Yeah I’m not saying that’s better. I never defended that stupid shit. I’m pointing out there’s a lot of Reddit bullshit flying around this post by people that have more than likely either never been in a proper management position or who were absolutely godawful at it when given the opportunity.
You think people are happy doing busywork? They’re not. People fucking despise it.
Yeah. Being stuck at work, nothing to do, just waiting for the time to clock out and go home.
It’s fucking miserable. Those days suck. You get to think of all the shit you’d rather be doing than staring at walls or lazily scrubbing floors you already scrubbed twice already just to look busy. It’s shitty for staff morale and it’s even worse for budget efficiency. No one likes feeling unimportant or unneeded.
And besides, how the fuck you think a company is gonna survive if it’s wasting money on unnecessary staff? Even with a redistribution of wealth from the worthless c-suite back down to people who work for a living, the company still has to be profitable in order to be able to pay those wages and salaries, in order to be able to increase those wages and salaries for cost of living and inflation and merit based raises.
You don’t become profitable by wasting money.
I literally explained it to you in the post you originally replied to.
A fully staffed property doesn’t mean that they can cover unplanned absences without either someone else taking on extra hours or less work being done.
You don’t hire people that you don’t need, and I provided real world examples of why few people would ever want to be hired as a “just in case” staff member.
I didn’t think it was that complicated. What needs to be further explained?
Please read what I wrote.
This kinda shit only gets written and spread by people who either have never been management or are really shitty management.
There’s way too many nuances to being a “good boss” to sum up in one dumb tweet.
Overtime solves this issue pretty effortlessly. They call you and offer a shift of overtime to cover someone that’s unexpectedly absent. If you’re willing to sacrifice your normal time off, you get time and a half in exchange. If you’re not, then either another person will or the manager/foreman on salary handles it. That is, after all, one of the reasons they’re paid more (and on salary.)
There’s also a real limit to how many staff a given schedule can support. You don’t hire people that don’t have any work that they’re needed to perform.
Put yourself in the shoes of that example person. You were hired but as long as everyone else is healthy and functional, you’re always superfluous. Your hours will be cut repeatedly to avoid wasting labor costs, but you’ll still be expected to be available. If you’re instead on call, you will be expected to be available for all days you agreed to be on call for - you can’t work a different job or get wrapped up in personal things that you can’t set down or pause.
There’s a difference between a full staff and a skeleton crew staff. But in both cases, a sudden unplanned absence like illness or injury will require someone to work extra hours or the business will have to do without that person. A fully staffed property, like a hotel for example, might have two desk agents that typically work together for the same shift to ensure customers never have to wait too long for service. The job can be done with just one person, at cost of customer experience, and that’s what you’ll see from places running a skeleton crew.
What you won’t see, however, is there being a third staff member who is there purely to cover for one of the other two. That’s already handled by the supervisor (if one exists) or manager.
Okay, cool. What happens while you’re training that new human? Trainees will operate at substantially less efficiency than expected while learning and may for a while afterwards too, depending on complexity of the work. What happens if one of those humans gets hurt or sick?
Dude really was a moron, wasn’t he?
If you value privacy, fuck off into the woods at this point. It’s looking pretty likely increasingly invasive spying laws will get approved in many different countries.
I’m aware of that. What all the linux fanboys here are failing to understand is that wiping out an old OS and replacing it with something new that you’ll have to learn how to use is something that takes effort and currently is unnecessary.
W11 currently works okay. I can still easily disable the annoying things and push off nonessential updates. I don’t need to replace it. Yet. If that changes, then I can go through the process to replace it. But there’s no reason for me to do so yet.
Linux fanboys proselytize more aggressively than evangelists do.
My reason is really simple: replacing Windows with Bazzite or whatever would be a lot of effort. If W11 ever bricks itself or does something hideously invasive (that I can’t disable or opt out of) then it becomes less of an effort than maintaining the status quo, and thus switching becomes the obvious choice.
You don’t need to be fully engaged, but you also don’t need to be staring at the clock bored out of your skull and thinking about how much better you could be using your time. Adding some redundant mopping or polishing to that boredom doesn’t make it any better.
Like imagine we pay labor what it’s actually worth rather than pennies on the dollar. Would you still want to sit on your ass to get your full 40 each week? Or would you rather only come in when there’s actual work to be done?
Fuck’s sake dude. You want to talk about promoting toxic management ideologies? The 40 hour work week is a fairly recent fabrication and there’s oodles of evidence indicating that working more hours doesn’t even necessarily lead to more production.