Changing Work Ethic, or Changing Work Requirements?

[mozg]

Whatever works -- the 15 minute thing is just a rule of thumb. The thing is, most people in the workforce are slackers, and the bosses are used to people taking advantage when they can, calling in sick, coming in late, an all this sort of thing. So, to do a couple basic things -- always being on time (which is more easily guaranteed if you plan to be there a few minutes early), and not ducking out early (which becomes obvious if you don't race to the door right at quittin' time), and if while you're at work you, well, work.

What industry are you in? My experience has been that bosses assume that business hours are 24 hours a day and that even when I am not at work, thanks to smart phones and notebooks and WiFi, I'll still answer emails, accept calls and devote my entire life to them. They are most definitely not respectful of my time, and I find that being a salaried employee makes it even worse because whether I work 40 hours or 80 hours in a week my pay is not affected one bit.

But, my suggestion was more for work ethic wise. If you're not concerned about good letters of reference, help in advancing when you move on, getting raises and such, then quibbling over a few minutes before an after one's shift is certainly understandable. As a kid, though, I wanted to be thought well of, to get a raise an be able to tell my next employer during the application process that I got that raise or promotion. And, I always looked to have a good relationship with the boss so as to get a letter from them when I moved on that verified employment an recommended me.

A lot of companies now in the United States will not give a reference at all. They'll confirm dates of employment and possibly salary, but nothing else, because they do not want to open themselves to potential litigation.

It sounds like your place is a bureaucratic hell. I feel for you. That's why I love being the boss. I treat people nice. I close up shop when I want. I do a lot of my work sitting on the couch at home or in odd hours. I don't sleep much, so often I have hours to spare. I'll put 3 hours in on Saturday or Sunday morning before SWMBO'd gets out of bed.

I don't 'sleep much' either, but I don't spend that time doing my job. I spend it doing things I enjoy. I have had bosses who do what you do, and then they get butthurt when I didn't respond to the email they sent at 7 am on Saturday. I sincerely hope that when you say you treat people nice, that means you're not calling them on weekends.

[MrJonno]

A lot of companies now in the United States will not give a reference at all. They'll confirm dates of employment and possibly salary, but nothing else, because they do not want to open themselves to potential litigation.

Pretty standard in the UK as well (through I doubt if they would supply salaries). Most managers have better things to do that write references for ex employees and HR departments arent really going to know that much about someone anyway

[Ayaan]

A lot of companies now in the United States will not give a reference at all. They'll confirm dates of employment and possibly salary, but nothing else, because they do not want to open themselves to potential litigation.

Pretty standard in the UK as well (through I doubt if they would supply salaries). Most managers have better things to do that write references for ex employees and HR departments arent really going to know that much about someone anyway

One place I used to work wouldn't give you a reference, but would state whether or not they would hire you back, which in my mind amounts to almost the same thing.

[Bella Fortuna]

A lot of companies now in the United States will not give a reference at all. They'll confirm dates of employment and possibly salary, but nothing else, because they do not want to open themselves to potential litigation.

Pretty standard in the UK as well (through I doubt if they would supply salaries). Most managers have better things to do that write references for ex employees and HR departments arent really going to know that much about someone anyway

That's exactly what we do. We confirm 'name, rank, and serial number' but if you want a useful qualitative reference you need to ask someone on a personal, individual basis; we don't do that as a reflection of the institution.

[Tyrannical]

A lot of companies now in the United States will not give a reference at all. They'll confirm dates of employment and possibly salary, but nothing else, because they do not want to open themselves to potential litigation.

Pretty standard in the UK as well (through I doubt if they would supply salaries). Most managers have better things to do that write references for ex employees and HR departments arent really going to know that much about someone anyway

One place I used to work wouldn't give you a reference, but would state whether or not they would hire you back, which in my mind amounts to almost the same thing.

Would hire back doesn't quite mean what you think it does They are hinting at did they break a serious company policy that makes them ineligible for consideration.What companies want is a co-worker or manager to speak off the record willing to state all good things about you, a no comment is akin to I'd like to avoid a possible libel case.

[MrJonno]

I've worked for a few places where they asked me to write my own reference and they would sign it , its a right pain to do as you have to put a small negative in it to make it look balanced.

What are your flaws : , sometimes I'm not as tolerant with people who arent as intelligent as me as I should be

[Bella Fortuna]

"My main flaw? I'm a perfectionist with an overactive work ethic!"

You always feel like a prat answering that question.

[Cormac]

Not only do you not get any extra pay for working more, you never get any thanks either. So no real change then from the days when we had no clocking in at all. There used be some overtime pay then, but my general impression was that if you worked above and beyond (as I often did), it really didn't matter in the long run. That would be a general impression based on years of experience.

Is this in the US? If so, then any work that you do that they know about they have to pay you for, if you're an hourly nonexempt employee. So, even if you're working overtime without their express agreement, but they "suffer or permit" you to do it, then you are owed compensation for it. And, for overtime pay, that is anything over 40 in a week and is paid at time-and-one-half.

What kind of a communist hell puts worker protections like this in place? That is totally anti-enterprise!

[Gerald McGrew]

What specifically do you think are the worst things?

1) "Brian": Gets fired because his wife had a baby. The employer couldn't be bothered to check for validation of the story...just fires him. Another employee is fired for going to the doctor, even though he has a note from his doctor.

2) Unattainable production goals: I've experienced this first hand. The employer sets production goals that are unattainable under normal circumstances, and uses the employee's not meeting them as an excuse to berate them and deny them pay increases or other benefits.

3) Insufficient break times: Given the distances from the warehouse floor to the break area and the limited number of bathrooms (plus waiting to get through the metal detectors), these "breaks" are nothing more than (literally) running from place to place while trying to eat something.

4) No employee lockers: When the policy is "nothing but your clothes on the work floor", the result is employees need a safe place to keep their personal items (car keys, phones, purses). None are provided.

5) Working conditions: Upper floors can reach or exceed 95 degrees in the summer, and get as low as 60 in the winter. Strong static electricity shocks as well.

Overall, the point of the article is to make the reader aware of how these types of employers operate at the absolute bare minimum so they can offer things like free shipping. So they hire the absolute fewest number of employees they can get by with, pay them as little as possible, and push them as hard as they can the entire time they're there. As most of them break down (physically, emotionally, or both) they are quickly replaced. In the current employment market, these employers can rely on the fact that there will always be more people looking for jobs, so they can get away with just about anything.

I worked at a place like this when I was an undergraduate. They too had "production goals" that most of us could never reach, and they constantly yelled at us (and I mean all day) to work faster, no matter how fast we were actually working, just like the article describes. And the system was rigged so that preferred employees (the guys who'd been there 10 years or more) could exceed their goals. Basically, we all unloaded merchandise off the trucks. If you got to unload a truck full of bras, you could unload 5,000 items with one pallet jack. But if you got a truck full of lawnmowers or refrigerators, it would take you all day to unload 25% of your "production goal".

But I have to say I'm glad for the experience. It makes me truly appreciate how good I have it now and it gives me stories to tell my kids to motivate them to do well in school. I could do it for a summer, but not much beyond that.

[Coito ergo sum]

Whatever works -- the 15 minute thing is just a rule of thumb. The thing is, most people in the workforce are slackers, and the bosses are used to people taking advantage when they can, calling in sick, coming in late, an all this sort of thing. So, to do a couple basic things -- always being on time (which is more easily guaranteed if you plan to be there a few minutes early), and not ducking out early (which becomes obvious if you don't race to the door right at quittin' time), and if while you're at work you, well, work.

What industry are you in? My experience has been that bosses assume that business hours are 24 hours a day and that even when I am not at work, thanks to smart phones and notebooks and WiFi, I'll still answer emails, accept calls and devote my entire life to them. They are most definitely not respectful of my time, and I find that being a salaried employee makes it even worse because whether I work 40 hours or 80 hours in a week my pay is not affected one bit.

Well, things change when you move from "hourly" type jobs to more a salaried or professional gig.

Yes, you work 40 hours or 80 in a week and pay is not effected, but the idea is that as an exempt employee -- salaried + in a managerial, administrative or professional capacity, or computer IT professionals -- you aren't an hourly, punch-a-clock person. By the same token, it is illegal to dock an exempt employee for things like "coming in late" and whatnot. In the US, that is.

I was salaried for most of my life, and I never worried much about the hours. Just git-er-dun.

But, my suggestion was more for work ethic wise. If you're not concerned about good letters of reference, help in advancing when you move on, getting raises and such, then quibbling over a few minutes before an after one's shift is certainly understandable. As a kid, though, I wanted to be thought well of, to get a raise an be able to tell my next employer during the application process that I got that raise or promotion. And, I always looked to have a good relationship with the boss so as to get a letter from them when I moved on that verified employment an recommended me.

A lot of companies now in the United States will not give a reference at all. They'll confirm dates of employment and possibly salary, but nothing else, because they do not want to open themselves to potential litigation.

Some, but most of the time it is a question of a particular employee's relationship with specific people at the company. Also depends on the size of the company. Larger companies generally = less flexibility.

It sounds like your place is a bureaucratic hell. I feel for you. That's why I love being the boss. I treat people nice. I close up shop when I want. I do a lot of my work sitting on the couch at home or in odd hours. I don't sleep much, so often I have hours to spare. I'll put 3 hours in on Saturday or Sunday morning before SWMBO'd gets out of bed.

I don't 'sleep much' either, but I don't spend that time doing my job. I spend it doing things I enjoy. I have had bosses who do what you do, and then they get butthurt when I didn't respond to the email they sent at 7 am on Saturday. I sincerely hope that when you say you treat people nice, that means you're not calling them on weekends.

Rarely. I expect people to do their job, whatever it takes. Sometimes that makes me a bad manager, because I hate to flyspeck or micromanage, and a lot of people are, unfortunately, lazy slackers when they get the chance.

[Coito ergo sum]

What specifically do you think are the worst things?

1) "Brian": Gets fired because his wife had a baby. The employer couldn't be bothered to check for validation of the story...just fires him. Another employee is fired for going to the doctor, even though he has a note from his doctor.

Generally speaking, for the large company referred to in the story, that is illegal. Under the Family and Medical Leave Act, such a termination is made unlawful, as the employer MUST give an employee time off to care for a pregnant wife and/or to participate in the birth. And, the big box store would be covered by the FMLA.

2) Unattainable production goals: I've experienced this first hand. The employer sets production goals that are unattainable under normal circumstances, and uses the employee's not meeting them as an excuse to berate them and deny them pay increases or other benefits.

Well, you believe the employee that the goals are unattainable. That hasn't been established. Many employees view goals that are difficult to attain as "unattainable."

But, what country would you be referring to that sets employee goals by law, so that employers can't set "unattainable" goals.

3) Insufficient break times: Given the distances from the warehouse floor to the break area and the limited number of bathrooms (plus waiting to get through the metal detectors), these "breaks" are nothing more than (literally) running from place to place while trying to eat something.

I think that's misstating what was written in the article.

4) No employee lockers: When the policy is "nothing but your clothes on the work floor", the result is employees need a safe place to keep their personal items (car keys, phones, purses). None are provided.

I'll have to reread the article. I missed that part. I worked at a lot of menial, hourly jobs "back in the day", though, and I never had a locker -- even working on an assembly line, where you couldn't have stuff hanging around the line.

5) Working conditions: Upper floors can reach or exceed 95 degrees in the summer, and get as low as 60 in the winter. Strong static electricity shocks as well.

Doesn't sound that bad. I worked on roofs with temperatures as low as 35 degrees, and as high as 100. Some jobs can be a bit uncomfortable.

Overall, the point of the article is to make the reader aware of how these types of employers operate at the absolute bare minimum so they can offer things like free shipping. So they hire the absolute fewest number of employees they can get by with, pay them as little as possible, and push them as hard as they can the entire time they're there. As most of them break down (physically, emotionally, or both) they are quickly replaced. In the current employment market, these employers can rely on the fact that there will always be more people looking for jobs, so they can get away with just about anything.

The article sounds like a gross exaggeration.

Some jobs aren't going to be long term. In college, I worked loading UPS trucks for a while. It was really hard, hot, and they wanted you to work the whole time throwing and lugging heavy boxes. Boo hoo.

I worked at a place like this when I was an undergraduate. They too had "production goals" that most of us could never reach, and they constantly yelled at us (and I mean all day) to work faster, no matter how fast we were actually working, just like the article describes. And the system was rigged so that preferred employees (the guys who'd been there 10 years or more) could exceed their goals. Basically, we all unloaded merchandise off the trucks. If you got to unload a truck full of bras, you could unload 5,000 items with one pallet jack. But if you got a truck full of lawnmowers or refrigerators, it would take you all day to unload 25% of your "production goal".

But I have to say I'm glad for the experience. It makes me truly appreciate how good I have it now and it gives me stories to tell my kids to motivate them to do well in school. I could do it for a summer, but not much beyond that.

I found jobs at that level to be easy to excel at. Most of the people taking those jobs are either young, inexperienced teenagers and college students (who aren't generally much at "work ethic") -- or, if folks are doing that sort of thing past the age of 25, they are generally incompetent to do much and aren't particularly motivated (or they wouldn't still be doing that kind of shit work). I found if I tried even a little, I would always be well thought of as a worker -- and that was at every job from UPS to roofing and interior construction, to doing repetitious assembly line work, and all that sort of thing.

I have my doubts about the writer of the article, and it sounds like she's embellishing considerably. She also sounds like someone who, quite simply, wouldn't work very hard at a job that required menial tasks. Good for her. She's now a writer, and a passable one.

[mistermack]

Why doesn't someone start a website where employees can write a reference for their EMPLOYER and post it?

So that anybody wanting a job can find out what it's like before they bother applying?

In case of court action, the website can have zero assets, and just open again if closed.

[Coito ergo sum]

Why doesn't someone start a website where employees can write a reference for their EMPLOYER and post it?

So that anybody wanting a job can find out what it's like before they bother applying?

In case of court action, the website can have zero assets, and just open again if closed.

There are Rate My Employer and Review My Employer websites, and a Facebook page for that too.

It's not a problem, except that the law of defamation/libel/slander applies on the 'net just as it does anywhere else. Beyond that, folks can say what they like.

[Gerald McGrew]

Yeah, that's pretty much the reaction I expected...."I don't believe her".

*shrug*