Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I Totally Support the Occupy Movement...Follow

#602 Nov 23 2011 at 1:37 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,406 posts
I bet his girlfriend lives in America.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#603 Nov 23 2011 at 2:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,918 posts
Majivo wrote:
Lubriderm wrote:
If you increase somebody's work load, you should at least attempt to share in the cost savings, even if not at 100% equity versus what was saved, acknowledging that their workload has increased would be appropriate. If nothing else, it's common decency.

You fire a guy who was earning $30000 a year. It results in a marginal workload increase for ten people, so you increase their salary by $1000 a year. Suddenly you still aren't making ends meet. Do you now fire a second person to make up for the shortfall you introduced in the name of "decency"?

As Ugly said above (and I know you probably haven't had a chance to read yet), sometimes it just isn't practical to keep a business running that way. Not every business is running with huge profit margins.


As management/ownership, you take into account the whole picture, look for inefficiencies and eliminate them. Sometimes it's structural, sometimes it's over-staffing, and other times it is something else entirely. Firing people is expensive, as it's quite time and money intensive to hire and train replacement workers, so it's not as if intelligent organizations do it flippantly.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#604 Nov 23 2011 at 5:05 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Sometimes cutting jobs is necessary, and the right thing to do, other times, it's just the lazy way for a CEO or owner to save money.


If eliminating a job actually saves the company money, then that job was costing them more money than it generated and should not have existed in the first place. It's not lazy in that case, it's the right thing to do.

What a lot of people don't realize is that, as a couple people have pointed out, it's expensive and time consuming (and causes conflicts which many managers would prefer to avoid) to fire someone. Companies will tend to avoid doing so if they can. The result is that when times are good, a bit of fat will collect and you'll end out retaining a number of people who aren't very effective at their jobs, or don't fit with the skill sets needed, or for some other reason could be let go at any time, but haven't because the economic need to do so isn't great enough to warrant expending the time and effort. When times get tight, those are the first people laid off as part of the cost cutting.

While it's easy to say that this is somehow unfair to the worker, another way to look at it is that the worker was already getting more than his labor was worth. Sucks to get hit in the face with a dose of reality, but your labor really is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. It's surprising how many people don't get this though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#605 Nov 23 2011 at 6:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
643 posts
Its not the cutting jobs by themselves that I have an issue with. Its the cutting jobs on one hand to control costs, then turning around and giving raises/bonuses to those at the top that bothers me. If my boss was to tell us that there are going to 5% paycuts across the board, himself included, to try and turn the company around, I get that. But if he tells us we are getting 5% paycuts, then pays himself a bonus because he reduced payroll, that is what I see as "the rich profiting off the poor".
#606 Nov 23 2011 at 7:19 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
xantav wrote:
Its not the cutting jobs by themselves that I have an issue with. Its the cutting jobs on one hand to control costs, then turning around and giving raises/bonuses to those at the top that bothers me. If my boss was to tell us that there are going to 5% paycuts across the board, himself included, to try and turn the company around, I get that. But if he tells us we are getting 5% paycuts, then pays himself a bonus because he reduced payroll, that is what I see as "the rich profiting off the poor".


You're conflating two things though. There's a difference between cutting jobs and cutting pay. I agree with you in the second case (more or less), but not in the first.

I think the first thing you have to understand is that labor is supposed to produce more revenue for the employer than it costs to employ. This should be one of those "duh" things, but it's surprising how often people make arguments which rely on an assumption that this isn't true. No one would much less should knowingly employ someone who costs them more to employ than they gain from employing that person.

If we divide labor into two categories, effective labor (that which produces more revenue for the employer than it costs), and ineffective labor (that which costs more than it produces), it should follow that effective labor doesn't cost the employer anything. Effective labor is a net positive. There is no cost cutting gained if you lay off those employees. Ineffective labor, on the other hand, may be cut without hurting the bottom line of the company, and will in fact increase that bottom line.

The trick is that it's not always clear which employees fall into which category. So, if your job is to figure this out and to lay off people who are costing the company more than their labor is worth, and you do this well, you absolutely *should* get a bonus, right? If you lay off effective labor, your company will lose money. If you lay off ineffective labor, your company will gain money. Everything else staying the same, a round of layoffs will only benefit a companies bottom line if on whole those laid off were in the ineffective labor group.


Paycuts is a different issue, but it's pretty rare for a company to force paycuts across the board and then use the savings to hand extra bonuses out to just the top executives. And sometimes the issue is muddled because we're not given the context of those bonuses. You have to look at how many people total received them *and* how those bonuses compared to previous year bonuses. If a company handed out $100M in bonuses last year, and this year they cut pay by 5% across the board and only gave out $50M in bonuses, but you didn't compare that number to last year, it might be easy to say "OMG! They cut everyone's pay and then handed out $50M in bonuses!!!". That would be a false impression of what really happened. Pay was cut by 5% across the board and bonuses were cut by 50%. Tells a whole different story when you include the context, doesn't it?


Honestly, it seems like a lot of these sorts of outrage are based on half information and hype. When you look more closely and get the facts, it's often much ado about nothing at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#607 Nov 23 2011 at 9:55 PM Rating: Excellent
**
476 posts
gbaji wrote:
Paycuts is a different issue, but it's pretty rare for a company to force paycuts across the board and then use the savings to hand extra bonuses out to just the top executives. And sometimes the issue is muddled because we're not given the context of those bonuses. You have to look at how many people total received them *and* how those bonuses compared to previous year bonuses. If a company handed out $100M in bonuses last year, and this year they cut pay by 5% across the board and only gave out $50M in bonuses, but you didn't compare that number to last year, it might be easy to say "OMG! They cut everyone's pay and then handed out $50M in bonuses!!!". That would be a false impression of what really happened. Pay was cut by 5% across the board and bonuses were cut by 50%. Tells a whole different story when you include the context, doesn't it?


If the situation demands you cut pay that drastically, whether accross the board or just the workers, why the **** are you handing out bonuses to the top-level at all? Keep your employees paid and decrease the bonuses. The bank CEOs come to mind. Here you have the Gov. bail out the banks operating under a **** business plan yet their top-level folks still received their bonuses. Didn't matter that people were layed off.

If your business profit margin is dropping, the smart folks start cutting the extras on top of looking for savings in the way things are done. Letting people go should be one of the last steps, not the first.

That's of course if your trying to keep the company running. It's a different story if your just running it into the ground so you can get your money and dump it.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Pack your own lunch and bring nothing but Pixie Stix and Pop Rocks and get your liberty on.
#608 Nov 23 2011 at 11:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,918 posts
klausneck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Paycuts is a different issue, but it's pretty rare for a company to force paycuts across the board and then use the savings to hand extra bonuses out to just the top executives. And sometimes the issue is muddled because we're not given the context of those bonuses. You have to look at how many people total received them *and* how those bonuses compared to previous year bonuses. If a company handed out $100M in bonuses last year, and this year they cut pay by 5% across the board and only gave out $50M in bonuses, but you didn't compare that number to last year, it might be easy to say "OMG! They cut everyone's pay and then handed out $50M in bonuses!!!". That would be a false impression of what really happened. Pay was cut by 5% across the board and bonuses were cut by 50%. Tells a whole different story when you include the context, doesn't it?


If the situation demands you cut pay that drastically, whether accross the board or just the workers, why the **** are you handing out bonuses to the top-level at all? Keep your employees paid and decrease the bonuses. The bank CEOs come to mind. Here you have the Gov. bail out the banks operating under a sh*tty business plan yet their top-level folks still received their bonuses. Didn't matter that people were layed off.

If your business profit margin is dropping, the smart folks start cutting the extras on top of looking for savings in the way things are done. Letting people go should be one of the last steps, not the first.

That's of course if your trying to keep the company running. It's a different story if your just running it into the ground so you can get your money and dump it.


Many of those top level employees make the majority of their money from those bonuses. It's difficult to retain any employee if you cut their pay by a huge margin. If the ownership believes they are vital assets, or that they can't get a workable replacement for cheaper, then they will still give them some degree of bonus, even in rough times. I personally receive a large chunk of my income via bonuses, and while I'm not top end management, a 50% cut in bonus would have me looking for greener pastures. Management gets paid for good management, and sometimes that means layoffs. If ownership thought the bonuses weren't warranted, or that paying the other employees more would be better for business, they would do that, again, assuming some level of basic competence.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#609 Nov 23 2011 at 11:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,562 posts
Elinda wrote:
They would if they could, but the next company will come along with their robots and they can undercut the price.

Not necessarily, and this is an example of a flawed view of how capitalism functions.

Capitalistic markets do not achieve perfect efficiency,. You don't always get the best product for the lowest price. This is because--like most everything else--capitalistic markets are an evolutionary process. They can have systemic flaws. It is possible for companies to make a profit not always to the benefit of their customers, but also at their expense. That we have any market regulation at all is evidence of this. Why is cocaine illegal? Because were it not, it would be a highly successful product, which I think we can agree is detrimental to users. Why are there regulations protecting the safety of our food? Because were there not, some companies would be able to profit from not performing due diligence or even deliberately violating standards. Why are our foods full of lipids, salt, and sugars? Because we are biologically compelled to find these naturally rare flavors pleasing and they are cheap to include in food products, even though mass consumption is clearly dysfunctional behavior.

This isn't to wail on capitalism or suggest some other economic theory is the one true path, but it is specifically to address the implicit idea I hear from so many that capitalism is naturally perfect, naturally 100% efficient.
#610 Nov 24 2011 at 3:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Uglysasquatch wrote:
No. You cut someone to save $30k, but only ended up saving $20k as a result. Now, if that $20k isn't enough of a savings to keep from losing money, you've got to cut another person.
If a company, especially a small business is losing money, that's one thing. If you are increasing the workload above what people were hired to do just to impress stockholders then you are just being a douchebag. I'm certainly not advocating businesses running in the red just to keep people employed, since the obvious end to that scenario is all the workers losing their jobs when the company folds.

gbaji wrote:
While it's easy to say that this is somehow unfair to the worker, another way to look at it is that the worker was already getting more than his labor was worth. Sucks to get hit in the face with a dose of reality, but your labor really is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. It's surprising how many people don't get this though.
Well, fuck. Guess we all ought to start working for the same rates they get in China then.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#611 Nov 24 2011 at 5:27 AM Rating: Default
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
No. You cut someone to save $30k, but only ended up saving $20k as a result. Now, if that $20k isn't enough of a savings to keep from losing money, you've got to cut another person.
If a company, especially a small business is losing money, that's one thing. If you are increasing the workload above what people were hired to do just to impress stockholders then you are just being a douchebag. I'm certainly not advocating businesses running in the red just to keep people employed, since the obvious end to that scenario is all the workers losing their jobs when the company folds.
Awesome, how about we stop with the blanket accusation on business owners then? For every bad one there's a good one, trying to do right. Except for the super corporations, those are likely 5:1, maybe worse.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#612 Nov 24 2011 at 9:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Timelordwho wrote:
Many of those top level employees make the majority of their money from those bonuses. It's difficult to retain any employee if you cut their pay by a huge margin. If the ownership believes they are vital assets, or that they can't get a workable replacement for cheaper, then they will still give them some degree of bonus, even in rough times. I personally receive a large chunk of my income via bonuses, and while I'm not top end management, a 50% cut in bonus would have me looking for greener pastures. Management gets paid for good management, and sometimes that means layoffs. If ownership thought the bonuses weren't warranted, or that paying the other employees more would be better for business, they would do that, again, assuming some level of basic competence.
This. When I got my job the salary I accepted is based on the fact that I would also get predictable bonuses. Cutting my bonus is the same as cutting my pay.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#613 Nov 24 2011 at 12:28 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Demea wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
Sometimes, you're overstaffed for what you really need and people are just inefficient.


whatever, my gf does the jobs 3 people did a year ago by her self, and didn't see a wage increase. That is such a bogus look at workloads it isn't funny.

Edited, Nov 23rd 2011 1:15pm by rdmcandie

Sounds like your girlfriend should market herself to other prospective employers for an increased salary.

Or stop complaining and get back to work.


I think you are missing the point of the discussion.


Smiley: dubious

If your gal is capable of doing the work of those 3 people then she may well underpaid or under-appreciated if she's that good of a worker. Which means she may be able to get a better job elsewhere and/or those other 2 people were seriously slacking/redundant.

Or are there other details here?



Its not the point if she is a good worker or not. The discussion was rich folks manipulating the money tree buy cutting off branches that people are standing on or within their reach. My GF may be the best worker ever, but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is this company has removed 2 jobs, and added the duties on to my GF's job, with no monetary increase.

Assuming the other 2 positions were paid roughly the same salary, this company has save 75K from just this one location, without having to put any extra money out. If they did this across their national chain of 300 some odd stores then that is 22,500,000 dollars in payroll saved each year, at the cost of 600 jobs.

The increase in workload/lack of increase in payment is only slightly part of it. Even if they took half that and split across all these stores to all these employees they still save 11.5 mil a year. But no they are greedy @#%^s and dropping 2 positions wasn't enough, they feel they need to have someone do 3 jobs and get paid like it is one too.

And this just isn't in my GF's line of work. This happens everyday in nearly every work industry in the world.


Edited, Nov 24th 2011 1:30pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#614 Nov 24 2011 at 12:37 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Majivo wrote:
Frankly, I think rdm should just be glad that she can afford to buy him so much weed that he can just sit on his **** all day and talk about how great it is being high.



LOL what? I work everyday thanks. While I do get to sit on my **** a lot (being maitnence electrician in a factory has its perks) She hardly supports me. I smoke a lot of weed so what you jealous. I also drink a lot of beer, and scratch my nuts a lot too. I worked hard in school so I could sit around doing **** all at work. It paid off in aces.

You know what I did last night, I sat in my office playing Super Mario 3D land for 5 hours until we had a controls issue that I had to go fix. I did 3 minutes of work (turns out a proxy got oil on it and it was stuck on.) then I went and had an hour lunch. The last 2 hours of my night was spent talking with friends around the plant from the comfort of my Golf Cart.

Ya I have a **** sweet job. It lets me be a lazy **** Jealous?
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#615 Nov 24 2011 at 1:04 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,226 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
When I got my job the salary I accepted is based on the fact that I would also get predictable bonuses. Cutting my bonus is the same as cutting my pay.


So isn't it a misnomer to call it a bonus if it is really considered an entitlement/part of basic pay?

Why not just call it basic pay if it isn't a "bonus" for exceptional work?
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#616 Nov 24 2011 at 1:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,918 posts
Olorinus wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
When I got my job the salary I accepted is based on the fact that I would also get predictable bonuses. Cutting my bonus is the same as cutting my pay.


So isn't it a misnomer to call it a bonus if it is really considered an entitlement/part of basic pay?

Why not just call it basic pay if it isn't a "bonus" for exceptional work?


Because it's a variable contingent on personal merit. There are people at my company that make a grand total of zero as their bonus. It's a way of having variable pay that doesn't seem arbitrary by giving people different base rates for their services and avoids a bit of the sticky wage problems associated with it. If my services create a couple million in additional revenue, they are contractually obligated to pay me above and beyond my base retaining rate. It's absolutely a bonus for exceptional work, but changing the valuations prescribed in the contract would be akin to a pay cut even if the base was left untouched, especially since the bonus values for me exceed the base significantly.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#617 Nov 24 2011 at 2:44 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
You know what I did last night, I sat in my office playing Super Mario 3D land for 5 hours until we had a controls issue that I had to go fix. I did 3 minutes of work (turns out a proxy got oil on it and it was stuck on.) then I went and had an hour lunch. The last 2 hours of my night was spent talking with friends around the plant from the comfort of my Golf Cart.

This is exactly why people get fired. Surprise! You don't bring in nearly as much value as you cost your company, and you should be glad they aren't taking a closer look. If you got fired, no way should the company redistribute that pay to other employees - it's not like you'd be missed.

And just for the record, no, I'm not jealous. I belong to the class of people who prefer having a fulfilling job rather than one where I'm able to describe myself as a "lazy ****
#618 Nov 24 2011 at 2:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
You know what I did last night, I sat in my office playing Super Mario 3D land for 5 hours until we had a controls issue that I had to go fix. I did 3 minutes of work (turns out a proxy got oil on it and it was stuck on.) then I went and had an hour lunch. The last 2 hours of my night was spent talking with friends around the plant from the comfort of my Golf Cart.
Let me guess, when your company finds someone who can do the maintenance you do and another field, hires them because it'll only take 5 minutes from their day to handle your job responsibilities, it'll be the companyy stealing from the poor, right?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#619 Nov 24 2011 at 4:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Republicans before OWS: Where are all the jobs, Democrats!

Republicans after OWS: Why don't all these occupy people go get jobs?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#620 Nov 24 2011 at 6:00 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,918 posts
Majivo wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
You know what I did last night, I sat in my office playing Super Mario 3D land for 5 hours until we had a controls issue that I had to go fix. I did 3 minutes of work (turns out a proxy got oil on it and it was stuck on.) then I went and had an hour lunch. The last 2 hours of my night was spent talking with friends around the plant from the comfort of my Golf Cart.

This is exactly why people get fired. Surprise! You don't bring in nearly as much value as you cost your company, and you should be glad they aren't taking a closer look. If you got fired, no way should the company redistribute that pay to other employees - it's not like you'd be missed.

And just for the record, no, I'm not jealous. I belong to the class of people who prefer having a fulfilling job rather than one where I'm able to describe myself as a "lazy @#%^".


He may very well be providing the company a lot of value by basically acting as a cheap insurance policy for the plant breakages. It's not a huge stretch to imagine a simple problem that could cause a few hours downtime to coordinate a fix which would also cost quite a lot more in terms of both management resources combined with the opportunity cost of plant downtime.

They aren't really paying him to fix the minute things, rather paying to have him onsite for cases where there is a critical failure. I've seen cases where companies cheap out on this sort of stuff and a 5 min fix becomes a 500k problem because failures compounded without adequate supervision.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#621 Nov 24 2011 at 6:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,226 posts
Timelordwho wrote:

He may very well be providing the company a lot of value by basically acting as a cheap insurance policy for the plant breakages. It's not a huge stretch to imagine a simple problem that could cause a few hours downtime to coordinate a fix which would also cost quite a lot more in terms of both management resources combined with the opportunity cost of plant downtime.

They aren't really paying him to fix the minute things, rather paying to have him onsite for cases where there is a critical failure. I've seen cases where companies cheap out on this sort of stuff and a 5 min fix becomes a 500k problem because failures compounded without adequate supervision.


Thanks for this bit of sanity. I can understand why folks would be jealous of someone who spends most of their work day playing videogames and waiting for something to maybe break, but to imply that what they do has no value because it is based around random and chaotic events rather than go go go all the time is a little ridiculous.

I mean, do the folks criticizing rdm think that communities should fire most of their fire fighters because they spend most of their work time waiting around for fires? I mean, wouldn't it be more fiscally responsible to turn firehalls into restaurants and make sure those lazy firefighters are working every minute they are getting paid?

Or do most rational folks understand that there are jobs out there where the actual "work" is sporadic, but you need the highly trained manpower available on short notice, and that while folks are on the clock - even if they aren't scrubbing floors on their hands and knees or serving french fries, they are still putting their lives on hold by reporting for duty.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#622 Nov 24 2011 at 7:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 posts
Olorinus wrote:
Thanks for this bit of sanity. I can understand why folks would be jealous of someone who spends most of their work day playing videogames and waiting for something to maybe break, but to imply that what they do has no value because it is based around random and chaotic events rather than go go go all the time is a little ridiculous.

Some people actually prefer to be busy at work so the time passes faster as opposed to having to find a way to kill the day. I definitely prefer the days when I'm not here adding to my post count. If I'm not busy at work, I'd rather be home doing whatever I want as opposed to killing time. The only one jealous of him who's responded to his job claims is you.


Olorinus wrote:
Or do most rational folks understand that there are jobs out there where the actual "work" is sporadic, but you need the highly trained manpower available on short notice, and that while folks are on the clock - even if they aren't scrubbing floors on their hands and knees or serving french fries, they are still putting their lives on hold by reporting for duty.
What I realize is that his company would be better served to get someone with tickets/certifications in multiple disciplines so that person can be doing something else in their downtime if there's consistently that much.

Edited, Nov 24th 2011 9:08pm by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#623 Nov 24 2011 at 7:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
No. You cut someone to save $30k, but only ended up saving $20k as a result. Now, if that $20k isn't enough of a savings to keep from losing money, you've got to cut another person.
If a company, especially a small business is losing money, that's one thing. If you are increasing the workload above what people were hired to do just to impress stockholders then you are just being a douchebag. I'm certainly not advocating businesses running in the red just to keep people employed, since the obvious end to that scenario is all the workers losing their jobs when the company folds.
Awesome, how about we stop with the blanket accusation on business owners then? For every bad one there's a good one, trying to do right. Except for the super corporations, those are likely 5:1, maybe worse.
I guess my tone isn't coming off quite well. I am not blanket accusing anyone. I think a majority of small business owners, who actually have to interact with their employees are certainly not heartless bastards, for example. The ceo of the company that I work for did everything he can to have us lay off as few people as possible (the only layoffs were at locations that were closed) and actually paid out bonuses to people who came up with significant cost savings, with the emphasis on energy usage reductions, as another example.

Sometimes - but not always, I'll grant you - just slashing jobs isn't the smartest route.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#624 Nov 24 2011 at 7:23 PM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 posts
Well then, now that we're in agreement, what would you like to argue about instead?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#625 Nov 24 2011 at 7:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,644 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
Thanks for this bit of sanity. I can understand why folks would be jealous of someone who spends most of their work day playing videogames and waiting for something to maybe break, but to imply that what they do has no value because it is based around random and chaotic events rather than go go go all the time is a little ridiculous.

Some people actually prefer to be busy at work so the time passes faster as opposed to having to find a way to kill the day. I definitely prefer the days when I'm not here adding to my post count. If I'm not busy at work, I'd rather be home doing whatever I want as opposed to killing time. The only one jealous of him who's responded to his job claims is you.

Olorinus wrote:
Or do most rational folks understand that there are jobs out there where the actual "work" is sporadic, but you need the highly trained manpower available on short notice, and that while folks are on the clock - even if they aren't scrubbing floors on their hands and knees or serving french fries, they are still putting their lives on hold by reporting for duty.
What I realize is that his company would be better served to get someone with tickets/certifications in multiple disciplines so that person can be doing something else in their downtime if there's consistently that much.


Unless his job may also require him to:
1. Drop everything and go address the problem.
2. Actively work to solve a problem for days at a time.

In either case, the business is going to suffer because the employee's other duties aren't going to be seen to.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#626 Nov 24 2011 at 7:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Well then, now that we're in agreement, what would you like to argue about instead?
Think the Sox will do OK without Theo? I think we are in for another slump.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#627 Nov 24 2011 at 7:32 PM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Unless his job may also require him to:
1. Drop everything and go address the problem.
2. Actively work to solve a problem for days at a time.

In either case, the business is going to suffer because the employee's other duties aren't going to be seen to.
Both are manageable situations, most times. An example off the top of my head would be routine maintenance on equipment. It's possible that the above could happen, but realistically, unlikely that there couldn't be more stuff for him to do.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#628 Nov 24 2011 at 7:36 PM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Well then, now that we're in agreement, what would you like to argue about instead?
Think the Sox will do OK without Theo? I think we are in for another slump.
He's made a few mistakes along the way that the enormous payroll allowed him to mask somewhat. As long as they don't act like morons with him gone, they'll be fine and continue to compete, for at least a few years.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#629 Nov 24 2011 at 7:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Uglysasquatch wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Unless his job may also require him to:
1. Drop everything and go address the problem.
2. Actively work to solve a problem for days at a time.

In either case, the business is going to suffer because the employee's other duties aren't going to be seen to.
Both are manageable situations, most times. An example off the top of my head would be routine maintenance on equipment. It's possible that the above could happen, but realistically, unlikely that there couldn't be more stuff for him to do.
At work, we dropped 2 mechanics and 1 electrician (through natural attrition, no active layoffs) and guess what the result was?

A: more down time

We got rid of relief operators and one other position per shift. What do you think the result was?

A: more down time and lower good product percentage
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#630 Nov 24 2011 at 7:40 PM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 posts
Were any of them sitting around for 7:55 of their shift doing nothing each day?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#631 Nov 24 2011 at 7:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Were any of them sitting around for 7:55 of their shift doing nothing each day?
No. People like that should be fired, not laid off.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#632 Nov 24 2011 at 9:22 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
5,602 posts
I wonder how long this OWS thing will go on for, or if it will change anything. So far all it seems to be doing is demonstrating how helpless they are. If anything, I can see a spring of new laws restricting people's rights to protest and/or organize. This way, in about five years or so when they cut things like food stamps and medicare out completely, they can tromp down any dissent in it's early stages.

It's peaceful now, but I imagine it will become progressively violent as what teabaggers call Socialism is gradually phased out to help relieve the deficit-- all while Bush tax cuts and bank bailout equivalents continue to occur. More generations will graduate highschool/college and find themselves without adequate work, or no job at all, only to slapped in the face and told it's because they just don't work hard enough and simply don't deserve to live decently.
____________________________
my Tumblr
Pixelmon Server Info
#633 Nov 24 2011 at 11:07 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Majivo wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
You know what I did last night, I sat in my office playing Super Mario 3D land for 5 hours until we had a controls issue that I had to go fix. I did 3 minutes of work (turns out a proxy got oil on it and it was stuck on.) then I went and had an hour lunch. The last 2 hours of my night was spent talking with friends around the plant from the comfort of my Golf Cart.

This is exactly why people get fired. Surprise! You don't bring in nearly as much value as you cost your company, and you should be glad they aren't taking a closer look. If you got fired, no way should the company redistribute that pay to other employees - it's not like you'd be missed.

And just for the record, no, I'm not jealous. I belong to the class of people who prefer having a fulfilling job rather than one where I'm able to describe myself as a "lazy @#%^".


He may very well be providing the company a lot of value by basically acting as a cheap insurance policy for the plant breakages. It's not a huge stretch to imagine a simple problem that could cause a few hours downtime to coordinate a fix which would also cost quite a lot more in terms of both management resources combined with the opportunity cost of plant downtime.

They aren't really paying him to fix the minute things, rather paying to have him onsite for cases where there is a critical failure. I've seen cases where companies cheap out on this sort of stuff and a 5 min fix becomes a 500k problem because failures compounded without adequate supervision.


More or less this. I love sitting around waiting for stuff to break because there is only one thing I like more than playing with my 3DS while at work, and that is actually doing the job that I was hired to do, that I spent a bunch of money getting trained to do. Some days I don't have to do a **** thing, and that is welcome, some days (like this weekend for example, and the week after christmas when most are off) I have to work a lot.

Evidently the experience of some people when it comes to factory maintenance is non existent. If I am sitting on my **** that means I have done my job extremely well. It means I have set the controls to the point where they are functioning without errors. Which means I earned my money. The less I have to work in a day speaks to my ability to work. Granted I get to work on awesome days like Canada Day, Labor Day, New Years Day, (pretty much every weekend long or not) I also get to work during such glorious times as Summer and Winter shutdown when the production personnel are all off for 2 weeks with pay.

Being in maintenance has it perks and its draw backs, one of the perks just happens to be that I get a lot of free time during shift work, then again I sacrifice a lot of free time to get free time on weekends/holidays/shutdowns.

Do I like my lazy **** days. You bet I do, its why I work 7 days a week generally 49 weeks a year. Sometimes you just have to enjoy the little things.

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#634 Nov 26 2011 at 3:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,226 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:

Some people actually prefer to be busy at work so the time passes faster as opposed to having to find a way to kill the day. I definitely prefer the days when I'm not here adding to my post count. If I'm not busy at work, I'd rather be home doing whatever I want as opposed to killing time. The only one jealous of him who's responded to his job claims is you.


I actually prefer busy days too, and I am not jealous at all. I love the work I do, especially when it is go go go. That said there can be a lot of downtime at my work too, so I resist the protestant-work-ethic-derived idea that if there is any downtime at all the workers are all lazy bastards who should be loaded up with more work.

I mean it is slow around christmas and in the summer at my job - but it doesn't make sense to cut the shop by several people because it is slow for three months a year - especially since the work requires a lot of knowledge, expertise and relationships - and when it IS busy we are all slammed and have a difficult time keeping up. It isn't the kind of work where hiring an intern or other cheap labour at the busy season is feasible.


Edited, Nov 26th 2011 1:30pm by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#635 Nov 26 2011 at 4:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 posts
Olorinus wrote:
I resist the protestant-work-ethic-derived idea that if there is any downtime at all the workers are all lazy bastards who should be loaded up with more work.
When someone's bragging about working only 5 minutes in an 8 hour shift, deriding them is hardly a "protestant-work-ethic-derived idea that if there is any downtime at all the workers are all lazy bastards who should be loaded up with more work." 5 minutes work in 8 hours and bragging about it is lazy.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#636 Nov 26 2011 at 4:49 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
its actually **** sweet is what it is, what did you today? me I am on my way out the door to do a 12 hour shift, so I can have days during the week where I only work 5 minutes. That and so the process run smoothly so the company meets shipment.

But ya bring on the 5 minute work day, I love making 200 bucks for 5 minutes of work. It is almost as good as getting paid to take a **** (which imo is the best on the job perk, i love both money and ****
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#637 Nov 26 2011 at 4:56 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,887 posts
I must admit, my work days often involve as little as half an hour of work time...with six hours of driving. And I get paid for mileage.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#638 Nov 26 2011 at 5:10 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
what did you today?
Took the kids to swimming lessons, washed some dishes, took a nap and made money off the businesses I'm part owner in. I also took two **** today. I too, love making money and ****
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#639 Nov 26 2011 at 8:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,197 posts
I usually only have an hour of guaranteed work most days. In the afternoon, part of my job is acting as backup to the admins (as I've mentioned before) which means answering the phone and surfing the Internet.

To be fair, part of my internet surfing is also work related, since I'm the one who is supposed to keep her finger on the pulse of the tech world. I'm a slashdot karma whore, and regularly argue with people on John C Dvorak's blogs at PC Magazine...
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#640 Nov 26 2011 at 9:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,281 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
what did you today?

I drank a few glasses of wine and learned a new word. It's called "do".
#641 Nov 27 2011 at 12:32 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,887 posts
catwho wrote:
I usually only have an hour of guaranteed work most days. In the afternoon, part of my job is acting as backup to the admins (as I've mentioned before) which means answering the phone and surfing the Internet.

To be fair, part of my internet surfing is also work related, since I'm the one who is supposed to keep her finger on the pulse of the tech world. I'm a slashdot karma whore, and regularly argue with people on John C Dvorak's blogs at PC Magazine...

Do you listen to any TWiT podcasts? Dvorak is a good friend of Leo Laporte.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#642 Nov 27 2011 at 4:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Sage
Avatar
**
614 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
what did you today?

I accidentally the whole thing.
#643 Nov 27 2011 at 8:33 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Nadenu wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
what did you today?

I drank a few glasses of wine and learned a new word. It's called "do".


sometimes i think i love you.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#644 Nov 28 2011 at 8:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
When someone's bragging about working only 5 minutes in an 8 hour shift, deriding them is hardly a "protestant-work-ethic-derived idea that if there is any downtime at all the workers are all lazy bastards who should be loaded up with more work." 5 minutes work in 8 hours and bragging about it is lazy.

When I worked Master Control for a television station, I could have everything set up and loaded and ready to go in under ten minutes. After that, it was all automated and my job was to hang around, take the FCC required meter readings every couple hours and be there in case anything exploded. Mainly I sat around fucking with the satellite dishes trying to pick up cable feeds, eating pizza and having **** with my girlfriend.

Nice work if you can get it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#645 Nov 28 2011 at 8:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
When I was in college I worked 6 hours a night as a boiler-operator for awhile. There were these big old boilers that heated a private hanger at the mpls airport. By law they had to be checked every two hours. So I checked them. It took me about 5 mins to walk down to the boiler room, look at a couple gauges and sign a sheet. Then I went back up to a pilot's lounge and did homework.

I had to get licensed but it just meant taking a test that was all based on one 95 page manual.



Edited, Nov 28th 2011 3:41pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#646 Nov 28 2011 at 10:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,281 posts
ITT: Ugly is bitter.
#647 Nov 28 2011 at 10:38 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 posts
Nadenu wrote:
ITT: Ugly is bitter.
Sure am. I hate the fact that people **** about companies laying people off and then turn around and brag about how they do sweet fuck all while at work and think that's great. Fucking mind boggling.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#648 Nov 28 2011 at 10:55 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,887 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
ITT: Ugly is bitter.
Sure am. I hate the fact that people **** about companies laying people off and then turn around and brag about how they do sweet fuck all while at work and think that's great. Fucking mind boggling.

I'm not **** about anything right now, especially considering it's BoA that I do work for. Smiley: grin
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#649 Nov 28 2011 at 11:00 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 posts
Debalic wrote:
I'm not **** about anything right now
Then I guess that doesn't apply to you. Smiley: smile
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#650 Nov 28 2011 at 11:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I never complained about the TV station laying anyone off Smiley: grin

It was actually automation that put me into that position. When I started, the job wasn't exactly back-breaking but it did require more action on my part since each tape had to be manually switched over by myself and we had fewer decks so I had to do a lot more cuing. Then they added more decks and automated all the switching via computer so all I had to do was load up and cue all the programming, set the switch times on the computer and then be around in case something went wrong. You don't want the broadcast to go haywire and have no one around to quickly fix it (besides that being against FCC regulations) so you wound up just having a babysitter for eight hours.

Like any good babysitter, you immediately put the kids to bed, ordered pizza, watched movies and had your SO over to fuck on the couch.

Edited, Nov 28th 2011 11:14am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#651 Nov 28 2011 at 11:08 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Debalic wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
ITT: Ugly is bitter.
Sure am. I hate the fact that people **** about companies laying people off and then turn around and brag about how they do sweet fuck all while at work and think that's great. Fucking mind boggling.

I'm not **** about anything right now, especially considering it's BoA that I do work for. Smiley: grin


When are you going to fix the error that prevents me from making online transfers from my old checking account?

Get on that.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 28 All times are in CDT
Fynlar, Samira, Anonymous Guests (26)