, I have to be fair to my own investment - if this company isn't going to make money I owe it to myself and my family to sell it and invest elsewhere. If you're going to own a company you can't be altruistic to the point of being stupid with your stake in the business.

I just don't think it's to most people's benefit to give up too much personal time for a company. Some people will rise through the ranks like you did, but for most people, they'll just have given up time, added stress, taken away from personal relationships and will not have achieved anything for the effort.

Fair enough, I agree with that.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Sliver

If you haven't been sick it isn't because you're super awesome and I love the implication that you have volition over fighting germs by "taking care of yourself." Like, viruses don't affect you because you eat your veggies, but those weak Gen Zers should just hit the gym and then they wouldn't need to call in sick. Give me a break. Maybe you do have a super immune system, but the judgement from you toward people who get sick or have to go to appointments has oozed out of every post you've written on this topic. It's actually hilarious.

Is there something wrong here? Geezus christ I'm sorry I haven't been sick, my god. You are wayyyyyy overreacting here - chill a bit.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

I really ####ed up my slow cooker beef recipe. it came out so bland.

Words escape me to describe it. mmm maybe open chat AI can help. Here is a haiku from chatgpt.

Disappointing meal,
Slow cooker's sad, heavy heart sinks.
Mournful pot of stew.

ChatGPT's haiku is perhaps even more disappointing than your stew.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

ChatGPT's haiku is perhaps even more disappointing than your stew.

Sorry for the verse
If it did not meet your standards high
Better luck next time

[surferguy]

Originally Posted by Muta

Again, I'll re-iterate since you seem to have ignored my other posts since - no one is expected to work past five - at all. If you have a deadline though, sometimes overtime may be required. That's just the nature for some industries, though. We also make it very clear when people are hired that it is a possibility sometimes. If people didn't like that, they wouldn't take the job.

How often is sometimes though?

“Sometimes” to me is like once every two/three months. Sometimes to others could be two/three times a week.
Also, unless you are getting immediately compensated for it, nobody like working overtime, nobody.

Your last line is a bit disingenuous IMO, with Gen Z wouldn’t this be their first job/entry level to the industry? Perhaps this is their only opportunity to actually get a job so they have to take it.

If I’m off base here please correct me but you make it sound like there are heaps of available positions in your industry that new hires can pick and choose from but is that actual reality?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Muta

Again, I'll re-iterate since you seem to have ignored my other posts since - no one is expected to work past five - at all. If you have a deadline though, sometimes overtime may be required. That's just the nature for some industries, though. We also make it very clear when people are hired that it is a possibility sometimes. If people didn't like that, they wouldn't take the job.

Nothing wrong with missing work for appointments. That's not the issue at all here, and never has been.

Fair enough, I agree with that.

All good dude. Maybe take my comments as general thoughts on working and labour in 2023 and they won't apply to every industry or position, and sometimes OT is expected, but as long as it's compensated or traded for future time off in slow periods it's probably not so bad.

I won't quote you if this conversation keeps going just so I'm not directly tying what I'm saying to you specifically.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by surferguy

How often is sometimes though?

“Sometimes” to me is like once every two/three months. Sometimes to others could be two/three times a week.
Also, unless you are getting immediately compensated for it, nobody like working overtime, nobody.

Your last line is a bit disingenuous IMO, with Gen Z wouldn’t this be their first job/entry level to the industry? Perhaps this is their only opportunity to actually get a job so they have to take it.

If I’m off base here please correct me but you make it sound like there are heaps of available positions in your industry that new hires can pick and choose from but is that actual reality?

Thank you for the cordial post / dialogue surfergy, seriously - it's refreshing and I appreciate it. To answer your questions: there is no required overtime - there isn't 'sometimes', etc. It's a deadline-based role, so you are just expected to meet those deadlines; if that requires overtime, that's up to you. When that happens, they get compensated for it - on top of their salary. As for my Gen Z staff, they all (except for one) have previous working experience, and are aware of what this role requires. The one that doesn't has been with me for over five years (since graduating from uni) and loves it. My other staff are all older and have been doing working in the industry for years. There are not heaps of positions available in what we do; in fact, it's a very niche role and positions rarely open up.

[Ozy_Flame]

Interesting. Based on the responses in the last few pages of the thread, it sounds like the game has changed. if I was hiring new employees (which I haven't done in a few years), I think I'm going to need to ask new applicants if they're interested in a growth-based position or a sustainment position.

If it's the former, then I would pay them appropriately based on performances and targets, including giving them the opportunity to grow a career with new challenges (and variable-related pay).

If it's the latter then that's perfectly fine too, as long as they meet contract terms and requirements they're welcome to perform their duties sufficiently and clock out at the end of the day. More predictability in their day-to-day roles.

Most companies need both types of people.

And if either of them leave their job and want a recommendation, I'll make sure to tell the next employer what type of employee they were at my company. Seems pretty reasonable.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Muta

If you're not sick, should you still use them though? What if you lie about being sick to use them? I would think most people would have enough integrity not to use them if they're not sick - is that wrong to expect?

Just a hypothetical question, curious about any discussion on this.

As Sliver mentioned the issue is the term "sick days" to begin with. Good companies call them flex days and don't put any restrictions on them. But if you're in a place that still calls them sick days I have no issue with someone calling in saying "Can't come in today boss, don't feel well", that covers a very broad spectrum. And if you're at a company where management requires a more in-depth explanation and/or doctors notes, that's on them for being ####ty human beings

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Interesting. Based on the responses in the last few pages of the thread, it sounds like the game has changed. if I was hiring new employees (which I haven't done in a few years), I think I'm going to need to ask new applicants if they're interested in a growth-based position or a sustainment position.

If it's the former, then I would pay them appropriately based on performances and targets, including giving them the opportunity to grow a career with new challenges (and variable-related pay).

If it's the latter then that's perfectly fine too, as long as they meet contract terms and requirements they're welcome to perform their duties sufficiently and clock out at the end of the day. More predictability in their day-to-day roles.

Most companies need both types of people.

And if either of them leave their job and want a recommendation, I'll make sure to tell the next employer what type of employee they were at my company. Seems pretty reasonable.

That's a good way to put it. A sustainment position could be like Sliver's "Sue" example. Just because Sue is worth more but Sliver's payment for a specific job role that doesn't need all of Sue's extra qualifications. But Sue could be much happier in a sustainment situation because she prefers to be a big fish in a small pond that she knows every inch of vs a big fish in a big pond where there are many things that are unknown or just tiresome to continue to have to navigate.

Sliver is not stealing from Sue IMO if he cannot pay Sue what she is "worth" based on qualifications if the compensation for the job role Sliver required and advertised is fair.

Just like relationships, nothing is ever 100% match. You just work with whatever is available and determine if you want to continue the relationships or not.

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

As Sliver mentioned the issue is the term "sick days" to begin with. Good companies call them flex days and don't put any restrictions on them. But if you're in a place that still calls them sick days I have no issue with someone calling in saying "Can't come in today boss, don't feel well", that covers a very broad spectrum. And if you're at a company where management requires a more in-depth explanation and/or doctors notes, that's on them for being ####ty human beings

Not everything distills down to people being ####ty human beings. Some companies have archaic processes that need revision. Until it is revised, unfortunately, yes, you need additional details and proof.

But there's also a difference between an archaic and "####ty" process vs a nice or "####ty" way of explaining / enforcing the rule/process.

You can't have people all over the place overwriting processes as they deem fit because they don't like them. That's how control lapses take effect and expose the company to significant monetary and other types of risk. Having someone sit down and review and revise all of the processes then upgrade hand books, explain and distribute it is also not always an easy task.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

That's a good way to put it. A sustainment position could be like Sliver's "Sue" example. Just because Sue is worth more but Sliver's payment for a specific job role that doesn't need all of Sue's extra qualifications. But Sue could be much happier in a sustainment situation because she prefers to be a big fish in a small pond that she knows every inch of vs a big fish in a big pond where there are many things that are unknown or just tiresome to continue to have to navigate.

Sliver is not stealing from Sue IMO if he cannot pay Sue what she is "worth" based on qualifications if the compensation for the job role Sliver required and advertised is fair.

Just like relationships, nothing is ever 100% match. You just work with whatever is available and determine if you want to continue the relationships or not.

I appreciate that, but that's not quite what I was referring to. If anyone wants to be overqualified in a job that's up to them. It's how they perform the role that I would care about, and if they're interested in doing something else.

I will say this though, if either role is unable to perform their duties - for example, meeting deadlines or submitting reports on time - due to flex day usage, sick days, extra-curricular appointments or anything else - then there would have to be a conversation about performance and responsibilities.

Additionally I know what kind of roles I would likely be hiring for if I was doing a startup vs. a mature enterprise. Based on my experience I would want growth-driven roles that don't mind putting in odd/irregular hours or going beyond their normal job description to help get a fledgling company off the ground.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

Not everything distills down to people being ####ty human beings. Some companies have archaic processes that need revision. Until it is revised, unfortunately, yes, you need additional details and proof.

But there's also a difference between an archaic and "####ty" process vs a nice or "####ty" way of explaining / enforcing the rule/process.

You can't have people all over the place overwriting processes as they deem fit because they don't like them. That's how control lapses take effect and expose the company to significant monetary and other types of risk. Having someone sit down and review and revise all of the processes then upgrade hand books, explain and distribute it is also not always an easy task.

Are you saying a company asking for a doctor’s note is archaic? In my experience companies that don’t have that policy are far more likely to introduce it than companies that do have that policy are to rescind it.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Are you saying a company asking for a doctor’s note is archaic? In my experience companies that don’t have that policy are far more likely to introduce it than companies that do have that policy are to rescind it.

It depends on the reason for needing it I guess. For the sick day/medical thing, many companies have a process that doesn't match their needs and requirements and operations. It's also not a one size fits all policy and procedural thing from one company to another, so saying, "This is wrong because this is not identical from a different company?" is also incorrect.

Some companies submit these documents to their insurance provider and get compensation for that, so that's why it is there. Some insurance are doing this more and thus companies are implementing the documentation requirement, that's not archaic, it's necessary.

Other companies do it because they were told other companies do it, but they have no idea why they do it other than the fact they were told to do it. In reality, they don't need it, or at least they don't need it in all scenarios. But no one knows this in the entire company. This is one of the major situations and yes, I'd call it archaic.

Or, some companies want this detailed information, "Just in case" but again, no idea why. So again, in this situation, I'd call it archaic.

It often seems like things are in this weird blend of flux of new and old. Like, how many companies likely don't even have a social media policy, but it seems obvious enough that as a rule, employees shouldn't do stuff on social media that could hurt the company. But you don't have to be explicit about it. Other companies have stacks of explicit forms to sign and have you learn social media etiquette from an explicit procedural manual.

It's like the sick day/medical thing. Many have a process that doesn't match their needs and requirements. It's also not a one size fits all policy and procedural thing from one company to another.

But my point in that post was not that. It's that just because a rule or procedure seems crappy to you, does not mean it is a crappy person or company that created that rule or procedure. It is different to a situation where the gate keeper is a crappy person.

[PepsiFree]

If a rule/procedure/process is crappy and everyone thinks it’s crappy and there’s a better/easier/more people-friendly way to do it then just change the process.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If a rule/procedure/process is crappy and everyone thinks it’s crappy and there’s a better/easier/more people-friendly way to do it then just change the process.

I agree. But there are reasons why it isn't changed at times.

Most times it's gate kept by someone who is like, "It's been fine all these years, no need to change it." So they don't think it's crappy. Or they know it's annoying and dumb, but they don't know what to change it to and have no time to figure out what it should be changed to and don't want to pay a lawyer (unnecessary) in advising how to change it. They want someone to do it for them or something.

Some find out their policies are wholly undocumented and they can just change how they want to do things. Some find out they've been violating policies for years.

It's honestly not as hard to fix as some people make it out to be but also not as easy to fix and change as some others are making it out to be.

Plus it's often not in any job descriptions, everyone deems it not their job and thus it gets orphaned and every has to stick with it because policies and procedures are a little bit like communism. Everyone wants a say, no one wants any responsibility for doing it right.

Again though, my point was that bad rules doesn't mean the ownership or people who gate keep the rules are #######s by default.

[Jason14h]

Companies usually put processes in place for the lowest common denominator. Similar to laws.

95% of employees are reasonable adults who can manage their time , Flex Time , appointments , stay home when sick , and finish their daily tasks , etc and the manager has zero issues . In fact , most managers don’t want to waste time enforcing and tracking the rules . Get your job done and act like an adult however works best for you is my Mantra .

It’s the 5% that the rules are made for . Usually because a company is unable or unwilling just to fire to abuser and keep life simple for everyone else

[powderjunkie]

Asking for a doctor's note for any medical absence of less than 5 days (even 10 would be a reasonable limit) is an inexcusable and abhorrent practice. Anybody involved in requesting such a note is forever banned from criticizing "InEfFiCiEnCiEs" in the public sector.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Asking for a doctor's note for any medical absence of less than 5 days (even 10 would be a reasonable limit) is an inexcusable and abhorrent practice. Anybody involved in requesting such a note is forever banned from criticizing "InEfFiCiEnCiEs" in the public sector.

It is rather stupid, yes.

The thing about stupidity is that it usually flows in odd ways.

ie. Your company might need to submit that to an insurance company, so its not really your company's policy then, is it?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Locke

It is rather stupid, yes.

The thing about stupidity is that it usually flows in odd ways.

ie. Your company might need to submit that to an insurance company, so its not really your company's policy then, is it?

Do companies really use insurance for occasional sick days? (again, prolonged illness a different matter).

Also, insurance companies suck.

[btimbit]

We submit the sick note directly to the insurance company ourselves, nobody at work is allowed to know what you're going through if you don't want them too. Only need the note if you're going to miss more than 4 days in a row though

Companies that demand a sick note just to make sure you're really sick are scum