5 ms·

I’ve found that when most managers ask questions, they’re just trying to get a sense of what’s going on. I wouldn’t over analyze it. I would also suggest that h

I’ve found that when most managers ask questions, they’re just trying to get a sense of what’s going on. I wouldn’t over analyze it. I would also suggest that honest answers are the best. If you’re having a hard time doing the work, is there something else you could be doing? As much as it doesn’t feel like it, companies do not want to fire employees. It’s expensive to lose someone who knows the business, and expensive to hire someone. Or maybe WFH has exposed that the work just isn’t worth doing and indicates it’s time to move on.

giantg2 5y ago
I think that depends highly on the work and company. I think Amazon warehouse or delivery has over 100% annual turnover. Clearly they don't care.
- marcus_holmes 5y ago
  And that makes them a bad employer. Eventually they're going to hit a wall with this and be forced to change.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Will they though? They have been increasing their use of robotics. Other low skill jobs have too (miso's burger flipper). There are still college kids and low skill people that need jobs. It seems the continual supply with shrinking job positions will enable them to continue doing this.
    - marcus_holmes 5y ago
      It'll be interesting to see how the union efforts play out. Historically this has been a major problem for bad employers. If they automate the whole thing and have robot pickers, that'll be awesome too. About time. I used to work as a picker, and it's not a fun job. Especially the way Amazon runs their warehouses.
barnaclejive 5y ago
I think it depends a lot on what they put in the "____" for: > or if you've been spending more time doing ___ Was ____ "watching Netflix", or was ____ "helping person X who is doing more interesting work and whom you are not being paid to help/work with."
- _ZeD_ 5y ago
  do anyone actually have received something like "or if you've been spending more time doing watching Netflix"?? It's more than a red flag.
coliveira 5y ago
> It’s expensive to lose someone who knows the business, and expensive to hire someone. That's not true. Letting people go is a great business strategy because it means companies don't need to give salary increases. They will right after that hire someone with less experience and making less money. But what about the business knowledge, you ask? Well, any company that knows what they're doing won't ever let important business knowledge in the hands of only one person. They will automatically distribute responsibility for important things into a group of people, so that if one of them leave the company it is not a big deal. Moreover, in the rare case that someone is really important for the company, by necessity she is just one out of several hundred. What I said continues to be true for everyone else.
- jdblair 5y ago
  This is definitely not universally true. My current employer sets compensation by asking "what is the business cost of losing this person?"
  - coliveira 5y ago
    Your company probably don't know what they're doing, just read my explanation above.
    - alain94040 5y ago
      You seem to be very sure of your opinions about management's motivation. Are you yourself a manager or executive, or is this your opinion as a worker observing your employer's behavior?
      - jdblair 5y ago
        It's the stated compensation policy and confirmed by my experience as both an individual contributor and a manager of a team in the same organization.
- simonh 5y ago
  Even a moments reflection shown that’s not possible. Average wages in the US are rising at record rates at the moment, so clearly not all companies can be ditching experienced employees and hiring newbies. All those experienced workers seem to be getting jobs somewhere. Also there nothing automatic about managing key worker risks. Trust me on this. You seem to have some theoretical idealised image of a perfectly dystopian company and think that’s a universal truth. I’m not sure where you got this image from, I suspect it’s ideologically based, but reality is all over the map. Sure, companies look after their own best interests. Often those align very well with employees, but not always. You can have friends at work, and most people try to do the right thing, but the company is not your friend. It’s unreasonable to expect it to be.

giantg2 5y ago

I think that depends highly on the work and company. I think Amazon warehouse or delivery has over 100% annual turnover. Clearly they don't care.

marcus_holmes 5y ago
And that makes them a bad employer. Eventually they're going to hit a wall with this and be forced to change.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Will they though? They have been increasing their use of robotics. Other low skill jobs have too (miso's burger flipper). There are still college kids and low skill people that need jobs. It seems the continual supply with shrinking job positions will enable them to continue doing this.
  - marcus_holmes 5y ago
    It'll be interesting to see how the union efforts play out. Historically this has been a major problem for bad employers. If they automate the whole thing and have robot pickers, that'll be awesome too. About time. I used to work as a picker, and it's not a fun job. Especially the way Amazon runs their warehouses.

barnaclejive 5y ago

I think it depends a lot on what they put in the "____" for: > or if you've been spending more time doing ___ Was ____ "watching Netflix", or was ____ "helping person X who is doing more interesting work and whom you are not being paid to help/work with."

_ZeD_ 5y ago
do anyone actually have received something like "or if you've been spending more time doing watching Netflix"?? It's more than a red flag.

coliveira 5y ago

> It’s expensive to lose someone who knows the business, and expensive to hire someone. That's not true. Letting people go is a great business strategy because it means companies don't need to give salary increases. They will right after that hire someone with less experience and making less money. But what about the business knowledge, you ask? Well, any company that knows what they're doing won't ever let important business knowledge in the hands of only one person. They will automatically distribute responsibility for important things into a group of people, so that if one of them leave the company it is not a big deal. Moreover, in the rare case that someone is really important for the company, by necessity she is just one out of several hundred. What I said continues to be true for everyone else.

jdblair 5y ago
This is definitely not universally true. My current employer sets compensation by asking "what is the business cost of losing this person?"
- coliveira 5y ago
  Your company probably don't know what they're doing, just read my explanation above.
  - alain94040 5y ago
    You seem to be very sure of your opinions about management's motivation. Are you yourself a manager or executive, or is this your opinion as a worker observing your employer's behavior?
    - jdblair 5y ago
      It's the stated compensation policy and confirmed by my experience as both an individual contributor and a manager of a team in the same organization.
simonh 5y ago
Even a moments reflection shown that’s not possible. Average wages in the US are rising at record rates at the moment, so clearly not all companies can be ditching experienced employees and hiring newbies. All those experienced workers seem to be getting jobs somewhere. Also there nothing automatic about managing key worker risks. Trust me on this. You seem to have some theoretical idealised image of a perfectly dystopian company and think that’s a universal truth. I’m not sure where you got this image from, I suspect it’s ideologically based, but reality is all over the map. Sure, companies look after their own best interests. Often those align very well with employees, but not always. You can have friends at work, and most people try to do the right thing, but the company is not your friend. It’s unreasonable to expect it to be.