3 ms·

> If an employee completes all the work assigned to them I don't think this was implied in their statement?

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
const_cast 1y ago
Even if it wasn't, being a poor worker still isn't theft, and it's the companies responsibility to both measure and correct employee performance. If they're bad at that and these things go under the radar, that's still on the employer. The only way employees can steal is if they steal time, like clocking in then going home. Salary employees are not paid by time, so they cannot steal time. Employers want to have their cake and eat it too - they want to consider salary employees not time based when it comes to OT, but when it comes to day-to-day they DO want them to be considered time-based. Not how it works. Your workers being bad at their job is not theft, it's just incompetence.
- try_the_bass 1y ago
  Deliberately putting in less than the asked for effort in an attempt to extract more pay for less work is theft in the same way that attempting to minimize pay and maximize effort is "wage theft". It's a knife that cuts both ways. If companies attempting to maximally exploit their employee's time is wage theft, so too is an employee's attempt to get a paycheck without doing work.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    Right, but it's not - because salary paid workers are not paid for their time spent, but rather for their quantity and quality of work. Which is up to employers to measure. Me spending 5 minutes filling up my water is not stealing. Me taking a nice 15 minute walk is also not stealing. Presumably you're going to draw the line somewhere, but the implication of salary jobs is that productivity is not linear. Me spending an extra hour working on something does not translate into an extra unit of work done. Me taking that 15 minute walk doesn't translate to 1/4th less unit of work, either. In fact, it might translate to 1 extra unit of work done. Look at that, I am now bending time into the negative. Human productivity is complicated, and we're not assembly line workers. Also, even the concept of "less work" is dubious. The level of work being done varies from person to person, and nobody actually knows what the minimum is. Everybody should be optimizing for the minimum work necessary to get their pay, because that's just obvious. No hourly worker is going to spend even 1 minute working off the clock. But alas, we have no clock, and we're just kind of... estimating... what level of work really needs to be done, and then calculating that in with our own levels of accomplishment we want, and then convenience. I might work a bit extra to find a nice stopping point, or because I really want to conquer a bug. If a worker decides to work less than whatever their current level of work is, and they don't get fired or even reprimanded, I have to conclude they were previously working above the level of work expected of them. Which means that, overall, not only is this worker not stealing, they've actually been giving.
    - try_the_bass 1y ago
      When I say "less work", I'm intentionally not specifying how the work output is measured, because, as you say, it's different for salaried vs hourly employees (and those are only the two most common forms!) However, the point still remains! Moving the goalposts--or trying to motte-and-bailey the difference between salaried and hourly--is just intellectually dishonest, and doesn't really counter my argument at all. If you want to refer to salaried employees specifically, then yes, "less work" means "consistently getting less done than is asked for on the timescale expected of you". But my argument still holds! This is something I've personally witnessed a handful of co-workers do. You're not wrong that it's up to employers to measure, but part of that measurement relies on trust between the employee and employer. What you're implicitly arguing for is a complete lack of trust, which leads to an entirely different set of workplace problems
      - const_cast 1y ago
        > What you're implicitly arguing for is a complete lack of trust, which leads to an entirely different set of workplace problems This is already the current situation. This is why your computer is monitored and you badge in. And, on the topic of badging in, the reason we do this is because measuring output is hard, and company's are lazy. Measuring time is easy, so they just use that as a proxy for output. That's why a good worker being 15 minutes late every day will eventually get fired, but a bad worker sitting around on his phone will not. Is this is a good way to measure output? Of course not, it's pretty much the most naive and simplistic way you can do it. But it's the most popular method chosen, so, here we are. Look, getting less work done than is expected of you relies on knowing that expectation, which you don't. Has it occurred to you that those "stealing" might just legitimately think that they ARE doing what's expected of them? I mean, they're doing it... and they're employed... so what's the expectation? At the end of the day it would be nice to all hold hands and sing kumbaya. But ultimately, we are all trying to do the least stuff we need to do to get results. Companies are putting in the absolute least amount of effort to measuring performance, and employees are putting in the least effort to get their job done. So, it seems fair to me, and I don't think anyone is stealing.
exe34 1y ago
Isn't that a case for a performance improvement plan or disciplinary review then? Sounds more like bad management to me.
- try_the_bass 1y ago
  Sure, but there's inherent latency between detecting the bad behavior and punishing it. Sometimes that latency is infinite, as tends to be the case in many government jobs. It's not just a "bad management" issue, and trying to blame it entirely on the company is just as bullshit as blaming it entirely on the worker.
  - exe34 1y ago
    > If an employee completes all the work assigned to them The criterion is very clear for the point I'm making. Either you completed the work that was assigned or you didn't.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

Even if it wasn't, being a poor worker still isn't theft, and it's the companies responsibility to both measure and correct employee performance. If they're bad at that and these things go under the radar, that's still on the employer. The only way employees can steal is if they steal time, like clocking in then going home. Salary employees are not paid by time, so they cannot steal time. Employers want to have their cake and eat it too - they want to consider salary employees not time based when it comes to OT, but when it comes to day-to-day they DO want them to be considered time-based. Not how it works. Your workers being bad at their job is not theft, it's just incompetence.

try_the_bass 1y ago
Deliberately putting in less than the asked for effort in an attempt to extract more pay for less work is theft in the same way that attempting to minimize pay and maximize effort is "wage theft". It's a knife that cuts both ways. If companies attempting to maximally exploit their employee's time is wage theft, so too is an employee's attempt to get a paycheck without doing work.
- const_cast 1y ago
  Right, but it's not - because salary paid workers are not paid for their time spent, but rather for their quantity and quality of work. Which is up to employers to measure. Me spending 5 minutes filling up my water is not stealing. Me taking a nice 15 minute walk is also not stealing. Presumably you're going to draw the line somewhere, but the implication of salary jobs is that productivity is not linear. Me spending an extra hour working on something does not translate into an extra unit of work done. Me taking that 15 minute walk doesn't translate to 1/4th less unit of work, either. In fact, it might translate to 1 extra unit of work done. Look at that, I am now bending time into the negative. Human productivity is complicated, and we're not assembly line workers. Also, even the concept of "less work" is dubious. The level of work being done varies from person to person, and nobody actually knows what the minimum is. Everybody should be optimizing for the minimum work necessary to get their pay, because that's just obvious. No hourly worker is going to spend even 1 minute working off the clock. But alas, we have no clock, and we're just kind of... estimating... what level of work really needs to be done, and then calculating that in with our own levels of accomplishment we want, and then convenience. I might work a bit extra to find a nice stopping point, or because I really want to conquer a bug. If a worker decides to work less than whatever their current level of work is, and they don't get fired or even reprimanded, I have to conclude they were previously working above the level of work expected of them. Which means that, overall, not only is this worker not stealing, they've actually been giving.
  - try_the_bass 1y ago
    When I say "less work", I'm intentionally not specifying how the work output is measured, because, as you say, it's different for salaried vs hourly employees (and those are only the two most common forms!) However, the point still remains! Moving the goalposts--or trying to motte-and-bailey the difference between salaried and hourly--is just intellectually dishonest, and doesn't really counter my argument at all. If you want to refer to salaried employees specifically, then yes, "less work" means "consistently getting less done than is asked for on the timescale expected of you". But my argument still holds! This is something I've personally witnessed a handful of co-workers do. You're not wrong that it's up to employers to measure, but part of that measurement relies on trust between the employee and employer. What you're implicitly arguing for is a complete lack of trust, which leads to an entirely different set of workplace problems
    - const_cast 1y ago
      > What you're implicitly arguing for is a complete lack of trust, which leads to an entirely different set of workplace problems This is already the current situation. This is why your computer is monitored and you badge in. And, on the topic of badging in, the reason we do this is because measuring output is hard, and company's are lazy. Measuring time is easy, so they just use that as a proxy for output. That's why a good worker being 15 minutes late every day will eventually get fired, but a bad worker sitting around on his phone will not. Is this is a good way to measure output? Of course not, it's pretty much the most naive and simplistic way you can do it. But it's the most popular method chosen, so, here we are. Look, getting less work done than is expected of you relies on knowing that expectation, which you don't. Has it occurred to you that those "stealing" might just legitimately think that they ARE doing what's expected of them? I mean, they're doing it... and they're employed... so what's the expectation? At the end of the day it would be nice to all hold hands and sing kumbaya. But ultimately, we are all trying to do the least stuff we need to do to get results. Companies are putting in the absolute least amount of effort to measuring performance, and employees are putting in the least effort to get their job done. So, it seems fair to me, and I don't think anyone is stealing.

exe34 1y ago

Isn't that a case for a performance improvement plan or disciplinary review then? Sounds more like bad management to me.

try_the_bass 1y ago
Sure, but there's inherent latency between detecting the bad behavior and punishing it. Sometimes that latency is infinite, as tends to be the case in many government jobs. It's not just a "bad management" issue, and trying to blame it entirely on the company is just as bullshit as blaming it entirely on the worker.
- exe34 1y ago
  > If an employee completes all the work assigned to them The criterion is very clear for the point I'm making. Either you completed the work that was assigned or you didn't.