3 ms·

9 percent of your workforce isn't going to work 2 hours a day, man. Almost nobody can handle being that much of a lazy, sleazy piece of crap. What probably ha

by VRay 5y ago

9 percent of your workforce isn't going to work 2 hours a day, man. Almost nobody can handle being that much of a lazy, sleazy piece of crap. What probably happened is that the idiot CEO decided to check productivity via some BS metric, then discard all the time his employees had to spend on anything else I've been on the receiving end of that before, it's infuriating.

golergka 5y ago
> Almost nobody can handle being that much of a lazy, sleazy piece of crap. What are you talking about? Entire countries have been doing it for decades before ending up bankrupt.
- acdha 5y ago
  Do you have examples? This sounds rather a lot like a racist stereotype unless you’re using “entire countries” to mean something more like corrupt elites misdirecting people who don’t have alternatives.
  - golergka 5y ago
    USSR, for one. Are you accusing me of being racist against myself?
    - acdha 5y ago
      That was actually the country I had in mind with the second part of my comment because the emigrants I’ve known always made it sound like the problem was squandering productivity rather than innate laziness — if your boss is corrupt and incompetent, and you don’t work harder because you know there will be no benefit from doing so, “lazy” doesn’t seem accurate. A similar story revolves around the American South. Southerners used to be stereotyped as lazy until indoor plumbing & antiparasitic drugs eradicated hookworm and air conditioning mitigated the climate’s impact on office productivity. “Lazy” was, well, a lazy way to characterize a more complicated situation.
acdha 5y ago
And if the 10-15% range was true, that’s a major management screwup. A couple of bad hires, sure, it happens but when you’re talking hundreds of people there’s something systemic at fault, which is solely in the realm of management’s responsibility to hire and monitor. Based on the excuse he gave to Forbes I’d bet you’re right. I’d especially believe some kind of internal inefficiency – e.g. having everyone need to have sign-offs by someone in an understaffed role – or simply having inefficient internal processes meaning that what he thinks is a 2 hour task actually taking much longer. Another possibility would be something like having over-hired either due to misjudgment or to look like a bigger business to investors and then blaming the workers for not having enough work to do. I remember seeing that from the dotcom era, along with people who were very proud of 7 figure Oracle clusters handling hundreds of transactions per day. Senior management was so focused on IPO riches that they allowed if not actually encouraged it.

by VRay 5y ago

golergka 5y ago

> Almost nobody can handle being that much of a lazy, sleazy piece of crap. What are you talking about? Entire countries have been doing it for decades before ending up bankrupt.

acdha 5y ago
Do you have examples? This sounds rather a lot like a racist stereotype unless you’re using “entire countries” to mean something more like corrupt elites misdirecting people who don’t have alternatives.
- golergka 5y ago
  USSR, for one. Are you accusing me of being racist against myself?
  - acdha 5y ago
    That was actually the country I had in mind with the second part of my comment because the emigrants I’ve known always made it sound like the problem was squandering productivity rather than innate laziness — if your boss is corrupt and incompetent, and you don’t work harder because you know there will be no benefit from doing so, “lazy” doesn’t seem accurate. A similar story revolves around the American South. Southerners used to be stereotyped as lazy until indoor plumbing & antiparasitic drugs eradicated hookworm and air conditioning mitigated the climate’s impact on office productivity. “Lazy” was, well, a lazy way to characterize a more complicated situation.

acdha 5y ago

And if the 10-15% range was true, that’s a major management screwup. A couple of bad hires, sure, it happens but when you’re talking hundreds of people there’s something systemic at fault, which is solely in the realm of management’s responsibility to hire and monitor. Based on the excuse he gave to Forbes I’d bet you’re right. I’d especially believe some kind of internal inefficiency – e.g. having everyone need to have sign-offs by someone in an understaffed role – or simply having inefficient internal processes meaning that what he thinks is a 2 hour task actually taking much longer. Another possibility would be something like having over-hired either due to misjudgment or to look like a bigger business to investors and then blaming the workers for not having enough work to do. I remember seeing that from the dotcom era, along with people who were very proud of 7 figure Oracle clusters handling hundreds of transactions per day. Senior management was so focused on IPO riches that they allowed if not actually encouraged it.