Also, I'd recommend if you are salaried to have an employment contract set up that includes detailed compensation for overtime. Make it legal and make the employer stick to it.
I've said it before, if they can't afford the extra compensation for the productivity you provide in overtime, then perhaps they should reconsider the business and employment model.
I fall under academic administrative personnel, which are exempt from overtime requirements along with teachers and "certain skilled computer professionals".
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
I fall under academic administrative personnel, which are exempt from overtime requirements along with teachers and "certain skilled computer professionals".
I fall under academic administrative personnel, which are exempt from overtime requirements along with teachers and "certain skilled computer professionals".
Then again, on the plus side, an employer paying you salary will respect you more as a human being, even if marginally so. My experience with factories and retail was dehumanizing.
I think this has more to do with the places you worked hourly than a reality of salary vs hourly.
edit:
Also regarding the actual OP... let me rephrase the statement/question to give a shift in perspective.
Have you ever met the employer who does the bare minimum for employees? And still expects their employees to give everything to the company?
Of course you have, this is almost every employer.
I head up a department with a guy like this and an maybe provide some insight. In general, I think it's fine to do what is asked of you in your employment contract and little else. That said, if you ever want to excel, get promoted, a raise, etc - that will get you nowhere. Some people are fine with that however.
That said, this becomes problematic in a professional environment where your business itself tends to mature over time. Unfortunately, while the guy on my team is still performing at the levels he was 5-6 years ago, the needs of the business have matured and become more complex. What that means is the guy no longer presents a benefit for the team and will likely be gone inside of a month or two.
Back when I was in college I worked retail very briefly, for Kroger, which I would describe as hell. Nobody should have to work a job that shitty.
Then I went and worked for Half-Price Books for almost two years, and it was like night and day. It was retail, but:
You get an entire hour for lunch. Paid. (Kroger: 20 minutes, unpaid.)
You get profit sharing (doubles or triples your paycheck 2 or 3 times a year).
You get a 50% employee discount. (Compare to Kroger's shitty 10% employee discount.)
Everyone is trained on everything in the store, and you swap roles every hour. (Results in a significantly less tedious workday and makes the day go FAST.)
You get one free 3-day weekend every month, just because.
Every month you also accumulate 1 sick day and 1 vacation day. Vacation is obviously vacation, but sick days can be used as either sick days or personal emergency days (whereas other companies would consider that a dishonest use of sick days if they found out---even though they are not allowed to ask).
Sick/vacation time rolls over / stacks almost indefinitely. When I was working there, there was a guy who had been working there for like ten years and had never taken a vacation. So he was like, "You know what? I'm going on vacation for THREE MONTHS," and the company was like, "Sure, okay."
They ONLY hire you full-time w/ benefits. None of this "we're going to work you one hour less than the point at which we'd have to start giving you benefits" bullshit that Kroger, Wal-Mart, etc are always fucking doing.
When I left the company, they wrote me a check equal to all of the paid vacation time I had not used.
Also, the benefits were AMAZEBALLS. Frankly, I am currently working a salaried desk job, and sure, the paycheck is great, but the Half-Price Books health/dental benefits were better than my current ones. And actually, the vacation/sick time was probably more generous as well, in the long term.
Depends on where you work!
Pretty sure I'm about to echo 90% of the people who read this post.
Back when I was in college I worked retail very briefly, for Kroger, which I would describe as hell. Nobody should have to work a job that shitty.
Then I went and worked for Half-Price Books for almost two years, and it was like night and day. It was retail, but:
You get an entire hour for lunch. Paid. (Kroger: 20 minutes, unpaid.)
You get profit sharing (doubles or triples your paycheck 2 or 3 times a year).
You get a 50% employee discount. (Compare to Kroger's shitty 10% employee discount.)
Everyone is trained on everything in the store, and you swap roles every hour. (Results in a significantly less tedious workday and makes the day go FAST.)
You get one free 3-day weekend every month, just because.
Every month you also accumulate 1 sick day and 1 vacation day. Vacation is obviously vacation, but sick days can be used as either sick days or personal emergency days (whereas other companies would consider that a dishonest use of sick days if they found out---even though they are not allowed to ask).
Sick/vacation time rolls over / stacks almost indefinitely. When I was working there, there was a guy who had been working there for like ten years and had never taken a vacation. So he was like, "You know what? I'm going on vacation for THREE MONTHS," and the company was like, "Sure, okay."
They ONLY hire you full-time w/ benefits. None of this "we're going to work you one hour less than the point at which we'd have to start giving you benefits" bullshit that Kroger, Wal-Mart, etc are always fucking doing.
When I left the company, they wrote me a check equal to all of the paid vacation time I had not used.
Also, the benefits were AMAZEBALLS. Frankly, I am currently working a salaried desk job, and sure, the paycheck is great, but the Half-Price Books health/dental benefits were better than my current ones. And actually, the vacation/sick time was probably more generous as well, in the long term.
Depends on where you work!
Pretty sure I'm about to echo 90% of the people who read this post.
Is Half Price Books hiring by chance?
Not sure! They are family owned but have stores all around the US (if you are in the US). Depends on where you ask. My experience of applying there and watching people apply WHILE working there is that it is highly competitive. Like, hundreds and hundreds of applications whenever there is an opening. Great company. Would recommend, if you can get in.
I head up a department with a guy like this and an maybe provide some insight. In general, I think it's fine to do what is asked of you in your employment contract and little else. That said, if you ever want to excel, get promoted, a raise, etc - that will get you nowhere. Some people are fine with that however.
That said, this becomes problematic in a professional environment where your business itself tends to mature over time. Unfortunately, while the guy on my team is still performing at the levels he was 5-6 years ago, the needs of the business have matured and become more complex. What that means is the guy no longer presents a benefit for the team and will likely be gone inside of a month or two.
This is exactly it. If you're not moving forward, you're going backward.
Unless you are both "Manager status" and make over 55k a year you cannot be salaried in the US without overtime compensation.*
*In moooost cases.
The first point is still a bit of a weasel term.
Which is why you have to be ~both~ manager and 55k a year. The Mcdonalds 24k a year "managers" led to the legistlation change.
Interesting. A job i interviewed for about a week ago had their job listing change one week later (i.e. yesterday), same duty description and such, but had upped the suffix of the position from "associate" to "manager," and i was wondering if it had anything to do with the rule change. Guess not. But are 501c3's one of the exempt groups, since any work i do for them could be classed as volunteering?
I head up a department with a guy like this and an maybe provide some insight. In general, I think it's fine to do what is asked of you in your employment contract and little else. That said, if you ever want to excel, get promoted, a raise, etc - that will get you nowhere. Some people are fine with that however.
That said, this becomes problematic in a professional environment where your business itself tends to mature over time. Unfortunately, while the guy on my team is still performing at the levels he was 5-6 years ago, the needs of the business have matured and become more complex. What that means is the guy no longer presents a benefit for the team and will likely be gone inside of a month or two.
Is it his business or does he have a stake in the company? No? Then it's not his job to figure out what needs to be done. If they need him to do more than what's in his contract, renegotiate the contract. Or hire more people. People "growing into" multiple roles is how they get overworked, exploited or become too idiosyncratic for the company to go on without them.
Also, every employee should get at least one raise yearly and tied to inflation, regardless of their productivity (well, past a certain level). You shouldn't have to do more just to maintain the same purchasing power, that's not fair. Well, it's not only not fair, as profits go up due to better technologies and so on, getting the same salary year-over-year is just getting less wealth, proportionally, from the company. For the same work! That's devaluing effort.
I head up a department with a guy like this and an maybe provide some insight. In general, I think it's fine to do what is asked of you in your employment contract and little else. That said, if you ever want to excel, get promoted, a raise, etc - that will get you nowhere. Some people are fine with that however.
That said, this becomes problematic in a professional environment where your business itself tends to mature over time. Unfortunately, while the guy on my team is still performing at the levels he was 5-6 years ago, the needs of the business have matured and become more complex. What that means is the guy no longer presents a benefit for the team and will likely be gone inside of a month or two.
Is it his business or does he have a stake in the company? No? Then it's not his job to figure out what needs to be done. If they need him to do more than what's in his contract, renegotiate the contract. Or hire more people. People "growing into" multiple roles is how they get overworked, exploited or become too idiosyncratic for the company to go on without them.
You're right with this paragraph, except that you forget the options are 1. Renegotiating his contract 2. Hiring more people or 3. Getting rid of the employee who is no longer valuable and replacing them.
@Elaro - I'd also take issue with the "isn't his job to figure out what to be done". As the world changes, people should take some level of ownership around saying "this is how I want my job to change". The overworking piece you have to watch out for, as I agree that the point isn't to work people to the bone, but at the same time people are not shiftless automatons, nor do they like being treated as such. Giving people options to grow into and exposure to multiple areas so they can say "I like this" and "I don't like this other stuff" is one of the biggest things employees ask for to add to their daily lives.
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
@Elaro - I'd also take issue with the "isn't his job to figure out what to be done". As the world changes, people should take some level of ownership around saying "this is how I want my job to change". The overworking piece you have to watch out for, as I agree that the point isn't to work people to the bone, but at the same time people are not shiftless automatons, nor do they like being treated as such. Giving people options to grow into and exposure to multiple areas so they can say "I like this" and "I don't like this other stuff" is one of the biggest things employees ask for to add to their daily lives.
Counter argument: Over the last three years at my current job I have ended up taking "ownership" of my role in the unit mostly by saying "well, if this isn't getting done, and we need it to get done to make sure we stay afloat, I'll just do it I guess." Which ends up, a year down the line, of having that task added to my job description without additional compensation. "Growing" your position is buzzword for "take on more for no additional pay" in nearly every job I've been at. It doesn't increase promotional capability (if anything it makes you less likely to be promoted as replacing you over time gets more and more expensive so it's better to just keep you there rather than hire the 2-3 people you would need if you brought in new talent).
This is hardly a one-office problem! My experience here is likely pretty universal in the modern marketplace. While I still believe in taking ownership of your work, in most cases doing so is a self detriment.
@Elaro - I'd also take issue with the "isn't his job to figure out what to be done". As the world changes, people should take some level of ownership around saying "this is how I want my job to change". The overworking piece you have to watch out for, as I agree that the point isn't to work people to the bone, but at the same time people are not shiftless automatons, nor do they like being treated as such. Giving people options to grow into and exposure to multiple areas so they can say "I like this" and "I don't like this other stuff" is one of the biggest things employees ask for to add to their daily lives.
I absolutely agree. They should take some level of ownership for their work. But with ownership of the work comes ownership of the fruits of that work, don't you think? Otherwise they're being stolen from.
What I'm saying here is divide the gross profits up and give a fair share of the total to everyone who works there. I would say even more; have the workers take a hand in the direction, the leadership, of the company. Have the workers decide in an assembly what they're going to do for the upcoming quarter/year/whatever.
If you own something, even if it's just a partial ownership, you get to decide, or at least have a say in, what is done with that thing. So I don't see how someone who has no directional control over his labor, who does what the boss wants with the only choice offered to them being obey or get fired, well, I don't see how you can expect them to "take ownership" of their work while enjoying none of the actual benefits of ownership.
@Elaro - I'd also take issue with the "isn't his job to figure out what to be done". As the world changes, people should take some level of ownership around saying "this is how I want my job to change". The overworking piece you have to watch out for, as I agree that the point isn't to work people to the bone, but at the same time people are not shiftless automatons, nor do they like being treated as such. Giving people options to grow into and exposure to multiple areas so they can say "I like this" and "I don't like this other stuff" is one of the biggest things employees ask for to add to their daily lives.
I absolutely agree. They should take some level of ownership for their work. But with ownership of the work comes ownership of the fruits of that work, don't you think? Otherwise they're being stolen from.
What I'm saying here is divide the gross profits up and give a fair share of the total to everyone who works there. I would say even more; have the workers take a hand in the direction, the leadership, of the company. Have the workers decide in an assembly what they're going to do for the upcoming quarter/year/whatever.
If you own something, even if it's just a partial ownership, you get to decide, or at least have a say in, what is done with that thing. So I don't see how someone who has no directional control over his labor, who does what the boss wants with the only choice offered to them being obey or get fired, well, I don't see how you can expect them to "take ownership" of their work while enjoying none of the actual benefits of ownership.
Absolutely, it's a 2 way street. I know in the group I manage and with my manager, content flows both ways. Even our Senior VP was honest and said during my initial training "Hey, if employees don't want to do something and the front line managers agree with them, it's just not going to happen".
As far as being the "go-to person" problem. It's good in that you get a lot of exposure, bad from a time management standpoint. First of all, your management should be moving the stuff off of you if you have too much. Second, take it somewhat upon yourself to document and push it off to the group. If it's fully documented and portable, there is no reason you have to do it. To be irreplaceable is to be unpromoteable.
+2
Options
OnTheLastCastlelet's keep it haimish for the peripateticRegistered Userregular
I would briefly like to detour into perception among employees as well. I've been promoted 3 times in under 3 years at the same company. The more higher level work I get, the more it seems to other people that I do "less". It's not obvious what I do anymore, I don't as often hand something a thing or directly fix a problem. Instead, I advise people or my boss on the problems and solutions for them.
It's interesting. Some people in my department probably think I do the bare minimum and indeed, I'm not here 40 hours a week at my desk. But I'm working a lot more than that and even when I'm just walking around, I'm often thinking about work (not in an intrusive way, just puzzling out a problem to solve which I enjoy).
So if someone is like ugh where's castle it's 9:30 that guy... well, they aren't my boss because my boss knows god damn well the value I'm bringing.
That's why I got a huge promotion today, ding. And also why a passive aggressive person in my department yesterday said "no one thinks you work but *I* know" in the smarmiest way possible.
+1
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
Please continue making related threads ONLY if you are going to participate in them.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
I head up a department with a guy like this and an maybe provide some insight. In general, I think it's fine to do what is asked of you in your employment contract and little else. That said, if you ever want to excel, get promoted, a raise, etc - that will get you nowhere. Some people are fine with that however.
That said, this becomes problematic in a professional environment where your business itself tends to mature over time. Unfortunately, while the guy on my team is still performing at the levels he was 5-6 years ago, the needs of the business have matured and become more complex. What that means is the guy no longer presents a benefit for the team and will likely be gone inside of a month or two.
Is his pay level still at what it was 5-6 years ago? Because if the needs of the business mature and the employees need to do more, they should be paid more.
If the needs of the business change and the employees just need to do something DIFFERENT, not necessarily MORE, then that's on you to make that happen.
+2
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
When I left the company, they wrote me a check equal to all of the paid vacation time I had not used.
Isn't that...like...already the law? What the hell is wrong with the uSA?
In, like, uh, California I think? Most states it's owed to you unless the company policy says different and you've been informed of that. Typically if you quit without notice you don't get it but if you do the two weeks notice thing you do.
I do the minimum. I do it my job well and take care of everything required. However I'm not about to do more without compensation.
Whatever strange Puritan work ethic this country was founded on can fuck right off. My employer isn't "doing me a favor" by hiring and paying me. They're making money off of me and giving me a small portion of that as wages. I am essentially a perpetual motion engine they harvest for profit.
I do the minimum. I do it my job well and take care of everything required. However I'm not about to do more without compensation.
Whatever strange Puritan work ethic this country was founded on can fuck right off. My employer isn't "doing me a favor" by hiring and paying me. They're making money off of me and giving me a small portion of that as wages. I am essentially a perpetual motion engine they harvest for profit.
If you do your job well you're not doing the minimum. Doing the job slightly half-assed is doing the minimum.
I do the minimum. I do it my job well and take care of everything required. However I'm not about to do more without compensation.
Whatever strange Puritan work ethic this country was founded on can fuck right off. My employer isn't "doing me a favor" by hiring and paying me. They're making money off of me and giving me a small portion of that as wages. I am essentially a perpetual motion engine they harvest for profit.
If you do your job well you're not doing the minimum. Doing the job slightly half-assed is doing the minimum.
That would be below the minimum. Lack of clear expectations and accountability is the managements problem. If everyone stops covering for someone who is lazy, they will get fired.
When I left the company, they wrote me a check equal to all of the paid vacation time I had not used.
Isn't that...like...already the law? What the hell is wrong with the uSA?
I believe it depends on how the vacation/PTO is accrued. If it's earned (e.g. for every X amount of time served, you get N amount of PTO) then you are entitled to have unused PTO paid out. If it's granted by contract (e.g. you get 4 weeks of vacation per year) then employer is not obligated to pay for unused time: this can cut both ways though.
When I left the company, they wrote me a check equal to all of the paid vacation time I had not used.
Isn't that...like...already the law? What the hell is wrong with the uSA?
I believe it depends on how the vacation/PTO is accrued. If it's earned (e.g. for every X amount of time served, you get N amount of PTO) then you are entitled to have unused PTO paid out. If it's granted by contract (e.g. you get 4 weeks of vacation per year) then employer is not obligated to pay for unused time: this can cut both ways though.
That's how it is at my job. We had been on an accrual model, but our new corporate overlords front load PTO at the beginning of the year. In the current model you could sell back PTO if you were approaching the cap, and when we switch in December any unused PTO is getting paid out. On the new model it's use it or lose it and cannot be paid out.
0
Options
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
Yeah, most places is 'use it or lose it' in the USA.
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
in australia the rate you gain annual leave is legislated in federal law, equalling 4 weeks paid leave. It doesn't get paid out at the end of the year, though employees will encourage you to not let it build up too high so that their liability is not too high should you resign. They also tend to shut down over christmas, if it's not a business that deals with the public, so you have to use a fair bit of leave over that time period.
We have use it or lose it above a certain threshold (get to carry over 20 days or so), but there's a legitimate expectation that you use your days and don't lose them for your own sanity. It's crazy the people who are grandfathered into the old accrual systems though, one of my employees gets 54 days a year.
That would be below the minimum. Lack of clear expectations and accountability is the managements problem. If everyone stops covering for someone who is lazy, they will get fired.
This.
"Excelling at your job", in my experience since entering the work force in the 90's, has almost exclusively been usurped to mean, "Doing extra work they don't want to hire other people to do for the same money as we were paying you to do just your initial job".
EVERY company I've been at has been in the habit of firing people, or watching them quit, and then telling the remainder to spread out the remaining work. They never backfill the position anymore unless it's something they absolutely cannot do without.... which is rare.
And the pay of the person(s) who left? Yeah, that never gets spread out.
Can you blame someone for "doing the minimum" when the minimum probably includes their duties + either another FT persons, or several parts of other FT employees already? All without any additional compensation at all?
I head up a department with a guy like this and an maybe provide some insight. In general, I think it's fine to do what is asked of you in your employment contract and little else. That said, if you ever want to excel, get promoted, a raise, etc - that will get you nowhere. Some people are fine with that however.
That said, this becomes problematic in a professional environment where your business itself tends to mature over time. Unfortunately, while the guy on my team is still performing at the levels he was 5-6 years ago, the needs of the business have matured and become more complex. What that means is the guy no longer presents a benefit for the team and will likely be gone inside of a month or two.
Is his pay level still at what it was 5-6 years ago? Because if the needs of the business mature and the employees need to do more, they should be paid more.
If the needs of the business change and the employees just need to do something DIFFERENT, not necessarily MORE, then that's on you to make that happen.
Nope. His pay is significantly higher now. Not to mention benefits, etc.
My point to OP was really that you'll always come across people doing the bare minimum. They eventually kinda weed themselves out. I prefer to try to up my game as there's less competition at that level.
Please continue making related threads ONLY if you are going to participate in them.
It's kinda made me insane, it almost feels like if you can decipher the three posts just right, there's the actual question or something hidden in there, but I can't crack the code!
I head up a department with a guy like this and an maybe provide some insight. In general, I think it's fine to do what is asked of you in your employment contract and little else. That said, if you ever want to excel, get promoted, a raise, etc - that will get you nowhere. Some people are fine with that however.
That said, this becomes problematic in a professional environment where your business itself tends to mature over time. Unfortunately, while the guy on my team is still performing at the levels he was 5-6 years ago, the needs of the business have matured and become more complex. What that means is the guy no longer presents a benefit for the team and will likely be gone inside of a month or two.
Is his pay level still at what it was 5-6 years ago? Because if the needs of the business mature and the employees need to do more, they should be paid more.
If the needs of the business change and the employees just need to do something DIFFERENT, not necessarily MORE, then that's on you to make that happen.
Nope. His pay is significantly higher now. Not to mention benefits, etc.
My point to OP was really that you'll always come across people doing the bare minimum. They eventually kinda weed themselves out. I prefer to try to up my game as there's less competition at that level.
Upping your game basically means devaluing the work of everyone else by doing extra stuff without pay. This is the reason places assign more than FTE hours worth of work then suggests they better finish it, but they "better not get overtime" *wink* *wink*.
Please continue making related threads ONLY if you are going to participate in them.
It's kinda made me insane, it almost feels like if you can decipher the three posts just right, there's the actual question or something hidden in there, but I can't crack the code!
I am so glad I'm not the only one who was thinking this.
I head up a department with a guy like this and an maybe provide some insight. In general, I think it's fine to do what is asked of you in your employment contract and little else. That said, if you ever want to excel, get promoted, a raise, etc - that will get you nowhere. Some people are fine with that however.
That said, this becomes problematic in a professional environment where your business itself tends to mature over time. Unfortunately, while the guy on my team is still performing at the levels he was 5-6 years ago, the needs of the business have matured and become more complex. What that means is the guy no longer presents a benefit for the team and will likely be gone inside of a month or two.
Is his pay level still at what it was 5-6 years ago? Because if the needs of the business mature and the employees need to do more, they should be paid more.
If the needs of the business change and the employees just need to do something DIFFERENT, not necessarily MORE, then that's on you to make that happen.
Nope. His pay is significantly higher now. Not to mention benefits, etc.
My point to OP was really that you'll always come across people doing the bare minimum. They eventually kinda weed themselves out. I prefer to try to up my game as there's less competition at that level.
Upping your game basically means devaluing the work of everyone else by doing extra stuff without pay. This is the reason places assign more than FTE hours worth of work then suggests they better finish it, but they "better not get overtime" *wink* *wink*.
I disagree with what you're saying but understand your point.
The thing people need to realize is that you're competing with everybody in the job market. If you want to potentially stymie your own development for the sake of the broader working force that is absolutely your own prerogative. That said, there will be somebody else out there willing to put in the time in order to get ahead.
+2
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
I head up a department with a guy like this and an maybe provide some insight. In general, I think it's fine to do what is asked of you in your employment contract and little else. That said, if you ever want to excel, get promoted, a raise, etc - that will get you nowhere. Some people are fine with that however.
That said, this becomes problematic in a professional environment where your business itself tends to mature over time. Unfortunately, while the guy on my team is still performing at the levels he was 5-6 years ago, the needs of the business have matured and become more complex. What that means is the guy no longer presents a benefit for the team and will likely be gone inside of a month or two.
Is his pay level still at what it was 5-6 years ago? Because if the needs of the business mature and the employees need to do more, they should be paid more.
If the needs of the business change and the employees just need to do something DIFFERENT, not necessarily MORE, then that's on you to make that happen.
Nope. His pay is significantly higher now. Not to mention benefits, etc.
My point to OP was really that you'll always come across people doing the bare minimum. They eventually kinda weed themselves out. I prefer to try to up my game as there's less competition at that level.
Upping your game basically means devaluing the work of everyone else by doing extra stuff without pay. This is the reason places assign more than FTE hours worth of work then suggests they better finish it, but they "better not get overtime" *wink* *wink*.
I disagree with what you're saying but understand your point.
The thing people need to realize is that you're competing with everybody in the job market. If you want to potentially stymie your own development for the sake of the broader working force that is absolutely your own prerogative. That said, there will be somebody else out there willing to put in the time in order to get ahead.
And the odds that the person in questions actually gets ahead by putting in more time is unrealistic in the modern workforce. That person would be better suited becoming drinking buddies with the manager of their manager. It would be more likely to resolve promotion than any amount of work.
I head up a department with a guy like this and an maybe provide some insight. In general, I think it's fine to do what is asked of you in your employment contract and little else. That said, if you ever want to excel, get promoted, a raise, etc - that will get you nowhere. Some people are fine with that however.
That said, this becomes problematic in a professional environment where your business itself tends to mature over time. Unfortunately, while the guy on my team is still performing at the levels he was 5-6 years ago, the needs of the business have matured and become more complex. What that means is the guy no longer presents a benefit for the team and will likely be gone inside of a month or two.
Is his pay level still at what it was 5-6 years ago? Because if the needs of the business mature and the employees need to do more, they should be paid more.
If the needs of the business change and the employees just need to do something DIFFERENT, not necessarily MORE, then that's on you to make that happen.
Nope. His pay is significantly higher now. Not to mention benefits, etc.
My point to OP was really that you'll always come across people doing the bare minimum. They eventually kinda weed themselves out. I prefer to try to up my game as there's less competition at that level.
Upping your game basically means devaluing the work of everyone else by doing extra stuff without pay. This is the reason places assign more than FTE hours worth of work then suggests they better finish it, but they "better not get overtime" *wink* *wink*.
I disagree with what you're saying but understand your point.
The thing people need to realize is that you're competing with everybody in the job market. If you want to potentially stymie your own development for the sake of the broader working force that is absolutely your own prerogative. That said, there will be somebody else out there willing to put in the time in order to get ahead.
And the odds that the person in questions actually gets ahead by putting in more time is unrealistic in the modern workforce. That person would be better suited becoming drinking buddies with the manager of their manager. It would be more likely to resolve promotion than any amount of work.
Depends entirely on the sort of place you are employed in. If you're in the sort of place where the culture is advancement for the manager's drinking buddies then maybe GET THE FUCK OUT.
Employment is a two way street, if your job has shitty circumstances then fire them by going out and finding a different one. Matching an employer to your preferred work style is very important in having a fulfilling work life.
Posts
I missed if they also got rid of the stupid "Computer worker" exception as well. I suspect not.
Also, I'd recommend if you are salaried to have an employment contract set up that includes detailed compensation for overtime. Make it legal and make the employer stick to it.
I've said it before, if they can't afford the extra compensation for the productivity you provide in overtime, then perhaps they should reconsider the business and employment model.
You and me both, brother.
~University admin power fist-bump~
*return fist bump*
I think this has more to do with the places you worked hourly than a reality of salary vs hourly.
edit:
Also regarding the actual OP... let me rephrase the statement/question to give a shift in perspective.
Have you ever met the employer who does the bare minimum for employees? And still expects their employees to give everything to the company?
Of course you have, this is almost every employer.
That said, this becomes problematic in a professional environment where your business itself tends to mature over time. Unfortunately, while the guy on my team is still performing at the levels he was 5-6 years ago, the needs of the business have matured and become more complex. What that means is the guy no longer presents a benefit for the team and will likely be gone inside of a month or two.
Pretty sure I'm about to echo 90% of the people who read this post.
Is Half Price Books hiring by chance?
Not sure! They are family owned but have stores all around the US (if you are in the US). Depends on where you ask. My experience of applying there and watching people apply WHILE working there is that it is highly competitive. Like, hundreds and hundreds of applications whenever there is an opening. Great company. Would recommend, if you can get in.
Locations: https://www.hpb.com/stores/
This is exactly it. If you're not moving forward, you're going backward.
Interesting. A job i interviewed for about a week ago had their job listing change one week later (i.e. yesterday), same duty description and such, but had upped the suffix of the position from "associate" to "manager," and i was wondering if it had anything to do with the rule change. Guess not. But are 501c3's one of the exempt groups, since any work i do for them could be classed as volunteering?
Is it his business or does he have a stake in the company? No? Then it's not his job to figure out what needs to be done. If they need him to do more than what's in his contract, renegotiate the contract. Or hire more people. People "growing into" multiple roles is how they get overworked, exploited or become too idiosyncratic for the company to go on without them.
Also, every employee should get at least one raise yearly and tied to inflation, regardless of their productivity (well, past a certain level). You shouldn't have to do more just to maintain the same purchasing power, that's not fair. Well, it's not only not fair, as profits go up due to better technologies and so on, getting the same salary year-over-year is just getting less wealth, proportionally, from the company. For the same work! That's devaluing effort.
You're right with this paragraph, except that you forget the options are 1. Renegotiating his contract 2. Hiring more people or 3. Getting rid of the employee who is no longer valuable and replacing them.
Counter argument: Over the last three years at my current job I have ended up taking "ownership" of my role in the unit mostly by saying "well, if this isn't getting done, and we need it to get done to make sure we stay afloat, I'll just do it I guess." Which ends up, a year down the line, of having that task added to my job description without additional compensation. "Growing" your position is buzzword for "take on more for no additional pay" in nearly every job I've been at. It doesn't increase promotional capability (if anything it makes you less likely to be promoted as replacing you over time gets more and more expensive so it's better to just keep you there rather than hire the 2-3 people you would need if you brought in new talent).
This is hardly a one-office problem! My experience here is likely pretty universal in the modern marketplace. While I still believe in taking ownership of your work, in most cases doing so is a self detriment.
I absolutely agree. They should take some level of ownership for their work. But with ownership of the work comes ownership of the fruits of that work, don't you think? Otherwise they're being stolen from.
What I'm saying here is divide the gross profits up and give a fair share of the total to everyone who works there. I would say even more; have the workers take a hand in the direction, the leadership, of the company. Have the workers decide in an assembly what they're going to do for the upcoming quarter/year/whatever.
If you own something, even if it's just a partial ownership, you get to decide, or at least have a say in, what is done with that thing. So I don't see how someone who has no directional control over his labor, who does what the boss wants with the only choice offered to them being obey or get fired, well, I don't see how you can expect them to "take ownership" of their work while enjoying none of the actual benefits of ownership.
Absolutely, it's a 2 way street. I know in the group I manage and with my manager, content flows both ways. Even our Senior VP was honest and said during my initial training "Hey, if employees don't want to do something and the front line managers agree with them, it's just not going to happen".
As far as being the "go-to person" problem. It's good in that you get a lot of exposure, bad from a time management standpoint. First of all, your management should be moving the stuff off of you if you have too much. Second, take it somewhat upon yourself to document and push it off to the group. If it's fully documented and portable, there is no reason you have to do it. To be irreplaceable is to be unpromoteable.
It's interesting. Some people in my department probably think I do the bare minimum and indeed, I'm not here 40 hours a week at my desk. But I'm working a lot more than that and even when I'm just walking around, I'm often thinking about work (not in an intrusive way, just puzzling out a problem to solve which I enjoy).
So if someone is like ugh where's castle it's 9:30 that guy... well, they aren't my boss because my boss knows god damn well the value I'm bringing.
That's why I got a huge promotion today, ding. And also why a passive aggressive person in my department yesterday said "no one thinks you work but *I* know" in the smarmiest way possible.
Is his pay level still at what it was 5-6 years ago? Because if the needs of the business mature and the employees need to do more, they should be paid more.
If the needs of the business change and the employees just need to do something DIFFERENT, not necessarily MORE, then that's on you to make that happen.
Isn't that...like...already the law? What the hell is wrong with the uSA?
In, like, uh, California I think? Most states it's owed to you unless the company policy says different and you've been informed of that. Typically if you quit without notice you don't get it but if you do the two weeks notice thing you do.
To your other question: Lots.
Yeah not the law at all.
Some states mandate it, most don't.
Employment is stupid in the US.
Whatever strange Puritan work ethic this country was founded on can fuck right off. My employer isn't "doing me a favor" by hiring and paying me. They're making money off of me and giving me a small portion of that as wages. I am essentially a perpetual motion engine they harvest for profit.
If you do your job well you're not doing the minimum. Doing the job slightly half-assed is doing the minimum.
That would be below the minimum. Lack of clear expectations and accountability is the managements problem. If everyone stops covering for someone who is lazy, they will get fired.
I believe it depends on how the vacation/PTO is accrued. If it's earned (e.g. for every X amount of time served, you get N amount of PTO) then you are entitled to have unused PTO paid out. If it's granted by contract (e.g. you get 4 weeks of vacation per year) then employer is not obligated to pay for unused time: this can cut both ways though.
That's how it is at my job. We had been on an accrual model, but our new corporate overlords front load PTO at the beginning of the year. In the current model you could sell back PTO if you were approaching the cap, and when we switch in December any unused PTO is getting paid out. On the new model it's use it or lose it and cannot be paid out.
This.
"Excelling at your job", in my experience since entering the work force in the 90's, has almost exclusively been usurped to mean, "Doing extra work they don't want to hire other people to do for the same money as we were paying you to do just your initial job".
EVERY company I've been at has been in the habit of firing people, or watching them quit, and then telling the remainder to spread out the remaining work. They never backfill the position anymore unless it's something they absolutely cannot do without.... which is rare.
And the pay of the person(s) who left? Yeah, that never gets spread out.
Can you blame someone for "doing the minimum" when the minimum probably includes their duties + either another FT persons, or several parts of other FT employees already? All without any additional compensation at all?
Nope. His pay is significantly higher now. Not to mention benefits, etc.
My point to OP was really that you'll always come across people doing the bare minimum. They eventually kinda weed themselves out. I prefer to try to up my game as there's less competition at that level.
It's kinda made me insane, it almost feels like if you can decipher the three posts just right, there's the actual question or something hidden in there, but I can't crack the code!
Upping your game basically means devaluing the work of everyone else by doing extra stuff without pay. This is the reason places assign more than FTE hours worth of work then suggests they better finish it, but they "better not get overtime" *wink* *wink*.
I am so glad I'm not the only one who was thinking this.
I disagree with what you're saying but understand your point.
The thing people need to realize is that you're competing with everybody in the job market. If you want to potentially stymie your own development for the sake of the broader working force that is absolutely your own prerogative. That said, there will be somebody else out there willing to put in the time in order to get ahead.
And the odds that the person in questions actually gets ahead by putting in more time is unrealistic in the modern workforce. That person would be better suited becoming drinking buddies with the manager of their manager. It would be more likely to resolve promotion than any amount of work.
Depends entirely on the sort of place you are employed in. If you're in the sort of place where the culture is advancement for the manager's drinking buddies then maybe GET THE FUCK OUT.
Employment is a two way street, if your job has shitty circumstances then fire them by going out and finding a different one. Matching an employer to your preferred work style is very important in having a fulfilling work life.