PC Principal thread

[Yuri-G]

I should probably make a point that I feel what is wrong with America is attributed to the work ethic we have. A lot of people feel they are entitled to pay without actually putting in effort. They don't think they can be replaced or that someone can't come in and split up their work among the rest of a group. They think they are invulnerable behind their too big to fail union. I'll admit my ideas on work are pre-1920.

And a lot of what's wrong with the work ethic is based on the fact that a low-level employee can put in an equal amount of hours and effort as a CEO and get paid literally hundreds of times less than that CEO, and that disparity has risen by a staggering amount during the past few decades. GDP is going up and up but average worker pay is not, which means we're producing more than ever and getting the same amount we always did (we being the proletariat). When I continually see emails about our record profits for the quarter but then get told we don't have money for raises and our health insurance premiums are going up while the benefits themselves are getting slashed, then yes, you're right - I really don't have much of a work ethic at that point.

[Kuya]

Looks like Byrthnoth already took care of shit here.

[synistar]

It's a running joke I have at work that a single word, actually an acronym, describes why we can't afford shit. EBITA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, and Amortization). Why don't we have ergonomic equipment that was announced to reduce OSHA report-able injuries? EBITA. Why don't we have more workspace? EBITA. Why can't we hire more people to reduce OT? EBITA and see previous two questions. Why the hell is this critical equipment broken and why hasn't someone come to fix this right now? EBITA. Don't mind that it is at ~50%, it's not high enough for the stockholders meetings. I work in manufacturing but we get thrown these numbers during our wasteful quarterly all hands meetings that I continually avoid because I rather be working than sitting in an auditorium listening to financial reports for an hour and have the illusion that our plant VP is actually listening to our concerns.

[Yuri-G]

It's a running joke I have at work that a single word, actually an acronym, describes why we can't afford shit. EBITA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, and Amortization). Why don't we have ergonomic equipment that was announced to reduce OSHA report-able injuries? EBITA. Why don't we have more workspace? EBITA. Why can't we hire more people to reduce OT? EBITA and see previous two questions. Why the hell is this critical equipment broken and why hasn't someone come to fix this right now? EBITA. Don't mind that it is at ~50%, it's not high enough for the stockholders meetings. I work in manufacturing but we get thrown these numbers during our wasteful quarterly all hands meetings that I continually avoid because I rather be working than sitting in an auditorium listening to financial reports for an hour and have the illusion that our plant VP is actually listening to our concerns.

I'm pretty sure you and I are soulmates.

[NynJa]

Looks like Byrthnoth already took care of shit here.

Did he? I still dont know why LGBT need an hour every week of private time on the clock. I was informed "humanity" and "there arent many LGBT people out there, so they can all bond"...which I rebutted with "why dont they get their contact information and bond outside of work and bring some other LGBT friends they have to increase their network and make new friends" which was conveniently ignored. Salodin asked why the cis scum cant have an hour every week to "destress" on the clock, which also was conveniently ignored. If its to keep the LGBT staff "happy", then what about the remainder of the staff whos knows theres a portion of the staff is fucking around for an hour every week on the clock while they're actually working? I'd be pretty pissed off...see "paid smoke breaks".

As far as I know, no one seems to know why they need an hour on the clock every week. If its to complain about what the privileged cis scum did to offend them every week, then why arent these concerns forwarded to team leaders who can then take their team on an hour long meeting every week on the clock to discuss what the LGBT staff complained about?


edit: my rebuttals werent ignored, but "why not both" isnt an answer, its a deflection.

[Kalmado]

It's a running joke I have at work that a single word, actually an acronym, describes why we can't afford shit. EBITA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, and Amortization). Why don't we have ergonomic equipment that was announced to reduce OSHA report-able injuries? EBITA. Why don't we have more workspace? EBITA. Why can't we hire more people to reduce OT? EBITA and see previous two questions. Why the hell is this critical equipment broken and why hasn't someone come to fix this right now? EBITA. Don't mind that it is at ~50%, it's not high enough for the stockholders meetings. I work in manufacturing but we get thrown these numbers during our wasteful quarterly all hands meetings that I continually avoid because I rather be working than sitting in an auditorium listening to financial reports for an hour and have the illusion that our plant VP is actually listening to our concerns.

Damn. That sounds extremely similar to my good friend who drives fork lift and has some managerial duties for his company. He gets paid around $18.25/hr (Michigan so that's pretty decent with no degree) and stays because he's a single father of two. He had an incident where one of the lifts literally didn't have brakes and his superior told him to just do his best and deal with it.

[Churchill]

I too am confused about what was taken care of.

[FNH]

To be fair I think your views on working is pretty much spot on based on the jobs available pre-1920 but you know there are a few more varieties of jobs that require different work styles that have popped up in the past 100 years approximately.

Yes, but even those jobs are open to outsourcing, restructuring, and automation. To use blubbartrons programming job as an example, it is deemed ok for him to take extra breaks to free his mind for his mental taxing job. The field is relatively new but that job market will eventually become saturated to the point where there is heavy competition and you'll have people that won't need the extra breaks or are willing to take a pay cut to provide the same amount of productivity per hour worked.

Imo my problem is that it's usually one person who is taking a mental break and then they end up distracting other people for longer than needed. Also I am under the assumption that the upper management likely isn't aware that they are paying a salary for x numbers of hours worked versus actually y number of hours of output being below x. If they are aware of it not taking a full 8-10 hours a day, why not petition for a shorter work week where you can cool it at home and reduce distractions, travel time, etc. heck maybe you can provide the same out put for the same pay, but get into an area where the company doesn't have to pay benefits....

@yuri, ceo's are seen to deserve higher pay because they are less readily replaceable. The actual workers are really replaceable. Can you justify why a CEOs shouldn't be paid an enormous amount?

[Blubbartron]

Yes, but even those jobs are open to outsourcing, restructuring, and automation. To use blubbartrons programming job as an example, it is deemed ok for him to take extra breaks to free his mind for his mental taxing job. The field is relatively new but that job market will eventually become saturated to the point where there is heavy competition and you'll have people that won't need the extra breaks or are willing to take a pay cut to provide the same amount of productivity per hour worked.

Imo my problem is that it's usually one person who is taking a mental break and then they end up distracting other people for longer than needed. Also I am under the assumption that the upper management likely isn't aware that they are paying a salary for x numbers of hours worked versus actually y number of hours of output being below x. If they are aware of it not taking a full 8-10 hours a day, why not petition for a shorter work week where you can cool it at home and reduce distractions, travel time, etc. heck maybe you can provide the same out put for the same pay, but get into an area where the company doesn't have to pay benefits....

@yuri, ceo's are seen to deserve higher pay because they are less readily replaceable. The actual workers are really replaceable. Can you justify why a CEOs shouldn't be paid an enormous amount?

Yeah, it's becoming increasingly evident that you're not at all familiar with salaried work environments. The reason why your suggestions aren't done, and why trivial, random breaks are seen as justifiable is because salary is not hourly. You don't petition for a shorter work week because you don't complain about the weeks that demand 70-80 hours, for which you get no overtime. There's pros and cons to the way it's structured, and a lot of it sucks, but that's the way it goes.

Also, fucking lawl at "CEOs are less replaceable and deserve higher pay." That's funny shit man.

[Yuri-G]

Yes, but even those jobs are open to outsourcing, restructuring, and automation. To use blubbartrons programming job as an example, it is deemed ok for him to take extra breaks to free his mind for his mental taxing job. The field is relatively new but that job market will eventually become saturated to the point where there is heavy competition and you'll have people that won't need the extra breaks or are willing to take a pay cut to provide the same amount of productivity per hour worked.

Imo my problem is that it's usually one person who is taking a mental break and then they end up distracting other people for longer than needed. Also I am under the assumption that the upper management likely isn't aware that they are paying a salary for x numbers of hours worked versus actually y number of hours of output being below x. If they are aware of it not taking a full 8-10 hours a day, why not petition for a shorter work week where you can cool it at home and reduce distractions, travel time, etc. heck maybe you can provide the same out put for the same pay, but get into an area where the company doesn't have to pay benefits....

@yuri, ceo's are seen to deserve higher pay because they are less readily replaceable. The actual workers are really replaceable. Can you justify why a CEOs shouldn't be paid an enormous amount?

From a humanistic standpoint, a moral standpoint, an ethical standpoint, a societal standpoint, a truly capitalistic instead of oligarchistic standpoint, etc... I don't really have to justify it.


Also, CEOs are certainly less replaceable than the average worker and deserve higher pay due to the difficulty of their job as well as the responsibility on their shoulders, but 300x less replaceable? I sincerely disagree with that. Also, what has happened over the past 40 to 50 years that has increased their value relative to the average worker by such a staggering amount? I can think of reasons why they're more able to get away with it now (globalization) but nothing to justify it.


The bottom line is that CEOs and higher executives make so much money because they can get away with it, not because they're worth it. You can't tell me that golden parachutes for ex-CEOs of failed finance-sector companies whose actions, at least in part, caused the loss of billions of dollars and destroyed the livelihoods of thousands upon thousands of their employees, were justified because those CEOs were just that damn valuable. If they were so fucking valuable, then they should have been able to keep the company afloat without bailout money, as one example.


Business is corrupt. It is based purely on greed at the highest levels in most sectors. It's like how car manufacturers will literally weigh the costs of settlements vs. the costs of recalls, nevermind the people who might die in accidents caused by whatever faulty part or plan is in question - is that financially sensible? Sure. Does that make it good, or right? Fuck. No.

[Blubbartron]

From a humanistic standpoint, a moral standpoint, an ethical standpoint, a societal standpoint, a truly capitalistic instead of oligarchistic standpoint, etc... I don't really have to justify it.


Also, CEOs are certainly less replaceable than the average worker and deserev higher pay due to the difficulty of their job as well as the responsibility on their shoulders, but 300x less replaceable? I sincerely disagree with that. Also, what has happened over the past 40 to 50 years that has increased their value relative to the average worker by such a staggering amount? Globalization? Not so much - globalization allows companies to get away with it, but it doesn't justify anything.

I'll grant you everything (and in particular the responsibility bit), but saying that CEOs are less replaceable elevates people to an incredible level that is out of touch with the reality of their job. CEOs change all the time, and the only time CEOs really matter are in smaller companies where their decisions have a much more direct impact on employees. After a company reaches critical mass, shit just kind of does its own thing. The human aspect is lost, and everything becomes a game of numbers. It doesn't take some special genius to make the decision attached with the bigger numbers on the reports he's reading. The only real reason the position of CEO exists after reaching that point is to have someone to blame if shit is going wrong. And usually what happens is someone new comes in and fires the person who gave the recommendation the previous CEO was following, as that was the real point of failure.

[Kuya]

Did he? I still dont know why LGBT need an hour every week of private time on the clock. I was informed "humanity" and "there arent many LGBT people out there, so they can all bond"...which I rebutted with "why dont they get their contact information and bond outside of work and bring some other LGBT friends they have to increase their network and make new friends" which was conveniently ignored. Salodin asked why the cis scum cant have an hour every week to "destress" on the clock, which also was conveniently ignored. If its to keep the LGBT staff "happy", then what about the remainder of the staff whos knows theres a portion of the staff is fucking around for an hour every week on the clock while they're actually working? I'd be pretty pissed off...see "paid smoke breaks".

As far as I know, no one seems to know why they need an hour on the clock every week. If its to complain about what the privileged cis scum did to offend them every week, then why arent these concerns forwarded to team leaders who can then take their team on an hour long meeting every week on the clock to discuss what the LGBT staff complained about?


edit: my rebuttals werent ignored, but "why not both" isnt an answer, its a deflection.

Lol

[NynJa]

Great post
Very insightful
I learned so much from it

[Thunder]

Great post
Very insightful
I learned so much from it

reoccurring theme from PC side: you can't be a part of this

the irony is getting palpable

[Marootsoobutsu]

From a humanistic standpoint, a moral standpoint, an ethical standpoint, a societal standpoint, a truly capitalistic instead of oligarchistic standpoint, etc... I don't really have to justify it.


Also, CEOs are certainly less replaceable than the average worker and deserve higher pay due to the difficulty of their job as well as the responsibility on their shoulders, but 300x less replaceable? I sincerely disagree with that. Also, what has happened over the past 40 to 50 years that has increased their value relative to the average worker by such a staggering amount? I can think of reasons why they're more able to get away with it now (globalization) but nothing to justify it.


The bottom line is that CEOs and higher executives make so much money because they can get away with it, not because they're worth it. You can't tell me that golden parachutes for ex-CEOs of failed finance-sector companies whose actions, at least in part, caused the loss of billions of dollars and destroyed the livelihoods of thousands upon thousands of their employees, were justified because those CEOs were just that damn valuable. If they were so fucking valuable, then they should have been able to keep the company afloat without bailout money, as one example.


Business is corrupt. It is based purely on greed at the highest levels in most sectors. It's like how car manufacturers will literally weigh the costs of settlements vs. the costs of recalls, nevermind the people who might die in accidents caused by whatever faulty part or plan is in question - is that financially sensible? Sure. Does that make it good, or right? Fuck. No.

While I don't disagree with everything, one of the larger reasons CEOs make so much more now is because businesses are so much larger-- not just globalization (though that's part of it), but just *bigger*. If you took the entire executive compensation for Walmart-- not just the CEO's pay-- and divided it among all of Walmart's employees, you're looking at about a two cents per hour raise, or fifty bucks per year. Could I use another $50/year? Sure. Is it going to make a difference in my life? Not really, and two cents per hour isn't going to incentivize me any more.

Are all CEOs worth what they make? No, obviously not. Many CEOs get paid in spite of an incredible number of mistakes and do lasting damage, yet are still compensated (in no small part because they often advocate boards get paid more). But in terms of dollars-per-employee, they're making less now than they used to. The companies are just SO much larger that taking less from a larger pool still results in larger pay.

[Byrthnoth]

He's saying "lol" because meeting frequency is minutiae and it's a pretty strange thing to seize on. Might as well ask why they have to meet in Conference room 1A instead of 1B.

The meetings should be conducted often enough that they can diffuse problems, but not so often that they cause problems (by getting the LBGT people flak for not working). Whatever the sweet spot is for your company, that's what it should be.

As for why they should meet in Conference room 1A, they should meet there because Conference room 1B is booked for a lunch meeting by Larry from accounting every other Tuesday. He always gets mexican food and the LBGT people don't want to be hotboxed with Larry's accountant farts.

[Salodin]

That's why I said context matters. If it's biweekly or even monthly, for one hour, who cares? If it's weekly with nothing productive going on and you have to work OT because shit isn't getting done, yeah you might want to speak up; except you can't cause you look like a bigot for saying the office homosexuals need to finish their work before having their playtime.

Is it that bad? Probably not, but every one has their breaking point.

[FNH]

He's saying "lol" because meeting frequency is minutiae and it's a pretty strange thing to seize on.

Depends on salary vs. hourly.


For the record I don't like hourlies to use the restroom on the clock....

[zoobernut]

Depends on salary vs. hourly.


For the record I don't like hourlies to use the restroom on the clock....

I think it depends on the job. Not all jobs have constant things to do. There are hourly jobs with a certain degree of downtime built into them. Though honestly I think any job with that kind of down time built into them should be salaried. If you are talking restaurant job or construction job or retail job then I would agree with you. There is always cleaning, straightening up, facing the store, etc. to be done.

Edit: For jobs that have a certain degree of down time built into them I don't think people should have to clock out to use the restroom. Just do it when there is a quiet moment.

[Yuri-G]

Depends on salary vs. hourly.


For the record I don't like hourlies to use the restroom on the clock....

I'm just going to save myself an aneurysm and assume you're joking.