3 ms·

While I sure there are a lot of "entitled" feeling people entering the work force, and frankly some of the examples they provided are simply idiots, I think the

by modoc 18y ago

While I sure there are a lot of "entitled" feeling people entering the work force, and frankly some of the examples they provided are simply idiots, I think the article is really missing the point. The employment field has changed dramatically. You are VERY unlikely to work at the same job in the same company until you retire. Companies aren't supplying reliable pension plans. Many hot fields aren't unionized (I'm not saying unions in their current US form are good, but it's a big shift from the work my grandparents were doing) so you have much less job protection (this in many ways is actually a good thing, imho). You're also often expected to work in excess of 40 hours per week. Many fields have common 50-60+ hour work weeks, on the same salary. In short, companies are giving less, are less loyal, and are asking for more. At the same time, in many new job fields, it's been discovered that you can work smarter, not longer. It's been proven that flex-time, working from home, lax dress codes, etc... don't always hurt productivity and success. In many cases it improves it. It's not that I feel entitled to anything special. It's just that I've made a choice to not spend 60 hours/week wearing a suit in a grey cube under fluorescent lights, filling out TPS reports (I did that for a few months, and quit). Thankfully the employment field has supported my choice. A lot of the requests make sense: Waiting 6-12 months to get feedback on how you're doing at your job (as perceived by your boss and coworkers) is silly. Short iterations improve quality. Having to dress a certain way if you don't interact with clients who are expecting a suit, is a waste of money and makes many people uncomfortable physically or with their appearance. If listening to music while you work makes you happier and/or more productive, it would be foolish not to. If it (or anything else) makes you less productive then that's something for your boss to deal with you individually on. "They want to be treated like colleagues rather than subordinates". Really? Who wants to be treated like a subordinate? I mean honestly, who WANTS that? If you don't have mutual respect with people you spend 40+ hours/week with, why would you want to be there?

LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
In short, companies are giving less, are less loyal, and are asking for more. This. I'm a millenial I suppose. Born in 1982, and now solidly in the workforce. I watched my parents get screwed over time and time again by companies that demanded loyalty without reciprocation. I learned things like the fact that the best way to get a raise or promotion is to leave for another company, and received the admonition to remember that a company is not your friend. It does not have personal consideration. I was taught that I have to take care of myself, and that nobody else will do that for me. Loyalty, like trust, is a two-way street. It is hard to earn and easily lost.
- modoc 18y ago
  Absolutely. I often have friends who are working for, or contractors for some company, and get a great opportunity presented to them, and say "but I can't leave MegaCorp, I've only been there for a year, and I don't want to let people down". I have to remind them that if their project gets cancelled or postponed, they won't even get two weeks notice from MegaCorp. That they won't let anyone down, MegaCorp has 200 people with your job title. Some companies show real loyalty to their employees, but most will let you go or lay you off without a second thought and without any sleep lost. So why should you lose sleep over turning in your resignation to them.
  - niels_olson 18y ago
    I'm sorry, since the Global War on Terror was announced, our company letterhead has been updated, it's now MegaCorp, USA. You will need to reprint your TPS reports. To get new letterhead, simply send a request, on letterhead, to the supply room.
dionidium 18y ago
You are VERY unlikely to work at the same job in the same company until you retire. Companies aren't supplying reliable pension plans. Many hot fields aren't unionized... I think this is a key thing to notice. Without these benefits (and especially in an at-will employment arrangement) a job becomes more like contract work: a simple trade of time/knowledge for money that can be abandoned by either party at any time. To the extent that this is true, it might make sense to compare this to other types of work-for-hire. It would be absurd, for example, to require that your auto-mechanic wear certain clothes or demand that they not listen to headphones while working. I'm not sure how far this analogy extends, but it strikes me that many of the things large companies demand of their employees would be considered onerous in similar contexts. Why is that so?
- arockwell 18y ago
  Because that's how they've always done business.
- time_management 18y ago
  I'm not sure how far this analogy extends, but it strikes me that many of the things large companies demand of their employees would be considered onerous in similar contexts. It's the officer/laborer distinction. Theory: An auto mechanic performs work and is paid per hour of labor, at a rate proportionate to his competence and efficiency. By contrast, white-collar a professional is an officer. He's not paid for 40 hours per week of work. He's paid to fill a role, which requires attention to image, loyalty, professionalism and commitment that may extend outside of working hours and impinge on his lifestyle. A doctor makes housecalls at 10 pm, a CIA agent refrains from illegal drug use, a CEO refrains from posting offensive material on his non-work-related blog. That's theory. In practice, most white-collar corporate workers are closer in role and status to laborers than professionals, and the only reason companies expect them to fulfill the extra requirements is because they can. They're exploiting tradition. Of course, corporate employees rarely get the autonomy and independence that are the upside of professional status, but American corporations are geniuses at serving up the worst of two worlds (such as, say, laissez-faire capitalism and bureaucratic socialism).
geebee 18y ago
I completely agree. It's only "entitlement" if you think your employer owes you a job on your terms. It's hardly entitlement if you are simply willing to shop around for a better deal. Yes, I want a job where I am treated more like a colleague than a subordinate, where I have access to upper management to express my ideas, where I have flexibility in how and where I work, and where I have wide autonomy over my projects. Yep, I'd also like the work to be meaningful. But do I think my employer owes me this? Nope. I fully accept that absolutely nobody owes me this arrangement. But if one company does offer it, and another doesn't, well duh! It seems to me that the feelings of entitlement here are coming from the managers and corporations employing the Millennials. They seem to think that they "should" get talented employees who are just gushing for an opportunity to accept an unpleasant hierarchical environment with set hours, scheduled breaks and lunchtimes, a lame-o cubicle, limited personal autonomy, and a long, slogging climb up the ladder. In short - all the patronizing crap without the job security and pensions that used to come along with it. A patronizing environment, but certainly no patron saint to go along with it. Nobody owes me anything. Ok, I said it first. Now let's hear them say it.
- dla2000 18y ago
  I do feel entitled to get talented employees. But if I cannot get them, I look at the cheepest way to solve my problems, and I turn the work into a commodity. As soon as I do that, I look for the person willing to perform the work for the lowest price, and that isn't likely to be a millenial in the US.
  - geebee 18y ago
    The reason I don't see myself as having and attitude of "entitlement" is that I feel you have every right to look elsewhere. If you don't like my terms and conditions, you are not obligated to meet them. I don't have trouble finding work with flexible conditions and a good salary - so when I previous employer tried to change those terms, I quit. But if I hadn't been able to find a new job, I wouldn't have complained - my employer has the right to say "take it or leave it", and I have the right to "leave it". Anything else is just complaining (provided I have the legal right to "leave it", which is why I'm irritated with the H1B terms, which uses non-market mechanisms to undermine the basic contract of a free market democracy). Now, ahem, best of luck with that low, low price outsourcing deal.
dla2000 18y ago
Just wanted to say that I enjoyed this reply. I think that the word choice subordinates was unfortunate, in this case. But basically when you work for a person, you are their subordinate. There's definitely something weird going on with the people I've worked with lately. Despite having only a few years experience they're perfectly willing to commandeer a meeting. The enthusiasm is great. The initiative is excellent. But the content they provide is sub-par. So somewhere there is a gap between "taking initiative" and "knowing what you're talking about and then taking initiative" and that's kind of my problem with the workforce I face. It's not so much subordinate in the sense of "respect my authority" as it is "please when you're speaking in front of the board and I kick you under the table... SHUT UP"

by modoc 18y ago

LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago

In short, companies are giving less, are less loyal, and are asking for more. This. I'm a millenial I suppose. Born in 1982, and now solidly in the workforce. I watched my parents get screwed over time and time again by companies that demanded loyalty without reciprocation. I learned things like the fact that the best way to get a raise or promotion is to leave for another company, and received the admonition to remember that a company is not your friend. It does not have personal consideration. I was taught that I have to take care of myself, and that nobody else will do that for me. Loyalty, like trust, is a two-way street. It is hard to earn and easily lost.

modoc 18y ago
Absolutely. I often have friends who are working for, or contractors for some company, and get a great opportunity presented to them, and say "but I can't leave MegaCorp, I've only been there for a year, and I don't want to let people down". I have to remind them that if their project gets cancelled or postponed, they won't even get two weeks notice from MegaCorp. That they won't let anyone down, MegaCorp has 200 people with your job title. Some companies show real loyalty to their employees, but most will let you go or lay you off without a second thought and without any sleep lost. So why should you lose sleep over turning in your resignation to them.
- niels_olson 18y ago
  I'm sorry, since the Global War on Terror was announced, our company letterhead has been updated, it's now MegaCorp, USA. You will need to reprint your TPS reports. To get new letterhead, simply send a request, on letterhead, to the supply room.

dionidium 18y ago

You are VERY unlikely to work at the same job in the same company until you retire. Companies aren't supplying reliable pension plans. Many hot fields aren't unionized... I think this is a key thing to notice. Without these benefits (and especially in an at-will employment arrangement) a job becomes more like contract work: a simple trade of time/knowledge for money that can be abandoned by either party at any time. To the extent that this is true, it might make sense to compare this to other types of work-for-hire. It would be absurd, for example, to require that your auto-mechanic wear certain clothes or demand that they not listen to headphones while working. I'm not sure how far this analogy extends, but it strikes me that many of the things large companies demand of their employees would be considered onerous in similar contexts. Why is that so?

arockwell 18y ago
Because that's how they've always done business.
time_management 18y ago
I'm not sure how far this analogy extends, but it strikes me that many of the things large companies demand of their employees would be considered onerous in similar contexts. It's the officer/laborer distinction. Theory: An auto mechanic performs work and is paid per hour of labor, at a rate proportionate to his competence and efficiency. By contrast, white-collar a professional is an officer. He's not paid for 40 hours per week of work. He's paid to fill a role, which requires attention to image, loyalty, professionalism and commitment that may extend outside of working hours and impinge on his lifestyle. A doctor makes housecalls at 10 pm, a CIA agent refrains from illegal drug use, a CEO refrains from posting offensive material on his non-work-related blog. That's theory. In practice, most white-collar corporate workers are closer in role and status to laborers than professionals, and the only reason companies expect them to fulfill the extra requirements is because they can. They're exploiting tradition. Of course, corporate employees rarely get the autonomy and independence that are the upside of professional status, but American corporations are geniuses at serving up the worst of two worlds (such as, say, laissez-faire capitalism and bureaucratic socialism).

geebee 18y ago

I completely agree. It's only "entitlement" if you think your employer owes you a job on your terms. It's hardly entitlement if you are simply willing to shop around for a better deal. Yes, I want a job where I am treated more like a colleague than a subordinate, where I have access to upper management to express my ideas, where I have flexibility in how and where I work, and where I have wide autonomy over my projects. Yep, I'd also like the work to be meaningful. But do I think my employer owes me this? Nope. I fully accept that absolutely nobody owes me this arrangement. But if one company does offer it, and another doesn't, well duh! It seems to me that the feelings of entitlement here are coming from the managers and corporations employing the Millennials. They seem to think that they "should" get talented employees who are just gushing for an opportunity to accept an unpleasant hierarchical environment with set hours, scheduled breaks and lunchtimes, a lame-o cubicle, limited personal autonomy, and a long, slogging climb up the ladder. In short - all the patronizing crap without the job security and pensions that used to come along with it. A patronizing environment, but certainly no patron saint to go along with it. Nobody owes me anything. Ok, I said it first. Now let's hear them say it.

dla2000 18y ago
I do feel entitled to get talented employees. But if I cannot get them, I look at the cheepest way to solve my problems, and I turn the work into a commodity. As soon as I do that, I look for the person willing to perform the work for the lowest price, and that isn't likely to be a millenial in the US.
- geebee 18y ago
  The reason I don't see myself as having and attitude of "entitlement" is that I feel you have every right to look elsewhere. If you don't like my terms and conditions, you are not obligated to meet them. I don't have trouble finding work with flexible conditions and a good salary - so when I previous employer tried to change those terms, I quit. But if I hadn't been able to find a new job, I wouldn't have complained - my employer has the right to say "take it or leave it", and I have the right to "leave it". Anything else is just complaining (provided I have the legal right to "leave it", which is why I'm irritated with the H1B terms, which uses non-market mechanisms to undermine the basic contract of a free market democracy). Now, ahem, best of luck with that low, low price outsourcing deal.

dla2000 18y ago

Just wanted to say that I enjoyed this reply. I think that the word choice subordinates was unfortunate, in this case. But basically when you work for a person, you are their subordinate. There's definitely something weird going on with the people I've worked with lately. Despite having only a few years experience they're perfectly willing to commandeer a meeting. The enthusiasm is great. The initiative is excellent. But the content they provide is sub-par. So somewhere there is a gap between "taking initiative" and "knowing what you're talking about and then taking initiative" and that's kind of my problem with the workforce I face. It's not so much subordinate in the sense of "respect my authority" as it is "please when you're speaking in front of the board and I kick you under the table... SHUT UP"