3 ms·
I didn't say it was a good idea. I am arguing that either you give full freedom for employees but they have to commit to one job, or you do freelancing with ver
by ttoinou 5y ago
I didn't say it was a good idea. I am arguing that either you give full freedom for employees but they have to commit to one job, or you do freelancing with very specific measurements and they can have multiple jobs. Read my others comments. I was suggesting a new measurement that is less worse than others. Not saying it is good in the absolute sense
whether that takes eight hours or four, and whether it happens during normal business hours or at 3 am
So they could very well only work 2 hours and say that's all they can work and call it done, work 3 others jobs
I could call my manager and the company executives randomly to check if they’re actually working too
I didn't say it was random calls
- gregjor 5y agoThe only measurement that matters is, does the employee deliver the expected work on time? Checking up on them with phone calls is just a little less oppressive than using cameras and keyloggers. But surveillance doesn’t measure productivity, it enforces presence or the appearance of work. The employer could monitor heart rates but that doesn’t tell them anything about productivity. If the only measure of productivity the employer can manage is counting people at their desks eight hours a day that’s just terrible management. Employers can’t give employees “full freedom.” Nor can they prohibit the employee doing whatever they want on their own time. Forcing employees to commit to one job is just coercion unless there’s some clear business rationale behind it, not just control and an attitude that the employer owns the employee.
- ttoinou 5y agothe definition of "expected work" is up to the manager. I'm not talking about prohibiting but voluntary agreements