Quitters Never Win

« Return to Article
  • ubersoldat 2012-10-30 08:06
    Here's my FIRST CV!

    And Lawrence didn't even get the chance to check the code.
  • Nappy 2012-10-30 08:09
    Just 60 hours? Where's the WTF?
  • Cbuttius 2012-10-30 08:10
    I think the staff were all blown away by the hurricane Sandy..
  • Seul 2012-10-30 08:14
    Anybody getting <a href="http://imgur.com/h7x90">unicorns</a> selecting »CFO«?

    Taht's the WTF.
  • Job 2012-10-30 08:16
    “Here, let me show you down to Sandy,” Mark said, “she’ll be
    blowing you like a hurricane."

    (TRWTF is living where they have air. That moves. Really fast. I mean, WTF?)
  • Rick 2012-10-30 08:21
    the new MIS manager... Just promoted up from the sales floor
    Four alarm WTF! This spacetime anomaly must be fully explained before we even consider working for this W-T-Factory.
  • Auction_God 2012-10-30 08:23
    Yes! Lots of sparkly unicorns!! Each one you click breeds more of them. I've got a full stable now.
  • Ken 2012-10-30 08:27
    We’re team players.
    Yeah. And your "team" just sent you a message. As a team. You might want to consider it.

    Lesson: Platitudes don't change reality.

    Reminds me of a place where they saw nothing odd about a 7AM meeting after working you to 2AM the night before.

    I turned in my notice after working 17 days straight. My boss seemed puzzled when I gave that as one of my reasons for leaving.
  • Y_F 2012-10-30 08:32
    Is Frank expecting to find more Sandys, that face such WTF and supposedly shrug?
    Too bad she's not as loyal (or stupid) as he think.
  • Mike 2012-10-30 08:57
    I'm in the same boat at the moment unfortunately.

    Boss: "Any concerns?"

    Me: "Yeah this schedule change that keeps me here till 9pm every night really sucks."

    Boss: "We're all professionals here though so we all got to do what needs to be done to get the job done."

    Me: "Yeah until something better comes along that doesn't require me working till stupid o'clock every night."
  • justsomedudette 2012-10-30 09:17
    Shouldn't this be under 'tales from the interview' rather than a feature article?
  • TGV 2012-10-30 09:19
    If it's professional, they must accept that you only work the hours they contracted you for. Otherwise it's amateurism.
  • Poo 'Stache 2012-10-30 09:21
    Well the real WTF, of course, is continuing to live in a country with no workers' rights whatsoever. If my boss tries to make me work over 37,5 hours a week I can just tell them "no"; I don't have to quit over it.
  • Ex-Death-Marcher 2012-10-30 09:26
    Yes. Death marches are ok if they're extraordinary measures. If they become SOP, then you start loosing people to attrition. Heck, I'm betting that everyone except Sue went as a bulk unit to annother company
  • MrBEster 2012-10-30 09:31
    Eight people walked off the job at the same time. Why did they do that, Larry?”

    “I… I couldn’t tell you. Did you ask them?”


    I would have answered: "Lawrence. Did you ask them?" instead. If this dick of a CFO can't get your name right after two corrections then it's time to get insulting in return.
  • lanmind 2012-10-30 09:32
    the new MIS manager... Just promoted up from the sales floor


    Right there. That's the WTF.
  • JimLahey 2012-10-30 09:33
    Death Marches are not OK in any situation. If there's a Death March going on then somebody messed up and that somebody needs chopping into smaller pieces and burying in the woods before the next click or key press takes place.
  • Hughlander 2012-10-30 09:35
    Marches imply a destination. This is more of a death treadmill.
  • Bitter Like Quinine 2012-10-30 09:36
    I was recently handed a company laptop and told to provide out-of-hours cover to the current death march. When I pointed out that I had my own (better) machines at home, I was told that the company doesn't allow "foreign" hardware to connect to their network.

    My answer was, "Neither do I."
  • Recursive Reclusive 2012-10-30 09:39
    Hughlander:
    Marches imply a destination. This is more of a death treadmill.

    I could do with an upvote/like button right now.
  • ubersoldat 2012-10-30 09:39
    Bitter Like Quinine:
    I was recently handed a company laptop and told to provide out-of-hours cover to the current death march. When I pointed out that I had my own (better) machines at home, I was told that the company doesn't allow "foreign" hardware to connect to their network.

    My answer was, "Neither do I."


    How did turned out? It's pretty funny
  • Lockwood 2012-10-30 09:44
    And if you come in from Google and scroll down past all of the-

    Oh, we've moved on from that now.
  • KattMan 2012-10-30 09:50
    Lockwood:
    And if you come in from Google and scroll down past all of the-

    Oh, we've moved on from that now.


    Yeah ain't it great, I got WTFville with unicorns running all over the place to obscure any answers.

    As for the crew leaving, I say bravo to them, but this manager obviously will never learn.
  • golddog 2012-10-30 09:52
    Mike:
    I'm in the same boat at the moment unfortunately.

    Boss: "Any concerns?"

    Me: "Yeah this schedule change that keeps me here till 9pm every night really sucks."

    Boss: "We're all professionals here though so we all got to do what needs to be done to get the job done."

    Me: "Yeah until something better comes along that doesn't require me working till stupid o'clock every night."


    I really don't understand this mentality. It's all about setting expectations.

    Make it clear to the boss that they get about 40 hours of you each week. (In truth, it ends up being a bit more, because you're always finishing something up at the end of the day).

    If there truly is an extraordinary circumstance (production errors, servers down, etc), then yes, you're there for them. If the company's idea of a crisis needing those kinds of extra hours is "Frank in sales told somebody this would be ready," well, that's Frank's problem, not the technical staff's.

    There are other jobs out there, some of which don't suck. Find one.
  • RichP 2012-10-30 09:53
    Bitter Like Quinine:
    I was recently handed a company laptop and told to provide out-of-hours cover to the current death march. When I pointed out that I had my own (better) machines at home, I was told that the company doesn't allow "foreign" hardware to connect to their network.

    My answer was, "Neither do I."


    Funny. I did something similar a while back. Was visiting a customer and they needed to give me some documentation to bring back to the office. I handed over my USB keyfob. The customer jokingly asked "are you sure you trust my machine with your USB stick?" My answer was a (too quick) are you sure you trust plugging my USB stick into your computer?"

    He looked a bit worried for a second, then must have decided that trying to negotiate an alternative solution just wasn't worth it.
  • Maurits 2012-10-30 09:57
    > Eight people walked off the job at the same time

    at the same time

    Not many workplaces can handle that and still maintain decent workload. Why assume that the previous-to-everybody-leaving workload problems were due to this manager? He's new, and new to IT; he might just be cleaning up someone else's mess (maybe the previous manager was part of the mass exodus; maybe the previous manager even caused the mass exodus by recruiting his staff away.)
  • ubersoldat 2012-10-30 10:09
    Maurits:
    > Eight people walked off the job at the same time

    at the same time

    Not many workplaces can handle that and still maintain decent workload. Why assume that the previous-to-everybody-leaving workload problems were due to this manager? He's new, and new to IT; he might just be cleaning up someone else's mess (maybe the previous manager was part of the mass exodus; maybe the previous manager even caused the mass exodus by recruiting his staff away.)


    I think the article made it very clear that it was the CFO's fault.
  • Joshua 2012-10-30 10:13
    60 hours in the office, plus fielding calls and tickets from home. Would be my guess, anyway.
  • ObiWayneKenobi 2012-10-30 10:16
    Any time there is a "mass exodus" it's a red flag, no ifs ands or buts. The reason being that except in very unusual circumstances a mass exodus is a last resort. It means that concerns have been brought to the immediate supervisor and, often, escalated up to executive management, and nothing has been done.

    You don't have EIGHT people walk off a job simultaneously for no reason at all except possibly in a startup that's on the verge of bankruptcy and everyone bails to form their own company. Even without the scumbag CFO, even if the new MIS Manager was actually competent and really sincerely wanted to fix things up, the sheer fact they're in that position to begin with means that things have gotten to the point where they can't be fixed.

    Also, a death march is never acceptable. Mandatory overtime is never acceptable. Once in a blue moon when there's a legit crisis (i.e. NOT "but we told the customer it'd be ready in a week!") or you're doing a bit extra to wrap up a project is fine, and if your company has any sense whatsoever they'll give you comp time or something as thanks. When you're required to work 60+ hours a week without anything extra in return, it's exploitation.
  • Smug Unix User 2012-10-30 10:19
    Overworking your developers reduces code quality. As a result you spend more time cleaning up the code that was poorly written by a weary developer. If the job requires more people it is best to hire them before you need them. It will take time getting them up to speed. You initially see a reduction in work when you hire on. Trying to work people beyond their normal limits is a good way to have a walkout, or a disgruntled staff churning worthless code. A regular 45+ work week is symptom of a bigger problem.
  • Calli Arcale 2012-10-30 10:44
    Not only does he overwork his staff, not only is he okay with that, but he doesn't even know how many hours they're putting in. Even if everybody is on salary rather than hourly pay, there's no excuse for management not having the slightest idea how many hours people are working. If you don't know how long it takes them to get a job done, you have no way of planning. Even ignoring the fact that this is obviously a horrible workplace where you're guaranteed to be underpaid, it's also obviously completely disorganized. And the manager doesn't realize that's a very stupid thing to reveal in an interview when you're short-staffed. This interview has so many red flags it could start selling them to construction workers for marking utility lines.
  • Mark 2012-10-30 10:48
    "He’s new. Just promoted up from the sales floor, actually."

    “How do you reboot a server?” and “How do you check if a server is still connected to the network?”

    Those weren't interview questions. He was asking sincerely.
  • Publius 2012-10-30 10:59
    Lawrence ignored way Frank’s expression said ‘ramming speed’, and concluded “That’s probably why they quit. Anyway, thank you for your time, today.”

    Zing! I didn't understand the article until this part, then I realized everyone has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.
  • Kingsnake 2012-10-30 10:59
    We have six IT people supporting about 200 employees over three offices across the US, and they overspread. Eight people supporting thousands spread over four locations is a recipe for disaster.
  • Coyne 2012-10-30 11:06
    I sense outsourcing in that company's future.

    And I bet the owner of the outsourcing company has a close personal relationship with Frank.

    And I'll bet Frank strangely fails to notice that the outsourcing company is costing 690% of what it would have cost to hire enough developers to do it properly, in-house.

    And I bet that Frank has a new zillion dollar house in his future.
  • David 2012-10-30 11:19
    Eight people walked off the job at the same time. Why did they do that, Larry?”

    “I… I couldn’t tell you. Did you ask them?”


    Well, if you would have just scrolled all the way to the bottom of their letters of resignation, the answer is right there.
  • JS 2012-10-30 11:32
    As Taggart would say - "DITTO!"
  • PedanticCurmudgeon 2012-10-30 11:41
    Maurits:
    > Eight people walked off the job at the same time

    at the same time

    Not many workplaces can handle that and still maintain decent workload. Why assume that the previous-to-everybody-leaving workload problems were due to this manager? He's new, and new to IT; he might just be cleaning up someone else's mess (maybe the previous manager was part of the mass exodus; maybe the previous manager even caused the mass exodus by recruiting his staff away.)
    3/10 would not flame
  • cellocgw 2012-10-30 12:13
    Mike:


    Boss: "We're all professionals here though so we all got to do what needs to be done to get the job done."


    I learned long ago that "[be a ] professional" is code for "do it my way because any other way is unacceptable," often heard from psychopath PHBs.
  • Zylon 2012-10-30 12:20
    Lawrence ignored way Frank’s expression said ‘ramming speed’

    I have absolutely no idea what facial expression is being described here. Does "ramming speed" denote fear? Anger? Desperation? Uncertainty? Resignation? Could be any of those things.

    But hey, it's Remy-- more important to cram an article full of some arbitrary theme (apparently nautical, in today's case) and easter eggs, than to make sure it's properly proofread and makes sense.
  • zelmak 2012-10-30 12:23
    Bitter Like Quinine:
    I was recently handed a company laptop and told to provide out-of-hours cover to the current death march. When I pointed out that I had my own (better) machines at home, I was told that the company doesn't allow "foreign" hardware to connect to their network.

    My answer was, "Neither do I."


    +1 must remember
  • n_slash_a 2012-10-30 12:36
    Article:
    All the rest of our developers, operators, service-desk and management. Eight people walked off the job at the same time.

    TRWTF is that all developers, operators, service-desk, and managers were really only 8 people.
  • Larry (not Lawrence) 2012-10-30 12:39
    RichP:
    She jokingly asked "are you sure you trust my port with your stick?" My answer was a (too quick) are you sure you trust plugging my stick into your port"
    FTFY. BTW, this is a problem that has plagued civilization since its inception. But still somehow we muddle on.
  • Nagesh 2012-10-30 12:41
    Looks like Sandy was not smart to get a new job.
  • Joe 2012-10-30 12:45
    Kingsnake:
    We have six IT people supporting about 200 employees over three offices across the US, and they overspread. Eight people supporting thousands spread over four locations is a recipe for disaster.
    I was one of three supporting 750 computers -- all different, mostly clunky old hardware a decade past warranty. They told me during the interview they had "about 125" computers.

    BTW that half hour interview was the longest span of face time I ever got with my boss -- until I quit, at which point I suddenly had his undivided attention! "You can't do that! We have to get this done by $deadline!" etc. etc.
  • jay 2012-10-30 12:49
    Poo 'Stache:
    Well the real WTF, of course, is continuing to live in a country with no workers' rights whatsoever. If my boss tries to make me work over 37,5 hours a week I can just tell them "no"; I don't have to quit over it.


    Why do I need the government to tell me whether or not I like my job? If my boss makes unreasonable demands, I just quit. I don't have to run to some nanny government agency crying like a child.
  • Bill Me 2012-10-30 12:49
    n_slash_a:
    Article:
    All the rest of our developers, operators, service-desk and management. Eight people walked off the job at the same time.

    TRWTF is that all developers, operators, service-desk, and managers were really only 8 people.
    I don't know that it is so far off. One developer, one operator, one service desk, 5 managers. Sounds about right.

    You don't want the developer, operator etc. wasting time writing reports do you? Let the managers do it.
  • jay 2012-10-30 12:53
    JimLahey:
    Death Marches are not OK in any situation. If there's a Death March going on then somebody messed up and that somebody needs chopping into smaller pieces and burying in the woods before the next click or key press takes place.


    Well, sure this is a sign or a problem. But when the company has a problem, my first response is not to say, "Sorry, not my fault, I refuse to help fix it." I would hope that when I screw up, others will bail me out, and I do the same for them.

    If all the employees have this "not my fault" attitude, I would think the company isn't going to stay in business very long.

    And sure, if management or sales or whomever has the idea that it doesn't matter how much they screw up because they can just demand that IT (or production or whomever) put in a month of 16-hour days to fix it and, voila, problem solved, then that's a different issue.
  • jay 2012-10-30 12:56
    n_slash_a:
    Article:
    All the rest of our developers, operators, service-desk and management. Eight people walked off the job at the same time.

    TRWTF is that all developers, operators, service-desk, and managers were really only 8 people.


    Yeah, that is bizarre. The only explanation I can think of -- and I know this is pretty far out -- is that maybe this was a small company.

    I've heard rumors that there are companies out there of many different sizes, from tens of thousands of employees down to just one.
  • Tom 2012-10-30 12:59
    jay:
    when the company has a problem, my first response is not to say, "Sorry, not my fault, I refuse to help fix it." I would hope that when I screw up, others will bail me out, and I do the same for them.

    If all the employees have this "not my fault" attitude, I would think the company isn't going to stay in business very long.
    First emergency, I'm there to do anything I can.

    Second "emergency" (within a few weeks / months) I realize this is Standard Operating Procedure because nobody cares. So I don't care either. Outfit needs to die, I'm not going to heroic measures to keep it on artificial life support.
  • trucking foll 2012-10-30 13:07
    Publius:
    Lawrence ignored way Frank’s expression said ‘ramming speed’, and concluded “That’s probably why they quit. Anyway, thank you for your time, today.”

    Zing! I didn't understand the article until this part, then I realized everyone has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.


    I have an idea as to why you didn't understand the article up to a point. Frankly, I'm surprised you understood it at all.

    I'll try your way: Even up as really been far as even article up even as really to the understand article even IT the reboot up to go the want to do.
  • just stop it 2012-10-30 13:08
    jay:
    n_slash_a:
    Article:
    All the rest of our developers, operators, service-desk and management. Eight people walked off the job at the same time.

    TRWTF is that all developers, operators, service-desk, and managers were really only 8 people.


    Yeah, that is bizarre. The only explanation I can think of -- and I know this is pretty far out -- is that maybe this was a small company.

    I've heard rumors that there are companies out there of many different sizes, from tens of thousands of employees down to just one.


    Yeah, I know of a few companies that fit the
    article:
    medium sized organization, with four large locations and a few thousand employees.
    description but somehow only have a couple of employees; some even have 1.
  • jay 2012-10-30 13:15
    I always get a laugh at business owners or executives who expect employees to put in 16 hours a day for weeks on end and are just amazed and disappointed when the employees rebel against this. "Don't you want the company to succeed?" he asks, baffled. "We're all in this together."

    Except, sorry, we're not. I understand why the owner is willing to work 16-hour days. If the company succeeds, he could become a millionaire, and if it fails, he could go broke. But for the average employee, if the company succeeds, he, what? gets to keep his job, maybe gets a small raise. If it fails he loses his job and has to look for another one. Sure, I'd rather that the company succeed, and I'll put in some effort to make that happen, but the stakes are nowhere near as high for the employee as for the owner. If he wants to offer me a partnership, then my level of commitment will go up.

    Furthermore, for the owner of a small business or the top executives of a big one, this is their baby. Not only do they have a lot of money invested in success, but they have a lot of their own egos invested. If the owner or executive succeeds, it was HIS plan that succeeded. But for the average employee, there is usually no such investment. In most companies, the employees have no say in how the company is run. I have had many, many jobs where employees, myself and others, have made suggestions to management on better ways to run the company, and these suggestions are almost always brushed off -- sometimes with an abrupt "no we're not going to do that", more often with polite noises about how management will "consider this idea", etc, but nothing ever happens. Then, after they've told the employees to shut up and do as their told, they wonder why these employees have little feeling of being "part of the team". Then they start calling in consultants to investigate why morale is so low.
  • ObiWayneKenobi 2012-10-30 13:32
    jay:
    Poo 'Stache:
    Well the real WTF, of course, is continuing to live in a country with no workers' rights whatsoever. If my boss tries to make me work over 37,5 hours a week I can just tell them "no"; I don't have to quit over it.


    Why do I need the government to tell me whether or not I like my job? If my boss makes unreasonable demands, I just quit. I don't have to run to some nanny government agency crying like a child.


    Because in the US the company has all the power and your options are usually "Take it or leave it", that's why. Forced to work 60 hour weeks? Suck it up or quit. Not given lunch breaks? Starve until dinner or quit. Boss doesn't like you for no reason at all? Get fired or forced into quitting.

    That's bullshit. I'm no fan of government intervention in anything, but I'd much rather have how it works in Europe over this "right to work" shit we have in America where you can be fired for any reason or no reason. Employees have barely any rights, while corporations have the lion's share of rights.
  • Derp 2012-10-30 13:34
    Company of roughly 1000 users. Not really "small" and probably a touch more than 8 people can adequately support, I think.
  • Herp 2012-10-30 13:37
    Condescending dick who doesn't read the article! Harhar
  • graybeard 2012-10-30 13:40
    Bitter Like Quinine:
    I was recently handed a company laptop and told to provide out-of-hours cover to the current death march. When I pointed out that I had my own (better) machines at home, I was told that the company doesn't allow "foreign" hardware to connect to their network.

    My answer was, "Neither do I."


    The real WTF is that the quoted comment is better than the posted story.
  • mainframe guy 2012-10-30 13:42
    Sounded like they were months if not weeks away from insolvency. That would explain not expanding headcount for the necessary support coverage. Being the CFO, the guy would know exactly where the profit loss trend is.
  • MT 2012-10-30 13:51
    Zylon:
    more important to cram an article full of some arbitrary theme (apparently nautical, in today's case) and easter eggs, than to make sure it's properly proofread and makes sense.


    I agree!
  • trucking foll 2012-10-30 14:17
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    jay:
    Poo 'Stache:
    Well the real WTF, of course, is continuing to live in a country with no workers' rights whatsoever. If my boss tries to make me work over 37,5 hours a week I can just tell them "no"; I don't have to quit over it.


    Why do I need the government to tell me whether or not I like my job? If my boss makes unreasonable demands, I just quit. I don't have to run to some nanny government agency crying like a child.


    Because in the US the company has all the power and your options are usually "Take it or leave it", that's why. Forced to work 60 hour weeks? Suck it up or quit. Not given lunch breaks? Starve until dinner or quit. Boss doesn't like you for no reason at all? Get fired or forced into quitting.

    That's bullshit. I'm no fan of government intervention in anything, but I'd much rather have how it works in Europe over this "right to work" shit we have in America where you can be fired for any reason or no reason. Employees have barely any rights, while corporations have the lion's share of rights.


    I'm no fan of government intervention either (not sure you're telling the truth, there). I'm also not a crybaby. If you don't like your job, leave. You have a right to not work there, and he has a right to not pay your sorry ass. Don't cry to the government to make the big mean boss give you a job you want on the terms you like -- go get it yourself.

    And if you can't get a job you want on the terms you like, maybe you aren't actually that good at what you do.

    I put up with working extra and getting underpaid until I found something better -- enough, at least, to stop looking for awhile. I'll admit I did complain, but not to my Congressman. That guy sucks anyway.
  • Morry 2012-10-30 14:41
    Subby missed a golden opportunity there, to explain to Frank about reality. Not having any ties to the company, instead of walking out he could have engaged Frank in a discussion of HOW.THINGS.WORK. Raw. Laid in on the line. "You're an idiot, Fred, if you expect people to regularly work 60 hours a week for salary, and don't deserve the position of CFO if you can't understand basic economics. Do you want me to explain to you how to obtain and retain an IT staff, or are you happy living in ignorance?"

    The change in tone would either impress Francine, or get you kicked out. If you could engage Fritz in a discussion, I bet you could have worked yourself into a management position. If you had wanted one.

    BTW the first step would be to give Sandy a $5000 retention bonus. That day.
  • fennec 2012-10-30 14:45
    Poo 'Stache:
    Well the real WTF, of course, is continuing to live in a country with no workers' rights whatsoever. If my boss tries to make me work over 37,5 hours a week I can just tell them "no"; I don't have to quit over it.


    On the other hand, your country's economy makes the US in its current state look *good*. Yes, this is directly related.

    The best solution to this problem is to have a nice little minimal set of regulations (because there *is* such a thing as monopsony exploitation in the labor market because it's not a perfectly efficient market due to the very high transaction costs), and a thriving economy where the workers *can* find a job where they're valued.
  • Anathos 2012-10-30 15:00
    fennec:
    Poo 'Stache:
    Well the real WTF, of course, is continuing to live in a country with no workers' rights whatsoever. If my boss tries to make me work over 37,5 hours a week I can just tell them "no"; I don't have to quit over it.


    On the other hand, your country's economy makes the US in its current state look *good*. Yes, this is directly related.

    The best solution to this problem is to have a nice little minimal set of regulations (because there *is* such a thing as monopsony exploitation in the labor market because it's not a perfectly efficient market due to the very high transaction costs), and a thriving economy where the workers *can* find a job where they're valued.

    Did it ever occur to you that other people might have different ideas about what constitutes a "minimal set of regulations"? Because "can't be fired for no reason or forced to work for free" sounds pretty damn minimal to me.
  • Mathias 2012-10-30 15:09
    Should have included the dot in the <span>CFO</span>
    . Too easy to spot otherwise!
  • Inara Serra 2012-10-30 15:17
    Malcolm Reynolds:
    Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.

    Malcolm Reynolds:
    Go run your little world.

  • Paul 2012-10-30 15:38
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    in the US the company has all the power and your options are usually "Take it or leave it"
    Actually, you have exactly the same power. You can go to your boss and say "I will not work more than 39.6 hours per week." Or whatever your demand is. "Take it or leave it." If they take it, great. If not, what do you suppose "leave it" means? Sever the relationship. You do not have mutually agreeable terms, so why would you continue? No one is forcing you to remain.

    But force is actually what you prefer. You want to force the employer to keep paying you even though you aren't willing to provide what they want to buy at the price they want to buy it.

    Suppose your grocery store went to the government and said "I want you to force ObiWayneKenobi to keep buying $100 worth of groceries from us every week, even though we have stopped carrying the brand of diapers he prefers to wipe his nose from all his whining." After all, the store's employees are depending on you for their livelihood. We can't allow that to be threatened, can we?
  • Publius 2012-10-30 15:39
    What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.
  • PiisAWheeL 2012-10-30 15:45
    Publius:
    Lawrence ignored way Frank’s expression said ‘ramming speed’, and concluded “That’s probably why they quit. Anyway, thank you for your time, today.”
    Zing! I didn't understand the article until this part, then I realized everyone has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.
    What!?
  • KattMan 2012-10-30 15:46
    wow,someone didn't get laid this decade.
  • Barry 2012-10-30 15:51
    Publius:
    I have over 300 confirmed kills... I can kill you in over seven hundred ways
    Sounds like all your training didn't include math. Either that, or over half the "ways" you think you know haven't been tested.

    Say, have you considered a tour of Pakistan? Or for that matter *.any-istan? They could use your skillz over there, and you could put some proof behind your hollow claims.
  • shittypants 2012-10-30 15:59
    Publius:
    What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.


    Careful. You're shitting fury all over the ratty old office chair in your parents' den, and they're going to smell it when they get home. They'll say "Who pooped in here?" and the answer will be "Publius, because he thought he could transmit it over the Internet."

    Fortunately, you're highly trained in pooping, grunting, chest-beating, and various other tactics favored by gorillas.
  • Anathos 2012-10-30 16:01
    Paul:
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    in the US the company has all the power and your options are usually "Take it or leave it"
    Actually, you have exactly the same power. You can go to your boss and say "I will not work more than 39.6 hours per week." Or whatever your demand is. "Take it or leave it." If they take it, great. If not, what do you suppose "leave it" means? Sever the relationship. You do not have mutually agreeable terms, so why would you continue? No one is forcing you to remain.

    But force is actually what you prefer. You want to force the employer to keep paying you even though you aren't willing to provide what they want to buy at the price they want to buy it.

    Suppose your grocery store went to the government and said "I want you to force ObiWayneKenobi to keep buying $100 worth of groceries from us every week, even though we have stopped carrying the brand of diapers he prefers to wipe his nose from all his whining." After all, the store's employees are depending on you for their livelihood. We can't allow that to be threatened, can we?

    Brilliant! And then while you're sitting around without a job (and unable to find a new one) and the bills are piling up, your old boss has just handed your former responsibilities over to your former coworkers and is enjoying the bonus he'll be receiving for cutting his payroll while considering whether or not he really needs to replace you.

    There is a power imbalance here.
  • fennec 2012-10-30 16:05
    Anathos:

    Did it ever occur to you that other people might have different ideas about what constitutes a "minimal set of regulations"? Because "can't be fired for no reason or forced to work for free" sounds pretty damn minimal to me.


    I'm aware people have differing opinions, and you're entitled to your feeling of entitlement to the job which you have negotiated with your employer. I would like to demonstrate that it is not minimal. Go to a right-to-work state in the US and find a job and negotiate an employment agreement, and then say "I'd like for you to insert a clause where you're prohibited from firing me without cause, and where I can sue you for compensation and reinstatement to my position if you do." Then they'll say no, because that's actually a very big deal. QED. And then people wonder why Kansas City, Kansas has a quasifunctional economic recovery while the adjacent Kansas City, Missouri (the bigger part of the city) is still in life support.

    In fact, aside from tax rates that's probably the biggest single drag on the economy in the member states of the EU and the primary reason that youth unemployment is stuck over 20%. Of course, some places are worse than others (45% in Spain, 38% in Greece); moreover I believe I recall reading that the politically-correct diversity quotas in small-to-medium businesses in Greece essentially cost the average Greek something like ten thousand dollars a year in foregone wages...

    The US, at its best, in right-to-work states, operates on the principles of ownership and freedom. Someone owns the business and its associated property (e.g. factories) and they are free to decide whether or not to hire you or keep you working. You are free to decide whether or not to work there, or whether to work somewhere else, or stay home and grow vegetables.

    Substantially-nobody in the US is forced to work for free. You can be required to work stupid hours if you want to get additional money from your employer, certainly. But you can also just walk out the door. Of course, walking out the door is a big deal, more so when you're in a recession, and staying home and growing vegetables isn't the most attractive option... all the more reason to build a functioning economy where employers are willing to hire people. Which is the only solution that really works well in the long run.
  • Publius 2012-10-30 16:06
    Barry:
    Publius:
    I have over 300 confirmed kills... I can kill you in over seven hundred ways
    Sounds like all your training didn't include math. Either that, or over half the "ways" you think you know haven't been tested.

    Say, have you considered a tour of Pakistan? Or for that matter *.any-istan? They could use your skillz over there, and you could put some proof behind your hollow claims.


    Have you heard of combinatorial explosion? It's what my fist will do to your face, tough guy. You wanna be a tough guy? YEAH I BET YOU'RE REAL TOUGH HIDING BEHIND YOUR COMPUTER SCREEN NERD-O.

    Captcha: genitus
  • Publius 2012-10-30 16:08
    PiisAWheeL:
    Publius:
    Lawrence ignored way Frank’s expression said ‘ramming speed’, and concluded “That’s probably why they quit. Anyway, thank you for your time, today.”
    Zing! I didn't understand the article until this part, then I realized everyone has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.
    What!?


  • C-Derb 2012-10-30 16:16
    Publius:
    I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces.
    Did you mean guerrilla warfare? That would make more sense.
  • s73v3r 2012-10-30 16:17
    jay:
    Poo 'Stache:
    Well the real WTF, of course, is continuing to live in a country with no workers' rights whatsoever. If my boss tries to make me work over 37,5 hours a week I can just tell them "no"; I don't have to quit over it.


    Why do I need the government to tell me whether or not I like my job? If my boss makes unreasonable demands, I just quit. I don't have to run to some nanny government agency crying like a child.


    Because reality simply doesn't work like that. And while you might claim that you have the strength of will to say "no", not everyone has the ability to stand up to the force that the company uses against them. And not everyone can afford to be unemployed, even for a short time.

    Failing to recognize that there are other people in the world besides you, and they are in different situations shows that you have no idea what you're talking about, and your views on the situation should be completely ignored.
  • Publius 2012-10-30 16:17
    C-Derb:
    Publius:
    I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces.
    Did you mean guerrilla warfare? That would make more sense.


    NO I DID NOT SIR

  • s73v3r 2012-10-30 16:23
    fennec:
    Poo 'Stache:
    Well the real WTF, of course, is continuing to live in a country with no workers' rights whatsoever. If my boss tries to make me work over 37,5 hours a week I can just tell them "no"; I don't have to quit over it.


    On the other hand, your country's economy makes the US in its current state look *good*. Yes, this is directly related.


    The hell it is. Germany has a good economy, as does France. They both have strong worker protections. So does most of Scandinavia.

    This idea that you can either have a good economy or an environment where workers are not abused and treated like cattle is fucking retarded, and people espousing it need to die off as soon as possible, so we can get some actual progress here.
  • s73v3r 2012-10-30 16:25
    Paul:
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    in the US the company has all the power and your options are usually "Take it or leave it"
    Actually, you have exactly the same power. You can go to your boss and say "I will not work more than 39.6 hours per week." Or whatever your demand is. "Take it or leave it." If they take it, great. If not, what do you suppose "leave it" means? Sever the relationship. You do not have mutually agreeable terms, so why would you continue? No one is forcing you to remain.

    But force is actually what you prefer. You want to force the employer to keep paying you even though you aren't willing to provide what they want to buy at the price they want to buy it.

    Suppose your grocery store went to the government and said "I want you to force ObiWayneKenobi to keep buying $100 worth of groceries from us every week, even though we have stopped carrying the brand of diapers he prefers to wipe his nose from all his whining." After all, the store's employees are depending on you for their livelihood. We can't allow that to be threatened, can we?


    And you're a fucking idiot if you think the ability to leave a job is anywhere near the power a company holds over you with the threat of firing you.
  • s73v3r 2012-10-30 16:27
    fennec:
    Anathos:

    Did it ever occur to you that other people might have different ideas about what constitutes a "minimal set of regulations"? Because "can't be fired for no reason or forced to work for free" sounds pretty damn minimal to me.


    I'm aware people have differing opinions, and you're entitled to your feeling of entitlement to the job which you have negotiated with your employer. I would like to demonstrate that it is not minimal. Go to a right-to-work state in the US and find a job and negotiate an employment agreement, and then say "I'd like for you to insert a clause where you're prohibited from firing me without cause, and where I can sue you for compensation and reinstatement to my position if you do." Then they'll say no, because that's actually a very big deal. QED. And then people wonder why Kansas City, Kansas has a quasifunctional economic recovery while the adjacent Kansas City, Missouri (the bigger part of the city) is still in life support.

    In fact, aside from tax rates that's probably the biggest single drag on the economy in the member states of the EU and the primary reason that youth unemployment is stuck over 20%. Of course, some places are worse than others (45% in Spain, 38% in Greece); moreover I believe I recall reading that the politically-correct diversity quotas in small-to-medium businesses in Greece essentially cost the average Greek something like ten thousand dollars a year in foregone wages...

    The US, at its best, in right-to-work states, operates on the principles of ownership and freedom. Someone owns the business and its associated property (e.g. factories) and they are free to decide whether or not to hire you or keep you working. You are free to decide whether or not to work there, or whether to work somewhere else, or stay home and grow vegetables.

    Substantially-nobody in the US is forced to work for free. You can be required to work stupid hours if you want to get additional money from your employer, certainly. But you can also just walk out the door. Of course, walking out the door is a big deal, more so when you're in a recession, and staying home and growing vegetables isn't the most attractive option... all the more reason to build a functioning economy where employers are willing to hire people. Which is the only solution that really works well in the long run.


    Again, your drivel sounds good IN THEORY. But the fact of the matter is, it doesn't happen like that in REALITY. For the vast majority of situations, a person losing their ability to support themselves is far, far, far more debilitating that a company losing an employee.
  • Publius 2012-10-30 16:28
    s73v3r:
    Paul:
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    in the US the company has all the power and your options are usually "Take it or leave it"
    Actually, you have exactly the same power. You can go to your boss and say "I will not work more than 39.6 hours per week." Or whatever your demand is. "Take it or leave it." If they take it, great. If not, what do you suppose "leave it" means? Sever the relationship. You do not have mutually agreeable terms, so why would you continue? No one is forcing you to remain.

    But force is actually what you prefer. You want to force the employer to keep paying you even though you aren't willing to provide what they want to buy at the price they want to buy it.

    Suppose your grocery store went to the government and said "I want you to force ObiWayneKenobi to keep buying $100 worth of groceries from us every week, even though we have stopped carrying the brand of diapers he prefers to wipe his nose from all his whining." After all, the store's employees are depending on you for their livelihood. We can't allow that to be threatened, can we?


    And you're a fucking idiot if you think the ability to leave a job is anywhere near the power a company holds over you with the threat of firing you.


    Hey buddy, just thought I'd let you know that I reported this post to the police who are on the case of finding out the admin and shutting it down, I spent an hour with the internet's customer service department, and I've also emailed every major and local radio/news/media corporation today and am awaiting response. I'm more than confident that through my contacts and sources I will find your name, address and then publicly humiliate you and out you for the incredibly mentally disturb person I have seen in a long time. I hope the choice you made to make this immature post was worth the hassel your about to get. I understand you like the aggressive comments so instead I decided to be practical. I believe you are a very sad, immature person, and thus made a controversial post on the internet to get some attention and thus feel like you have a purpose. I hope you mature, find someone, and realize that your not only upsetting everyone else, but you are actually the one who is lonely and upset and needs to find some peace within thereself, otherwise you will have a very lonely time on earth my friend.
  • PedanticCurmudgeon 2012-10-30 16:34
    C-Derb:
    Publius:
    I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces.
    Did you mean guerrilla warfare? That would make more sense.
    TRWTF is expecting someone of Publius' intelligence level to spell guerrilla correctly.
  • PedanticCurmudgeon 2012-10-30 16:40
    s73v3r:
    The hell it is. Germany has a good economy, as does France. They both have strong worker protections. So does most of Scandinavia.

    This idea that you can either have a good economy or an environment where workers are not abused and treated like cattle is fucking retarded, and people espousing it need to die off as soon as possible, so we can get some actual progress here.
    Be careful what you ask for. Would you really want workers' rights to be implemented by the same politicians who brought us the latest healthcare reforms? During the run-up for it, the ads were saying correctly that half of bankruptcies were caused by medical expenses and that 75% of those had health insurance. Then the reform came out and basically consisted of making sure everyone would have health insurance. Hello!!?? It's too expensive even if you have health insurance, how about fixing that?
  • TheRider 2012-10-30 16:42
    Publius:
    s73v3r:
    Paul:
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    in the US the company has all the power and your options are usually "Take it or leave it"
    Actually, you have exactly the same power. You can go to your boss and say "I will not work more than 39.6 hours per week." Or whatever your demand is. "Take it or leave it." If they take it, great. If not, what do you suppose "leave it" means? Sever the relationship. You do not have mutually agreeable terms, so why would you continue? No one is forcing you to remain.

    But force is actually what you prefer. You want to force the employer to keep paying you even though you aren't willing to provide what they want to buy at the price they want to buy it.

    Suppose your grocery store went to the government and said "I want you to force ObiWayneKenobi to keep buying $100 worth of groceries from us every week, even though we have stopped carrying the brand of diapers he prefers to wipe his nose from all his whining." After all, the store's employees are depending on you for their livelihood. We can't allow that to be threatened, can we?


    And you're a fucking idiot if you think the ability to leave a job is anywhere near the power a company holds over you with the threat of firing you.


    Hey buddy, just thought I'd let you know that I reported this post to the police who are on the case of finding out the admin and shutting it down, I spent an hour with the internet's customer service department, and I've also emailed every major and local radio/news/media corporation today and am awaiting response. I'm more than confident that through my contacts and sources I will find your name, address and then publicly humiliate you and out you for the incredibly mentally disturb person I have seen in a long time. I hope the choice you made to make this immature post was worth the hassel your about to get. I understand you like the aggressive comments so instead I decided to be practical. I believe you are a very sad, immature person, and thus made a controversial post on the internet to get some attention and thus feel like you have a purpose. I hope you mature, find someone, and realize that your not only upsetting everyone else, but you are actually the one who is lonely and upset and needs to find some peace within thereself, otherwise you will have a very lonely time on earth my friend.
    Well, that escalated quickly. WTF is wrong with you?!?
  • Zylon 2012-10-30 16:43
    PedanticCurmudgeon:
    TRWTF is expecting someone of Publius' intelligence level to spell guerrilla correctly.

    Troll. You idiots are feeding it.
  • Publius 2012-10-30 16:51
    PedanticCurmudgeon:
    C-Derb:
    Publius:
    I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces.
    Did you mean guerrilla warfare? That would make more sense.
    TRWTF is expecting someone of Publius' intelligence level to spell guerrilla correctly.


    Do I look bothered? Woke up this morning 5:30 sharp with a blowjob from two bitches, one was trying to fit my humongous 3 pound balls in her mouth while the other was choking halfway on my 18 and 3\8 inch dick. Must have came about a quart of sperm. They wanted more, cockslapped them unconcious, I had to hit the gym. Frontflipped from my 14th floor loft into my valet parked 2012 Ferrari (I got connexions) and gave the valet 3000$ in loose change. Pushed my shit to about 4 hundo (mph, mind you) and I was at the gym in no time. When I entered, the room scent suddently changed from sweat to wet pussy. That;s just the effect I have on hoes. Did my usual relax routine, 6000 push-ups, 8500 crunches, bench pressed 30 plates, etc. etc. you know the drill. After doing my shit in 16 minutes, my super strong senses got in action, I was smelling pussy. I looked up, and sure enough this fly honey was coming towards me. When i say fly, I mean that bitch was fine as a fucking umbrella. 18 years old, 44DD titties on a tight fucking frame. I mean a real skinny bitch, the type you losers jack off to, she didnt weigh more than 5 pounds. Took out my trouser monster and she started to squirt hard, she was convulsing and having 6 orgasms at the same time. Then I gave it to her while all the guys were giving me high fives and all the hoes were on the floor squirting like motherfucking fountains. Made the slut beg for my cum, but I didnt give it to her to prove a point, I still came but only compressed air came out, imagine your best orgasm, then multiply it by 35. Didnt say nothing, hopped back in the Lambo and went back home. Now I'm sitting here, drinking 15 000$ champagne and eating gold plated sushis made by the 2 bitches from earlier. Its only 6:30 and I did more in 1 hour than you faggots will do your whole life. Enjoy jacking off to stupid code snippets.

    Peace out nerds.
  • da Doctah 2012-10-30 16:53
    C-Derb:
    Publius:
    I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces.
    Did you mean guerrilla warfare? That would make more sense.
    I've seen gorilla warfare on the Discovery Channel. It mostly consists of flinging poop at one another.
  • AtWorkWithNoWork 2012-10-30 17:05
    It's always funny to see people take copypasta seriously. Publius' post is one transplanted from many years and many forums away, usually posted to highlight the absurdity of someone posing as an internet tough guy in an internet slapfight over some stupid political/religious discussion.

    Some people didn't understand the "has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like" reference either.

    These memes are treasured nuggets of internet culture. It's so strange that so many IT folk are unaware of that culture.
  • TGV 2012-10-30 17:08
    Publius:
    I am trained in gorilla warfare

    War on gorillas is far too easy with modern weaponry. They can't defend themselves against that. If you want something more challenging, try guerillas: they're tougher than the US Navy.
  • TGV 2012-10-30 17:14
    AtWorkWithNoWork:
    These memes are treasured nuggets of internet culture.
    A nugget is usually associated with something of value.
    It's so strange that so many IT folk are unaware of that culture.
    That's because so many IT folk didn't waste the last 10 years smoking dope and giggling at adolescent incrowd jokes out on 4chan.
  • Publius 2012-10-30 17:17
    TGV:
    AtWorkWithNoWork:
    These memes are treasured niglets of internet culture.
    A niglet is usually associated with something of value.
    It's so strange that so many IT folk are unaware of that culture.
    That's because so many IT folk didn't waste the last 10 years smoking dope and giggling at adolescent incrowd jokes out on 4chan.


    Ok really? You think you can just freely say the n word without thinking about how others feel about it? What the hell is wrong with you? It may be the internet, but that doesnt mean you should take on the liberty of acting like a total asshole.

    Why don't you ever consider acting normal towards people of different races? You are very disrespectful and I find this very distasteful. You should get off your computer and stand in a corner for five minutes to think about what you have just done.

    This goes for the rest of you assholes thinking that you can just throw the n word like that so freely. And honestly, I don't care if you're gonna start calling me the n word too. It will just prove my point that you are all just a bunch of selfish, racist, flaming pigs. Seriously, people these days need to act more mature for once instead of believing that they can say or do anything they want, whether or not it pisses other people off.
  • neminem 2012-10-30 17:25
    TGV:
    A nugget is usually associated with something of value.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=butt%20nugget

    Akismet thought that link was spam, cause spammers are linking to urbandictionary all the time, apparently. (Bet it doesn't anymore, though.)
  • Publius 2012-10-30 17:28
    TGV:
    If you want something more challenging, try guerillas: they're tougher than the US Navy.


    Let me translate this from retardspeak into stupidspeak: A-H'YUCK H'YUCK H'YUCK Y'ALL AIN'T EVEN TROLLED ME, WHADDYA SOME KIND OF PREPUBSESCENT??? LOLING ON THE INTERNET COME ON SOME OF US HAVE JERGBBS TO DO, AKA WORKY-WORK, AKA MONEYS (HENCEFORTH WHENCE COMETH WHY WE ARE HERE INSTEAD OF ENTERING OUR TIME INTO SAP).
  • Publius 2012-10-30 17:36
    Publius:
    TGV:
    If you want something more challenging, try guerillas: they're tougher than the US Navy.


    Let me translate this from retardspeak into stupidspeak: A-H'YUCK H'YUCK H'YUCK Y'ALL AIN'T EVEN TROLLED ME, WHADDYA SOME KIND OF PREPUBSESCENT??? LOLING ON THE INTERNET COME ON SOME OF US HAVE JERGBBS TO DO, AKA WORKY-WORK, AKA MONEYS (HENCEFORTH WHENCE COMETH WHY WE ARE HERE INSTEAD OF ENTERING OUR TIME INTO SAP).
    I am a total tool. I've totally gone over the line many times today. I apologize. I'm kinda high, and really drunk.
  • TGV 2012-10-30 17:40
    Publius:
    Publius:
    TGV:
    If you want something more challenging, try guerillas: they're tougher than the US Navy.


    Let me translate this from retardspeak into stupidspeak: A-H'YUCK H'YUCK H'YUCK Y'ALL AIN'T EVEN TROLLED ME, WHADDYA SOME KIND OF PREPUBSESCENT??? LOLING ON THE INTERNET COME ON SOME OF US HAVE JERGBBS TO DO, AKA WORKY-WORK, AKA MONEYS (HENCEFORTH WHENCE COMETH WHY WE ARE HERE INSTEAD OF ENTERING OUR TIME INTO SAP).
    I am a total tool. I've totally gone over the line many times today. I apologize. I'm kinda high, and really drunk.


    hehehe lolol its okay i hate any kind of drinkings or alchohol or mariwanna needles bc i hate fun but u seem like a pretty cool dude.... i no we just met but i rele liek to put mens peepees in my mouth............d o you think i could drink ur peepee? i aldo like wen old men tak a dump on my chesst..... am i makeing u hot yet??
  • Publius 2012-10-30 17:42
    TGV:
    Publius:
    Publius:
    TGV:
    If you want something more challenging, try guerillas: they're tougher than the US Navy.


    Let me translate this from retardspeak into stupidspeak: A-H'YUCK H'YUCK H'YUCK Y'ALL AIN'T EVEN TROLLED ME, WHADDYA SOME KIND OF PREPUBSESCENT??? LOLING ON THE INTERNET COME ON SOME OF US HAVE JERGBBS TO DO, AKA WORKY-WORK, AKA MONEYS (HENCEFORTH WHENCE COMETH WHY WE ARE HERE INSTEAD OF ENTERING OUR TIME INTO SAP).
    I am a total tool. I've totally gone over the line many times today. I apologize. I'm kinda high, and really drunk.


    hehehe lolol its okay i hate any kind of drinkings or alchohol or mariwanna needles bc i hate fun but u seem like a pretty cool dude.... i no we just met but i rele liek to put mens peepees in my mouth............d o you think i could drink ur peepee? i aldo like wen old men tak a dump on my chesst..... am i makeing u hot yet??


    Heh, that's okay man, thanks for appreciating my art. I almost feel bad for saying
  • Matt Westwood 2012-10-30 17:46
    Publius:
    What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.


    Wow! Fuck me rigid! Brilliant! Can I borrow your style? Mine is getting a bit limp. I love you and I want you to bear my offspring.
  • James 2012-10-30 17:50
    Yeah, quitting an abusive job could never hurt your employer, they are just soooo powerful and you are totally helpless and impotent, that's why we never hear stories about how people got mad and left and taught the jerks a lesson... hey wait! What was today's WTF about again? Oh that's right, gorilla warfare.
  • Publius 2012-10-30 17:56
    Matt Westwood:

    Wow! Fuck me rigid! Brilliant! Can I borrow your style? Mine is getting a bit limp. I love you and I want you to bear my offspring.
    Dude, don't say stuff like that. I'm just a looser with no job who likes to troll a few web sites. People should really just ignore everything I post.
  • silent bob 2012-10-30 18:21
    This phenomena is particularly obnoxious when the (highly compensated) exec/partner/etc always arrives at 9:30 and leaves at 3:30 to get to his scheduled tee time. This guy will usually demand 16 hour days from the (very underpaid) worker bees and, of course, the exec's plan succeeds or the workers execution fails.
  • Herp 2012-10-30 18:24
    s73v3r:

    Again, your drivel sounds good IN THEORY. But the fact of the matter is, it doesn't happen like that in REALITY. For the vast majority of situations, a person losing their ability to support themselves is far, far, far more debilitating that a company losing an employee.


    Would like to politely point out that there are companies who go through a great deal of trouble to make sure that people don't get fired for stupid reasons. As these companies grow (because it's harder to fire people), it becomes increasingly difficult to process terminations, and more exceptions occur that create more regulation on firing policies. In worst cases, such companies wind up with a ton of shit, parasite employees that they can't get rid of. This, I would argue, is very counter productive for the company because they gain a reputation of hiring a bunch of losers, and it's not as productive as other companies who strategically (as in correctly and appropriately) fire non-performers when necessary.

    I would say that the capacity to fire people at will is a very helpful tool for both sides. But like many things, it can very easily be abused.
  • Herp 2012-10-30 18:24
    Correction: The capacity to sever employment terms at will is a very useful tool for both sides.
  • Jazz 2012-10-30 18:41
    jay:
    Poo 'Stache:
    Well the real WTF, of course, is continuing to live in a country with no workers' rights whatsoever. If my boss tries to make me work over 37,5 hours a week I can just tell them "no"; I don't have to quit over it.


    Why do I need the government to tell me whether or not I like my job? If my boss makes unreasonable demands, I just quit. I don't have to run to some nanny government agency crying like a child.


    Uh. Where did Stache say that he had to run to a nanny government agency? And where did he say that he needs the government to tell him when he's working too much? You seem to be putting a lot of words in his mouth in the name of "small government."

    In his country there's a predefined upper limit on the number of hours his boss can ask him to work. That limit was set once by the government and, after that point, the government isn't involved. If his boss asks him for more hours, he just says "no." The government doesn't come in and verify that his boss asked him for more than the limit; he doesn't have to go to a government agency to get them to say no to his boss for him. He just... says no, and gets to keep his job, and his boss can either deal with it or hire more people.

    Are you people really so afraid of big government that you see it even where it doesn't exist? Sad.
  • Franz Kafka 2012-10-30 18:41
    fennec:
    [
    The US, at its best, in right-to-work states, operates on the principles of ownership and freedom. Someone owns the business and its associated property (e.g. factories) and they are free to decide whether or not to hire you or keep you working. You are free to decide whether or not to work there, or whether to work somewhere else, or stay home and grow vegetables.

    Substantially-nobody in the US is forced to work for free. You can be required to work stupid hours if you want to get additional money from your employer, certainly. But you can also just walk out the door. Of course, walking out the door is a big deal, more so when you're in a recession, and staying home and growing vegetables isn't the most attractive option... all the more reason to build a functioning economy where employers are willing to hire people. Which is the only solution that really works well in the long run.


    heh, you sound young.

    * in right to work states, it's generally a case of do what I say or find something else. There's very little wiggle room when you know your boss can just shitcan you for fun.
    * lots of people work for free because the alternative is to find another job that's about the same. And your current job will say you're a no-rehire, screwing you twice.
  • Franz Kafka 2012-10-30 18:42
    Herp:
    Correction: The capacity to sever employment terms at will is a very useful tool for both sides.


    Mostly for the employer, who typically doesn't give notice. A mutual required notice period would be really nice, as would health care not tied to employement.
  • John 2012-10-30 19:09
    PROTIP: Never, ever, ever make a joke about the place you're interviewing at.
  • Laurie 2012-10-30 19:18
    Publius:
    Lawrence ignored way Frank’s expression said ‘ramming speed’, and concluded “That’s probably why they quit. Anyway, thank you for your time, today.”

    Zing! I didn't understand the article until this part, then I realized everyone has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.
    Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo....

  • chubertdev 2012-10-30 19:21
    John:
    PROTIP: Never, ever, ever make a joke about the place you're interviewing at.


    Never burn bridges. The bat**** insane CFO at the company that you'd never work for may play golf with the CFO of the company that will offer you your dream job.
  • Laurie 2012-10-30 19:21
    zelmak:
    Bitter Like Quinine:
    I was recently handed a company laptop and told to provide out-of-hours cover to the current death march. When I pointed out that I had my own (better) machines at home, I was told that the company doesn't allow "foreign" hardware to connect to their network.

    My answer was, "Neither do I."


    +1 must remember
    I don't get it. You don't allow foreign hardware to connect to their network either? That sounds like a win/win - both of you agree that you'll only use their hardware.
  • Freddie 2012-10-30 19:33
    Publius:
    What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.
    Scary man.

    So what's gorilla warfare and how long did you fight with monkeys?
    Oh, and touchy too.

    Incidentally, I'll save you some effort, I'm sitting at bust stop 39 Commercial Road, Port Adelaide just out the front of KFC. Please advise how long I have to wait for this shitstorm.

    Cheers,

    Freddie
  • Silas 2012-10-30 19:39
    Anathos:
    Paul:
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    in the US the company has all the power and your options are usually "Take it or leave it"
    Actually, you have exactly the same power. You can go to your boss and say "I will not work more than 39.6 hours per week." Or whatever your demand is. "Take it or leave it." If they take it, great. If not, what do you suppose "leave it" means? Sever the relationship. You do not have mutually agreeable terms, so why would you continue? No one is forcing you to remain.

    But force is actually what you prefer. You want to force the employer to keep paying you even though you aren't willing to provide what they want to buy at the price they want to buy it.

    Suppose your grocery store went to the government and said "I want you to force ObiWayneKenobi to keep buying $100 worth of groceries from us every week, even though we have stopped carrying the brand of diapers he prefers to wipe his nose from all his whining." After all, the store's employees are depending on you for their livelihood. We can't allow that to be threatened, can we?

    Brilliant! And then while you're sitting around without a job (and unable to find a new one) and the bills are piling up, your old boss has just handed your former responsibilities over to your former coworkers and is enjoying the bonus he'll be receiving for cutting his payroll while considering whether or not he really needs to replace you.

    There is a power imbalance here.
    The world is full of imbalance. get used to it.

    The employer wants a job done, and is prepared to offer a particular amount of money to get that done. If you don't like it don't go there - sure someone else will and he'll get away with it, but that's life.

    At the end of the day, the choice is ENTIRELY with you.
    1) Do you want a job
    2) how picky you are about what you want to do
    3) how capable you are of doing the sort of jobs you want
    4) how much you expect from such a role
    etc....

    If you're not able to get the job of your dreams, you either settle for less, or you re-assess your criteria.

    I'm always astounded by the "I have a right to get the job I want at the rate I want, even if it offers no value to my employer". Sometimes pay is crap or hours are long because that's the nature of the industry. Sometimes it's because the boss is an asshole. In either case, you have to decide whether you're happy putting up with it or not, and make the call on your future. It is entirely your decision to make.
  • John 2012-10-30 19:41
    Publius:
    Barry:
    Publius:
    I have over 300 confirmed kills... I can kill you in over seven hundred ways
    Sounds like all your training didn't include math. Either that, or over half the "ways" you think you know haven't been tested.

    Say, have you considered a tour of Pakistan? Or for that matter *.any-istan? They could use your skillz over there, and you could put some proof behind your hollow claims.


    Have you heard of combinatorial explosion? It's what my fist will do to your face, tough guy. You wanna be a tough guy? YEAH I BET YOU'RE REAL TOUGH HIDING BEHIND YOUR COMPUTER SCREEN NERD-O.

    Captcha: genitus
    Pot - meet kettle.
  • Rhywden 2012-10-30 19:47
    Silas:
    It is entirely your decision to make.


    What decision? The decision to work myself to death or starve?

    Granted, it's an exaggeration but this "decision" is really not as easy as you make it out to be. You make it sound like good jobs lie around on the street, just waiting for you.
  • Andrei Rinea 2012-10-30 19:53
    Come to the United States of America, they said. The job will be good, they said.
  • Herp 2012-10-30 20:00
    Hm, depends on what the employee is being fired for. Certain issues, such as illegal activity, theft, assault, or leaking of confidential information, constitute immediate termination. But for things like "we're not satisfied with your performance," absolutely should get advance notice.
  • Silas 2012-10-30 20:04
    Rhywden:
    Silas:
    It is entirely your decision to make.


    What decision? The decision to work myself to death or starve?

    Granted, it's an exaggeration but this "decision" is really not as easy as you make it out to be. You make it sound like good jobs lie around on the street, just waiting for you.
    Not at all.

    I never said it's an easy decision, but it is a decision.

    My point was more to point out that when you think your job is crap, you can either accept it or move on. Sometimes moving on might mean going to a shit job in a factory or as a kitchen hand or as a garbage collector while you look for work in your chosen field. Not every job is perfect (in fact probably no job is perfect), but it's up to the individual to weigh up satisfaction, reward (salary) etc against their own needs (to make a living, stay sane etc) and decide whether to stay in the job or not.
    Government intervention (or regulation) does not necessarily fix the problem. If employers are forced to pay more, they may hire fewer people - so you may not have a job anyway. If you don't like your work, always be looking elsewhere - you don't have to walk out saying "shove it up your arse" in the heat of the moment, but it's a cop-out to be blaming the government or your employer for conditions you;re not happy with - look elsewhere, and if you have an appropriate skillset (and most people find they do for something) you might eventually find a job that's less bad.

    We all whinge about our work, but I know if I was in the position where I was complaining to the point a lot of people here seem to be, I'd be at least sending out daily resume's and possibly even rethinking the type of work I do...

    I have never (and will never) understand people who think every issue in their life is because someone else is a meanie. At some point, we all have to accept the WE control OUR OWN destiny.
  • Jim 2012-10-30 20:07
    Herp:
    Hm, depends on what the employee is being fired for. Certain issues, such as illegal activity, theft, assault, or leaking of confidential information, constitute immediate termination. But for things like "we're not satisfied with your performance," absolutely should get advance notice.
    You would hope that someone is made aware they are underperforming before they are fired, although I would sort of expect that someone would sort of work out when they're not performing. Of course, when your salary is based on the lies you told in your resume, it's possible that you don't realise the boss expects you to work at the level implied by your resume' experience, not your actual competency level.
  • Anathos 2012-10-30 20:12
    Silas:
    Rhywden:
    Silas:
    It is entirely your decision to make.


    What decision? The decision to work myself to death or starve?

    Granted, it's an exaggeration but this "decision" is really not as easy as you make it out to be. You make it sound like good jobs lie around on the street, just waiting for you.
    Not at all.

    I never said it's an easy decision, but it is a decision.

    My point was more to point out that when you think your job is crap, you can either accept it or move on. Sometimes moving on might mean going to a shit job in a factory or as a kitchen hand or as a garbage collector while you look for work in your chosen field. Not every job is perfect (in fact probably no job is perfect), but it's up to the individual to weigh up satisfaction, reward (salary) etc against their own needs (to make a living, stay sane etc) and decide whether to stay in the job or not.
    Government intervention (or regulation) does not necessarily fix the problem. If employers are forced to pay more, they may hire fewer people - so you may not have a job anyway. If you don't like your work, always be looking elsewhere - you don't have to walk out saying "shove it up your arse" in the heat of the moment, but it's a cop-out to be blaming the government or your employer for conditions you;re not happy with - look elsewhere, and if you have an appropriate skillset (and most people find they do for something) you might eventually find a job that's less bad.

    We all whinge about our work, but I know if I was in the position where I was complaining to the point a lot of people here seem to be, I'd be at least sending out daily resume's and possibly even rethinking the type of work I do...

    I have never (and will never) understand people who think every issue in their life is because someone else is a meanie. At some point, we all have to accept the WE control OUR OWN destiny.

    Just over a century ago it was standard for small children to work in factories where they lost fingers and even limbs while working ridiculously long days. It took government intervention to put an end to that.

    Seriously, without the government breathing down the neck of industry we'd still be dealing with that sort of shit. Don't sell government regulation short.
  • ruggerio 2012-10-30 20:14
    Jim:
    Herp:
    Hm, depends on what the employee is being fired for. Certain issues, such as illegal activity, theft, assault, or leaking of confidential information, constitute immediate termination. But for things like "we're not satisfied with your performance," absolutely should get advance notice.
    You would hope that someone is made aware they are underperforming before they are fired, although I would sort of expect that someone would sort of work out when they're not performing. Of course, when your salary is based on the lies you told in your resume, it's possible that you don't realise the boss expects you to work at the level implied by your resume' experience, not your actual competency level.
    Why? Why? Why do people need notice?

    It's probably polite to give notice, and it would probably be wise to counsel employees the moment underperformance is noticed and only sack them if they show consistent underperformance, but why should this be a requirement?

    AS you yourself point out - if I hire someone who claims they can excel, and then they don't then they are probably costing me money (because I pay them to excel as they claimed they could).

    I suspect a lot of people whinge because they feel the Giants of the world screw the employee (as well they might) but they need to remember that the employer might equally be a small firm that's struggling. If I pay you big bucks, then I expect big performance - and that would hoepfully be clear from the time you are interviewed to the time you leave (whether on your terms, our terms or mutual terms). Ultimately, you are paid to perform a job that you have claimed to be capable of. If you are struggling with this, we need to know (because we may have misrepresented the job). Otherwise, we will assume any performance below expectation is because you simply weren't adequately qualified for the job we pay you for. As a multi-national we might be able to absorb the cost of giving a chance to improve performance (potentially at a reduced pay), or we might feel we cannot afford to maintain your services because they weren't at the level we understood to have agreed at....
  • Rhywden 2012-10-30 20:17
    Silas:
    Rhywden:
    Silas:
    It is entirely your decision to make.


    What decision? The decision to work myself to death or starve?

    Granted, it's an exaggeration but this "decision" is really not as easy as you make it out to be. You make it sound like good jobs lie around on the street, just waiting for you.
    Not at all.

    I never said it's an easy decision, but it is a decision.

    My point was more to point out that when you think your job is crap, you can either accept it or move on. Sometimes moving on might mean going to a shit job in a factory or as a kitchen hand or as a garbage collector while you look for work in your chosen field. Not every job is perfect (in fact probably no job is perfect), but it's up to the individual to weigh up satisfaction, reward (salary) etc against their own needs (to make a living, stay sane etc) and decide whether to stay in the job or not.
    Government intervention (or regulation) does not necessarily fix the problem. If employers are forced to pay more, they may hire fewer people - so you may not have a job anyway. If you don't like your work, always be looking elsewhere - you don't have to walk out saying "shove it up your arse" in the heat of the moment, but it's a cop-out to be blaming the government or your employer for conditions you;re not happy with - look elsewhere, and if you have an appropriate skillset (and most people find they do for something) you might eventually find a job that's less bad.

    We all whinge about our work, but I know if I was in the position where I was complaining to the point a lot of people here seem to be, I'd be at least sending out daily resume's and possibly even rethinking the type of work I do...

    I have never (and will never) understand people who think every issue in their life is because someone else is a meanie. At some point, we all have to accept the WE control OUR OWN destiny.


    Right. You actually suggest getting work as a kitchen helper. That's funny, considering that such low-skill jobs might also not be as plentiful as you make them out to be.

    I take it you don't have a family, don't have downpayments on a house and a car, and generally don't have _any_ such longterm investments?

    Simply uproot everything in the _hopes_ that the new job _might_ be better?

    If you're single and no one depends on you, it's a rather easy decision. As soon as you're not alone anymore, that's not quite so simple.

    And you don't control your own destiny. That's an illusion. As I said: Family. Just one example how suddenly your grand freedom is subject to quite a lot of factors outside your control.

    For example, due to your shitty healthcare system - do you really want to quit your job (and thus lose the company-provided healthcare or lose the ability to pay your own health care or ...) when your child is seriously sick, maybe even long-term?
    Just one example, where suddenly your "freedom" is not such a grandiose thing.
  • Silas 2012-10-30 20:26
    Anathos:
    Silas:
    Rhywden:
    Silas:
    It is entirely your decision to make.


    What decision? The decision to work myself to death or starve?

    Granted, it's an exaggeration but this "decision" is really not as easy as you make it out to be. You make it sound like good jobs lie around on the street, just waiting for you.
    Not at all.

    I never said it's an easy decision, but it is a decision.

    My point was more to point out that when you think your job is crap, you can either accept it or move on. Sometimes moving on might mean going to a shit job in a factory or as a kitchen hand or as a garbage collector while you look for work in your chosen field. Not every job is perfect (in fact probably no job is perfect), but it's up to the individual to weigh up satisfaction, reward (salary) etc against their own needs (to make a living, stay sane etc) and decide whether to stay in the job or not.
    Government intervention (or regulation) does not necessarily fix the problem. If employers are forced to pay more, they may hire fewer people - so you may not have a job anyway. If you don't like your work, always be looking elsewhere - you don't have to walk out saying "shove it up your arse" in the heat of the moment, but it's a cop-out to be blaming the government or your employer for conditions you;re not happy with - look elsewhere, and if you have an appropriate skillset (and most people find they do for something) you might eventually find a job that's less bad.

    We all whinge about our work, but I know if I was in the position where I was complaining to the point a lot of people here seem to be, I'd be at least sending out daily resume's and possibly even rethinking the type of work I do...

    I have never (and will never) understand people who think every issue in their life is because someone else is a meanie. At some point, we all have to accept the WE control OUR OWN destiny.

    Just over a century ago it was standard for small children to work in factories where they lost fingers and even limbs while working ridiculously long days. It took government intervention to put an end to that.

    Seriously, without the government breathing down the neck of industry we'd still be dealing with that sort of shit. Don't sell government regulation short.
    Ok, so you have found an example where some intervention helped. I never said government should never jump in.

    As with everything there is a time and a place for it. I'll also add that I think Government involvement is important to avoid monopolies and to get rid of colluding that allows large companies to drive market value down by agreeing on how they compete (eg: A and B get together and agree they can both save money by paying engineers less, and because of their size, the savings they make make it impossible for the smaller C to compete without also cutting wages).

    That said, the "I hate my job because my employer screws me" is not immediately a reason for intervention. If it irks you so much, move on to other work (and other types of work). If you REALLY feel strongly about it, campaign your local politician (and good luck with that). But just because a few people feel like they're getting screwed, doesn't mean the entire world is half as fucked as they claim.

    I have worked with many people who have complained about how outrageous their conditions are, and all too often the bottom line is that they're struggling to stay afloat, or their skills are a massive mismatch against what the job requires. This is not the employers fault, and the employer should not be punished by being forced to pay a higher premium to retain their services. I remember a bus driver who complained his bosses were always hassling him. Turns out he always ran late (on routes others didn't); had some hygiene issues (well, sort of - pick your nose and eat it in front of the passengers); and had a high number of complaints from the general public. Eventually he was let go, and he caused enormous stink, but everyone seemed to forget the company had a contract to deliver a service, and he was retarding their ability to successfully fulfill their contractual obligation (and perhaps tarnishing the companies professional reputation at the same time). Ultimately, I think it would have been unfair if the comapny were not allowed to fire him.
  • Silas 2012-10-30 20:38
    Rhywden:
    Silas:
    Rhywden:
    Silas:
    It is entirely your decision to make.


    What decision? The decision to work myself to death or starve?

    Granted, it's an exaggeration but this "decision" is really not as easy as you make it out to be. You make it sound like good jobs lie around on the street, just waiting for you.
    Not at all.

    I never said it's an easy decision, but it is a decision.

    My point was more to point out that when you think your job is crap, you can either accept it or move on. Sometimes moving on might mean going to a shit job in a factory or as a kitchen hand or as a garbage collector while you look for work in your chosen field. Not every job is perfect (in fact probably no job is perfect), but it's up to the individual to weigh up satisfaction, reward (salary) etc against their own needs (to make a living, stay sane etc) and decide whether to stay in the job or not.
    Government intervention (or regulation) does not necessarily fix the problem. If employers are forced to pay more, they may hire fewer people - so you may not have a job anyway. If you don't like your work, always be looking elsewhere - you don't have to walk out saying "shove it up your arse" in the heat of the moment, but it's a cop-out to be blaming the government or your employer for conditions you;re not happy with - look elsewhere, and if you have an appropriate skillset (and most people find they do for something) you might eventually find a job that's less bad.

    We all whinge about our work, but I know if I was in the position where I was complaining to the point a lot of people here seem to be, I'd be at least sending out daily resume's and possibly even rethinking the type of work I do...

    I have never (and will never) understand people who think every issue in their life is because someone else is a meanie. At some point, we all have to accept the WE control OUR OWN destiny.


    Right. You actually suggest getting work as a kitchen helper. That's funny, considering that such low-skill jobs might also not be as plentiful as you make them out to be.

    I take it you don't have a family, don't have downpayments on a house and a car, and generally don't have _any_ such longterm investments?

    Simply uproot everything in the _hopes_ that the new job _might_ be better?

    If you're single and no one depends on you, it's a rather easy decision. As soon as you're not alone anymore, that's not quite so simple.

    And you don't control your own destiny. That's an illusion. As I said: Family. Just one example how suddenly your grand freedom is subject to quite a lot of factors outside your control.

    For example, due to your shitty healthcare system - do you really want to quit your job (and thus lose the company-provided healthcare or lose the ability to pay your own health care or ...) when your child is seriously sick, maybe even long-term?
    Just one example, where suddenly your "freedom" is not such a grandiose thing.
    On the contrary:
    1) I have worked a plethora of jobs in a large variety of industries (and in this neck of the wood, there's always work for dishlickers - which I'll admit might be a step below kitchenhands)
    2) I have 3 kids, and am paying off both a house and a car (and have diddly-squat in savings)

    I have twice now tried to emphasise look for work while you are still employed not uproot everything - but perhaps I've not bee clear enough. I understand the importance of a continual income, but if conditions really are impossible, then at the very least you'd be sending off some resumes.

    I'll let you not control your destiny if you so choose. There are (without a doubt) factors that affect you that you have no control over, but how you react to them will affect how they turn out. Granted you can't control 100% how things will turn out - or plan with any certainty how certain things turn out, but you can certainly maximise the chances of things going the way you want. Want a new job? You won't get one without putting the effort into writing and sending resume's. etc.

    I don't really know much about the Health Care system, other than I have (personally paid for) private health cover (and I'm not sure what that gets me - every time I've been to the doctor, the Governemnt has paid most of it and I contribute $20-$50). I'm vaguely aware other countries have more complex systems.

    I simply don't really see the doom and gloom picture being created. Rather it sounds like you're upset about your current work, but not really looking into doing anything about it....
  • Will 2012-10-30 22:06
    silent bob:
    This phenomena is particularly obnoxious when the (highly compensated) exec/partner/etc always arrives at 9:30 and leaves at 3:30 to get to his scheduled tee time. This guy will usually demand 16 hour days from the (very underpaid) worker bees and, of course, the exec's plan succeeds or the workers execution fails.
    Wow! Sounds like a sweet life! If it is that easy, why don't you do it instead of bitching all the time? Just go start your own company, pay yourself megabucks, and recruit a bunch of slaves to do all the real work.
  • Cheong 2012-10-30 22:11
    Hughlander:
    Marches imply a destination. This is more of a death treadmill.

    Well said.
  • Paul 2012-10-30 22:12
    Jazz:
    In his country run by a government there's a predefined upper limit set by the government on the number of hours his boss can ask him to work. That limit was set once by the government (see?) and, after that point, the government isn't involved (say what?!) If his boss asks him for more hours, he just says "no." The government doesn't come in and verify that his boss asked him for more than the limit; he doesn't have to go to a government agency to get them to say no to his boss for him. He just... says no, and gets to keep his job, and his boss can either deal with it or hire more people.

    Are you people really so afraid of big government that you see it even where it doesn't exist? Sad.
    So when the boss tells him to work more hours, and he says no, and the boss fires him, the government doesn't do anything about that? How is it that he magically "gets to keep his job" without any intervention?

    Are you people really so enamored of big government that you don't see it even where it dominates and controls every facet of your life? Sad.
  • Anathos 2012-10-30 22:15
    That's the way most laws work: the only time the government gets involved is when someone breaks them.
  • Jeff 2012-10-30 22:17
    Franz Kafka:
    in right to work states, it's generally a case of do what I say or find something else. There's very little wiggle room when you know your boss can just shitcan you for fun.
    And why does a boss who likes to shitcan people "for fun" spend his good money to hire people in the first place? Just so he can torture them later? Do you really believe such a fucked-up asshole can waste enough money for one or more full time salaries and still outperform his competitors who are treating their employees with respect?

    Or maybe an employer needs some help running the business, in which case he can't fire people without hurting his business, unless of course they are lazy slackoff bitchy jerks who aren't doing any useful work.
  • Adanine 2012-10-30 22:25
    There's a lot of debate about government intervention in job rights...

    I understand a lot of people don't want it. It's not where government belongs, and it can seriously damage many things, to both people and co-operations.

    A lot of people are argueing that it's useless aswell. Anyone who is feeling mistreated or abused should just talk to their boss about it. I completely understand and agree.

    The problem is that you [Opposer of Government intervention] are not everyone. Some people have issue with doing this. Some people (Ie, Sandy, in this case) have a sense of Loyalty or Fear that prevents them from comfortably doing so. No doubt Sandy tried, but probably gave up very soon in the conversation, and surrendered back to her desk. I've certainly done this before aswell.

    The purpose of Government is to serve everyone that is covered by that government. You may not need help in this case, and it may even affect you negatively, but all Government tries to do is create equal ground to all people. You may classify Sandy's lack-of-boldness as a weakness, but that's off-topic. In all honesty, how many people do/did you know were being exploited by companies because of lack of knowlledge? My first developer job was full time, with a ton of unpaid overtime, netting me less then 35k a year. I was too dumb to know that I was being exploited. Again, maybe you can make the arguement that I should have done more research, but many people (Especially at the age I was) are not as forward-thinking like that.

    The argument I'm trying to make, is that Government may have a place in Business rights, but to what extent, and is it worth it? Better yet, will it actually affect you?
  • Fred 2012-10-30 22:25
    Rhywden:
    You make it sound like good jobs lie around on the street, just waiting for you.
    One of the following must be true:

    1. There are good jobs lying around on the street just waiting for talented people like you. (The supply of jobs exceeds the supply of valuable workers.)
    --or--
    2. There are talented people lying around on the street just waiting for someone to make a healthy profit on those talents. (The supply of valuable workers exceeds the number of people who know how to monetize that value.)

    If you believe the economy is currently in state 2, the only sane thing for you to do is start a company to employ this glut of skilled underpriced workers.

    I guess there might be a couple other possibilities:

    3. You aren't as talented and valuable as you think you are.
    4. You aren't smart enough to figure out how to extract value from skilled underpriced workers. So maybe you should go kiss the toes of the nearest person who is, and thank them for providing jobs for losers like you.
  • Carl 2012-10-30 22:29
    Rhywden:
    I take it you don't have a family, don't have downpayments on a house and a car, and generally don't have _any_ such longterm investments?

    ... As soon as you're not alone anymore, that's not quite so simple.

    And you don't control your own destiny. That's an illusion. As I said: Family. Just one example how suddenly your grand freedom is subject to quite a lot of factors outside your control.
    Did this family come up and hijack you one day, perhaps with an assault rifle? Or was this a choice you made, even though you knew you couldn't afford it?
  • Herp 2012-10-30 22:54
    ruggerio:
    Why? Why? Why do people need notice?

    It's probably polite to give notice, and it would probably be wise to counsel employees the moment underperformance is noticed and only sack them if they show consistent underperformance, but why should this be a requirement?

    AS you yourself point out - if I hire someone who claims they can excel, and then they don't then they are probably costing me money (because I pay them to excel as they claimed they could).

    I suspect a lot of people whinge because they feel the Giants of the world screw the employee (as well they might) but they need to remember that the employer might equally be a small firm that's struggling. If I pay you big bucks, then I expect big performance - and that would hoepfully be clear from the time you are interviewed to the time you leave (whether on your terms, our terms or mutual terms). Ultimately, you are paid to perform a job that you have claimed to be capable of. If you are struggling with this, we need to know (because we may have misrepresented the job). Otherwise, we will assume any performance below expectation is because you simply weren't adequately qualified for the job we pay you for. As a multi-national we might be able to absorb the cost of giving a chance to improve performance (potentially at a reduced pay), or we might feel we cannot afford to maintain your services because they weren't at the level we understood to have agreed at....


    So this is an interesting point, but you seem to be making the assumptions that the employee is either a) deliberately under-performing and/or b) incapable of meeting your expectations. These seems like a very unsafe and costly assumptions to make. Perhaps the employee is used to the work flow of their previous job and doesn't quite understand the needs that you have? Perhaps you haven't made your expectations for the employee perfectly clear? Naturally, there is the possibility that the employee is indeed lazy, unable to meet your needs, and should be thrown out. But I think its worth it to communicate your expectations, make sure they know that they are not meeting them, and give them a chance to improve themselves.

    Releasing an employee does have consequences, such as increases in turnover, HR involvement (which could imply lots of documentation for them and pain for you, or in the worst case them overturning your decision), a potential rehiring cycle, redistribution of their work (what little there is), and if you do it too often a negative stigma of your management style, among other things. I would argue that it's cheaper to try and salvage a bad employee than to just give up on them and throw them out the door without giving them a shot. Naturally, if they fail to improve, then you should toss them out. You gave them fair warning and they still sucked.

    That's just my opinion though.
  • Adanine 2012-10-30 22:55
    Fred:
    3. You aren't as talented and valuable as you think you are.
    4. You aren't smart enough to figure out how to extract value from skilled underpriced workers. So maybe you should go kiss the toes of the nearest person who is, and thank them for providing jobs for losers like you.
    Why do all arguments have to descend to childish name-calling? Any weight your argument had was just washed away calling by calling someone you don't know a loser, simply because he has a different opinion then you?
  • Anathos 2012-10-30 23:01
    Fred:
    Rhywden:
    You make it sound like good jobs lie around on the street, just waiting for you.
    One of the following must be true:

    1. There are good jobs lying around on the street just waiting for talented people like you. (The supply of jobs exceeds the supply of valuable workers.)
    --or--
    2. There are talented people lying around on the street just waiting for someone to make a healthy profit on those talents. (The supply of valuable workers exceeds the number of people who know how to monetize that value.)

    If you believe the economy is currently in state 2, the only sane thing for you to do is start a company to employ this glut of skilled underpriced workers.

    I guess there might be a couple other possibilities:

    3. You aren't as talented and valuable as you think you are.
    4. You aren't smart enough to figure out how to extract value from skilled underpriced workers. So maybe you should go kiss the toes of the nearest person who is, and thank them for providing jobs for losers like you.

    ...or
    5) You don't have the resources to start that business and those who do have the resources are unwilling to loan them to you.
    6) There is insufficient demand for the goods or services those under priced workers will produce (probably because those workers don't have any money to purchase goods and services with because they don't have jobs).
  • Fred 2012-10-30 23:29
    Anathos:
    ...or
    5) You don't have the resources to start that business and those who do have the resources are unwilling to loan them to you.
    because they don't believe you will be able to provide a positive return on their investment. If they believed you knew how to make a better profit than what they can get elsewhere, they'd be fighting to be first in line to lend you money. That's how investment works. That's how the economy works.

    When you have a huge number of voters that don't understand how the economy works, don't be surprised when the economy doesn't work so well after all, thanks to their ignorant votes that choke wealth creation.
  • Fred 2012-10-30 23:38
    Anathos:
    those workers don't have any money to purchase goods and services with because they don't have jobs
    Try this:

    Isolate 10 people on a desert island, in a circle around the campfire pit. Give the first one a large pile of paper. Make the paper green, just for fun. Order him to give it all to the person on his right. And so on, all around the circle. Now you have a thriving economy! Everyone is rich!

    Won't they all be surprised when they starve to death?

    You're confused about how to create wealth. You don't start by giving people "jobs". You start by producing things of value. If not for someone else, then for yourself. When you've produced more than you need, you trade with someone else who has something you want more than what you've already got. Production and trade is the driver of all the goods and services that keep you alive and even, sometimes, happy. Work and freedom. Not handing out cash or forcing transactions to occur that wouldn't otherwise.
  • Anathos 2012-10-30 23:47
    Fred:
    Anathos:
    ...or
    5) You don't have the resources to start that business and those who do have the resources are unwilling to loan them to you.
    because they don't believe you will be able to provide a positive return on their investment. If they believed you knew how to make a better profit than what they can get elsewhere, they'd be fighting to be first in line to lend you money. That's how investment works. That's how the economy works.

    When you have a huge number of voters that don't understand how the economy works, don't be surprised when the economy doesn't work so well after all, thanks to their ignorant votes that choke wealth creation.

    Investors are neither perfectly rational nor omniscient. What they think you are capable of has very little to do with what you are actually capable of. See every stock market crash ever for evidence.

    Also, good job completely ignoring the bit about insufficient demand due to high unemployment. It really shows you know what you're talking about.
  • Anathos 2012-10-30 23:56
    Fred:
    Anathos:
    those workers don't have any money to purchase goods and services with because they don't have jobs
    Try this:

    Isolate 10 people on a desert island, in a circle around the campfire pit. Give the first one a large pile of paper. Make the paper green, just for fun. Order him to give it all to the person on his right. And so on, all around the circle. Now you have a thriving economy! Everyone is rich!

    Won't they all be surprised when they starve to death?

    You're confused about how to create wealth. You don't start by giving people "jobs". You start by producing things of value. If not for someone else, then for yourself. When you've produced more than you need, you trade with someone else who has something you want more than what you've already got. Production and trade is the driver of all the goods and services that keep you alive and even, sometimes, happy. Work and freedom. Not handing out cash or forcing transactions to occur that wouldn't otherwise.

    We live in a world where people need money to buy things. When people have no money (because they are unemployed) they cannot buy anything. It doesn't matter how many things of value you produce, if no one will buy them you're going to go out of business.
  • Fred 2012-10-30 23:58
    Anathos:
    Investors are neither perfectly rational nor omniscient.
    I didn't say they were. I only said they don't believe you. They may or may not be right. If you want their money, it's your job to persuade them to part with it.
    Anathos:
    good job completely ignoring the bit about insufficient demand due to high unemployment. It really shows you know what you're talking about.
    Maybe you were writing your critique even as I was writing the answer you sought. Or maybe you read it but didn't understand.

    You implied that the solution is to create jobs from thin air by handing out cash that comes popping out of a black hole, I guess. Then, with their newfound money, the workers go off to buy stuff, creating the demand which creates the jobs. It's kinda circular, like a perpetual motion machine.

    I showed that doesn't work by cutting off your foundation. Meaningless money being forced around in circles is not the answer. Production and trade is.
  • Anathos 2012-10-31 00:20
    Fred:
    Anathos:
    Investors are neither perfectly rational nor omniscient.
    I didn't say they were. I only said they don't believe you. They may or may not be right. If you want their money, it's your job to persuade them to part with it.
    Anathos:
    good job completely ignoring the bit about insufficient demand due to high unemployment. It really shows you know what you're talking about.
    Maybe you were writing your critique even as I was writing the answer you sought. Or maybe you read it but didn't understand.

    You implied that the solution is to create jobs from thin air by handing out cash that comes popping out of a black hole, I guess. Then, with their newfound money, the workers go off to buy stuff, creating the demand which creates the jobs. It's kinda circular, like a perpetual motion machine.

    I showed that doesn't work by cutting off your foundation. Meaningless money being forced around in circles is not the answer. Production and trade is.

    Meaningless production without a demand for products is not the answer. Believe it or not, the "perpetual motion machine" is exactly how the Great Depression was ended. The government printed a bunch of money and handed it out to people working on roads to nowhere (or building bombs and guns during WWII); those people then used that money to purchase the goods they couldn't previously afford, jump starting the economy.
  • Trololo 2012-10-31 02:32
    Ken:
    I turned in my notice after working 17 days straight. My boss seemed puzzled when I gave that as one of my reasons for leaving.


    How is that even legal??!
  • Poo 'Stache 2012-10-31 03:08
    jay:
    Poo 'Stache:
    Well the real WTF, of course, is continuing to live in a country with no workers' rights whatsoever. If my boss tries to make me work over 37,5 hours a week I can just tell them "no"; I don't have to quit over it.


    Why do I need the government to tell me whether or not I like my job?


    Why do you ask me a question that has nothing to do with my post?

    Anyway, the government doesn't really factor into it. WE GOT UNIONS, BITCH! (I mean that literally, you are a little bitch.)
  • Dan 2012-10-31 03:41
    when I was in sales
  • Watson 2012-10-31 05:45
    Carl:
    Rhywden:
    I take it you don't have a family, don't have downpayments on a house and a car, and generally don't have _any_ such longterm investments?

    ... As soon as you're not alone anymore, that's not quite so simple.

    And you don't control your own destiny. That's an illusion. As I said: Family. Just one example how suddenly your grand freedom is subject to quite a lot of factors outside your control.
    Did this family come up and hijack you one day, perhaps with an assault rifle? Or was this a choice you made, even though you knew you couldn't afford it?
    I don't know about you, but I didn't get to choose my family.

    Or maybe it was a choice made when Rhywden believed it was affordable Whether it has proven to be or not is irrelevant, since knowing that at the time the choice was made would have been impossible.

    As the joke puts it: How do you make God laugh?
  • polanski 2012-10-31 06:17
    That's what happens when you employ a mismanager...
  • Cheong 2012-10-31 06:52
    Laurie:
    zelmak:
    Bitter Like Quinine:
    I was recently handed a company laptop and told to provide out-of-hours cover to the current death march. When I pointed out that I had my own (better) machines at home, I was told that the company doesn't allow "foreign" hardware to connect to their network.

    My answer was, "Neither do I."


    +1 must remember
    I don't get it. You don't allow foreign hardware to connect to their network either? That sounds like a win/win - both of you agree that you'll only use their hardware.

    From "Bitter Like Quinine"'s view, s/he don't want company's laptop to connect to his/her home's network. (Note that his/her boss give the laptop to him/her because the boss wanted him/her to work at home)
  • Adam F 2012-10-31 07:12
    Congratulations, you just failed the Turing test.
  • Captcha:quibus 2012-10-31 08:34
    PedanticCurmudgeon:
    C-Derb:
    Publius:
    I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces.
    Did you mean guerrilla warfare? That would make more sense.
    TRWTF is expecting someone of Publius' intelligence level to spell guerrilla correctly.

    TRWTF is so many people responding to literally the most famous and overused copypasta.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+the+fuck+did+you+just+fucking+say+about+me%2C+you+little+bitch%3F

    Uh oh. Akismet says your comment was spam.
    Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. But I'm taking their word on it. Try again!
  • LOL 2012-10-31 09:13
    jay:
    Poo 'Stache:
    Well the real WTF, of course, is continuing to live in a country with no workers' rights whatsoever. If my boss tries to make me work over 37,5 hours a week I can just tell them "no"; I don't have to quit over it.


    Why do I need the government to tell me whether or not I like my job? If my boss makes unreasonable demands, I just quit. I don't have to run to some nanny government agency crying like a child.


    And when they don't pay my wages that week, I just go over to their house after work with my gun and point it at them until they pay up. I don't have to run to some nanny government agency crying like a child.
  • chris 2012-10-31 10:39
    ruggerio:
    Why? Why? Why do people need notice?


    Assuming you're being serious, do you really think it's possible to walk straight into a new job on a similar pay-scale, without any prior warning, before you've lost any significant earnings?
  • flabdablet 2012-10-31 10:45
    fennec:
    (arguments in defence of at-will employment)


    Australia, where I live, has had far better protection for workers' rights than the US pretty much since federation. Our economy is also currently doing much better than the US's. So I'm not sure that at-will employment is necessarily the panacea that so many of its supporters paint it as.

    The point about state regulation of working conditions is to establish a set of norms inside which all businesses compete. If you have a patchwork system, where the cost of doing business in city A is lower than that in nearby city B, then of course city A will attract more businesses; that's straight supply and demand in operation. But if consistent business rules apply everywhere, that doesn't happen.

    If regulation has the effect of raising costs for all businesses, there's pretty much no effect at all on relative competitiveness; instead, the increased costs just get passed on to customers. Businesses can afford to do that if they know that all their competitors have to do it too.

    In Australia we've historically made the collective choice to wear somewhat higher prices in order to improve our conditions of employment. Which we can afford to do, largely because we get a much better minimum wage. It's all good.

    As I see it, the US seems to have a rather inflexible attachment to individual freedoms TO do things regardless of social consquence. In Australia we temper those freedoms somewhat in order to increase our freedom FROM assorted kinds of avoidable suffering. I see it not so much as nanny-statism, more as collective common sense (see also: universal taxation-funded health care).
  • DCRoss 2012-10-31 10:46
    LOL:
    And when they don't pay my wages that week, I just go over to their house after work with my gun and point it at them until they pay up. I don't have to run to some nanny government agency crying like a child.

    If you don't have a gun, just beat them over the head with a copy of "Atlas Shrugged" until everything magically gets better for you.
  • Zikan 2012-10-31 10:49
    Getting hired in a job agreeing that you will be working, say a 40hour week and after a while you notice that it is an "unofficial" company culture to work unpaid overtime every day, then that company has committed a fraud against you and the law should cover you in such cases. Similarly, the law should protect you from unhealthy work conditions. Do you believe the government should not interfere if there is a big company that forces its employees to work under an unhealthy environment? A government that doesnt do that should be called a "democartic dictatorship", just so that we call things with their name.

    Having said that, there are ways for the employees to feel protected by a boss that takes advantage of them and for companies to be able to fire an employee who is not up to the task and probably lied in his resume. It is called a contract and noone from the two sides should break it without consequences.

    In my contract, it is clearly stated that in my first 6 months I am on trial. At any time, my employer can tell me that I am not up to the task and let me go. No hard feelings. This protects them from worthless half-professionals who are eager to get into a job and slack their way to retirement. Dont you think 6 months are enough to judge whether an employee is good enough for the job? Make it a year.

    There is also something called an "interview" which should not be taken lightly by companies (usually the case is that an overworked employee will be assigned to interview and will hardly have time to prepare so that he performs the interview correctly). Having too many worthless employees getting hired means the interview process is lacking.
  • ObiWayneKenobi 2012-10-31 11:23
    chubertdev:
    John:
    PROTIP: Never, ever, ever make a joke about the place you're interviewing at.


    Never burn bridges. The bat**** insane CFO at the company that you'd never work for may play golf with the CFO of the company that will offer you your dream job.


    Some bridges SHOULD be burned. The reason people like that batshit CFO remain in power instead of crashing and burning is because people pretend to be nice for fear of burning a bridge.

    Sure, if it's something minor or petty then don't be a dick about it; if the company just isn't a good fit then move on and forget about it. But when it's something fundamentally wrong like a power-mad owner or simply doing everything wrong and getting business due to luck or being in a niche market, all bets are off.

    The only way for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing.
  • PedanticCurmudgeon 2012-10-31 12:54
    Paul:
    Are you people really so enamored of big government that you don't see it even where it dominates and controls every facet of your life? Sad.
    It's actually more like a fish not seeing the water it swims in.
  • PedanticCurmudgeon 2012-10-31 12:56
    Captcha:quibus:
    TRWTF is so many people responding to literally the most famous and overused copypasta.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+the+fuck+did+you+just+fucking+say+about+me%2C+you+little+bitch%3F

    Uh oh. Akismet says your comment was spam.
    Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. But I'm taking their word on it. Try again!
    We already talked about this. It was pointed out that some of us have better things to do than hang out at 4chan. Try to keep up.
  • PedanticCurmudgeon 2012-10-31 13:44
    flabdablet:
    As I see it, the US seems to have a rather inflexible attachment to individual freedoms TO do things regardless of social consquence. In Australia we temper those freedoms somewhat in order to increase our freedom FROM assorted kinds of avoidable suffering. I see it not so much as nanny-statism, more as collective common sense (see also: universal taxation-funded health care).
    We have our freedom from contingent here as well. The attachment to individual freedoms is so flexible as to be non-existent. I always found it interesting that people could walk down the street in Russia (and other parts of Europe as well, from what I hear) drinking beer. In most states here, that would get you locked up pretty quickly. What politicians here are really attached to is corporate freedoms.
  • Code Monkey 2012-10-31 17:26
    In my previous job, we did online Flash commercials. These are very short tasks, but there were lots of them, and often they would be rush jobs. If there were lots of tasks that needed to be done, then they would expect them to be done in our spare time at home. Basically, we gave them a lot of unpaid overtime because they were unable or unwilling to hire enough people for the job. The pay was pretty poor but - hey - I figured it would go up if my dedication was recognised...

    I knew this wasn't going to happen when my immediate boss was working on organising a department day out when he suggested - "Hey, it'll be easier to organise this event during the work day, but you'll have to make the time up later." WTF?! - "Make the time up"? I don't have any time I need to make up to YOU:- YOU need to make up time to ME!

    I feel a little bad about saying "Sorry, I'm not up for that" - He was basically an okay guy who was so caught up in the way the directors did business that he didn't realise what he was saying was entirely unacceptable.
  • galgorah 2012-10-31 18:02
    This is why I ask if the CFO is in charge of IT. If yes, then I walk away.
  • Anonymous 2012-10-31 20:38
    Silas:
    Anathos:
    Just over a century ago it was standard for small children to work in factories where they lost fingers and even limbs while working ridiculously long days. It took government intervention to put an end to that.

    Seriously, without the government breathing down the neck of industry we'd still be dealing with that sort of shit. Don't sell government regulation short.
    Ok, so you have found an example where some intervention helped. I never said government should never jump in.
    Historically, no he hasn't. Child labor was ended for the most part by increases in production due to the industrial revolution and other (market) production advances, making it unnecessary for children to go to work to help their family survive. (See, e.g., Gregory Clark's A Farewell to Alms, if interested in further in-depth reading on the subject.) Government regulation was just, as it often is, playing catch-up.
  • Anonymous 2012-10-31 20:44
    Anathos:
    It doesn't matter how many things of value you produce, if no one will buy them you're going to go out of business.
    If no-one, uh, "values" them (to the point that they will trade with you more than your costs), they aren't really "things of value", now, are they?, or, more specifically you haven't added value. Value is subjective.
  • Anonymous 2012-10-31 20:46
    Anathos:
    Believe it or not, the "perpetual motion machine" is exactly how the Great Depression was ended. The government printed a bunch of money and handed it out to people working on roads to nowhere (or building bombs and guns during WWII); those people then used that money to purchase the goods they couldn't previously afford, jump starting the economy.
    Oh god, it's Keynes's ghost, the Machiavelli of economics. Stagflation! Stagflation! Stagflation! <ghost disappears with a hideous wail>
  • David 2012-11-01 08:33
    Fred:
    I showed that doesn't work by cutting off your foundation. Meaningless money being forced around in circles is not the answer. Production and trade is.


    Most things fail if you cut off the foundation. That does not seem to show anything.
  • jay 2012-11-01 13:31
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    jay:
    Poo 'Stache:
    Well the real WTF, of course, is continuing to live in a country with no workers' rights whatsoever. If my boss tries to make me work over 37,5 hours a week I can just tell them "no"; I don't have to quit over it.


    Why do I need the government to tell me whether or not I like my job? If my boss makes unreasonable demands, I just quit. I don't have to run to some nanny government agency crying like a child.


    Because in the US the company has all the power and your options are usually "Take it or leave it", that's why. Forced to work 60 hour weeks? Suck it up or quit. Not given lunch breaks? Starve until dinner or quit. Boss doesn't like you for no reason at all? Get fired or forced into quitting.

    That's bullshit. I'm no fan of government intervention in anything, but I'd much rather have how it works in Europe over this "right to work" shit we have in America where you can be fired for any reason or no reason. Employees have barely any rights, while corporations have the lion's share of rights.


    Hmm, what rights does the company have in an employment relationship for which the employee does not have an analagous right?

    The company can fire you at any time for no reason. Sure. And you can quit at any time for no reason.

    The company can establish policies regarding hours, lunch breaks, etc, and tell you "take it or leave it". (Not really true, there are all sorts of laws in the US about working conditions. But suppose it was true.) You can tell the company that you have demands about hours, lunch breaks etc, and if they don't like them you refuse to work there.

    Even in the US, employees have all sorts of rights that employers don't. If you believe a company didn't hire you because of your race, gender, or religion, you can sue them. If you refuse to take a job with a company because you don't like the owner's race, gender, or religion, the company cannot sue you. If you work X hours and the company does not pay you for X hours, you can sue them. If the company pays you and you just goof off all day, they can't sue you. (They can fire you, i.e. not pay you for future non-work, but they can't demand repayment of money paid for past non-work.) Employees can organize a union and state that they will all refuse to work if the company does not meet their demands. Companies cannot band together and state that they will all refuse to hire any employee who does not meet their demands. (i.e. unions are exempt from anti-trust laws.) Etc etc.

    Personally, I prefer the freedom to decide what working conditions I consider acceptable for myself. Any law that says that a company cannot hire you to do a job doing X is a restriction on the company, but it's also a restriction on the employee: it says that you cannot agree to take a job doing X, regardless of what compensation the company may be willing to offer.

    My sister likes to work outdoors. She hates office work. So she gets jobs as a house painter and carpenter and that sort of thing. I hate to work outdoors. I much prefer to work in an air-conditioned office. My idea of "great working conditions" is totally different from hers. Should my sister be forced to work indoors because I find it preferable, or vice versa? I often work 50 hour weeks, and I don't mind because I like the work, and the fact that long hours are sometimes required means my employer is willing to pay an above-average salary. I think it's a fair deal. Someone who has small children to take care of, or who simply values his free time more, might well not like that deal.

    Many European countries require minimum amounts of annual vacation. That sounds nice. Sure, I'd love to get 6 weeks vacation a year instead of the 3 I get now. Except ... except where does the money come from to pay the employee for that extra time not working? Realistically, only a tiny percentage of it can come from reduced profits to the owner -- in most companies, labor costs are way more than profits, there just isn't that much room to maneuver. So the cost of vacation has to come in the form of reduced salaries or other benefits. A law can require a minimum amount of vacation, but it can't create the money to pay it out of thin air.

    So suppose someone offered you a job with only one week vacation per year, and for whatever reason, reasonable or otherwise, said that this was non-negotiable. But they offered you twice your current salary, a great health plan, work that you just love doing, ... fill in whatever it takes to make this otherwise a dream job. How would you respond?

    (a) Yes, I'd like more vacation time, but the job has so many other attactions that, yes, I'd take it.

    (b) No, I wouldn't take it, but I can imagine that in other circumstances I might, like if I was younger or I didn't have children or I wasn't training for the marathon or whatever.

    (c) No, I wouldn't take it and can't imagine any circumstances where I would take such a job, but if others are willing, that's up to them.

    Or (d) No, I wouldn't take it, and I think there should be laws to prevent anyone else from taking such a job. No company should be allowed to offer a job with less vacation time than I want to have, and anyone who agrees to take a job with less vacation should be fined or put in jail or otherwise forced to only accept jobs that have an amount of vacation that I consider acceptable. I know better than anyone else not only how to run my own life, but also how to run theirs. And everyone else in the world should be forced to listen to music that I like and get the same haircut that I do and wear size 10 shoes like I do. (Why is it legal to make shoes in other than size 10 when that is clearly the size that is most comfortable? It's a real nuisance when I go to the shoe store and they have all these other sizes that don't fit me and I have to search to find the ones that do.)
  • jay 2012-11-01 13:43
    Morry:
    Subby missed a golden opportunity there, to explain to Frank about reality. Not having any ties to the company, instead of walking out he could have engaged Frank in a discussion of HOW.THINGS.WORK. Raw. Laid in on the line. "You're an idiot, Fred, if you expect people to regularly work 60 hours a week for salary, and don't deserve the position of CFO if you can't understand basic economics. Do you want me to explain to you how to obtain and retain an IT staff, or are you happy living in ignorance?"

    The change in tone would either impress Francine, or get you kicked out. If you could engage Fritz in a discussion, I bet you could have worked yourself into a management position. If you had wanted one.

    BTW the first step would be to give Sandy a $5000 retention bonus. That day.


    On the serious side, that's a great suggestion! I've had a few times that I've interviewed with some company where at some point in the interview process I realized that there was no way I wanted to work here. What I've always done is go through the motions for the rest of the interview. But really, if you've already decided you don't want this job, you have nothing to lose. Why not politely explain why you aren't interested? (No need to be rude if they haven't been rude to you.) At worst they'll tell you to get lost and quit telling them how to run their business. If you weren't going to take the job anyway, so what? At best, they might offer you a position where you can fix what's wrong with the company, and turn what would have been a sucky job into a rewarding one. Or you could at least have the satisfaction of having an intelligent, adult conversation about how to fix the company before you leave, and maybe make things better for the poor sucker who DOES take the job.

    Wow, almost makes me want to interview for a sucky job, now. Maybe I should be calling certain people back ...
  • jay 2012-11-01 13:47
    C-Derb:
    Publius:
    I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces.
    Did you mean guerrilla warfare? That would make more sense.


    No, he's a poacher in a primate preserve.
  • jay 2012-11-01 14:05
    Jazz:
    jay:
    Poo 'Stache:
    Well the real WTF, of course, is continuing to live in a country with no workers' rights whatsoever. If my boss tries to make me work over 37,5 hours a week I can just tell them "no"; I don't have to quit over it.


    Why do I need the government to tell me whether or not I like my job? If my boss makes unreasonable demands, I just quit. I don't have to run to some nanny government agency crying like a child.


    Uh. Where did Stache say that he had to run to a nanny government agency? And where did he say that he needs the government to tell him when he's working too much? You seem to be putting a lot of words in his mouth in the name of "small government."

    In his country there's a predefined upper limit on the number of hours his boss can ask him to work. That limit was set once by the government and, after that point, the government isn't involved. If his boss asks him for more hours, he just says "no." The government doesn't come in and verify that his boss asked him for more than the limit; he doesn't have to go to a government agency to get them to say no to his boss for him. He just... says no, and gets to keep his job, and his boss can either deal with it or hire more people.

    Are you people really so afraid of big government that you see it even where it doesn't exist? Sad.


    Umm ... suppose he says "no" to more hours, and the boss fires him? What does he do? Presumably he contacts some government agency to enforce the law. Because in most cases the threat of enforcement -- explicit or implicit -- is sufficient to lead to compliance doesn't mean that "the government isn't involved". The government made the rule and the government enforces the rule. What is the definition of government involvement if not that? What, you don't think that "this is the law" means "the government is forcing me to do this whether I like it or not" unless there is a policeman standing beside you with a gun pointed at your head all day?

    If you want the government to tell people how to live their lives, at least have the honestly to say that's what you want. Don't tell me that you want all these laws telling people what they can and cannot do, and then claim that you're not really forcing people to do anything.
  • shepd 2012-11-01 14:39
    Anathos:
    Brilliant! And then while you're sitting around without a job (and unable to find a new one) and the bills are piling up, your old boss has just handed your former responsibilities over to your former coworkers and is enjoying the bonus he'll be receiving for cutting his payroll while considering whether or not he really needs to replace you.

    There is a power imbalance here.


    Yes, the imbalance lasts a short while. When a company starts the layoffs, or the employees start to leave, the good employees left start looking and finding jobs. I have seen companies that lay off 20% of the staff lose another 40% through attrition and then end up shriveling and dying before the year is out because there's ALWAYS a set of employees that are the best employees, and the best employees, when not respected, will always find jobs.

    The market sorts these problems out. Just give it time.
  • jay 2012-11-01 14:53
    flabdablet:

    Australia, where I live, has had far better protection for workers' rights than the US pretty much since federation. Our economy is also currently doing much better than the US's. So I'm not sure that at-will employment is necessarily the panacea that so many of its supporters paint it as.


    Reasonable objections. Let's discuss.

    Well, I'm certainly not saying that at-will employment is a panacea for all economic problems. I wouldn't say that any one, specific policy is going to solve all of a country's problems overnight. I don't suppose that you would say that laws limiting a company's ability to fire employees would instantly solve all of a country's economic problems. Rather, I say that at-will employment is, all else being equal, better for the long-run health of an economy than the alternatives. Sorry if that sounds too timid, but what else could one honestly say about any economic policy?

    flabdablet:

    The point about state regulation of working conditions is to establish a set of norms inside which all businesses compete. If you have a patchwork system, where the cost of doing business in city A is lower than that in nearby city B, then of course city A will attract more businesses; that's straight supply and demand in operation. But if consistent business rules apply everywhere, that doesn't happen.


    True as far as it goes. But unless the entire world has the same regulations, businesses will always have some alternative. If conditions in Australia get too tough, they can move to New Zealand, etc.

    But in any case, businesses don't flee high regulatory costs out of some irrational phobia. As you allude to in your next paragraph ...

    flabdablet:

    If regulation has the effect of raising costs for all businesses, there's pretty much no effect at all on relative competitiveness; instead, the increased costs just get passed on to customers. Businesses can afford to do that if they know that all their competitors have to do it too.

    In Australia we've historically made the collective choice to wear somewhat higher prices in order to improve our conditions of employment. Which we can afford to do, largely because we get a much better minimum wage. It's all good.


    SOMEONE has to pay those higher regulatory costs. They may come in the form of lower profits, lower salaries or benefits to employees, or higher prices to customers. But the cost has to come from somewhere.

    And sorry, but it doesn't work to say, "Yes, costs are higher, but people get paid more, so it all evens out." No it doesn't, because of simple physics.

    Suppose the government said that for every ten widgets that a factory makes, one must be destroyed and thrown away. This applies to all widget factories, so it doesn't result in any one company having a competitive advantage. Let's say the cost passed on to the customers in the form of higher prices. So customers pay more. Supply and demand says that they will therefore buy less. So customers get less for their money. Companies get less profits. And reduced sales mean either fewer employees are hired or the employees are paid less.

    Sure, the government could tinker with the currency, or create subsidies, or in some other way shuffle money around to hide what's happenning. But if 10% of the output of a factory is wasted, that is real wealth lost that cannot be replaced by magic. It's gone.

    A law saying that you cannot fire unproductive people means that companies are forced to throw away money on people who don't pull their own weight. It is very similar to the idea of saying you must destroy 10% of all widgets produced. The wealth lost cannot be magically replaced.

    It is better not to think in terms of paper money floating around, but in terms of actual wealth: cars and houses and bread and concerts and video games. If something results in less wealth being produced, you can't replace that wealth by changing the value of paper money or moving paper money from one person to another. (Not directly, anyway: it may be that moving money around changes incentives and causes people to produce more or less. But it only works to the extent that it creates such incentives. It doesn't replace the lost wealth of itself.)

    (Of course in any given case, a law restricting when you can fire someone might be fair and just. I don't doubt that companies sometimes fire people for no good reason. But surely you must concede that companies also often fire people for very good reasons, like the person is lazy or is stealing from the company.)

    flabdablet:

    As I see it, the US seems to have a rather inflexible attachment to individual freedoms TO do things regardless of social consquence. In Australia we temper those freedoms somewhat in order to increase our freedom FROM assorted kinds of avoidable suffering. I see it not so much as nanny-statism, more as collective common sense (see also: universal taxation-funded health care).


    I just wish that the US had an "inflexible attachment to individual freeoms"! But yes, compared to the rest of the world, we have a greater reliance on the idea that free men can solve their own problems in their own way, in preference to the government imposing a solution. For most of our history, America's commitment to freedom has meant that we not only have more freedom than most of the rest of the world, but we also have more security and more equality. Yes, right now our economy is in the pits, but we've gone through four successive administrations with mixed or no belief in economic liberty. The current administration is much further to the left than the US was in any period of our history since the 1940s.

    Personally, even if greater freedom meant that I'd be poorer, I'd vote for freedom over money.
  • shepd 2012-11-01 14:53
    Jazz:
    Uh. Where did Stache say that he had to run to a nanny government agency? And where did he say that he needs the government to tell him when he's working too much? You seem to be putting a lot of words in his mouth in the name of "small government."

    In his country there's a predefined upper limit on the number of hours his boss can ask him to work. That limit was set once by the government and, after that point, the government isn't involved. If his boss asks him for more hours, he just says "no." The government doesn't come in and verify that his boss asked him for more than the limit; he doesn't have to go to a government agency to get them to say no to his boss for him. He just... says no, and gets to keep his job, and his boss can either deal with it or hire more people.

    Are you people really so afraid of big government that you see it even where it doesn't exist? Sad.


    And if they refuse to comply with the government's request and says "If you don't come in then don't bother ever coming in again, you're fired."

    Let me explain: The company gets letters telling them to hire him again and pay a fine. The company refuses. The government steals money from their bank account. The company moves their money to an account the government can't touch. The government invites the company to court. The company says fuck off. They send police to take the owner to jail after having an easy default judgement against him. The owner tells them to pound sand. The police drag him away and he resists with all his might. The police draw a gun (or taser/billy club depending on your jurisdiction) and you say "Okay, if you are willing to kill me over it, I guess I have no choice, do I?".

    How far off am I?

    The government gets what it wants because, in the end, if you don't like it, they will shove a gun in your face at some point. Or a taser. Or a nightstick. Either way, every-single-law requires the government back it up with violence. That is something to be afraid of. Think about that next time you want your neighbour fined for having the wrong type of tree in their yard. Would you be willing to shoot them if they just said "No" and followed through with it?

    I can't think of many examples where, played through to their logical conclusion, you don't end up with a police officer and a weapon in your face if you just say no. The government is very much involved.
  • Dave 2012-11-02 08:31
    I had to get my team to pull an all-nighter after working long hours once, when we had a crucial delivery the next day. But I stayed working too, AND I ordered plenty of pizza. Don't all bosses do that? :-)
  • Chris 2012-11-04 01:15
    Right, but the thing is, without a "nanny government," *every* employer can make unreasonable demands and *you* end up with no place to work that doesn't.

    So one would hope that when you're in a situation like the 8 that walked out, or on the street, you're able to keep your tears manly.
  • method1 2012-11-07 12:18
    MrBEster:
    I would have answered: "Lawrence. Did you ask them?" instead. If this dick of a CFO can't get your name right after two corrections then it's time to get insulting in return.
    Or call him "Fronk" or "Dick" or something more pejorative
  • method1 2012-11-07 12:33
    Publius:
    What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

    Didn't Mummy love you, little girl? Come on then, sissy cocksucker, come & kill me.
    If yiu get this angry every time someone on the net types something you don't like, you must have a death list miles long. If you were the slightest bit like you say, you wouldn't make threats, you'd just act.
  • method1 2012-11-07 12:37
    I can't think of many examples where, played through to their psychopathological conclusion, you don't end up with a police officer and a weapon in your face if you just say no. The government is very much involved.[/quote]
    FTFY
  • method1 2012-11-07 12:49
    I can't think of many examples where, played through to their psychopathic conclusion, you don't end up with a police officer and a weapon in your face if you just say no. The government is very much involved.
    FTFY
  • method1 2012-11-07 13:09
    Knew it was familiar - "What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills" and so on is the Internet tough guy meme
  • Stefan 2012-11-08 06:46
    shouldn't this article be in "Tales from the Interview"?
  • Gottfried Willhelm Leibniz 2012-11-08 20:51
    You might be familiar with John Locke and Oliver Twist, in which workers are meant to be abused and receive no rights. Perhaps you've heard of a period called the very early 1900s, or perhaps a country called "China". When *EVERY* employer forces you to work massive overtime in unsafe conditions you're screwed.

    Yes Virginia, the bottom line of a business is to maximize profits no matter what. When you introduce Schachtian economics, you do that by minimizing expenses, which means virtual slave labor. The US constitution however has a "Posterity" clause and other fun things, which led to workers rights that say 'you can be somewhat unreasonable but you can't treat humans like animals'. If it were up to the CEO's who have to maximize their bonuses and stocks, we would be treated like animals.

    I hope you learned something. :)
  • Essex Kitten 2012-11-20 21:29
    Yes, after enabling JS on cornify.com after enabling JS on thedailywtf.com - otherwise it just says "click me!" and does nothing.
  • Essex Kitten 2012-11-20 21:30
    Cbuttius:
    I think the staff were all blown away by the hurricane Sandy..


    Anybody getting <a href="http://imgur.com/h7x90">unicorns</a> selecting »CFO«?

    Taht's the WTF.
  • Essex Kitten 2012-11-20 21:31
    Seul:
    Anybody getting <a href="http://imgur.com/h7x90">unicorns</a> selecting »CFO«?

    Taht's the WTF.


    Oh, ffs, I guess I'm sleepy. Read previous two fail posts for answer.