My profitable observations were not (yet) rewarded

[darkrose50]

My profitable observations were not (are not yet?) rewarded. My ego is quite bruised.

I increased the productive hours of the workday for 80-ish agents by 37.5%+ of the day (3/8 hours in the day, sometimes more) or 160%+ (8 productive hours when we had 5 before, sometimes adding more than 3-productive-hours to the day). This implementation was made before the six busiest weeks in the year. This was not taken into account when calculating who would win the MVP (that comes with a paid week off, a trip to Cancun, an award, and a raise).

I found that the client was not paying us for some of our work, and has not been for 3-4 years. So money will be collected for work done in the past and will mean being paid in the future for this type of work as a result. This was not taken into account when calculating who would win the MVP (that comes with a paid week off, a trip to Cancun, an award, and a raise).

There are other contributions, but these were the major contributions.

I learned that I need to point these things out in the future, because assuming that others will take contributions outside of my job description into consideration when entering numbers into a formula for my job description is something that I should have not done. Doing extra things, that simply must have made impressive profits, were simply not part of the formula that they used. I do not think that it even occurred to my managers to notice or mention that my extra contributions were not in the formula.

People do not question rules or procedures. This behavior is quite something I do not understand. I think that people are just crazy bad at resource management and/or do not care.

Not only do I want to point out ways to be more profitable, but I then also have to remind others that I did so, and remind them that my profitable observations should be taken into consideration. I need to remind people that my contributions should be part of the formula, or they will just plum forget about all of the value that I added that is beyond my job description. Apparently people just do not notice that the formula does not have an "other" entry.

Else they will completely and utterly forgot to add my contributions . . . entirely . . . 100% of them. I suppose in the future, before the formulas are calculated, I need to beat my chest like some gorilla in order to remind people of the value outside of my job description that I added. It seems like a huge jerk move, but else I will not get ANY credit.

Frankly, I was stunned. There is a snowballs' chance in hell that anyone added more value than I did this year. I am a little upset about this, as you can tell.

[JeenLeen]

First off, sympathy. That stinks, and your upset seems rather reasonable. I hope a manager was at least apologetic that it wasn't factored in.

I'll risk some advice: maybe you can get those attributed to next year's formula, since they weren't this year? Or, if not the actions themselves, the continuous positive results (increased productivity, increased revenue from that client).

Unfortunately, managers probably do need to be reminded of stuff like this. I'd like to think they'd do an annual review with you before calculating MVP, so you get a chance to note accomplishments they may have missed. But it sounds like such wasn't the case. I could see just tracking some things in Word or an Excel sheet, and sending it to your manager close to the employee-review time, to make sure everything that should be noted was.
To management's credit, if they have a lot of employees, it is possible they (or whoever was tasked with doing the formulas) simply forgot. But it's a shame your manager didn't add a note about this. These sound pretty major, so... yeah, a shame.

[darkrose50]

I just assumed that the contributions would be attributed to me. We had the best day ever during one day this past season. I was like . . . "Cool, they will do the math, and figure it out". Nope . . . the list of who won the MVP was released, and I was not on it.

I was later told that I was ranked #4/80-ish, and that I would get a raise, but my immediate manager did not know how much of a raise it would be. We know how much each pay level currently earns, so this just made my mind go wild trying to figure out if this means that:

[A] All the pay levels are getting some yet unknown cost of living raise.
[B] I am going up one pay level, and/or all the pay levels are also getting some yet unknown cost of living raise.
[D] I may be going up more than one pay level, and she did not yet know how many, and/or all the pay levels are also getting some yet unknown cost of living raise.
[E] They are offering me a new position.
[F] She did not recall the amounts off the top of her head and/or everyone is getting some yet unknown cost of living raise.

I think that I may know more on Friday, when I think people's titles will change in the system (there are five titles with differing pay levels for my position . . . in my group I am the only 2/5, there is one 4/5, and a mess of folks that are 1/5).

[AMFV]

I'm going to tell you what I was told the first union job I worked. "Don't give them anything extra cause it won't matter" and it didn't. Unless you have something in writing saying that you'll be rewarded for something, nothing extra you do will matter really, not come layoff time, not come raise time. It does suck though.

[darkrose50]

Many of my co-workers seem to think that it just does not matter what you contribute. I am not sure that I have the willpower not to point out something that is costing the company lots of money. I am not sure that I would want to not point these things out anyways. But MVP is pretty glaringly . . . Most Valued Player . . . and no one could have even came close to adding value that 80-ish insurance agents going from non-productive to productive for 3-hours per day each added. An observation like that one comes by once in a blue moon.

[Liquor Box]

I'm going to tell you what I was told the first union job I worked. "Don't give them anything extra cause it won't matter" and it didn't. Unless you have something in writing saying that you'll be rewarded for something, nothing extra you do will matter really, not come layoff time, not come raise time. It does suck though.

I don't think this is true in lots of workplaces, it may be in some. You may not rewarded directly with a payment (or other benefit) for the particular thing you did, your performance will still be a factor (usually the crucial factor) in promotions/payrises.

[2D8HP]

"They don't count how much you do, they count how many mistakes you make"

- What a now deceased City employee told me my first year on the job

[Tvtyrant]

My profitable observations were not (are not yet?) rewarded. My ego is quite bruised.

I increased the productive hours of the workday for 80-ish agents by 37.5%+ of the day (3/8 hours in the day, sometimes more) or 160%+ (8 productive hours when we had 5 before, sometimes adding more than 3-productive-hours to the day). This implementation was made before the six busiest weeks in the year. This was not taken into account when calculating who would win the MVP (that comes with a paid week off, a trip to Cancun, an award, and a raise).

I found that the client was not paying us for some of our work, and has not been for 3-4 years. So money will be collected for work done in the past and will mean being paid in the future for this type of work as a result. This was not taken into account when calculating who would win the MVP (that comes with a paid week off, a trip to Cancun, an award, and a raise).

There are other contributions, but these were the major contributions.

I learned that I need to point these things out in the future, because assuming that others will take contributions outside of my job description into consideration when entering numbers into a formula for my job description is something that I should have not done. Doing extra things, that simply must have made impressive profits, were simply not part of the formula that they used. I do not think that it even occurred to my managers to notice or mention that my extra contributions were not in the formula.

People do not question rules or procedures. This behavior is quite something I do not understand. I think that people are just crazy bad at resource management and/or do not care.

Not only do I want to point out ways to be more profitable, but I then also have to remind others that I did so, and remind them that my profitable observations should be taken into consideration. I need to remind people that my contributions should be part of the formula, or they will just plum forget about all of the value that I added that is beyond my job description. Apparently people just do not notice that the formula does not have an "other" entry.

Else they will completely and utterly forgot to add my contributions . . . entirely . . . 100% of them. I suppose in the future, before the formulas are calculated, I need to bet my chest like some gorilla in order to remind people of the value outside of my job description that I added. It seems like a huge jerk move, but else I will not get ANY credit.

Frankly, I was stunned. There is a snowballs' chance in hell that anyone added more value than I did this year. I am a little upset about this, as you can tell.

When I worked at a tech support company we were expected to hand type a set of notes on how each phone call went. These notes were fairly copious, but essentially identical each time. As you worked long term you learned how to use stickies and shortcuts to copy and paste from.

All in all it took 2 minutes for each set of notes, some people being faster and some slower. 2 minutes out of an expected 8 minute call.

A coworker made a button based excel program that allowed you to perform the same task in about 15 seconds during the call, saving the company millions of dollars a year. He was given some hats and mugs, no raise, and the call time expectation was moved down to 6 minutes.

[AMFV]

I don't think this is true in lots of workplaces, it may be in some. You may not rewarded directly with a payment (or other benefit) for the particular thing you did, your performance will still be a factor (usually the crucial factor) in promotions/payrises.

It can be, but more often than not your performance only needs to be at a certain level to get those. Above that, nobody cares again. Unless you start making mistakes, and they definitely notice those. Certainly I wouldn't count on that performance helping much. Unless there's some kind of in-writing bonus policy.

[Chen]

Many of my co-workers seem to think that it just does not matter what you contribute. I am not sure that I have the willpower not to point out something that is costing the company lots of money. I am not sure that I would want to not point these things out anyways. But MVP is pretty glaringly . . . Most Valued Player . . . and no one could have even came close to adding value that 80-ish insurance agents going from non-productive to productive for 3-hours per day added. An observation like that one comes by once in a blue moon.

So what exactly did you do? It could easily be something that is overlooked in the company’s metrics or they consider difficult to actually quantify. You’ve done the value calculation but it may be something thats easily overlooked. You should certainly inform your managers of your contribution during your performance appraisals though.

[JeenLeen]

2 minutes out of an expected 8 minute call.

A coworker made a button based excel program that allowed you to perform the same task in about 15 seconds during the call, saving the company millions of dollars a year. He was given some hats and mugs, no raise, and the call time expectation was moved down to 6 minutes.

A management thing that really bugs me is when efficiency is punished. In your story, the initial result was huge earnings for the company and a lot less hassle/stress for all employees -- at least, I assume making that 8-minute limit most of the time mattered a lot. But then management moves the time expectation down 2 minutes, essentially eliminating the benefit to employees and potentially making employees dislike the guy who made the efficient program. (I know I might feel resentful, even if I acknowledged it as irrational.) That really stinks.

[darkrose50]

So what exactly did you do? It could easily be something that is overlooked in the company’s metrics or they consider difficult to actually quantify. You’ve done the value calculation but it may be something thats easily overlooked. You should certainly inform your managers of your contribution during your performance appraisals though.

I am going to a promotion ceremony tomorrow, and they may mention my contributions then.

It is also a good idea to ask if they can add my contributions into the formula for next year.

Well for 3-4 years the call forwarding from my team's client's numbers were turned off at 4:00 PM, we worked until 7:00 PM, and during the busy season sometimes until 9:00 PM or 11:00 PM. It took me talking to five managers, in turn, to find one that believed me. I am glad that the fifth one did. The first four dismissed the idea out of hand saying something like people are eating dinner or something crazy like that. Exactly at 4:00 PM the call queue would go from calls to no-calls . . . well it dropped something like 90%, or more. Effectively to zero for most people. We still got calls that were not forwarded to us by the client. I joked that I could take a nap from 4:00 PM on, and that I should bring a pillow and blanket. I could have seriously napped from 4:00 PM on, only to be awakened by the rare stray call.

Sometimes I have good ideas. I am good at efficiency. I notice these types of things often-ish. Likely never one this profitable. Likely never one this easy to measure with math. This observation absolutely made quantifiable profits. This was real money.

Flipping that switch turned 3+ hours of the day from unproductive to productive . . . across 80-ish insurance agents. This must have been truckloads of calls, sales, and profits. Sales calls go to the client first . . . so a great deal of these were profit that we would not have seen IF they were to call back. Just the brute force of 3+ hours of more productivity, per person, in the day is something huge.

Efficiency seems to be my thing. I am good with managing resources. The client requested a copy of every observation I make, and by bosses seem to forward on observations I make to other bosses. I was stunned to not be thanked for something that was so easy to measure. Something that was, to me, so blatantly obvious. It should have been obvious, right?

I have Asperger's Syndrome and sometimes overestimate what people know or what they will do with the information that I give them. Frankly I think that my managers forgot. At the same time people will often want to share or take credit on this or that idea. I just need to roll with it. I am grateful to have a job. It can be hard to keep a job with Asperger's Syndrome.

[darkrose50]

When I worked at a tech support company we were expected to hand type a set of notes on how each phone call went. These notes were fairly copious, but essentially identical each time. As you worked long term you learned how to use stickies and shortcuts to copy and paste from.

All in all it took 2 minutes for each set of notes, some people being faster and some slower. 2 minutes out of an expected 8 minute call.

A coworker made a button based excel program that allowed you to perform the same task in about 15 seconds during the call, saving the company millions of dollars a year. He was given some hats and mugs, no raise, and the call time expectation was moved down to 6 minutes.

Yeah I worked myself and 7-9 other people out of our jobs once. I just cannot help myself sometimes. Well I was offered a job 'in the field" but incorrectly thought that would mean that I would be climbing up poles, in the snow and in the rain. I took the severance package. This was one the worst mistakes that I ever made. I was young and stupid. I am older, and less stupid now.

[Cheesegear]

Yeah I worked myself and 7-9 other people out of our jobs once. I just cannot help myself sometimes. Well I was offered a job 'in the field" but incorrectly thought that would mean that I would be climbing up poles, in the snow and in the rain. I took the severance package. This was one of my worst mistakes ever. I was young and stupid. I am less stupid now.

I took a weekend course in Excel once. Once I got back to work, I created a bunch of macros and lookup tables, and decreased everyone's workload by about half... So half the workforce - including me (last in, first out) - was let go because there simply wasn't any work to do after two weeks on my spreadsheets that I had created.

Two months later my work called me back, because something had happened with my data tables, and they didn't know how to fix it, and could I please come back?
...No. I created the spreadsheets and increased productivity. They knew that I had done it. They should have fired everyone except me, because I was the only one who was actually doing the work. Besides, I had a new job by then - which they provided me a reference for - and why would I come back just so they can fire me again after I fix all their tables?

[darkrose50]

At a past job my supervisor told me to stop working after a point. We needed to complete 50-tickets a day, and I was to STOP at 80-tickets. I would usually finish in 30-90 minutes. I spent the rest of the day surfing the interwebs and debating politics (I had fun, and my writing got better). I could have safely done the work of 3-5 people. The guy that sat by me was paid like 150% more, and hardly did any work. I was not really rewarded. I suppose that I am just forgettable.

[Rogar Demonblud]

No, a major point of business school training is using employees to make yourself look good, but making sure they don't get acknowledged. Because then they get promoted out of your department and make someone else look good. Just like you don't get rid of (much) deadwood, because the size of your department is a status symbol.

Amazing how much primatology explains corporate behavior. Except for their habit of looking like zombie dinosaurs shambling forth to crush the world underfoot.

[Chen]

No, a major point of business school training is using employees to make yourself look good, but making sure they don't get acknowledged. Because then they get promoted out of your department and make someone else look good. Just like you don't get rid of (much) deadwood, because the size of your department is a status symbol.

Amazing how much primatology explains corporate behavior. Except for their habit of looking like zombie dinosaurs shambling forth to crush the world underfoot.

What business school did you go to? If someone can get work done with LESS people that's viewed as good here. If one department gets something done with 10 people but another gets the same done with 5, then the department with the 5 is the one that's going to get the accolades.

[Rogar Demonblud]

No, the one with 5 will get its budget slashed and the execs involved will lose out in promotions because they only handle five employees. Corporations are institutionalized inefficiency.

[Jay R]

Over the course of your lifetime, if you do more and better than others, you will be rewarded for it.

It is not true that each time you do more and better than others, you will be rewarded for it.

[darkrose50]

It is likely due to my inability to sell myself.

[Chen]

No, the one with 5 will get its budget slashed and the execs involved will lose out in promotions because they only handle five employees. Corporations are institutionalized inefficiency.

I won't deny this can happen. But in a good company it won't. If two departments are getting similar things done and one has double the people of the other, that's a bad sign. I'm managing budgets right now and when I see something like that its indication that the larger department has larger issues. This results in more hassels for the execs in charge.

And yes I agree it can certainly go on like that for some time. But then if it continues like this and people see whats actually going on the execs don't just get reduced bonuses they get fired (as I've seen through personal experience).

[Gnoman]

As an employee, I've seen that the first impulse of any new manager is "fire everyone you can get away with firing, so short term costs go down and you look good." Ruthless head cutting, often well below the level required to do the job in the first place, is a pretty standard management tactic nowadays. It is a big part of what killed Sears.

[2D8HP]

It is likely due to my inability to sell myself.


Your "inability to sell" yourself"?

Never blame yourself for not being a hucksters and a shill.

Blame yourself for believing that increasing their profits will benefit you, and know now that your exploiters don't care about you.

Try to get a union job, or have your own business.

[darkrose50]

I was ranked at #4/80. I received a mini-promotion from level 2/5 to level 3/5. #1/80, #2/80, and #7/80 also revived promotions. I am uncertain who #3/80, #5/80, and #6/80 are, but perhaps they are no longer with the company, or were they were promoted to a supervisor.

#1/80 went from level 4/5 to level 5/5
#2/80 went from level 1/5 to level 4/5
#4/80 (me) went from level 2/5 to level 3/5
#7/80 went from level 1/5 to level 3/5

I cannot help but the wonder what I did wrong to go up one level, when everyone else went up 2-3 levels (except the one that maxed out). It does not seem that my contributions outside of my job description are factored in. Perhaps my contributions outside of my job description are just not important, and I guess I should just stop bothering people with my ideas.

[Rogar Demonblud]

You're making them think instead of just allowing them to coast along because everything is alright and there are no problems. Humans hate having their illusions wrecked.

Also, arguably their bosses could decide they screwed up bad enough by not catching this earlier they need to be fired so someone else (who just happens to be loyal to the bosses) can get the job.

[Liquor Box]

It can be, but more often than not your performance only needs to be at a certain level to get those. Above that, nobody cares again. Unless you start making mistakes, and they definitely notice those. Certainly I wouldn't count on that performance helping much. Unless there's some kind of in-writing bonus policy.

Again, that's not my experience. My experience is that job advancement is much more merit based than you describe - not perfect because some people are better at self-promotion than others, but still probably the single most important factor.

Of course you and I are both from different countries, and have probably worked in different industries so our different experiences may be down to that.

[Liquor Box]

I was ranked at #4/80. I received a mini-promotion from level 2/5 to level 3/5. #1/80, #2/80, and #7/80 also revived promotions. I am uncertain who #3/80, #5/80, and #6/80 are, but perhaps they are no longer with the company, or were they were promoted to a supervisor.

#1/80 went from level 4/5 to level 5/5
#2/80 went from level 1/5 to level 4/5
#4/80 (me) went from level 2/5 to level 3/5
#7/80 went from level 1/5 to level 3/5

I cannot help but the wonder what I did wrong to go up one level, when everyone else went up 2-3 levels (except the one that maxed out). It does not seem that my contributions outside of my job description are factored in. Perhaps my contributions outside of my job description are just not important, and I guess I should just stop bothering people with my ideas.

Am I reading this right that you were ranked 4th in terms of performance out of 80 employees and were therefore promoted from the second tier to the third tier, or am I missing something.

Because, if I am understanding you correctly, it sounds like your performance was appropriately recognised with a high performance ranking and a promotion.

You may think that your discovery was so important that you deserve to be ranked higher than 4th, but it is up to your company precisely what it values in terms of performance - you probably don't know exactly what the others did either.

As for a couple of others going up more than one tier, that doesn't seem unreasonable either. Nobody whose perfromance was ranked lower than yours was promoted ahead of you.

Honestly, it seems like your performance was recognised, and that you were promoted accordingly. You just think the extent of that recognition should have been greater relative to others, and that seems to me to be a matter of discretion for the business which you are quibbling with.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Those aren't promotions. Just paybands. Dark Rose got bumped one level. Everyone else got two bumps, except the guy who went to the maximum.

[Liquor Box]

Those aren't promotions. Just paybands. Dark Rose got bumped one level. Everyone else got two bumps, except the guy who went to the maximum.

Ok.

I'm not sure its accurate to say "everyone else got two bumps...". Out of 80 employees DarkRose has identified that two of them got bumped two tiers. One of them outperformed him (on the company's analysis), and the other started off on a lower tier.

[Jay R]

A single action, no matter how great, is not the entire case for a raise. We don't know most of what happened last year, so we have no way to form an opinion.

[2D8HP]

...I guess I should just stop bothering people with my ideas.


They already have your idea if you quit tomorrow.

Perhaps the hope of a raise is a way to entice more ideas out of you, or others, but likely the main purpose of it is to keep you on the job, not as a reward.

Don't expect "just desserts".

[darkrose50]

It turns out that their titles were listed improperly in our organizational chart. I have been told that someone can only go up one level every six-months.

[Jay R]

It turns out that their titles were listed improperly in our organizational chart. I have been told that someone can only go up one level every six-months.

The essential lesson from this incident is to be fair to people, even when (especially when) they appear to be unfair to you. Your original suspicions were unfounded. In fact, they rated you in the top 5% of the company, and they raised you as high as they were able to.

Congratulations!

[darkrose50]

The essential lesson from this incident is to be fair to people, even when (especially when) they appear to be unfair to you. Your original suspicions were unfounded. In fact, they rated you in the top 5% of the company, and they raised you as high as they were able to.

Congratulations!

The last time I got a mini-promotion my title went from X to X2. I assumed that going from X to X2 was normal. Evidently my title should NOT have changed from X to X2. This mini-promotion my title will likely go back to X. So some people have a title that is X and other folks have a title that is X2, X3, X4, and X5. I now know that lots of people that have the title of X are actually X2, X3, X4, or X5.

It confused the jeepers out of me. It is something odd that HR did not know about. They told me that everything is updated automatically and that all the titles were fine. I then explained that the titles were wonky, "one more time, this time with feeling". I am waiting to see what they say next.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Admiral Rickover comes to mind.

"If you must sin, sin against God, not the bureaucracy. God will forgive you, the bureaucracy won't."

[Liquor Box]

The essential lesson from this incident is to be fair to people, even when (especially when) they appear to be unfair to you. Your original suspicions were unfounded. In fact, they rated you in the top 5% of the company, and they raised you as high as they were able to.

Congratulations!

This!

Most employers/companies are not out to trick you, and by assuming they are you risk hurting yourself.

[Tvtyrant]

This!

Most employers/companies are not out to trick you, and by assuming they are you risk hurting yourself.

This is not at all my, or many other people's, experience. Most companies are out to make as much profit as possible, and if lying to you gets them that they will absolutely do so.

The reason is that companies now expect to rotate workers and managers rapidly. A new manage is brought in for less money, they want to be promoted or hired out so they cheat, lie and ride to get their performance up. They leap out of the ship they set fire too, and the department sees people leaving and poor performances which forces the next guy to either look bad or ride everyone even harder.

I've witnessed this three times so far in less then 7 years of full time employment, the average manager has worked for a year and a half.

[Chen]

This is not at all my, or many other people's, experience. Most companies are out to make as much profit as possible, and if lying to you gets them that they will absolutely do so.

The reason is that companies now expect to rotate workers and managers rapidly. A new manage is brought in for less money, they want to be promoted or hired out so they cheat, lie and ride to get their performance up. They leap out of the ship they set fire too, and the department sees people leaving and poor performances which forces the next guy to either look bad or ride everyone even harder.

I've witnessed this three times so far in less then 7 years of full time employment, the average manager has worked for a year and a half.

This entirely depends on the type of job. Retail or other positions that require minimal training? This is accurate. A company that requires specific expertise and training? Turn-over is absolutely terrible.

[AMFV]

This!

Most employers/companies are not out to trick you, and by assuming they are you risk hurting yourself.

But that isn't what people have been suggesting people assume. People have been suggesting assuming that they aren't inherently out to help you. They aren't inherently your tribe and what is in their interests may not be what is in ours. And when those interests conflict, you can bet the company is going to go with their own interests over your own interests. And that's true regardless of how many extra hours you worked for them, or how much you stretched yourself for them.

Because that's human, so that's what your expectation should be: "They're in it for them, I'm in it for me." Simple enough. They aren't monsters, but they have their own interests in mind, just as you do.


This entirely depends on the type of job. Retail or other positions that require minimal training? This is accurate. A company that requires specific expertise and training? Turn-over is absolutely terrible.

But... even in training and expertise heavy jobs, the company is still going to put it's own interests first. Which is what you should expect.

[Liquor Box]

But that isn't what people have been suggesting people assume. People have been suggesting assuming that they aren't inherently out to help you. They aren't inherently your tribe and what is in their interests may not be what is in ours. And when those interests conflict, you can bet the company is going to go with their own interests over your own interests. And that's true regardless of how many extra hours you worked for them, or how much you stretched yourself for them.

Because that's human, so that's what your expectation should be: "They're in it for them, I'm in it for me." Simple enough. They aren't monsters, but they have their own interests in mind, just as you do.



But... even in training and expertise heavy jobs, the company is still going to put it's own interests first. Which is what you should expect.
All true, but generally the employer is going to want to treat you fairly because it is in its interests to do so. I'm not suggesting that employers are lovely maternal/paternal entities that always put your interests before their own, only that most treat you at least as fairly as you treat them.

Sure, if you say you are prepared to accept $X to do a job, it is not going to say "well we are prepared to pay $X + $10K", because that's what we pay the other guy who does the same job". But why should it, an employee wouldn't often say "no need to pay me $X, I'm prepared to do the job for $X - $10k as that's all my old job paid".

[Gnoman]

All true, but generally the employer is going to want to treat you fairly because it is in its interests to do so.


I'd like to live in this strange, magical world of yours. Employers rarely treat employees better than they are forced to, because the current view of employees ranges from "interchangeable cogs that we just replace whenever they break" to "useless parasites sucking away our profits, get rid of as many as you can".

[AMFV]

All true, but generally the employer is going to want to treat you fairly because it is in its interests to do so. I'm not suggesting that employers are lovely maternal/paternal entities that always put your interests before their own, only that most treat you at least as fairly as you treat them.

That's true only as long as it is the company's best interests to do so. And it isn't always.

[Douglas]

All true, but generally the employer is going to want to treat you fairly because it is in its interests to do so. I'm not suggesting that employers are lovely maternal/paternal entities that always put your interests before their own, only that most treat you at least as fairly as you treat them.

Sure, if you say you are prepared to accept $X to do a job, it is not going to say "well we are prepared to pay $X + $10K", because that's what we pay the other guy who does the same job". But why should it, an employee wouldn't often say "no need to pay me $X, I'm prepared to do the job for $X - $10k as that's all my old job paid".
I have, in fact, had a company respond to my statement of "I'm looking for $X salary" with an offer for $X + $10K. Or maybe it was $15K, it was almost a decade ago and I don't remember all the details.

If you work in a high-skill job where just finding someone competent to give an offer to at all is difficult, it is in the company's interest to pay you enough to make it hard for other companies to outbid them - whether or not there actually is a competing bid at that moment, because other companies are going to try to tempt you into switching jobs later on. The problem, of course, is that any job that fits that criterion is automatically a job that is difficult or impossible for most people to become competent in.


I'd like to live in this strange, magical world of yours. Employers rarely treat employees better than they are forced to, because the current view of employees ranges from "interchangeable cogs that we just replace whenever they break" to "useless parasites sucking away our profits, get rid of as many as you can".
The specific "strange, magical world" that I live in is that of a software engineer in Silicon Valley. I'm fairly sure that the profession is a much bigger part of it than the location, though. My salary took a huge jump when I moved here, but a lot of that was balanced out by a huge jump in my housing bill because housing prices are insane here.

[Chen]

That's true only as long as it is the company's best interests to do so. And it isn't always.

Of course. Companies aren’t charities. If you’re not providing (enough) value to them they will get rid of you. They’re not going to arbitrarily screw or help you.

[Jay R]

I'd like to live in this strange, magical world of yours. Employers rarely treat employees better than they are forced to, because the current view of employees ranges from "interchangeable cogs that we just replace whenever they break" to "useless parasites sucking away our profits, get rid of as many as you can".

The idea that the people who make decisions for companies almost always treat employees poorly is just as naive and simplistic as the idea that they almost always treat people well. And for the same reasons.

Real managers are more complicated than that. There is real self-interest for the company, but there is also real loyalty for employees who have shown greater than average commitment. This thread started with an example of somebody who went beyond for the company, and was rated in the top 4 people, and was promoted.

Note that "get rid of as many as you can" is entirely compatible with "keep the ones who are making us money". It's my job to make myself more than an "interchangeable cog" that can be replaced easily. We are only interchangeable if we aren't doing more and better than the others.


Besides, some people seem to have insufficient faith in self-interest. A corporation doesn't make a decision; a manager does. My experience is that if I've shown my manager that my continued presence is in her self-interest, then she is likely to do what's necessary to keep me there.

[Gnoman]

Real managers are more complicated than that. There is real self-interest for the company, but there is also real loyalty for employees who have shown greater than average commitment. This thread started with an example of somebody who went beyond for the company, and was rated in the top 4 people, and was promoted.


Good managers are like that. There are plenty of real managers that will happily sabotage a portion of the workforce for the sole purpose of justifying job cuts so that they can take credit for the short-term rise in profits (not only can people work at two or three times normal capacity for a short time, there is often enough delay in the feedback that the costs don't show up for a few months, while the decrease in payroll is immediate). This is not a hypothetical. I've seen it happen multiple times. The most obvious case went "assign the experienced workers to busywork > have untrained temps do the work > use the low performance of the temps to justify scrubbing the entire department > fire all the experienced workers". Six months later, the eliminated department was restored, but none of the experienced people were brought back. I've been flat out told "If I fire half of you, I get a bonus for cutting costs. You, you, you, and you no longer work here."


The only times I've ever been shown the slightest bit of loyalty from an employer is at jobs where I was literally impossible to replace. That is a position that people rarely find themselves in.

[darkrose50]

This!

Most employers/companies are not out to trick you, and by assuming they are you risk hurting yourself.

My manager (two levels up) is new, and I bet she just plum forgot. It is just a bad situation to be in.

Being ranked as #4 is just looking at the metrics for my job description. I have contributed in other ways. The main one is finding 3-5 more hours in the day at full productivity (call volume going from just about nil, to lots of calls). The extra 3-5 hours of productivity I found for EVERYONE . . . 80-people . . . were not figured into my review. If they were to add in the measurable effect that this had . . . real money . . . then I would have been ranked #1 by a mile. These are real and (most importantly) measurable profits. Being ranked #1 or #2 would have meant a paid week off and a trip to Cancun. My wife would a LOVED this. Not even a thank you was given to me. Seriously I think that they forgot all about this profitable observation. I was and I still am devastated. I mean wow . . . this is likely the most profitable observation that I have ever made in my life, and another one like this will come along during the next blue-moon, if ever. Why they did not perform face-to-face reviews with the employees before announcing who won the MPV trip is beyond me. That way people could point out errors and omissions . . . I just don't understand any of it.

I worked the busy season, putting off a trip to the dentist. Right after the busy season I send an email requesting the 22nd off in error, when it should have been the 21st. I had copious amounts of sick-days to use. I was given demerits for missing that day. As a result I received a -15% penalty to my years largest bonus. It was SLOW, so it was not like they even missed me. This was mean. This also very likely cost be some rankings, who knows I could have been #1 or #2, and got the paid week off and the trip. I know for damned sure that if I had a profitable employee that I would cut them some slack for typing a 1 when they should have typed a 2 . . . heck I would have cut anyone some slack over that error.

For some unknown reason (I have a theory) just about everyone was given a -25% penalty to their bonus due to poor performance. Including me, who came in at #1 for this the year before, and this was after finding 3-5 hours of productivity per person. I was basically told that I was doing a bad job . . . 1.5 weeks into a 3 week sales competition for a rather large bonus. I think that this was due to bad planning on their part, and they needed to move money about. But telling me that I sucked at my job . . . that was just mean. This not making exceptions for user error, or not adding in an "other" category for reviews is just mindboggling.

Due to shenanigans by slothful or malicious co-workers avoiding work and sabotaging my metrics, I think I almost lost my job. It took weeks to figure this out, on my own, without any help. This was befuddling.

This company is young, and is doubling from 500 to 1,000 people this year. It is exiting being in a company growing this fast, but I would like some common understanding and credit where credit is due. I just don't know what to think about all of this. These encounters just keep making me feel bad, but perhaps at some point my extra-curricular contributions will pay off.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Yup, typical management. They aren't even pretending to care about who is good at the job.

There's a reason the Pointy Haired Boss from Dilbert became a meme.

[Chen]

Talk to your managemen about the extras you’ve contributed. Ask why it wasnt taken into account.

What I dont get is you said people were staying til 7 normally or til later when it was busy. If this was with no calls coming in why did people have to stay more? If the extra calls you got added were all sales calls clearly there should be good profit. If they’re more support calls though you may not directly be generating more sales (though presumably doing better for the customers). In any case I think you need to rationally approach your boss about it. Probably cant do anything for this year but maybe next year.

[Liquor Box]

My manager (two levels up) is new, and I bet she just plum forgot. It is just a bad situation to be in.



Or she simply judged your the value of your performance differently to your own self-assessment, and this led to you being rated 4th/80 rather than 1st/80 (as you think you deserve) and still being moved to the higher pay band - so not a bad situation at all.

[Liquor Box]

Good managers are like that. There are plenty of real managers that will happily sabotage a portion of the workforce for the sole purpose of justifying job cuts so that they can take credit for the short-term rise in profits (not only can people work at two or three times normal capacity for a short time, there is often enough delay in the feedback that the costs don't show up for a few months, while the decrease in payroll is immediate). This is not a hypothetical. I've seen it happen multiple times. The most obvious case went "assign the experienced workers to busywork > have untrained temps do the work > use the low performance of the temps to justify scrubbing the entire department > fire all the experienced workers". Six months later, the eliminated department was restored, but none of the experienced people were brought back. I've been flat out told "If I fire half of you, I get a bonus for cutting costs. You, you, you, and you no longer work here."


If the employees were capable of working two or three times harder than it sounds like the department was over-staffed, and redundancies were the right thing to do. Your suggestion that the employer should be loyal to employees who were only working at 33% to 50% of their capacity strikes me as ridiculous.

[Douglas]

If the employees were capable of working two or three times harder than it sounds like the department was over-staffed, and redundancies were the right thing to do. Your suggestion that the employer should be loyal to employees who were only working at 33% to 50% of their capacity strikes me as ridiculous.
Short term capacity. That kind of effort cannot be sustained for long.

[Rogar Demonblud]

No, the manager is just abusing the rules for salaried employees by having them put in more time that they won't get paid for. Unless, of course, the salaried employees are making less than $21,000 a year, in which case they are subject to overtime rules.

Unpaid overtime is something of a given in the American Corporate environment.

[Liquor Box]

Short term capacity. That kind of effort cannot be sustained for long.

Well that depends. If they increased their short term capacity by working 80 to 120 hour weeks, then you are right it would be a short term solution (and if they did it while only being paid their normal salary it would be unfair). But if they managed to work 2 or three times harder during their normal work hours, then why would that not be sustainable?

[Rogar Demonblud]

Well, for starters managers usually begin by not allowing you to schedule the legally required breaks and lunches.

[2D8HP]

If the employees were capable of working two or three times harder than it sounds like the department was over-staffed, and redundancies were the right thing to do. Your suggestion that the employer should be loyal to employees who were only working at 33% to 50% of their capacity strikes me as ridiculous.


Well that depends. If they increased their short term capacity by working 80 to 120 hour weeks, then you are right it would be a short term solution (and if they did it while only being paid their normal salary it would be unfair). But if they managed to work 2 or three times harder during their normal work hours, then why would that not be sustainable?


Just so you know Liquor Box, if you talk like that at the jobsite and give suggestions on how to make do with less people and work those remaining harder, it's best to the owner or manager because it will engender a lot of ill-will towards you from your co-workers.

You may find it surprising how helpful it is to have co-workers that like you, and how much a hindrance it is to be hated.

I know the crew at my job got more productive when we got a new Superintendent who "cracked the whip" less, and when a new boiler engineer came on-board with lots of talk about how much more he could get down than "those lazy old-timers", and it was amazing how little he could actually do when he was shunned and no one would show him the ropes.

Don't be a scissorbill unless you're sure your going to get promoted, and it's worth it.

[Liquor Box]

Just so you know Liquor Box, if you talk like that at the jobsite and give suggestions on how to make do with less people and work those remaining harder, it's best to the owner or manager because it will engender a lot of ill-will towards you from your co-workers.

You may find it surprising how helpful it is to have co-workers that like you, and how much a hindrance it is to be hated.

I know the crew at my job got more productive when we got a new Superintendent who "cracked the whip" less, and when a new boiler engineer came on-board with lots of talk about how much more he could get down than "those lazy old-timers", and it was amazing how little he could actually do when he was shunned and no one would show him the ropes.

Don't be a scissorbill unless you're sure your going to get promoted, and it's worth it.

That some employees might deliberately sabotage their employer if their employer does things they don't like to promote productivity is consistent with my suggestion that people are to quick to blame the employer when things go wrong.

[2D8HP]

..blame..

Blame?

There are interests that sometimes converge, and often differ.

It's best to keep those interests in mind.

[Gnoman]

Well that depends. If they increased their short term capacity by working 80 to 120 hour weeks, then you are right it would be a short term solution (and if they did it while only being paid their normal salary it would be unfair). But if they managed to work 2 or three times harder during their normal work hours, then why would that not be sustainable?

The average human walking speed is 3 mph. Most people can run at 6-7 mph (twice as fast) but can't sustain it nearly as long. Same principle. If your job is to walk along a 24 mile path every day (an odd vocation, but such is the land of metaphor), you'll just have to walk. If I then tell you that I fired the guy next to you, and you have to walk his path and yours every day or you're fired, you'll have to run for your entire shift just to keep your job. Even professional athletes would have trouble with that level of exercise daily - that's essentially two back-to-back marathons.


The entire reason we call workers "laborers" is because work is laborious to perform. If there's enough people to do the work, then everybody "walks" - they go through their labors at a reasonable, sustainable speed. Keep the workload the same with the same workers, everybody has to start running just to keep up.

[Liquor Box]

The average human walking speed is 3 mph. Most people can run at 6-7 mph (twice as fast) but can't sustain it nearly as long. Same principle. If your job is to walk along a 24 mile path every day (an odd vocation, but such is the land of metaphor), you'll just have to walk. If I then tell you that I fired the guy next to you, and you have to walk his path and yours every day or you're fired, you'll have to run for your entire shift just to keep your job. Even professional athletes would have trouble with that level of exercise daily - that's essentially two back-to-back marathons.


The entire reason we call workers "laborers" is because work is laborious to perform. If there's enough people to do the work, then everybody "walks" - they go through their labors at a reasonable, sustainable speed. Keep the workload the same with the same workers, everybody has to start running just to keep up.

When you said that people could do 2 to 3 times as much work in the short term, were you meaning that they could sustain an increased level of physical activity that raises their heart rate for an hour or two? Because if so, your jogging analogy stands. If not, it doesn't.

If people are doing 2 to 3 times as much work because they are working 80 to 120 hours/week (instead of 40) then that is not sustainable. But if it is a matter people being able to do 2 to 3 times as much work during their ordinary working day (subject to the breaks they are entitled to by contract), then I think it is perfectly reasonable of the employer to expect that level of performance to be common-place.

[Liquor Box]

There are interests that sometimes converge, and often differ.

It's best to keep those interests in mind.

Sure, and each should act in accordance to those interests, subject to the contract between the parties and local labour laws. And I think most employers (and probably most employees) do. But as I previously accepted, other people's mileage on the 'most' point may be different to mine.

[Gnoman]

When you said that people could do 2 to 3 times as much work in the short term, were you meaning that they could sustain an increased level of physical activity that raises their heart rate for an hour or two?

Not an "hour or two", but "eight hours at a time, often with no breaks (because employees who take breaks are stealing money from the company)." Otherwise, yes. Work is a physical activity. If you go from sending ten thousand items down an assembly line to sending twenty thousand (this is how I got my bad shoulder), you are doubling your level of physical activity. If you have to clean six floors of a building instead of three (this is how I got my bad knee), you are doubling your level of physical activity. If you have to run four lathes at once instead of two (this guy wasn't me - he died), you are doubling your level of physical activity. If you do any physical labor of any sort, doubling the amount of labor increases your physical activity. This, of course, assumes that you're doing the most basic repetitive labor possible.

[2D8HP]

...doubling the amount of labor increases your physical activity....


And it cripples and ages you faster.

By-and-large efficiency "experts" are the enemy.

I've never seen "work smarter, not harder" actually be effective.

Its always a trade-off between "likely to be fired", and "likely to cripple or kill me"

'course when you're injured, you will be fired 'cause (as the scumbags will tell you) "its your fault". :annoyed:

As long as the employer regards the employees as disposable they'll try to force a crippling and even killing rate, and to be fair, as long as they're other jobs available, most employee's really won't give a damn if the enterprise is profitable.

It was only when the employer and employee's were stuck with each other that they care about each others long-term viability, but that's in the past.

[Douglas]

Even for jobs that do not focus on physical activity like that, mental fatigue and exhaustion is every bit as real as physical, and it is affected by the level of mental effort and activity just as physical exhaustion is affected by the level of physical activity.

Regardless of the type of job, it is nearly always possible to temporarily increase productivity - work done per unit time - well above the highest sustainable level. Doing so is always exhausting, can be dangerous, and requires a recovery period afterward.

[darkrose50]

Talk to your managemen about the extras you’ve contributed. Ask why it wasnt taken into account.

What I don't get is you said people were staying until 7 normally or until later when it was busy. If this was with no calls coming in why did people have to stay more? If the extra calls you got added were all sales calls clearly there should be good profit. If they’re more support calls though you may not directly be generating more sales (though presumably doing better for the customers). In any case I think you need to rationally approach your boss about it. Probably cant do anything for this year but maybe next year.

The client went home at 4:00 PM (5:00 PM their time). The company and the agents get paid by the hour by the client, but we also get paid a commission for selling insurance policies. The client turned off call forwarding at 4:00 PM. I would say ~90% of call volume went down. We still got calls, but a lot less. We would get calls from the numbers not set to go to the client (our call-back number, for example). Some agents high in the queue would see less of an effect then others. Many agents would get zero calls. I would joke that I could bring in a pillow and blanket, and take a nape from 4:00 PM till 7:00 PM . . . I mostly could have . . . only to be interrupted by the rare call. Having ~80 insurance agents sitting around picking their noses is not a productive use of time, but collecting commissions would be. It was still profitable for us to sit around and pick our noses, as the client was paying the company per agent per hour.

During the Annual Enrollment Period (six weeks under Trump) we are open until 9:00 PM on some days and until 11:00 PM on other days. The work was there, but out of reach (for 3-4 years). A flick of a switch fixed that.


If the employees were capable of working two or three times harder than it sounds like the department was over-staffed, and redundancies were the right thing to do. Your suggestion that the employer should be loyal to employees who were only working at 33% to 50% of their capacity strikes me as ridiculous.

We are insurance agents and our primary function is to be Hungry-Hungry-Hippos during the Annual Enrollment Period gobbling up marbles. Where the marbles are helping a customer select a plan in a limited timeframe. Usually this is 12-weeks, but has been 6-weeks under Trump.

In my department (we have different agents and other folks doing different things in the company) the company gets paid a flat amount by the customer/carrier, and this is a profitable amount. However the company also gets commissions for selling policies. Some months of the year are slow. I was able to take an un-paid week vacation this month, for example. Before the Annual Enrollment Period the company hires hundreds of people, and keeps some after.

My department is at about 35 / 500 of the employees, but we will add ~50 temporary agents for the busy season. So we likely double or more in size for 3-6 months. We are beginning to gear up for AEP now. I may do some training.

We are set to double this year from 500 to 1000 and open up a third office. They tell us that we keep exceeding yearly profit goals. Last summer at a BBQ a bean counter money guy was telling me that the company was doing crazy well. I am hopeful that this company becomes huge, and that I got in early enough. It is not common to grow or double in size like this company is. I am hoping that this company becomes huge, and eventually we get stock options and/or profit sharing. It would be a pie-in-the-sky dream to be in a pre-blue-chip company.


Even for jobs that do not focus on physical activity like that, mental fatigue and exhaustion is every bit as real as physical, and it is affected by the level of mental effort and activity just as physical exhaustion is affected by the level of physical activity.

Regardless of the type of job, it is nearly always possible to temporarily increase productivity - work done per unit time - well above the highest sustainable level. Doing so is always exhausting, can be dangerous, and requires a recovery period afterward.

I worked a 90-hour week for the 2016/2017 season, and began to hallucinate.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Out of curiosity, Liquor Box, where are you? Because you seem to be coming at this from a very different set of experiences than the U.S. marked posters.

[Chen]

The client went home at 4:00 PM (5:00 PM their time). The company and the agents get paid by the hour by the client, but we also get paid a commission for selling insurance policies. The client turned off call forwarding at 4:00 PM. I would say ~90% of call volume went down. We still got calls, but a lot less. We would get calls from the numbers not set to go to the client (our call-back number, for example). Some agents high in the queue would see less of an effect then others. Many agents would get zero calls. I would joke that I could bring in a pillow and blanket, and take a nape from 4:00 PM till 7:00 PM . . . I mostly could have . . . only to be interrupted by the rare call. Having ~80 insurance agents sitting around picking their noses is not as a productive use of time, then collecting commissions would be. It was still profitable for us to sit around and pick our noses, as the client was paying the company per agent per hour.

The last bit is key here I think. You increased productivity based on extra commissions during a 3 hour period. That's different than adding 3 extra productive hours. Those hours, from a company point of view, were already productive since you were getting paid for them by the client. This should still have been acknowledged but determining the exact value you added here is not as obvious. You'd need to look at commissions per hour per person and how much of that is profitable. It's certainly valuable but its not adding 240 man hours (80 people x 3 hours) of productivity to each day.


During the Annual Enrollment Period (six weeks under Trump) we are open until 9:00 PM on some days and until 11:00 PM on other days. The work was there, but out of reach (for 3-4 years). A flick of a switch fixed that.

My point was if it was so dead after 4 or whenever the forwarded went off, why were people needed for longer hours? Presumably there was sufficient work during those times even without the call forwarding to need people to stay longer.

[darkrose50]

The last bit is key here I think. You increased productivity based on extra commissions during a 3 hour period. That's different than adding 3 extra productive hours. Those hours, from a company point of view, were already productive since you were getting paid for them by the client. This should still have been acknowledged but determining the exact value you added here is not as obvious. You'd need to look at commissions per hour per person and how much of that is profitable. It's certainly valuable but its not adding 240 man hours (80 people x 3 hours) of productivity to each day.

The hourly billing is indeed important. However the company also makes a commission off of sales. I average a sale-per-hour (when we get constant calls), but I am slow at typing. I bet the commission is $500 per sale (based on overhearing an upper level manager . . . poorly . . but it sounds plausible).

6 days * 6 weeks * 100 sales per day * $500 = $1,800,000. This would be a high estimate, and I would need to give it further thought. It is likely not this high.

*Shrug* I guess I will find out someday, or not.

I think that we can request a report on how many calls/sales from the forwarded numbers were made between x and y date, and between a and b hours.



My point was if it was so dead after 4 or whenever the forwarded went off, why were people needed for longer hours? Presumably there was sufficient work during those times even without the call forwarding to need people to stay longer.

We still billed the client for those hours.

[Liquor Box]

Not an "hour or two", but "eight hours at a time, often with no breaks (because employees who take breaks are stealing money from the company)." Otherwise, yes. Work is a physical activity. If you go from sending ten thousand items down an assembly line to sending twenty thousand (this is how I got my bad shoulder), you are doubling your level of physical activity. If you have to clean six floors of a building instead of three (this is how I got my bad knee), you are doubling your level of physical activity. If you have to run four lathes at once instead of two (this guy wasn't me - he died), you are doubling your level of physical activity. If you do any physical labor of any sort, doubling the amount of labor increases your physical activity. This, of course, assumes that you're doing the most basic repetitive labor possible.

When you got your job (signed your contract) was your agreement that you would only clean 3 floors a day or send ten thousand items down an assembly line? Or was it that you would clean/assemble for x hours a day (with a few breaks)? Because if you agreed to work x hours a day, then I think you are agreeing to work as hard as you can for that period. If you agreed to clean a certain number of floors etc, then you are absolutely right, you should not have to clean more than that.

To go back to your jogging analogy - you usually run a 3mph, but can run at 6mph for periods. If you had to run a 6mph for as long as you could every day, this would become more sustainable over time, because you would become conditioned to the increased physical activity. After a few weeks of doing that it would become easier for you to sustain 6mph.

I acknowledge that injuries (like your knee) may be an issue for certain jobs - those jobs where you are required to use your body unnaturally (such as crawling in a confined space for hours on end), or RSI type injuries. I do think that employers should be required to take steps to mitigate the risk of such injuries. But, so far as it is safe to do so, I think employers are entitled to expect staff to work as hard as they can within their working hours.

[Liquor Box]

Out of curiosity, Liquor Box, where are you? Because you seem to be coming at this from a very different set of experiences than the U.S. marked posters.
You're right, I am from New Zealand, not USA. It does appear that my different experience informs my different perspective.

However, I suggest that my different perspective is not because employers in my country do not require employees to work hard (during their agreed hours), they do. I suggest my different perspective arises from most New Zealanders seeing it as right that people work hard during their working day. The difference may arise from the general sentiment here being more accepting of hard work, rather than from employers not requiring it.

[2D8HP]

....I acknowledge that injuries (like your knee) may be an issue for certain jobs - those jobs where you are required to use your body unnaturally (such as crawling in a confined space for hours on end), or RSI type injuries. I do think that employers should be required to take steps to mitigate the risk of such injuries. But, so far as it is safe to do so, I think employers are entitled to expect staff to work as hard as they can within their working hours.


You're right, I am from New Zealand, not USA. It does appear that my different experience informs my different perspective.

However, I suggest that my different perspective is not because employers in my country do not require employees to work hard (during their agreed hours), they do. I suggest my different perspective arises from most New Zealanders seeing it as right that people work hard during their working day. The difference may arise from the general sentiment here being more accepting of hard work, rather than from employers not requiring it.


If only "certain" jobs cause physical pain the harder you work in New Zealand I'm very doubtful that there's the work ethic you suggest.

Most work cripples, that's why you have to be paid to do it.

Simple as that

We have a phrase for jobs that don't cripple you in the U.S.A.:

"Gravy Jobs"

And gravy jobs are only for an elite, if they even exist at all.

[Elanasaurus]

If only "certain" jobs cause physical pain the harder you work in New Zealand I'm very doubtful that there's the work ethic you suggest.

Most work cripples, that's why you have to be paid to do it.

Simple as that

We have a phrase for jobs that don't cripple you in the U.S.A.:

"Gravy Jobs"

And gravy jobs are only for an elite, if they even exist at all.um cripple?
:eek:
aren't all white-collar jobs quite safe

[2D8HP]

um cripple?
:eek:
aren't all white-collar jobs quite safe


Relatively?

Yes, but not absolutely (https://www.afscme.org/news/publications/workplace-health-and-safety/the-keys-to-healthy-computing-a-health-and-safety-handbook/chapter-1-health-problems-caused-by-computer-work/part-b-computer-related-injuries-illnesses-and-discomfort) (though I may be thinking more of the repetitive stress injuries of what's often called "pink collar").

But just being lower on the taking orders ladder is injurious to health (https://unhealthywork.org/classic-studies/the-whitehall-study/).

I don't remember where I heard or read it, but IIRC the best two jobs for a long lifespan (in the USA) are Judge and tenured professor.

[Tvtyrant]

You're right, I am from New Zealand, not USA. It does appear that my different experience informs my different perspective.

However, I suggest that my different perspective is not because employers in my country do not require employees to work hard (during their agreed hours), they do. I suggest my different perspective arises from most New Zealanders seeing it as right that people work hard during their working day. The difference may arise from the general sentiment here being more accepting of hard work, rather than from employers not requiring it.

New Zeelands productivity per working hour is 28th in the world to the USA's 3rd.

[Liquor Box]

If only "certain" jobs cause physical pain the harder you work in New Zealand I'm very doubtful that there's the work ethic you suggest.

Most work cripples, that's why you have to be paid to do it.

Simple as that

We have a phrase for jobs that don't cripple you in the U.S.A.:

"Gravy Jobs"

And gravy jobs are only for an elite, if they even exist at all.

Sorry, I cannot accept that. How does working at a supermarket checkout cripple? How does beinjg a cycle courier cripple (outside of being hit by cars)? If Americans think that all jobs other than a few jobs for the elite cripple you, that just reinforces my comment to Roger.

[Gnoman]

Sorry, I cannot accept that. How does working at a supermarket checkout cripple? How does beinjg a cycle courier cripple (outside of being hit by cars)? If Americans think that all jobs other than a few jobs for the elite cripple you, that just reinforces my comment to Roger.

This is a clear sign that you've never done either of those jobs. Standing for 2-4 hours at a time increases the risk of cardiac problems massively and all but guarantees skeletal damage, while pedaling a bike through traffic at high speeds is hell on your knees and back.

[Liquor Box]

New Zeelands productivity per working hour is 28th in the world to the USA's 3rd.

Are you saying that your productivity per hour figures contradicts any suggestion that Americans may have a relatively greater aversion to working to their capacity? Or are you saying that the figures suggest that hard work is not what matters?

Because I don't think those rankings are very informative either way. The productivity figures that I think you are referencing are influenced by exchange rate, degree of capital investment (ie how well equipped workers are), available natural resources etc and numerous other factors. It would not surprise me if it turned out that Bangladeshis (who are last on Wikipedia's list) work harder than Americans (close to the top), but are less productive for reasons that are not easily remedied (lack of resources, type of industry, lack of capital investment etc).

Since we are on wikipedia, I note that our life expectancy is better than USA's (rank 17th vs 31st). So if it is true that we do work harder, it doesn't seem to be detrimental to our life expectancy. Although I admit that a myriad of factors influence our life expectancy other than how hard we work, so this statistic's relevance is also limited.

[Liquor Box]

This is a clear sign that you've never done either of those jobs. Standing for 2-4 hours at a time increases the risk of cardiac problems massively and all but guarantees skeletal damage, while pedaling a bike through traffic at high speeds is hell on your knees and back.

Interesting, the assertion that standing or cycling is bad for you is, relative to what people would likely be doing if not working (probably sitting most of the time for most people), is contrary to what I understood.

May be a function of our different countries, but here most check-out jobs have stools for leaning or sitting, so you can alternate regularly (which is optimal). However, even if check-outs in USA do require people to stand, at worst opinions are mixed as to whether that is better or worse than sitting all day.

Cycling is only painful on your joints if you have poor technique. I'm going to need a source from you if you assert that cycling is overall worse for you than what most people do in their leisure time.

This article references a study that finds that people in USA who continue to work pas the retirement age tend to live longer. It suggests that the reason is that working requires people to remain active, whereas if they didn't work they may become sedentary.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3563954/Retirement-really-kill-Researchers-work-past-65-live-longer.html

[Gnoman]

However, even if check-outs in USA do require people to stand, at worst opinions are mixed as to whether that is better or worse than sitting all day.


No, it is not. The evidence is overwhelming. (https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/187/1/27/4081581)



Cycling is only painful on your joints if you have poor technique. I'm going to need a source from you if you assert that cycling is overall worse for you than what most people do in their leisure time.

Cycling isn't bad by itself. Cycling as fast as possible (remember - according to you anybody that gives less than 200% effort at all times is lazy!) while carrying packages is extremely bad for you.



This article references a study that finds that people in USA who continue to work pas the retirement age tend to live longer. It suggests that the reason is that working requires people to remain active, whereas if they didn't work they may become sedentary.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3563954/Retirement-really-kill-Researchers-work-past-65-live-longer.html

Yes, being active instead of plopping down on the couch 18 hours a day is better for you. That does not prove your point.

[Liquor Box]

No, it is not. The evidence is overwhelming. (https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/187/1/27/4081581)

If you had said "there is some evidence", I would have had no issue, but because you decided to go to the extreme of calling the evidence is overwhelming, I feel obliged to point out that your own study itself says the evidence is mixed. The abstract refers to studies that suggest no correlation between standing and heart disease and others that suggest there is. For example:
"A pooled analysis of 5 cohorts from England and 2 cohorts from Scotland (total n = 5,214) reported no relationship between prolonged occupational sitting, compared with occupations involving standing and walking about, in relation to cardiovascular mortality over a 12.9-year follow-up period "

Anyway, heart health is only one element of health. There are a myriad of articles referencing studies suggesting that there are benefits to each:
http://fortune.com/2018/04/13/is-sitting-or-standing-better/
https://www.precisionnutrition.com/sitting-standing-walking-work
https://open.buffer.com/healthiest-way-to-work-standing-sitting/
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/debate-over-standing-vs-sitting-at-your-desk

As I mentioned in my last post, most of the check-out job I have seen have a stool which allow variation between standing and sitting (which is optimal for health). But even if you do not have one, and are forced to stand, I think the most that can be said is that opinions are mixed as to whether that is marginally better or marginally worse than doing what most people would be doing when not working.


Cycling isn't bad by itself. Cycling as fast as possible (remember - according to you anybody that gives less than 200% effort at all times is lazy!) while carrying packages is extremely bad for you.

I specifically asked for a source. Simply stating your earlier conclusion again does not count as one. What basis do you have for thinking that cycling fast is "extremely bad for you"? Especially relative to being inactive (which most people are when left to their own devices). Sorry mate, but I think you are stretching credulity by suggesting that cycling fast is bad for you, outside of the possibility of being hit by a car.


Yes, being active instead of plopping down on the couch 18 hours a day is better for you. That does not prove your point.

Not prove it conclusively perhaps, but it does support it. The initial contention was that all jobs (with a few 'elite' outliers) cripple you. This study suggests that working actually improves your health relative to not working.

The issue with the study is that it found working makes you less likely to die, and dying is not the same thing as being crippled. But then you did discuss heart disease (which is not the same as being crippled, and may be fatal), so I think that the influence of working on dying is on the table.

[darkrose50]

Interestingly I have found a disconnect between working hard and pay. Money just does not care how hard you work. In my experience the less difficult jobs pay more.

Working at a grocery store paid poorly, and I was a horrible stock-person. I got paid more doing tech support, was good at it, and it was painfully simple. I once had a temp job doing tech support that paid three times as much as I was making at the grocery store.

I have made more money noticing something, than working (some exaggeration, depending on the interpretation).

At GenCon Cool Mini Or Not had a deal where you could buy $100 of stuff, and get a promo that sold for ~$80-$120. . . some of the things you could buy were promo's that sold for more than they were selling them. It was like shooting fish in a barrel.

I can buy a game on Kickstarter and usually make ~$70 each. Most of the time this is painfully stupid easy, but not always. I have stuff I need to sort, inventory, package, and such. But some companies don't make you do that. The months leading up to Christmas's I could sell 0-5 per day (normally 2-3).

Just about never is it actually impressive that that someone who inherited a large sum of money has money. It would be more impressive that they lost it . . . most of the time that requires an idiot.

Money makes money, that is what money does. Companies make money, that is what they do. Investing in something that makes money, makes money. It is painfully stupidly easy. It is such a con (in the US) that investment income is taxed lower than actual work income. No significant group of idiots ever would choose to not invest in a profitable company because it was taxed at the rate of working . . . the idea defies logic.

Q: Who would not invest in Amazon if the profits were taxed like that of the income of a plumber (at a macro level)?
A: No one with two brain cells to rub together (at a macro level).

[Chen]

Interestingly I have found a disconnect between working hard and pay. Money just does not care how hard you work. In my experience the less difficult jobs pay more.

Working at a grocery store paid poorly, and I was a horrible stock-person. I got paid more doing tech support, was good at it, and it was painfully simple. I once had a temp job doing tech support that paid three times as much as I was making at the grocery store.

This is a supply/demand issue in part. Physically laborious jobs can certainly be more "difficult" in many regards to office jobs. But it takes very little training or knowledge to do some laborious jobs (lawn mowing for example). Even if the job is sweaty and physically difficult, you can get almost anyone to do it (as parent's can attest to) so the remuneration is lower.


I have made more money noticing something, than working (some exaggeration, depending on the interpretation).

At GenCon Cool Mini Or Not had a deal where you could buy $100 of stuff, and get a promo that sold for ~$80-$120. . . some of the things you could buy were promo's that sold for more than they were selling them. It was like shooting fish in a barrel.

I can buy a game on Kickstarter and usually make ~$70 each. Most of the time this is painfully stupid easy, but not always. I have stuff I need to sort, inventory, package, and such. But some companies don't make you do that. The months leading up to Christmas's I could sell 0-5 per day (normally 2-3).

This still requires know how and knowing the market. It's called arbitrage. Not everyone has the time or opportunity to do so. It's mainly because its actually difficult to do this and support yourself ONLY on this. And thus it tends to get relegated to spare time. This also puts cognitive biases into play. All of it is "free money". Consider if you were doing this 9-5 and you HAD to rely on that income to eat/live. It would start becoming fairly clear this job isn't all that easy once the low hanging fruit has been picked.


Money makes money, that is what money does. Companies make money, that is what they do. Investing in something that makes money, makes money. It is painfully stupidly easy. It is such a con (in the US) that investment income is taxed lower than actual work income. No significant group of idiots ever would choose to not invest in a profitable company because it was taxed at the rate of working . . . the idea defies logic.

Q: Who would not invest in Amazon if the profits were taxed like that of the income of a plumber (at a macro level)?
A: No one with two brain cells to rub together (at a macro level).

This could easily lead to politics so I'll be fairly brief. Many taxes or tax breaks are used as incentives. If the government (or society) wants you to do something they can use taxes to push in one direction or another. Investment (in general) was something the government wanted to incentivize and thus the taxes for that were lowered (back when it was initially done). Any more detailed look here and how this has changed in more modern time runs REALLY hard into that political wall so we probably shouldn't go there. Takeaway is that the amount income is taxed is unrelated to the effort required to produce said income.