3 ms·

Which CEO would be more likely to get you to make personal sacrifices: 1. The one who sleeps on a sleeping bed and says that you are tremendously valuable to t

by jsight 9y ago

Which CEO would be more likely to get you to make personal sacrifices: 1. The one who sleeps on a sleeping bed and says that you are tremendously valuable to the future of the company. - or - 2. The one who says that remote workers are slackers, cancels remote work, and then builds a comfortable nursery right next to their comfortable office. This isn't about whether a sleeping bag (probably an exaggeration anyway) is the most optimum solution to the "sleep at the office" problem, it is about what is the optimum solution to the "help my workers understand that I empathize with their current situation" problem. I think we forget about the importance of that last problem sometimes.

krapp 9y ago
> Which CEO would be more likely to get you to make personal sacrifices: The thing is, the sacrifices demanded of employees by their employers are often non-negotiable, so it doesn't really matter either way. If you're a factory floor worker, you are not "tremendously valuable to the future of the company," your value to the company is specified to the penny and it's likely much less than the value of the equipment you're operating. The billionaire who can destroy your livelihood on a whim sleeping on the factory floor doesn't really change anything for you the worker. Are the workers' salaries competitive? How good is their insurance? Will they be expected to put in arbitrary blocks of six day, twelve hour shifts or can they reasonably have a life outside work? How accommodating is the company with school, maternity leave, lateral training? What is the company's history of harassment, OSHA violations, etc? These things matter. Pointless shows of solidarity and "empathy" really don't.
- jsight 9y ago
  All of your points are valid and I agree with them. But do you really think this is about retaining factory line workers? Or is it about retaining the managers and engineers responsible for building out the line and getting it running? My guess is that it is the latter and that most of those employees do have choices as to where they are employed.
  - krapp 9y ago
    I think the situation with managers and engineers is likely only marginally better, but you're probably right.

by jsight 9y ago

krapp 9y ago

> Which CEO would be more likely to get you to make personal sacrifices: The thing is, the sacrifices demanded of employees by their employers are often non-negotiable, so it doesn't really matter either way. If you're a factory floor worker, you are not "tremendously valuable to the future of the company," your value to the company is specified to the penny and it's likely much less than the value of the equipment you're operating. The billionaire who can destroy your livelihood on a whim sleeping on the factory floor doesn't really change anything for you the worker. Are the workers' salaries competitive? How good is their insurance? Will they be expected to put in arbitrary blocks of six day, twelve hour shifts or can they reasonably have a life outside work? How accommodating is the company with school, maternity leave, lateral training? What is the company's history of harassment, OSHA violations, etc? These things matter. Pointless shows of solidarity and "empathy" really don't.

jsight 9y ago
All of your points are valid and I agree with them. But do you really think this is about retaining factory line workers? Or is it about retaining the managers and engineers responsible for building out the line and getting it running? My guess is that it is the latter and that most of those employees do have choices as to where they are employed.
- krapp 9y ago
  I think the situation with managers and engineers is likely only marginally better, but you're probably right.