5 ms·

I think in the end, there is no way around trust. You have to trust the mechanic that they tighten the screws correctly. You have to trust the software develo

I think in the end, there is no way around trust. You have to trust the mechanic that they tighten the screws correctly. You have to trust the software developer that they write that does what it should and not something nefarious. You have to trust the salesperson that they don't lie to the customer. Yes, all of these can be checked to some extent, but it will not be possible to fully check everything.

mikem170 6y ago
When you said "trust" I wondered who benefits, and my first thought was that the company that doesn't have to deal with the sick days is the winner. The company is trusting to come to work as many days as we physically can? How is that better than just giving everyone the same number of days to manager as sick or personal for themselves?
- hibbelig 6y ago
  Well, with ten days of vacation per year, I'd be interesting in any additional time I could take off. But if you have enough (say 25), then I as an employee don't feel that I got the short end of the stick. It's also a matter of solidarity that those who can support those who can't. In this case, the healthier employees support the ones who are ill.
  - mikem170 6y ago
    There's many ways the same support can be given. Why should employees have to support each other in that fashion? There's things like short-term disability that handle absences longer than whatever specific number of normal time off is provided. According to your logic above, why don't we get 100 sick days per year instead of 10? Some people need that many, fellow employees should support them too, right? I guess the sick vs vacation day thing becomes a more of a problem in an environment where the rule-followers see a lot rule-breakers taking advantage.
mikem170 6y ago
Big companies make seem more into making inflexible processes and eliminating the variability of trust. The people who do follow the rules are left feeling shorted by those that don't. That doesn't seem right. I think this happens with a lot of things. The employer can say "be trustworthy" and save money across the entire pool of employees, but the employees who follow the rules have to stand by watching other who break them. Same thing happened with marking spots in my apartment complex. They numbered the spots to go with apartments, but don't enforce it. Someone always takes my spot. According to their rules I'm supposed to park further away in the unmarked spots, or steal someone elses spot. Most people follow the rules, so the office gets less parking complaints. But now people whose spots are taken are left worse off than before.

mikem170 6y ago

When you said "trust" I wondered who benefits, and my first thought was that the company that doesn't have to deal with the sick days is the winner. The company is trusting to come to work as many days as we physically can? How is that better than just giving everyone the same number of days to manager as sick or personal for themselves?

hibbelig 6y ago
Well, with ten days of vacation per year, I'd be interesting in any additional time I could take off. But if you have enough (say 25), then I as an employee don't feel that I got the short end of the stick. It's also a matter of solidarity that those who can support those who can't. In this case, the healthier employees support the ones who are ill.
- mikem170 6y ago
  There's many ways the same support can be given. Why should employees have to support each other in that fashion? There's things like short-term disability that handle absences longer than whatever specific number of normal time off is provided. According to your logic above, why don't we get 100 sick days per year instead of 10? Some people need that many, fellow employees should support them too, right? I guess the sick vs vacation day thing becomes a more of a problem in an environment where the rule-followers see a lot rule-breakers taking advantage.

mikem170 6y ago

Big companies make seem more into making inflexible processes and eliminating the variability of trust. The people who do follow the rules are left feeling shorted by those that don't. That doesn't seem right. I think this happens with a lot of things. The employer can say "be trustworthy" and save money across the entire pool of employees, but the employees who follow the rules have to stand by watching other who break them. Same thing happened with marking spots in my apartment complex. They numbered the spots to go with apartments, but don't enforce it. Someone always takes my spot. According to their rules I'm supposed to park further away in the unmarked spots, or steal someone elses spot. Most people follow the rules, so the office gets less parking complaints. But now people whose spots are taken are left worse off than before.