|
managers that yell at and publicly shame their subordinates are terrible managers
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 20:56 |
|
|
kitten smoothie posted:Right-to-work in the US doesn't mean you need a higher standard to fire someone. Right-to-work laws prohibit employees in unionized workplaces from being required to join a union or pay the union to represent them. States that don't have right-to-work can have "union shops," where you must either already be a member upon hiring, or you have to join within some period of time after hiring on. Corporate propaganda spreads the lie that right to work guarantees your right to not join a union even though this is already the law in all 50 states. All right to work does is free you from having to pay union dues even though a union in a collective bargaining agreement with the employer is still legally required to negotiate on your behalf and provide you with workplace protections (e.g. legal representation when you are being wrongfully fired). In other words, right to work laws just mean freeloading on a union's dime. At-will employment is the legal principle that you can be fired for any reason except for discriminatory reasons like race.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
metztli posted:I would murder the sumbitch who said I have to clock out to pee. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2018 01:29
|
|
|
vonnegutt posted:The problem with {any business software} is that the decision to use one or another is predetermined by {people who are completely separate from the ones who end up using it}
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2018 03:05
|
|
|
Jaded Burnout posted:Yeah. Everyone else seems to be doing the bare minimum to make things work.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2018 01:48
|
|
|
Skandranon posted:I would say this isn't quite true. You definitely should not be devoting yourself to a particular company, as they are unlikely to reciprocate, or a job just to stack cash, but you do live to work. In the sense that we are essentially beasts of burden and if we don't have some major responsibility to carry, we feel our lives are empty and meaningless. If you can have a meaningful career, that is great, but most people don't have that, they have jobs. You need to find something meaningful elsewhere to make your horrible life and horrible job worthwhile. Good Will Hrunting posted:How has nobody monetized the misery of working a 9-5 yet? I mean we've basically successfully monetized poverty via continually raising the barriers to entry into these white collar jobs and handing out literally the be$$$$t jobs to white males but what if you're a white male who doesn't want this? What about me, forums poster Good Will Hrunting? The other issue is that your primary role in life in the workplace is to make more money for some tiny group of assholes. You are not allowed to have a more noble primary goal like improving society or whatever. The solution to a hierarchical undemocratic rule by a tiny minority should jump out at you: democracy.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2018 04:35
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:That may be the reason why you (think you) are miserable, but it's not gonna be the same for everyone else, not just because their work circumstances are different, but because they have different motivations and outlooks. What one person perceives as a dictatorship, another person sees as necessary teamwork, for example. I mean, I'm not saying that everything can be spun in a positive light; rear end in a top hat bosses are rear end in a top hat bosses. But you don't honestly believe that everyone has an rear end in a top hat boss, do you? TooMuchAbstraction posted:My hot take on this is that you can be miserable no matter how well-off you are, and part of life is learning what makes you happy and figuring out how best to achieve your own happiness. This isn't so much "you have to choose to be happy" so much as it is "you have the opportunity to pursue happiness, so loving take it". Why you would choose to stay in a situation that makes you miserable, when because of your background you have so many better options, is beyond me.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2018 06:04
|
|
|
Skandranon posted:That capitalism isn't perfect doesn't mean communism is the obvious answer. I'm pretty sure far more people suffered (and died) tremendously more under communism in the USSR, and this is also very easy to look up. American workplaces are undemocratic. The places where people work being undemocratic is not a fundamental law of the universe. edit: Not trying to hijack the thread. I'm merely trying to help identify a reason why people, even in intellectually stimulating professions that could be fulfilling, are so miserable at work and why you will often hear advice from people to find happiness outside of work. If someone identifies with these reasons for their unhappiness, understanding can help deal with the unhappiness. I find Americans are trained not to think about these reasons. comedyblissoption fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Jan 31, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
fantastic in plastic posted:What do you mean by a "democratic" workplace? In a traditional american corporation, a tiny minority makes all the important decisions of what to do, how to do it, where to do it, who does it, and what to do with the products. The tiny minority typically decides to own what is produced, including any intellectual property. A democratic organization would have the workers make all these very important decisions instead. The democracy could include the consumers and the society that are affected by the decisions. The workers could rule directly. The workers could alternatively use representatives. The workers can hire management specialists to help run the enterprise. You will notice that majority shareholders in American businesses already do something similar. Majority shareholders appoint representatives and management specialists to run the enterprise they own. My theory is that the reason people are so miserable at work is that they live in a dictatorship for the most productive portions of their lives. This includes people compensated relatively well to the median although often wildly disconnected from their actual productivity.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2018 06:24
|
|
|
Good Will Hrunting posted:For sure but assuming a class implements it without checking or testing your poo poo and thus neglecting to call 'close' before merging to prod without any review is also pretty stupid. Intentionally not following an established process for checking in stuff would be stupid though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2018 04:30
|
|
|
Good Will Hrunting posted:It's literally part of this API's functionality, so it's beyond "manually de-allocating resources". It's not like it would have occasionally caused a leak or or something. The code straight up didn't function like it was intended (or at all really) and was in prod for over a week with nobody checking.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2018 06:34
|
|
|
Just pick c# because it's the least worst. Node sucks. Golang sucks. If you "love functional programming", you will be horrified with golang.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2018 16:49
|
|
|
Linted javascript is an ok dynamically typed language. The problem is that dynamically typed languages are bad ityool 2018. Maybe typescript is okay but I don't have experience with it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2018 11:28
|
|
|
Naar posted:
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
a hot gujju bhabhi posted:without CEOs you'd have no investors, 
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2018 03:23
|
|
|
a hot gujju bhabhi posted:I just mean someone has to do the whole "run around and generate buzz for the product to raise capital" thing. I think if you're focused on that specific part of what I said you've missed the point.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2018 09:12
|
|
|
an industry that has one of the highest profit margins is a weird way to phrase "much more leverage than the employers"
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2018 13:52
|
|
|
Software workers make a lot more than a lot of other types of workers, but the employer is still really making out in the arrangement above and beyond other industries. This arrangement suggests higher degrees of exploitation unless you believe that software employers are unique titanic ubermensch compared to other employers and more deserving of this extra margin. It's still fine to try to extract as much concessions as possible out of the employer of course.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2018 14:17
|
|
|
Xarn posted:Being European and reading this thread is sometimes surreal.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2018 18:33
|
|
)
|
there's no trustworthy guild or central authority that certifies people can actually code, so each employer needs to duplicate effort on testing if you can code
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 20:56 |
|
|
prisoner of waffles posted:I worked at a wholly-employee-owned company and we could vote our shares at the (once annual) meeting if we really wanted to, e.g., symbolically move that we appoint someone other than our boss' boss to his position and then lose the vote to the founders and management team who certainly owned the vast majority of the company. Not sure how management would have treated you after that. When people say worker co-op, they usually mean an organization where workers vote for their representatives or directly participate in decision-making democratically. The ideal is 1 worker 1 vote. There is no board of directors unaccountable to the workers who make decisions undemocratically. Worker co-op does not mean employees owning token amounts of stock that give them negligible power. That's just a regular capitalist hierarchically undemocratic company.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2018 21:54
|
|