This completely makes sense. People should reject assignments if they are unethical! It’s almost like the young generation is doing the right thing. The horror!
When the government is expected to provide such generous benefits (half his salary in Spain, per the article) it seems that something has to change. It’s even good that some people are working past that age, and continuing to pay into it for others. It seems inappropriate to ask the people who are depending on the pension to reduce benefits or pay more- why not ask more of the true beneficiaries of their labor?
My US-centric view is less rosy, as we get WAY less in pension and limited healthcare…all the while there are literal billionaires who pay no taxes. Keep the benefits, tax the rich.
The problem is less to do with personal goals and more to do with how your company or manager implements them.
My team has their org goals, which is what our bonuses are based on, and each person’s individual goals that they set with me. Those goals have the boilerplate reviews, and we keep it metrics based. Did we miss, meet, or exceed our goals? There’s a formula, which everyone knows before the year starts (because we wrote them as a group and them got board executive sign off on them) that tells us what our bonus metric will be. We sink or swim as a group, myself included. Each person has individual goals related to their unique role, but those are largely “Did you perform at the level expected of your title and salary?” No fluff. No BS. Some of my people write sentences, some give concise bullets, some write 3 word answers. This isn’t the SATs, so it doesn’t matter how the info is provided.
Then we have the personal goals, which are 100% rooted in the question “what do you want next?” For some people, it’s to move into a more Sr role, for others to break into a new discipline (expertise in a particular area, management, or something completely different), and sometimes it’s as simple as “make $30k more per year” or “have more time with my kids in the evenings.” (For the last one, it’s usually easy - we are remote with few mandatory hours so it’s easy to modify a schedule to have free hours when needed) We set personal goals and I coach them to achieve them, but the only person they answer to if they don’t achieve them is themselves. It has zero impact on their performance metrics, bonuses, or raises.
I want to see everyone have the life and career they want, and we use these goals as way to work towards that. Our 1-on-1 meetings are NOT about their tasks. We have the task board and team syncs for that and I can schedule a 1-off chat if we need to address something. Instead we spend the 1-on-1 more or less on whatever topic they want to address. If something is stressing them, annoying them, etc, they have that time to bring it up and we can try to find a solution. One of my people has a goal to move to a city 9 time zones away. They also highly values their work/life balance, so flexing their schedule is likely not going to solve this so instead I’m helping them leave the team for a new job. Ideally I’ll keep them in the company, but if that doesn’t work out and they have to leave, so be it. It’s what’s best for them and everyone else here sees it - that shit goes a long way.
If you’re doing bullshit personal goals and nonsense 1-on-1 meetings, that’s the manager and culture at fault, not the concept as a whole.
Ever notice how “personal goals” are supposed to be focused on work? That’s because companies are using it to extract more productivity from the same number of employees for the same price. They’re trying to exploit human nature through gamifying your workload for a dopamine rush. When this is realized it often feels condescending, because it is.
I'm solidly middle aged, and I don't want to work either. But I don't want to be homeless either, so I'm going to get as much money as I can, for as little labor as possible. That's capitalism baby.
Spent four years in college, went $60k in debt for it, and I still have to take fucking personality tests as part of the interview process for the one fucking interview I get for every 50+ jobs I apply to. Not to mention that entry level jobs are basically nonexistant and professional workplaces only care to get employees that already have experience from God knows where. So that leaves us starting out in our careers with the strategy of “fake it till you make it”, which creates further scrutiny during the interview processes. But no, apparently the problem is that people are too lazy. Fuck everything about the hiring process these days.
“97% of UPS workers represented by the Teamsters voted to authorize the largest single-employer strike in U.S. history if there’s no acceptable contract deal in place by the end of July.”
Oh baby. I hope UPS hurts and capitulates in a spectacular fashion to set an example for others: treat your workers well, or hurt then treat your workers well.
This article is aloof and out of touch. The challenges facing Gen Z are obvious.
Pollak recommended that companies employ a method called “reverse mentoring,” in which junior and senior employees meet regularly to discuss their perspectives on the workplace.
That mix could help increase workplace satisfaction and counter negative feelings younger workers have about their jobs. For instance, older employees are more likely to find their jobs enjoyable and fulfilling
No shit, older people have their housing, and also canard advice like “just show up”. When Gen Z shows up with 60k in debt, outrageously obscenely unaffordable housing prospects, absurd healthcare costs, and inflation all stacked ontop, the issue is not with the generation but the disparity. “Reverse mentoring” will only infuriate them.
This is coming from a Xennial, who is still waiting for those “good times” to show up that the fucking idiot boomers got handed early on.
Work Reform
Active