4 ms·

I'm not sure I see where the article talks about poor time management?

by geofft 5y ago

PicassoCTs 5y ago
Thats a euphemism for not donating every waking hour to work and for example bringing your kids to school.
mypastself 5y ago
That was my admittedly uncharitable interpretation of the article subject’s preference for online meetings. They reported missing a lot of in-person meetings because of parental responsibilities, and the article suggests they are therefore unfairly disadvantaged. If anything, it seems to me like they have a fairly reasonable employer and working environment.
- watwut 5y ago
  Online makes it waay easier to manage parental responsibilities vs meetings. Mostly because in person variant os comparably absurdly wasteful. It don't block you only during meeting, but both before and after. Online also makes meetings more effective, people are less likely to go forever and waste everybody time. And, when they go forever, you use their empty blabbing for some chores. So, yeah, you loose disadvantage at no cost to actual work effectivity.
  - mypastself 5y ago
    Oh, I was in no way defending in-person meetings. I do take issue with the article’s implication that its subject’s perpetual tardiness (presumably tolerated by their employer and co-workers) is the result of discriminatory workplace environment.
travisgriggs 5y ago
The article’s lead in story is about time constraints affecting an attendee. I think it’s condescending to refer to that as poor time management though. A better spin from OP would have been “… in favor of people whose contributions to society complicate their ability to attend the round the clock marathon of back to back meetings that all seem to suspiciously last for an about hour versus those who have few skills and positive contributions to make to the world at large and worked into a system where the only valuable thing they have to offer is to endlessly discuss things.” I do agree with OP’s sentiment that the article was pretty shallow and tropish. Not much new or insightful. Almost like a group of editors had a meeting and asked “what should we run today?” And an hourish later, we got this.

I'm not sure I see where the article talks about poor time management?

by geofft 5y ago

I'm not sure I see where the article talks about poor time management?

PicassoCTs 5y ago

Thats a euphemism for not donating every waking hour to work and for example bringing your kids to school.

mypastself 5y ago

That was my admittedly uncharitable interpretation of the article subject’s preference for online meetings. They reported missing a lot of in-person meetings because of parental responsibilities, and the article suggests they are therefore unfairly disadvantaged. If anything, it seems to me like they have a fairly reasonable employer and working environment.

watwut 5y ago
Online makes it waay easier to manage parental responsibilities vs meetings. Mostly because in person variant os comparably absurdly wasteful. It don't block you only during meeting, but both before and after. Online also makes meetings more effective, people are less likely to go forever and waste everybody time. And, when they go forever, you use their empty blabbing for some chores. So, yeah, you loose disadvantage at no cost to actual work effectivity.
- mypastself 5y ago
  Oh, I was in no way defending in-person meetings. I do take issue with the article’s implication that its subject’s perpetual tardiness (presumably tolerated by their employer and co-workers) is the result of discriminatory workplace environment.

travisgriggs 5y ago

The article’s lead in story is about time constraints affecting an attendee. I think it’s condescending to refer to that as poor time management though. A better spin from OP would have been “… in favor of people whose contributions to society complicate their ability to attend the round the clock marathon of back to back meetings that all seem to suspiciously last for an about hour versus those who have few skills and positive contributions to make to the world at large and worked into a system where the only valuable thing they have to offer is to endlessly discuss things.” I do agree with OP’s sentiment that the article was pretty shallow and tropish. Not much new or insightful. Almost like a group of editors had a meeting and asked “what should we run today?” And an hourish later, we got this.