Quiet quitting is the practice of meeting minimum expectations with low moral or engagement. Underperforming could lead to termination for not meeting minimum expectations.
More like inexperienced middle-management. Discussing the team member’s reasons for disengagement could lead to a solution for them, or even multiple team members. Saying “I have nothing to complain about” proves ineffective leadership looking for cause to terminate.
The only solution I would accept involves guillotines for the rich and the immediate end to the exploitation of the proletariat globally, so I don't think that's going to work for most middle managers.
Engagement and morale are measured independently from performance. The blurb states that the employees are meeting minimum expectations of performance, so the manager has “nothing to complain about.” I’m saying that’s bullshit leadership. If your employees are unhappy, you should ask them why and address any work-related dissatisfaction.
I’m on your side, but you keep missing the point. If you’re in charge of people that need to do a job, and while they are getting the work done, they seem miserable. Wouldn’t you give enough fucks to find out why? Standing there and saying, “well I can’t fire them because they’re doing the work” is the real problem. Not the definition of engagement.
It doesn’t matter if they’re meeting or exceeding expectations. Performance is measured independently of morale and engagement. If you meet expectations, but you’re unhappy at work, a decent leader will ask why and try to make your work life better.
Cringe. Work managers aren't leaders nor should they be, they're just pencil pushers who got promoted out of whatever they were good at and are now going through the motions.
The whole system had to change, a new pool table for the office or this managerial engagement boosting working class oppression tactic isn't work reform.
Engagement and disengagement are effectively separate forms of labor expected of an employee, though, and they're virtually never formally codified. If I'm a coder and my job is to write code, don't expect me to be enthused about writing terrible medical billing software. Enthusiasm and engagement are emotional labor, which I'm not compensated for, and which, to some extent, you can't realistically expect me to demonstrate. I'm not able to "be engaged" beyond performing my tasks and whatever technical or administrative duties I've been assigned. Expecting me to contribute in a way orthogonal to that requires my job to be fundamentally different from what it actually is.
That’s fine if that’s how you like to work. All I’m saying is if an employee is silently quitting by doing the same work but shows less engagement/low morale, the solution isn’t for the manager isn’t to shrug their shoulders because you can’t fire them. That implies the manager’s goal is to terminate due to low performance, which is really shitty leadership.
I said this in another thread, but I’m not criticizing quiet quitting. I’m criticizing the managers’ response to it. If your employees are meeting expectations but unhappy, you should try to improve their work life, not shrug your shoulders because you don’t have a reason to fire them.
Normal working: doing what you're paid for but also asking managers for more work when you're done -> that's what's expected from management and also takes some load off their shoulders, they love that
Over achievement: doing what you're paid for and more without asking management -> management will promise you a seat at the table of you continue doing that long enough!
If there's advancement opportunities try to do the second one until you reach a point where you're happy and then do the first one :)
I’m a skeptic when it comes to lots of things where the common man is getting fucked.
May I ask y'all how highly-paid individuals in high positions came to be that way?
Are they ALL the results of nepotistic practices, ALL inheritors of wealth? Or 80% got there that way?
(In the SF Bay Area, certainly seems I know high performers who work their asses off, make shit tons of money, get promotions before jumping ship to other companies, work at startups that get acquired…)
Disclaimer: not endorsing neglecting your family or personal life for a pipe dream of prosperity, just sharing one perspective
Edit: I forgot, the argument could easily be “the vast majority of high earners got there by job hopping”!
A good point on the luck aspect, and you reminded me of the fact that people who already have money have "better luck" in the respect that they have more opportunities to try new things.
It's like one of those carnival games where you throw darts at balloons. Middle-class kids might get one or two darts while wealthy kids get 10. And the poor kids are the ones working at the carnival.
Something like 20% of businesses fail in their first year, and 80% are gone by year 5. If you can afford to start 5 different businesses, your odds of one surviving long enough to get bought up by Google or something are much better than somebody who put their life savings into their company.
We built some proof for the darts phenomenon in an economics class. Professor gave everyone a certain number of pieces of candy. Everyone was allowed to trade for a while, then we counted candy at the end. (Might’ve been stipulations on how trades worked, can’t recall). As you’d imagine, any kid who started with 10 pieces of candy ended with more candy than any kid who started with 3 pieces. Powerful example 🍭
In the current climate, internal promotions are a rarity. They say that you should be changing companies roughly every 3 years to ensure you're getting paid what you're worth, as pay raises don't keep up with experience. New responsibilities come quickly while promotions and pay raises come slowly. The number of times I've heard somebody say that they left a job for an immediate 10-30% (or even 50%!) pay raise and reduced responsibilities for even the same job has gotten to the point where I just expect it now.
Like everything else, it varies, but company loyalty is long dead.
Yeah, and there's the old saying, "It's not what you know, but who you know." Even ignoring the nepotism that that can obviously be applied to, there's something major to be said about social networking and finding a good job (whether that's a new job or a promotion within a company or even changing fields entirely).
When I was in college over a decade ago, our school had a program set up with GDC (the Game Devlopers' Convention) to send 3rd year students and put them up in a hotel for the duration of the convention so that they could meet industry professionals and see what was new in the industry. And right from the first day, our professors expressed how important going to the convention and getting to know the people in your major were because they could potentially lead to you getting your next job, whether your first year out of school or decades later. And that was years before the current climate of the job sector had really taken off. Some of those guys had been making games since the 80s or 90s.
Make a good impression on someone, and they might call you about a new job opening before it's publicly posted.
Makes some sense, eh? The social creature thinks to those with whom it has relationships when deciding who to nominate for an employment relationship.
Certainly downsides, like missing better candidates you’ve never met and a bias against introverted or socially anxious candidates. That said, not a phenomenon I imagine changing much. So many applicants for every post - an IRL filter is effective at, if nothing else, shrinking the pool significantly.
I work a job that requires a highschool diploma and that offers advancement opportunities and people at my level and higher are younger than me.
In fact, my manager two levels above me is quite a bit younger than me and he started at the most basic level years before me, so I guess these opportunities are open to people younger than me... Huh...
Also, very funny that you're taking to a millennial like they were a boomer...
Not a manager, just someone who did exactly what I said, worked a bit harder for a year and a half, moved two steps up the ladder and now sitting cozy doing exactly what I'm paid for and nothing more as I don't want to move any higher because it would mean being in a position of authority.
Do you really think I would tell you to aim to reach a point where you're happy and then start to work your wage if I was a manager?
He said to the guy telling others to reach the point where they're happy with what they're doing and to then work their wage and nothing more.
If I was on my knees in front of management I would be telling everyone to just keep working harder forever, not to stop doing it once they don't have or want advancement opportunities.
Then work your fucking wage and that's it then, don't bitch when others decide to put a bit more effort in order to move ahead if you're expecting to be offered the same opportunity without showing that you're actually able to do more than what is asked of you.
If I see someone eating the same meal every day I will come to the conclusion that they're either unable or unwilling to cook something else so I won't ask them to cook me something else.
No matter where you want to achieve something, you have to show initiative for it to happen.
Right now we're talking about work and they say they won't work harder for advancement? Then they won't get advancement.
If we were on a DIY forum and we were talking about building a fence and they were saying "I won't take time from my day to make it and no way I'll pay someone to do it for me." my reaction would be the same, show some initiative or don't complain if shit doesn't happen.
People can complain about nepotism and jobs not going to those who deserve it, but they can't also complain about jobs going to those who decide to put in the work while they're doing the bare minimum (i.e. jobs going to those who show they deserve it because they take action and show that they're willing and able to do more).
What you call "quiet quitting" IS putting in the work. You even said it yourself - it's doing exactly what is expected of you.
What you call "showing initiative" is allowing yourself to be ruled by the whims of a wannabe master. If they wanted you to do more, they should have put that in the job description. And if there's still work to be done, they should have hired another person. 1 can't do the work of 2.
If your goal is to stay in the position you're in then do what you're paid for and nothing else, but don't complain you're not offered the same opportunities if you see someone showing they're ready and able to do more get promoted, no shit people will assume you can't do more if you don't show them you're able to, that applies to everything in life, not just work.
You won't get stronger by always curling the same dumbbell for the same number of reps. No one will just take your word for it if you say you're able to run a marathon in 4 hours if they always see you sitting on the couch playing video games.
Hell, with your mentality why go to school? I mean, who are they to rate your work? Why should you need to prove to anyone that your understand what you were taught? You know you do and that's what's important and people should realize that and offer you a job based on your confidence that you're the best surgeon in your country! Right?
I see people in this thread complaining about nepotism but when I mention meritocracy they're just as mad. Well then, what is your fucking solution?
It was always a stupid fucking term that equates doing a job with quitting.
Not increasing pay isn't quit firing, because there is no firing. It is just businesses being stingy.
Edit: Guess I wasn't clear enough that I am responding to the general statement that not giving raises is constructive dismissal, and didn't add a footnote that not giving raises to specific people could be part of constructive dismissal. Nuance is hard.
I feel like meeting that to a legal level is a stretch. Minor cost of living raises that don't meet inflation doesn't rise to that level in my uneducated understanding
Not increasing pay with inflation is a pay cut because your pay is literally worth less without it.
In a sane world, if the fed is dictating the money supply, with their actions directly impacting inflation, every workers pay should be indexed to inflation. Same goes for taxation, welfare payments, etc. Companies raise their prices regardless.
I am not placing blame, just observing that News Companies still have staff and could be on the side of the Capitalists when it comes to worker rights.
Edit: I think I understand. I agree, not all staff writers (or any?) could be in a position to refuse the editor when they say "write me a piece on quiet quitting".
Ahh, flexibility definitely compensates for a good bit of opportunity cost. Know people who stay in easier remote jobs to avoid the responsibilities and demands that come with moving to certain higher-paid positions.
There's also freedom from corporate culture, which I have had enough of in the past. Overall I think I'm happier keeping my perfectly tolerable job in its place and earning less, though I can see how others make a different choice and would negatively judge what I do.
I've got my feelers out there but I'm gonna stick it out here for another year - currently working on a certification to switch to a higher-paid position and the company is paying for it
How is taking a pay cut when there's massive inflation even remotely understandable? Inflation means that they need to pay you more, not less; your costs are rising.
Businesses don't care about your costs. They care about paying as little as possible for as good a quality as they can.
Same way you don't care if your grocery store mega chain got hacked and lost $300 million, that's not your problem, if they raise the price of bread you'll go somewhere else.
I fail to see how we are responsible for the emotional well being of our management. Did I do my job? Yep! Did I do it well? Yep! Stand and deliver thy raise O manager, or face the wrath of my competing job offer.
I can't wait until AI hits these middle managers that were just enough good at their jobs to earn a promotion and now spend their days sending angry emails to the people that actually do the work, while collecting more income than the workers... 🖕
"Quiet quitting" is a bullshit term meaning to do your job but nothing above or beyond that. Joshua Fluke has done multiple videos on this BS, and at this point there are plenty of other idiotic terms thrown around to try and make workers look bad.
Doesn’t even question what employees are possibly doing. Just says there are too many and they must be put out on the street. Says the people who are left are making too much money.
I say this a lot but…seriously…when do we start burning things?
I’m not for people only interested in benefiting themselves being the ones rewarded most by society, let alone being the ones effectively in charge of society as they are.
It isn’t heroic, benevolent, or even minimally pro-social to spend your life trying to accrue private profit for the sake of private profit. It just makes you greedy and selfish. Or as they call it with their orwellian language manipulation, “rational self-interest.” being greedy, selfish, and unconcerned with the effects your actions have on others makes you a vile, broken, contemptible person, and humanity seems to have forgotten that entirely, or at least we’ve been propagandized to forget it by the owner class.
We punish people that dare to pursue vocations that benefit society, like teachers and paramedics, and reward selfishness.
I can’t root for my own species in this state. Slitting eachother’s throats when there’s another dollar to be had by it. If this is truly what our species has chosen as it’s most practiced purpose and meaning, I want no part of it, and I will be grateful when it’s time to leave it.
I’ve heard humanity described as being composed of “self-interested, rational economic actors” to help us understand economics.
Like, we all want the eggs from the farmers’ market that were laid by the happiest hens. A farmer can assume we’re rational & self-interested when pricing her eggs so she can try to sell enough of them to make a living. $2/egg won’t fly because stores sell them so much cheaper.
Think I’m saying morally bankrupt, anti-social hoarders have rational self-interest but so do normal people like you & me. I’m fizzling out here but either way hoarding’s bad :)
Right, but there’s no term for being greedy, sociopathic, or engaging in hoarding in economics.
They fall under Orwellian double speak terms that make them complimentary, “rational self-interest, creating externalities, curtailing redundancies” etc. Language designed to turn their sins into their achievements.
Considering the central prominence of greed in our economy, it’s a glaring ommission that the capitalists and economists themselves seem to have forgotten that word, or to create an economic term for greed that isn’t complimentary.
They are driven almost entirely by insatiable greed, yet the term is never uttered in their earnings reports or economic news.
They seem to want the concept of greed as the pejorative it is to be forgotten entirely, despite it demonstrably being their core value.
Greed is the best descriptive word and incredibly negative as you’ve said. No reason to make a more negatively charged word. The tale of Midas, and others, demonstrate how destructive and harmful greed is.
Midas has always stuck with me since I first heard the tale and in a way informed who I am today, especially my political leanings.
I own a little Google stock. I don’t mind they pay their employees a shit ton. I want them make good products. I’m not a fan of most their products but that’s just me
My hatred of the owner class is matched only by my disappointment in my fellow humans for not only taking it, but often defending it.
The people we struggle for have abandoned their humanity. That’s what it takes to be one of society’s supposed winners or be in their good graces: practiced sociopathy.
And half of the peasants fantasize about being the sociopaths instead of ending their reign and this despicable con game of an economy.
Summed up concisely. I’ve unfortunately given up hope that anything can be done or can improve. It feels the fight, whatever fight there ever was, has been lost.
Yeah, I’m not sure I really get this whole “reduce employment” logic. Like if some product just isn’t profitable and you lay off the employees you hired to work on it, that’s not surprising, but if the employees are doing something profitable, and you actually needed to hire that many to get whatever it was you hired them for done, shouldn’t it be more profitable to a company to keep them, even if one had a large number?
Moreover, if all the oligarchs are doing it, and they are, who will be left to buy their products/services?
They’re breaking their own ponzi scheme economy for a few more quarterly profit boosts because there’s nowhere else to grow/metastasize. Media companies are making less media. Food makers are making less product types. Their profit is coming out of gutting workers and their ability to produce what their economic sector produced in the first place.
This is a terminal stage market capitalism fire sale. The snake is eating its own tail having conquered the board.
Because this is the End of the Line. The snake has found its tail and Oroborous awakens to transform the end into the beginning. An ideology of everlasting consumption will eventually consume itself.
Bold of you to assume the stock market has anything to do with finite resources.
When the ultra wealthy and their companies run the system into the ground they will buy up the failed stocks and cheap land that nobody else can afford then come out ahead when the economy recovers like they have in the previous economic crashes. They can afford to buy low and cash out when it is high because they have zero pressure to act at any given point in time due to their ridiculous wealth and zero legal repercussions.
But even then there reaches a point where they run out of things to buy, and people to buy them from.
Eventually they poison the one thing they worship: the sanctity of private property rights. It has to serve at least some portion of the populace if it’s going to remain tenable, but they’re doomed to discover and undershoot that number.
The Western world spent a century demonising socialism with “they’ll take your home and car” but it rings hollow when you have neither.
The stock market is the reason for chasing quarterly profits and a massive part of what gets counted as the economy. It is the main driver of all the shitty late stage capitalism practices we are discussing.
Most of them are not. That’s the beauty of a cash cow like Google. They’re working on things that may be profitable in the future. By cutting the future, you’re cutting future growth.
It’s why I dislike hedge funds. They’re stripping value instead of creating value.
He says they aren’t needed “operationally” but Alphabet is not supposed to be merely operating anything. They are supposed to be inventing and experimenting and pushing the envelope. This discontented billionaire just wants ever-increasing rent on existing IP and should be called out as a simple landlord and not called an investor at all.
The rich person only cares about short term profits. They want to liquidate any good will and long term preparedness. Once the host corporation has been sufficiently bled of value, the parasite will move on to the next source of value it can find.
Correct. R&D only creates future value. Usually in the VC model, R&D is done by individuals or small groups and then funded (bought) by VC to get it to market. So even though the R&D do-er can cash out their future profits for immediate profits, the value of that R&D can’t be realized immediately.
I personally think the VC and legacy models are currently competing, and VC is winning out. As we see here, even large, established companies aren’t immune to impinging VCs.
I’m genuinely not super revolutionary but I didn’t get halfway through this letter before coming to the realization that this person needed to not exist anymore and same for anybody else of the same ilk.
Because he doesn’t care. He’s looking out for himself.
“Hey Googs, you have too many employees and that’s cutting in my investments. Shitcan 150,000 so my investments go up and I make more billions kthxbye”
The source matters, too. This is a dude exploiting people and hoarding so much needed wealth. To an obscene amount. Like, he has more than enough to do everything he could possibly dream of, for the rest of his life. And long after he’s gone, all his descendants will be set and will never have to worry about money for their entire lives…
So what does this psychopath obsess about? “Please kick people out into the street and reduce the pay of anyone who remains. Number go up… Fuck em, got mine lol”
The career growth is really amazing. I work at a unionized place that is required to fill positions internally before outside hires. When a senior employee retires from a top level position it will be filled by someone at the company. Typically someone in a mid level position. Then there’s a chain effect where now that mid level position is open that will go to entry level workers. The only outside hires tend to be for entry level jobs.
It’s great because when you talk to the senior staff, almost all of them started at the bottom and worked their way up. This gives them better knowledge of how the whole operation works since they’ve done the jobs below them, and also a little empathy!
I hate this kind of thing, it creates a hirarical culture instead of promoting people by merit. Basically younger people get screwed in favor of older people. It also means that nothing will ever change within the company.
I had an employee review with my manager this week, at my request. She told me she wasn't comfortable uptraining me right now even though they badly need the help in the position I asked to be crosstrained for, because they'd rather hire someone just for the role; but we could talk about it again in two months. After a little digging, I found that (A) they can't afford to lose me from my lower-paid role and (2) they know I'm looking for another job and don't want to train me until I demonstrate I'm planning to stay.
My response is that (A) well you're definitely gonna lose me now and (2) I'm definitely no longer willing to stay.
I asked questions during the review. My.manager was evasive but it wasn't hard to put together. In the restaurant industry, everyone is hiring right now as they expand for patio season. That won't be the case as much in two months and we both know it; if I'm going to leave it'll likely be in the next two weeks.
If they communicated better, and offered the training/position/salary increase as incentive to stay, that would (imo) be a better course of action. This just feels rude and incompetent
Well I mean I am awful with people, but this problem even I could solve. They had about 3 possible holes to fit the peg through, but no, they just threw the toybox out of the window.
MAYBE OP is just awful at their job. But if they wanted to keep him where he was, that makes little sense.
Additional info: I typically work the least desirable shifts because of family obligations. Me leaving this position or even dropping to part time would leave a hole in the schedule, and she's very lazy when it comes to the schedule. I'm offering to take the same shift in a different role.
Similar situation on my end awhile back. Location had begun losing people. I was in a bottom rung management position, more title than authority, and the team knew it. However, I was also the only manager willing to be consistently on later shifts. Due to pretty intense compartmentalization issues were often isolated and fixed by managers within each department. Except later on at night I was alone with a smaller team. This presented a bit of a situation:
If a problem came up I was expected to text or call a manager. As you can imagine, they did not often reply or pick up.
Many problems require rather immediate solutions.
I wasn't being trained to receive the skills necessary to deal with many situations so I began enabling key members of the evening team and standing in front of them if mistakes were made, acting as a wall.
Due to all of this, and a lot of work being handled by a smaller team, (and some issues going consistently ignored by senior management) we saw several people leave. In the middle of all this I was isolated and made out to be the reason for some systemic issues, told I could no longer take the initiative to help, and the team caught wind.
Eventually I began looking for other jobs. When I let my bosses know boy were they surprised. By the time I left one manager had claimed to have started having anxiety attacks during their shift, the whole unreachable during situations thing became a problem for upper, and well...long story short shit and fan began to meet.
If a problem came up I was expected to text or call a manager. As you can imagine, they did not often reply or pick up.
Many problems require rather immediate solutions.
These are not your problems. If management has enacted a procedure that doesn't work, don't change it or you will be blamed for any failure.
Send a few emails to document your opinion that there are problems. Otherwise, do exactly what was recommended. You want the policy to fail. Don't try to improve it without management support.
I learned this in my previous job. We were a city-owned theater, which came with all of the trappings of government bureaucracy. But we were also open after hours, and did a lot of technical work for our shows. The city’s IT would log off on Friday at 5pm, and not log back in again until 8am on Monday. We were one of the few departments that was open over the weekend and after hours, (often until 1 or 2am when loading shows out.)
So naturally, we butted heads with IT a lot. Because we didn’t have access to change things we often needed to change. Whenever we needed to urgently troubleshoot something before a show started, our hands were almost always tied by IT. And IT’s given solution was always the same. Submit a ticket, and we’ll get to it when we get to it. But when you have 2000 people waiting on a show to start at 7pm on a Saturday, you can’t wait for IT to get back into the office on Monday.
Historically, the solution was to use our own gear. Every technician had their own personal laptop, so they could use that instead of the city laptop. But this caused issues of its own, because we couldn’t connect to any of the city-controlled gear as the city network was MAC filtered, (and IT obviously wasn’t going to allow our personal devices to connect to their network.) We worked with what we had, worked around problems we couldn’t fix, and it was a lot of extra stress for no extra benefit; The higher-ups didn’t see a problem because the shows were never visibly impacted. And IT didn’t see a problem, because the higher-ups weren’t complaining.
Eventually, we just started letting it burn. Shows suddenly started 15 to 30 minutes late, (which was unheard of in a building where even 2 minutes late was considered unacceptable.) Clients didn’t get equipment they had paid for, because it was broken on Friday evening and we couldn’t troubleshoot it over the weekend. Projectors didn’t have video feeds, because techs stopped using their personal laptops for shows. Et cetera, et cetera. Instead, the techs simply started noting every time they wanted to fix something but couldn’t because their hands were tied.
And wouldn’t you know it, the system got fixed. IT was suddenly required to keep someone on call for weekend tickets. Because when people stop propping up the broken system, all of the flaws get discovered and heads roll until shit gets fixed.
Somewhat related, advice about being irreplaceable is bad for this exact reason. The more replaceable you are, the easier to promote you and take longer vacations. Sure you might be able to get fired more easily, but most managers won't put forth the effort.
Not trying to be an asshole, but this is privilege in action. For low paying jobs, managers will fire you at the drop of a hat. Jobs that pay better are more secure.
I remember doing self assessments before reviews, I just gave myself 5s because they were going to change everything to 3.5 anyhow unless you invented cold fusion and sucked everyone's dick
Well, Mr Chalupapocalypse, your breakthrough on cold fusion is really profitable for the company, but the VP of marketing was disappointed you didn't cup his balls during last week's blowjob session, so...best we can do is a 3.9
It’s important to keep this in mind whenever retailers decry shoplifters as a source of price increases - the retailers steal more from their employees paychecks than what is stolen from them (and most shrinkage isn’t due to theft anyways).
It’s also important to keep this in mind whenever asshats like Bezos or Musk talk about eliminating the NLRB.
Depends on the theft. I won’t rat out someone stealing food or baby formula. But I would for sure rat out those group-assaults on premium brands. They smash and break shit unnecessarily and leave chaos for the workers when they’re gone.
Exactly, they shure as shit don’t have a problem giving their “food” away now. The truth is most likely that telling their investors that they won’t make so much money will be a devastating financial blow.
In our local fast foods most places are already advertising at least $19 hour for new hires. Is also over $20 for a kids meal and one adult meal “deal”, which takes less than 5-6 minutes to sell me.
I mean, my kid worked at a McD and got so much free food and not the stuff they are about to throw, but he would straight up make himself a quarter pounder combo, and then make me one fresh for free as many times as he wanted. He even would stop by on his off days, walk in and cook himself something and they didn’t care because of how much money they brought in. It was stupid and they should definitely raise the salaries of their employees instead of just showering them with free McD food.
I just saw Docs, nurses and staff who had pensions for 30+ years just get butchered as the new Hospital system took over. Routed it all to standard 401ks. Why put your soul into a company. They will never come through. That ship has sailed.
My only hope is people look around at the fact that one of the few ways to still get a pension is through union work, and the current unionization wave continues into something bigger, better, and greater than we've had in the past.
That’s one of the risks of not being unionized. My employer can’t touch my pension (not that they would want to since they all came up from the union rank and file too) because it’s all managed through our union contract and there’s no chance in hell that we ever approve a contract that gives them that kind of control.
Even that isn’t complete protection. The government can always change the rules as they go. Not to mention a complete breakdown of society wouldn’t exactly do wonders for pensions and 401k’s either.
I mean, I'd heard that this is how the labour market is supposed to work in theory, but I didn't realise that some CEOs were actually doing it. Corporate America does NOT want you to think about this.
I recently started at a private company that does profit sharing through ESOP. This year to all invested employees, so those more than ~1yr, they contributed around 30% of their annual salary in stock to their retirement. The private stock price rose about 32% from last year as well. On average the stock goes up 20%+ and the contributions have been around 18%. The founder and IG CEO found that companies that have an ESOP grow faster than others, and are happier. It takes 6 years for full investment, but after that, when you leave, they pay out your shares at that stock price, over a few payments I believe.
I wasn't a believer when I started at an ESOP. But looking at my retirement funds after working for 8 years at the company. Then comparing it to friends who were given shares of large public companies and making maybe like 10k over 4 years. Absolutely worth it.
If I were eligible this year, it would have been >20k just given to me for retirement. They also contribute to 401k. It's nothing crazy but it's something on top of ESOP. I don't want to need to work until I'm to old to enjoy retirement, but my wife and I like to travel now. This helps do both.
And this is like tip of the iceberg bare minimum type shit, it's not even suggesting workers own the means of production or anything that radical, all it is is paying employees a more appropriate share of the profits (the company is still making an obscene amount of that profit, and the employees are still under paid for their labour, it's how the pyramid scheme we call capitalism works, but this is proof that even while continuing to roll in billions, other employers don't have to be keeping their employees on poverty wages, they choose to).
Why would workers own the means of production if they didn’t set up the business in the first place? It’s just a hired labour. If you hire someone to do something this doesn’t mean they should suddenly have a part of that thing.
Just go and do it or join the existing one. There’s like plenty of them here. And if there isn’t at your location it’s still better to act than complain.
The group said the costs “simply cannot be absorbed by the business model.”
They can do business, just not be as profitable if they can’t pay slave wages. The problem here is in the quote… they don’t want to change the model where the franchisee’s earn a little less and their crews can actually afford rent.
Why the heck should the franchisee be footing the bill? Make corporate McDonald’s pay for it. Surely they’ve made enough money off ice cream machines by now to afford it…
The irony of you asking for smarts to be considered in regards to a mega billion dollar corp, who can more than afford this change for the entire country, let alone just California, is astounding while you are commenting the stupidest crap about “free markets” in relation to this news. It is hilariously pedantic…
There is literally nothing incorrect with the statement “enforced minimum wages go against the free market philosophy” and the statement itself makes no claim one way or the other about their personal views. It’s just pointing out a factually incorrect claim. Ironically enough, your paragraph reply is the hilariously pedantic part
They didn’t opt to accept the consequences. They opted to look for another job once the salary expectations a jump make sense. Perhaps it’s what dell wanted in order to avoid headlines about layoffs.
They've got plenty of time to make the jump since they can just coast along with their Dell salary until them. Quitting starts a clock until you have to just accept whatever is available, but staying employed and knowing you have to leave eventually let's you start looking without the pressure.
Smaller companies are better IMHO. I've worked for evil giant software companies (via acquisition) and fairly small companies (~50 employees) and the only thing the big companies do better on is healthcare costs (volume pricing) and believe or not holidays. Maybe companies are just cheapening out but 10 holiday days was the standard. In 2017 I switched jobs and that company only had 6 holiday days a year (and they are terribly cheap in many other ways). I left that job and was back to 10 days. But that company got bought and the place that bought us only has 8 holiday days. At least they gave us 2 additional vacation days to make up for it.
Last year the org I worked for was acquired, this year the new org I work for acquired another. So far my experience is the acquired company gets shit on lol.
My company was acquired last year and the new company basically gave us extra vacation days to "keep us whole". They also adjusted our salaries to make up for a slight difference in 401k match, etc.
When Putin goes to Hauge(or coffin), I recommend you to look into working in Russia. We have by labour law 14 vacations and 28 vacation days, where each vacation is at leasy 14 days long. Also clarification for americans: we have paid sick days or rather 10 paid sick months, very basic UHC for foreigners and decent(in Moscow) state insurance(works as tax) for residents and citizens.
Willing to bet he knew nothing about the union issues and was just there for the Album PR. His manager said “Be here at this date and time and serve coffee and you’ll get a few more million album sales”
It’s PR that’s working very well but you just don’t get to see it. If you read the article, why makes sense. His new album and the associated concert have a fall theme with autumn in the name.
The bland as fuck white-girls and yoga-chick types who love those crappy drinks are also far more likely to listen to this fucker. It’s mass appeal for all these future Karens who are now happy that they 1, got their shitty lattes sooner; 2, got it served by the singer who writes all their shitty pop songs; 3, are now aware and have a stronger memory regarding this upcoming tour.
To be fair, and I am not comparing the two at all because you can’t compare Ed Sheeran with him, but Elton John only writes lyrics too. Bernie Taupin writes most of Elton John’s music.
Elton John was the person that came to mind when I read that as well, but it’s actually the other way around: Elton John is the composer, Bernie Taupin is the lyricist.
It’s promoting his upcoming new album and shows. I didn’t know about either, because Ed’s music is not my thing. That said, I’m infinitely more likely to spend money on either just by knowing. Now take my experience and apply it to someone that might buy either experience. If a couple of people do, and it’s likely that will happen because that’s how marketing works, then it will probably be worth it. Even with this article, more people will be exposed increasing the chance for more buyers.
Dude if I got my ass out of retail/food service to finally become a famous rock star, and my PR agent told me to go work a shift at the local MickyDs I would absolutely fire my agent… From a replica Quake 1 rocket launcher.
Or if that can’t be invented yet I’ll settle for good ol Reliable Trebuchet.
I didn’t know he had a new album coming out. Now I do. And now we’re all talking about it. That’s all they’re looking for, more people discussing it so it’s back of mind when it actually drops.
I’m not sure why that would disqualify him for scab behavior. Also anyone basing this much of their branding around pumpkin spice bullshit should at least be a little aware of the situation with the union.
100% this. People actually think that folks track the inner-political bullshit at Starbucks?? The delusion of some people is incredible.
If you don’t like Starbuck’s agenda, then how about you just stop buying food from there? Oh, but that is a bridge too far for most. Hell, I bet 1/2 the people crying in here have probably bought from Starbucks and ordered from Amazon and given money to other anti-worker companies in the last week.
And they don’t get that it’s not the regulations demanding fair wages that are the enemy. It’s low wages and high costs for their potential customers that is killing their business.
but the question is. Did they use the PPP loan like they were supposed to?
because so many of those PPP loans just ended up being free money for owners/executives and the bottom rung workers who needed it most didnt see a dime.
Came here to say the same thing. It’s crazy how these people put on blast how they basically don’t have a viable business. Guess it doesn’t take brains or business sense to open a restaurant though. Just about the worst kind of business you could open.
Also why is their voice so fucking amplified. Like why are we forced to hear their whiny bitching about how they have to pay a marginally better wage to their employees. ABC just went out of their way to find one annoying prick and gave them a platform to spew their procapitalist garbage. And if you have ever eaten at a place like this, the food is the most generic bland shit imaginable. These are the pricks who are complaining, exactly the kinda entitled fuckers you would expect.
Plenty of places are thriving with higher minimum wage.
This restaurant crying this hard isnt because they cant afford the wages. Its that owners grew fat on the exploitation, and will now have to slim their excess to pay proper, fair wages.
This is horrible and obnoxious tree trimming. Bad for the trees, bad for urban tree canopy, bad for urban heat management, bad for carbon sequestration, and done as an insult to labor.
I asked our AI overlords for an appropriate punishment:
The company executives have to spend the weekend acting as city gardeners, complete with typical gardening attire, tending to the local parks and trees - ensuring the community that they’re committed to their “root-level” duties.
Where as I don’t disagree with the timing being retaliatory, my parents have similar trees and my father had me do that just before he passed away. I was convinced I was killing the trees and turns out their canopy is larger than ever now, so it might not be terrible for trees, but still timing is bullshit.
I’m not an arborist and we don’t have those type of tree where I live, but I have worked in landscaping before. My understanding any substantial trimming like that I’ve done in the past should never be done in the hottest part of the year because the tree will have trouble retaining water.
This looks more like tipping than pollarding to me. If it’s supposed to be pollarding whoever’s doing it is shit at it. Tipping is harmful to trees, and based on the photos of the tree prior to it being cut it looks like it may have been tipped once in the year already (likely why they weren’t issued a permit by the city and cut it illegally).
The trim is negligible when you are talking about carbon sequestration in the scheme of things too. I’m not sure how the other points stand up either - but the timing would suggest it is an insult to the labour.
In order to update these spreadsheets and email some fuckers, society must allow for 200lbs of meat to be moved fifty miles per day. Because someone has to stare at me. The meat.
2,000Lbs is a low estimate. 2,500Lbs assumes they drive a subcompact, 4,100Lbs is the current average weight (and 2004 was already at 4K so I'm not sure if this statistic counts SUVs/trucks or not). Even Kei cars are 1500-2500Lbs (ICE versions being lighter, though there are smaller and lighter cars including 2-person EVs that are under 1K*.
I would also add the time spent in a car (particularly in slow/jammed traffic) is also sedentary time (which an office job also likely is) and thus a health issue. So some people buy gym memberships which they must also drive to. If they even have the time/money/energy.
Also lots of bad things to be said about roads(/stroads) and parking lots etc. But the short of it is, they aren't places hospitable for living. Particularly on a hot day.
*=Though this lower-size vehicle may be legally classified as something else, such a a "covered motorcycle"/autocycle (or from what I'm seeing, some other close-enough category) which may be an issue or a boon with laws, and may even depend on local laws.
From the collective consciousness I pulled the 2004 Toyota Corolla weighing in at 2,502 to 2,590 lbs. Because certainly there's no other way I would guess The the most average car so on-the-nose. And I have seen the videos about the Honda Insight being good for gas mileage (even back in 1999, it's a hybrid).
I guess actual price, availability, perception, mantenence etc. molds it for most people though.
4,100Lbs is the current average weight (and 2004 was already at 4K so I’m not sure if this statistic counts SUVs/trucks or not)
CAFE standards required proportionally greater economy improvements in compact cars than in medium and large vehicles. Rather than attempt to meet those standards, manufacturers just stopped producing their smallest cars.
Fuel economy has worsened, because the average car on the road is bigger and heavier now than 30 years ago.
Work Reform
Top