# The mood at your office



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Let me ask you guys, How is the overall mood over where you work? Do you hate the boss? hate the work? hate the hours that are given to you? Are the employees burned out and depressed from the work that is given to them?

At Pathmark (which is now owned by A & P) we all work for a Union Local 1500 and let me tell you, just about everyone over there is so overburdened by so much work, it's been taking it's toll on all of them. They hate the hours because a lot of them have to get there at 6am which is the time that Pathmark opens up in the morning, kind of silly if you ask me. They hate the work cause it's way too much for them and a lot of workers are so down that maybe it's because they're not spending enough time with their kids or family, most of them are so burned out that they drink loads of coffee or down a few energy drinks just to perk themselves up and plus they hate the bosses cause they're jerks. What do you have to say about the mood at your office?


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

The mood in my office is good, considering that it will be closing at the end of the year. A few of the folks were offered a relo to SW Pennsylvania, and the rest were offered a severance if they stay for the duration. Most of the folks are taking the news surprisingly well. Some sadness. Some anger, but a lot of realistic acceptance of the situation.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

For the past several years I've been working with a group of guys that have fallen on hard times. Formerly well employed, many lost jobs that simply ceased to be, early-on in this damned recession that seems so reluctant to release it's death grip on our economy. It's hard for middle aged and older guys, who have worked all their lives, to find themselves in such a situation. They commonly struggle with the adjustment! We try to provide interim living support while we pair them with appropriate retraining programs, work on their interview skills, try to get them suited and booted in a manner that will give prospective employers the best possible impression, when the guys go on interviews. Some of the guys remain unemployed and others marginally employed, but they, as a whole, seem remarkably positive about their situation and hopeful for improved opportunities in the future, as we continue to work the process.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

eagle2250 said:


> Some of the guys remain unemployed and others marginally employed, but they, as a whole, seem remarkably positive about their situation and hopeful for improved opportunities in the future...


Romans 5:3-4


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Howard said:


> Let me ask you guys, How is the overall mood over where you work? Do you hate the boss? hate the work? hate the hours that are given to you? Are the employees burned out and depressed from the work that is given to them?
> 
> At Pathmark (which is now owned by A & P) we all work for a Union Local 1500 and let me tell you, just about everyone over there is so overburdened by so much work, it's been taking it's toll on all of them. They hate the hours because a lot of them have to get there at 6am which is the time that Pathmark opens up in the morning, kind of silly if you ask me. They hate the work cause it's way too much for them and a lot of workers are so down that maybe it's because they're not spending enough time with their kids or family, most of them are so burned out that they drink loads of coffee or down a few energy drinks just to perk themselves up and plus they hate the bosses cause they're jerks. What do you have to say about the mood at your office?


It is OK. I can work from home if I want. Nobody comes in on Friday, the place is deserted. I tend to work from home on Monday on the Boomtown Rats principle('I don't like Mondays') I came in today though and it was not that busy. I expected the wheeled suitcase crowd to pitch up for the week. Only thing of note was barriers are already up for Thatcher's funeral on Wednesday. We have been told we do not need to come in on that day i.e. work elsewhere.

The craic was better when more people were around. Difficult to find someone to go out to lunch with. I now have to make appointments to go for a drink after work. That used to just happen in the old days.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

I work in a very mission-driven environment. All of my co-workers earned graduate degrees where one expects earn very little (MSW) and are coming in at about the 95th percentile of income for MSW holders so the money hasn't been an issue that I've noticed. At least 1/2 of the folks I deal with on a daily basis are Peace Corps/JVC/Teach for America alumnae as well, which makes for an insanely unique office culture. Everyone seems happy to be here and happy to be doing what they can to help the population we serve. I have been pretty pleasantly surprised at the morale, really. My previous position was the opposite - everyone was a clock-watcher and constantly applying for new jobs because the management (or, manager - it was a 15 person office!) was so awful.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> The mood in my office is good, considering that it will be closing at the end of the year. A few of the folks were offered a relo to SW Pennsylvania, and the rest were offered a severance if they stay for the duration. Most of the folks are taking the news surprisingly well. Some sadness. Some anger, but a lot of realistic acceptance of the situation.


How much do they pay over there?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Kingstonian said:


> It is OK. I can work from home if I want. Nobody comes in on Friday, the place is deserted. I tend to work from home on Monday on the Boomtown Rats principle('I don't like Mondays') I came in today though and it was not that busy. I expected the wheeled suitcase crowd to pitch up for the week. Only thing of note was barriers are already up for Thatcher's funeral on Wednesday. We have been told we do not need to come in on that day i.e. work elsewhere.
> 
> The craic was better when more people were around. Difficult to find someone to go out to lunch with. I now have to make appointments to go for a drink after work. That used to just happen in the old days.


What is your job title?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

The problem with Pathmark or (A & P), they are always hiring younger kids for the cashier jobs fresh out of High School with hardly any knowledge or lack thereof and bumping the others or transferring them to another Pathmark. The pay is quite lousy for the cashiers cause they are paid about $8.75 an hour while us cartguys are paid $9.15 an hour to push carts (hard labor) and sweep up, the garbage we don't do or hardly cause there is a company that comes by after midnight to come go throw it out. So our tasks were limited to just 2 and nothing else. And the morale over there is as bit low but they take every day with a happy one even though we have to "eat our crap and like it" if you've heard that expression before.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> For the past several years I've been working with a group of guys that have fallen on hard times. Formerly well employed, many lost jobs that simply ceased to be, early-on in this damned recession that seems so reluctant to release it's death grip on our economy. It's hard for middle aged and older guys, who have worked all their lives, to find themselves in such a situation. They commonly struggle with the adjustment! We try to provide interim living support while we pair them with appropriate retraining programs, work on their interview skills, try to get them suited and booted in a manner that will give prospective employers the best possible impression, when the guys go on interviews. Some of the guys remain unemployed and others marginally employed, but they, as a whole, seem remarkably positive about their situation and hopeful for improved opportunities in the future, as we continue to work the process.


:icon_hailthee: Noble work.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Howard said:


> How much do they pay over there?


A wage commensurate with one's supposed education, attitude, and aptitude. Some of us are overpaid.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> Romans 5:3-4


...and a heartfelt Amen to that!



Shaver said:


> :icon_hailthee: Noble work.


Thanks to both of you for the kind thoughts. Those we serve are indeed a noble lot! As for me, LOL, I'm not so sure....volunteering contributes to my feeling better about myself and perhaps helps reset the balance for past vainglorious pursuits, perhaps raising questions regarding the nobility of my effort!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> A wage commensurate with one's supposed education, attitude, and aptitude. Some of us are overpaid.


Pathmark pays us $9.15 an hour. Would you believe that?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Howard said:


> Pathmark pays us $9.15 an hour. Would you believe that?


I find it shocking that a monopoly of the decent wages has been grabbed by those with a decent education. Every one should get paid more or less the same hourly rate, be they waiters or surgeons. Seems fair enough to me.


----------



## Reldresal (Oct 13, 2011)

I decide when and where I work, and I like what I do, so my mood is good. Mostly I work around real estate brokers. Most of them are reasonably happy, but high-strung and highly stressed. But, they make a ton of money, if they are good at their job. It's a great career choice for those that aren't particularily smart, but can hustle, and manage their affairs for the lean times. 

The lawyers I see are generally miserable. Maybe 1 in 10 likes what they do. The accountants I am around are just drones. Happy so long as they are not asked to do anything extra and they 

And I do not believe that unionized supermarket employees are overworked. They might think they are, but I am not buying it. Retail employees like to complain about their lot, but their jobs are generally not high in responsibility or even evaluated much for production. They can show up and meet minimum standards and only need to worry about the higher ups running the business into the ground...like A&P. I do not doubt that the pay is low and the jobs are boring and physically tiring. Plus working with the consumer public will destroy your will to live. I get all of that.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> I find it shocking that a monopoly of the decent wages has been grabbed by those with a decent education. Every one should get paid more or less the same hourly rate, be they waiters or surgeons. Seems fair enough to me.


It's an idea, but it would never work. Different people have varying levels of commitment to the idea of work, for one thing - and there is Adam Smith's invisible hand principle for another.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Shaver said:


> I find it shocking that a monopoly of the decent wages has been grabbed by those with a decent education. Every one should get paid more or less the same hourly rate, be they waiters or surgeons. Seems fair enough to me.


I think you're on to something. Too bad it hasn't been tried before. What could go wrong?


----------



## Reldresal (Oct 13, 2011)

Langham said:


> It's an idea, but it would never work. Different people have varying levels of commitment to the idea of work, for one thing - and there is Adam Smith's invisible hand principle for another.


Yeah, I am going to be presumptive and state that Shaver knows that, and in fact had more of an effect by utilizing his style over yours. Unless you are using double distilled mockery, in which case I should be embarrassed. Or, am I aware of all that and going along with the game? I'll claim that anyway.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Howard said:


> Pathmark pays us $9.15 an hour. Would you believe that?


Yes, I do believe it.

How does the classic story go? A grandmother takes her grandson to a McDonalds for lunch. While eating, he says, "Grandma, I love McDonalds. I want to work here when I grow up." She tells him, "That sounds fine, but look around you. You can choose to be a cashier or cook. You can choose to manage those workers. Or you can choose to own a McDonalds. Every role has its rewards. It's up to you to choose the role you want and then work to get it."


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> It's an idea, but it would never work. Different people have varying levels of commitment to the idea of work, for one thing - and there is Adam Smith's invisible hand principle for another.


Bah! As if capitalism is self-regulating. :tongue2:

As to levels of commitment - no-one is suggesting it must be a free-for-all where lazy beggars get paid no matter what. The expectation should still be a decent days work from each fellow. It's just the lawyers won't get paid 100 times as much as the cleaners. Works for me.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Having at one time been a waiter and now almost to my 6th year with a (quite soon to be) MD, I have no real issue with some surgeons making 100x what some waiters make. The training (and cost of training), stress, difficulty, demands, and liability of the two professions cannot be compared. On the other hand, I am most likely overpaid relative to all of those things - you win some, you lose some.


----------



## IvanD (Jan 5, 2012)

I'm afaid morale at my workplace is quite low at the moment. 
Although I feel we are paid a decent wage (which can be a damned good one if you put in the overtime) the job is being spoilt by management who seem more iinterested in the image of the company than they are in its core business.
Money is being spent on pointless marketing exercises whilst other budgets are cut.
When you get hauled in front of the boss because someone has complained on facebook or twitter, it is bound to get you down.
*BUT, even with all of this, I love my job and wouldn't give it up for anything.*


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Howard said:


> What is your job title?


 It is bland, irrelevant and changes to suit what the client is looking for.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Bah! As if capitalism is self-regulating. :tongue2:
> 
> As to levels of commitment - no-one is suggesting it must be a free-for-all where lazy beggars get paid no matter what. The expectation should still be a decent days work from each fellow. It's just the lawyers won't get paid 100 times as much as the cleaners. Works for me.


As you will realise by now, I am a believer in free market economics, and not a great advocate of the system of welfare we have here. However, I keep a close eye on successful systems in other countries such as Switzerland which, for an economy which in some ways is better than any others in Europe (possibly even the world), seems surprisingly interventionist. When I was last there, the minimum wage was around £20 per hour - I think here it's about £6.50, which is perhaps enough for a youngster living with his or her parents to get by on. In Switzerland, however, the tax burden is less - I feel that in the UK we are being dragged down by an excessively large expenditure on social security, health etc, which means levels of taxation are high, firms are reluctant to recruit staff, people are trapped on welfare dependency etc etc. Unfortunately our present government seem unable to take the bold steps necessary to release us from this trap. Consequently right now there are quite a lot of people for whom working is only marginally beneficial compared to benefits, so they are unlikely to be very enthusiastic about their work.


----------



## rsgordon (Dec 6, 2012)

I am sure we would have tons of MDs and PhDs and JDs, especially ones who work hard consistently, when you could get compensated the same to work an easy job where you can be on AAAC all day.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

rsgordon said:


> I am sure we would have tons of MDs and PhDs and JDs, especially ones who work hard consistently, when you could get compensated the same to work an easy job where you can be on AAAC all day.


Bingo. Check out how well that worked out for Cuba.

JDs and PhDs don't necessarily belong in the same class as MDs in terms of income, though. None of my friends with PhDs have found full-time employment yet (they are all in DC, which makes it pretty tough) and while there are, of course, LOTS of exceptions, but most MDs make considerably more than most JDs.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> As you will realise by now, I am a believer in free market economics, and not a great advocate of the system of welfare we have here. However, I keep a close eye on successful systems in other countries such as Switzerland which, for an economy which in some ways is better than any others in Europe (possibly even the world), seems surprisingly interventionist. When I was last there, the minimum wage was around £20 per hour - I think here it's about £6.50, which is perhaps enough for a youngster living with his or her parents to get by on. In Switzerland, however, the tax burden is less - I feel that in the UK we are being dragged down by an *excessively large expenditure on social security, health etc*, which means levels of taxation are high, firms are reluctant to recruit staff, people are trapped on welfare dependency etc etc. Unfortunately our present government seem unable to take the bold steps necessary to release us from this trap. Consequently right now there are quite a lot of people for whom working is only marginally beneficial compared to benefits, so they are unlikely to be very enthusiastic about their work.


You seriously believe that this is what the large proportion of our taxes is spent on? Wow. Do you need a passport to visit cloud cuckoo land? :devil:

I almost admire the single minded egocentricity of people who are doing all right yet look down on the less fortunate as parasites - normally quoting some one in a million case as representative of all 'welfare scroungers'.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tilton said:


> Having at one time been a waiter and now almost to my 6th year with a (quite soon to be) MD, I have no real issue with some surgeons making 100x what some waiters make. The training (and cost of training), stress, difficulty, demands, and liability of the two professions cannot be compared. On the other hand, I am most likely overpaid relative to all of those things - you win some, you lose some.


No-one is forcing them to do it if they can't handle the stress and demands.

You shouldn't take a job just for the money, it's no real incentive towards excellence.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> You seriously believe that this is what the large proportion of our taxes is spent on? Wow. Do you need a passport to visit cloud cuckoo land? :devil:


Predicted to be £245 billion in the coming year - most of which will have to be borrowed (i.e. stolen) from our grandchildren, but that's always easier than taking tough decisions now.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Shaver said:


> No-one is forcing them to do it if they can't handle the stress and demands.
> 
> You shouldn't take a job just for the money, it's no real incentive towards excellence.


This goes back to what RSGordon said. If the case were that surgeons and busboys earned equal pay for equal hours, we would have an even greater shortage of doctors. While very few doctors become doctors to get rich (because, really, you won't, you'll just live comfortably), the pay makes it worthwhile to endure the schooling and the liability. Any person smart enough to be a doctor is probably also smart enough to realize that if they can earn the same income as a busboy without risking the malpractice suits that our egregiously litigious society has come to see as the norm - or completing medical school or even college at all, for that matter - then it is to their every advantage to become a busboy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to pay my taxes and I believe that everyone deserves some basic dignity of work and the chance to succeed. However, I also believe that everyone aims, on some level, to be better off tomorrow than today and when there is no incentive past a pat on the back or a plaque on the wall, that goal is pretty damn hard to achieve.

And I know what you mean that money doesn't equate to excellence, but what is the incentive to achieve excellence if you'll have nothing to show for it? You can talk about personal pride in the quality of your work all day, but people want to work towards palpable rewards, not abstract notions of excellence. Don't tell me you've never put in a little more effort because a raise or promotion was on the line, or that you've never switched jobs to have a higher take-home rather than switching jobs because you were simply the absolute best there ever was at whatever you were doing and you just needed a new challenge.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> Predicted to be £245 billion in the coming year - most of which will have to be borrowed (i.e. stolen) from our grandchildren, but that's always easier than taking tough decisions now.


I'm dreadful for remembering all the facts and figures Mr L, would you be a fine fellow and remind me just how much it has cost the nation to bail out* our greedy feckless bankers?

*As opposed to shooting them in the head and hanging their corpses by the ankles from the lamposts across Blackfriars bridge, which was my recommendation.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tilton said:


> This goes back to what RSGordon said. If the case were that surgeons and busboys earned equal pay for equal hours, we would have an even greater shortage of doctors. While very few doctors become doctors to get rich (because, really, you won't, you'll just live comfortably), the pay makes it worthwhile to endure the schooling and the liability. Any person smart enough to be a doctor is probably also smart enough to realize that if they can earn the same income as a busboy without risking the malpractice suits that our egregiously litigious society has come to see as the norm - or completing medical school or even college at all, for that matter - then it is to their every advantage to become a busboy.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to pay my taxes and I believe that everyone deserves some basic dignity of work and the chance to succeed. However, I also believe that everyone aims, on some level, to be better off tomorrow than today and when there is no incentive past a pat on the back or a plaque on the wall, that goal is pretty damn hard to achieve.
> 
> And I know what you mean that money doesn't equate to excellence, but what is the incentive to achieve excellence if you'll have nothing to show for it? You can talk about personal pride in the quality of your work all day, but people want to work towards palpable rewards, not abstract notions of excellence. Don't tell me you've never put in a little more effort because a raise or promotion was on the line, or that you've never switched jobs to have a higher take-home rather than switching jobs because you were simply the absolute best there ever was at whatever you were doing and you just needed a new challenge.


I'm not entirely certain that this need neccessarily be true. As example I would do my current job even if I could earn the same by seeking employ as a trolley guy at Pathmark. The reason being that I am temperamentally unsuited to that type of repetitive work and much prefer to be swanking around in offices and meetings dressed in all my finery. Everyone can find a role that suits them without huge financial incentive for the supposed inconvenience. Excellence is a reward in and of itself, the better one is at one's job the easier the job becomes. People who, upon promotion, speak of the increased difficulty of the role have clearly been promoted above their ability - for jobs get easier the higher up the management ladder one rises. You become paid more for your ability to make decisions quickly and to store a vast array of pertinent information in your head rather than the things you actually do.

I also disdain compensation culture - the notion that if an accident happens someone must be liable and a pay-day is in the offing repulses me. I wouldn't allow malpractice suits. To be honest I wouldnt allow lawyers, excpet perhaps as a minor administrative role much like a supermarket checkout teller.

.
.
.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> I'm dreadful for remembering all the facts and figures Mr L, would you be a fine fellow and remind me just how much it has cost the nation to bail out* our greedy feckless bankers?
> 
> *As opposed to shooting them in the head and hanging their corpses by the ankles from the lamposts across Blackfriars bridge, which was my recommendation.


I'm not a banker, by the way, if that's what's on your mind.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> I'm not a banker, by the way, if that's what's on your mind.


I didn't think so. I was merely making the observation that so-called productive members of society can be a far greater drain on our resources (both financial and ecological) than the unemployed.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> I'm dreadful for remembering all the facts and figures Mr L, would you be a fine fellow and remind me just how much it has cost the nation to bail out* our greedy feckless bankers?
> 
> *As opposed to shooting them in the head and hanging their corpses by the ankles from the lamposts across Blackfriars bridge, which was my recommendation.


In 2011 it had reached at lot more than the £450 mentioned.*

*More details here:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...fficial-cost-of-the-bank-bailout-1833830.html

Surely in our free market economy, as so widely advocated, market forces would have solved the banking problem without state funded subsidy? Why should tax payers be forced to subsidise incompetent bankers? Is the concept of private enterprise and the profit motive not absolute?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> I'm not a banker, by the way, if that's what's on your mind.


Why would you think that Shaver thought that? That has no more logic or rationality than suggesting in a different thread that my political affiliations are to the SWP, or the NUM.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> I didn't think so. I was merely making the observation that so-called productive members of society can be a far greater drain on our resources (both financial and ecological) than the unemployed.





Chouan said:


> In 2011 it had reached at lot more than the £450 mentioned.*
> *
> Surely in our free market economy, as so widely advocated, market forces would have solved the banking problem without state funded subsidy? Why should tax payers be forced to subsidise incompetent bankers? Is the concept of private enterprise and the profit motive not absolute?


My own view at the time - following the principles you mention - was that the banks in question (Lloyds TSB and HBOS, I think) should not have been supported in the way that they were and should have been allowed to go bust. The counterargument was that not bailing them out would have cost more, due to the guarantee on savers' deposits, the consequent effect of a bank run etc.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> My own view at the time - following the principles you mention - was that the banks in question (Lloyds TSB and HBOS, I think) should not have been supported in the way that they were and should have been allowed to go bust. The counterargument was that not bailing them out would have cost more, due to the guarantee on savers' deposits, the consequent effect of a bank run etc.


Rather like the consequent expenditure on unemployment benefits, social security payments, housing benefits etc when an industry is closed down.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Why would you think that Shaver thought that? That has no more logic or rationality than suggesting in a different thread that my political affiliations are to the SWP, or the NUM.


I felt the tone of his comments was directed against me, in a way that had made that assumption. Perhaps you cannot see that?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Anyway, I must dash, break is over and I have to force some Marxist dogma, carefully disguised as source analysis, into some dewy eyed and impressionable Year 8s.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Rather like the consequent expenditure on unemployment benefits, social security payments, housing benefits etc when an industry is closed down.


In a way - but in the earlier instance, there were additional considerations that militated against continued state support for those industries.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Anyway, I must dash, break is over and I have to force some Marxist dogma, carefully disguised as source analysis, into some dewy eyed and impressionable Year 8s.


 I'm sure they will be very grateful.


----------



## Natsoi (Mar 20, 2013)

Shaver said:


> Excellence is a reward in and of itself, the better one is at one's job the easier the job becomes. People who, upon promotion, speak of the increased difficulty of the role have clearly been promoted above their ability - for jobs get easier the higher up the management ladder one rises. You become paid more for your ability to make decisions quickly and to store a vast array of pertinent information in your head rather than the things you actually do.


There is a lot of truth in that - I think you've left out the other critical elements of leadership, the ability to marshal resources and motivate your team/department/division/company etc. That is why some senior managers and CEO's become known as so-called "change managers" and others just a safe pair of hands who keep the ship on course.

I had a lecturer in university who gave me the best bit of advice I've had: "Get to the top as fast as possible and stay there". I might feel bad that people at the supermarket make minimum wages or close to it; I don't feel bad enough to do anything about it because I'm enjoying the life which the current system (with its inequality) brings myself and those close to me. Let's face it: if you wanted to bring everyone to the same level, a significant amount of those who are "middle class" will end up sharing the misery of the poor too.

My office? The mood is generally good. The company has been doing well for the last year and a half, after a couple of years of misery. Some teams are under too much pressure and we have some growing pains but I'm enjoying the challenge and the stimulation of the professional work.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Natsoi said:


> I had a lecturer in university who gave me the best bit of advice I've had: "Get to the top as fast as possible and stay there".


Points for being pithy...but there's something missing in this advice that leaves me cold.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Shaver said:


> Excellence is a reward in and of itself, the better one is at one's job the easier the job becomes. People who, upon promotion, speak of the increased difficulty of the role have clearly been promoted above their ability - for jobs get easier the higher up the management ladder one rises. You become paid more for your ability to make decisions quickly and to store a vast array of pertinent information in your head rather than the things you actually do.


Very well said Shaver.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> I felt the tone of his comments was directed against me, in a way that had made that assumption. Perhaps you cannot see that?


Oh Langham you injure me! :frown: I like the character you provide and very much enjoy your contributions here - I would *never* suggest (not even even obliquely) that you should be shot in the head and your body hung by it's ankles from a lampost.

However, if you were to force me to imagine an extravagant demise for you......hmmm.... I am inclined towards your being hunted by hounds. How does that sound for you? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^^I think you know I like to run with the fox as well as hunt with the hounds, so that would only be fair. I suppose.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Shaver said:


> I find it shocking that a monopoly of the decent wages has been grabbed by those with a decent education. Every one should get paid more or less the same hourly rate, be they waiters or surgeons. Seems fair enough to me.


and cashiers get paid less than us, that's quite sad. And us cart guys we are always on the move doing very hard labor pushing carts from one side to the other, almost like a Frogger video game.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> Yes, I do believe it.
> 
> How does the classic story go? A grandmother takes her grandson to a McDonalds for lunch. While eating, he says, "Grandma, I love McDonalds. I want to work here when I grow up." She tells him, "That sounds fine, but look around you. You can choose to be a cashier or cook. You can choose to manage those workers. Or you can choose to own a McDonalds. Every role has its rewards. It's up to you to choose the role you want and then work to get it."


I chose the role that I have now to prove to a girl that I could work and that was almost 5 1/2 years ago but she is no longer with me so that's that.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Shaver said:


> No-one is forcing them to do it if they can't handle the stress and demands.
> 
> You shouldn't take a job just for the money, it's no real incentive towards excellence.


To me, cartjobs are the same thing. push carts, take breaks and go home.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

LOL. There is a whole lot of socialism being offered for our viewing pleasure in this thread. It certainly makes for a stimulating read and while I would quickly agree our compensation strategies seem way out of balance these days, it strikes me as a bit naive to think that a system of compensation that does not reflect the level of and complexity of the actual work being done is a workable approach. Looking back on my first career (as an adult), The salary I received first starting out was about 1/15th the rate I was being paid when I retired, but then, when I first started out I was responsible only for myself and by the time I hung the uniform up I had been responsible for all those men and women it took to make up a composite air wing. Yes the pay was drastically different, but the job responsibilities were as well!


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

While I want (and have) a job that pleases me for a variety of reasons, if it paid significantly less, I would find employment else where. Maybe in a perfect world we can all just work toward an abstract idea of largely immeasurable excellence, but, to be as blunt as possible: virtually everything I like costs money. Considering this is a website dedicated to good clothes and shoes, I would be remiss to point out that on some level, everyone on here feels like that.

Shaver, you're looking at what I said in reverse. I'm not saying if a busboy earned as much as a surgeon, but if a surgeon earned as little as a busboy.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Howard said:


> Pathmark pays us $9.15 an hour. Would you believe that?


Yes.

Article~Only four of the top 10 chains selling groceries in the Baltimore-Washington area, including Costco and Shoppers Food Warehouse, are under union contacts, according to a market study by the magazine. Nine of the top 10 local supermarkets were union 30 years ago - some stores closed, others lost ground to Giant and Safeway.
Workers at the unionized grocers are still paid more. In 2011, the average hourly wage for cashiers in the region was $10.39, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. By comparison, the average hourly wage for all union-covered employees at Giant and Safeway is roughly $12.
Still, the pay at union shops is coming down because the number of full-time veteran employees are declining through buyouts and retirements. They are being replaced by part-timers and new workers who are being paid less.

I wonder how much their union bosses are screwing them out of??

I understand the meat cutters and truck drivers do better, however.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Yes.
> 
> Article~Only four of the top 10 chains selling groceries in the Baltimore-Washington area, including Costco and Shoppers Food Warehouse, are under union contacts, according to a market study by the magazine. Nine of the top 10 local supermarkets were union 30 years ago - some stores closed, others lost ground to Giant and Safeway.
> Workers at the unionized grocers are still paid more. In 2011, the average hourly wage for cashiers in the region was $10.39, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. By comparison, the average hourly wage for all union-covered employees at Giant and Safeway is roughly $12.
> ...


I just hate when you have those stupid bigwig bosses who are riding on their high horses, making a lot of money, they're always partying, drinking booze and having fun while us workers who get paid less than us, we don't have the fun that they have. See, the big bosses they don't worry about money cause they know that they have a lot of it.



> I wonder how much their union bosses are screwing them out of??


the union bosses at Local 1500 are screwing us out of hours and pay and vacation.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Why is that you have more depressed workers than happy ones these days? Are people not content where they work? Is the morale high or low?


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

I work for a small software company. It was started by a couple of mechanical and electrical engineers. Currently, the CEO is an accountant, everyone else is some kind of engineer, techie or programmer. 

This kind of environment is ideal. Everyone just wants to do their job. If something or someone is getting in the way of doing your job, you tell your boss and they take care of it. Employees who are abrasive or try to game the system in some way are let go. 

There are, essentially, no office politics. If you have a problem with another department, you just tell them and try to work it out. Everyone has the understanding that you aren't trying to screw over anyone else, you just want to do your job. 

We were recently acquired by a much larger company, and they went out of their way to change nothing. They are actually sending managers over to see how we manage certain processes to adopt themselves.

So overall, we're pretty content.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

jbmcb said:


> I work for a small software company. It was started by a couple of mechanical and electrical engineers. Currently, the CEO is an accountant, everyone else is some kind of engineer, techie or programmer.
> 
> This kind of environment is ideal. Everyone just wants to do their job. If something or someone is getting in the way of doing your job, you tell your boss and they take care of it. Employees who are abrasive or try to game the system in some way are let go.
> 
> ...


jbmcb, your office environment is ideal (at least I think it is). Beware though. I've found that when the number of stakeholders gets larger than 3, office politics starts to raise its ugly head. In the meantime, enjoy paradise while it lasts (hopefully a long long time).


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

How do the co-workers feel at your company? Do they feel depressed to be there or happy to be working?


----------



## Shoe City Thinker (Oct 8, 2012)

It's like a well-behaved fraternity. Two drink minimum. CPAs really loosen up when there's an open bar.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Haven't posted this quite a while, How is the mood at your office or where you work?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Let me tell you, there has never been a more depressing time to work at a supermarket for those who don't know in November a lot of Pathmarks will be changing into Stop N Shops and most workers might lose or keep their jobs, it's a stressful month right now.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Personally, I'm fortunate to work in a very good place. There is stress, for sure, especially at the level I work, but in general, a university campus is an enlightened place, when it comes to supportive work places.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Like Duvel, I work in an academic setting, which is pleasant (well, for we in the physical sciences - liberal arts can be a hotbed of politics these days!) I'm, for all practical purposes, "unfireable", which does help to foster a sense of security and "rising above" insofar as internecine squabbling is concerned.

I actually *mostly* work in a home office now, in which case "office mood" correlates with the mood of the house (which is seldom perfect, but on the whole is pleasant.) My house is perched on a bluff, with woods below, and my office looks out over it to the south, so with the view and southern light it's all treetops and distant roofs, and hills beyond.

I think the worst office environment I know of is probably at Apple - friends of mine who work there complain endlessly about the miasma of politics, jealousy, and one-upmanship that pervade that place. It contrasts sharply with reports from friends of mine who work for Google, and who generally find it a very pleasant environment (Google being almost an "academic" more than a corporate setting, feels-wise.)

DH


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Dhaller, I hear you, and feel your pain, on the "hotbed." It's here on the medical campus as well, I assure you! I used to work on the liberal arts side of the river, and I felt the heat there as well. I think the political is always a big concern with any state university--we're at the mercy of whatever party is in control, and the two parties seem to differ drastically in how they view higher ed as a priority (if they do at all!).

That is the one down side of working for a large public research university--the stress of working for a legislature, essentially, that does not always "get" higher ed.

But politics were there, too, at a small liberal arts college I worked for. In that case, the political hotbed mainly was stoked by the wealthy (and even not so wealthy) alums.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Duvel, you would likely enjoy reading David Lodge ("Small World", etc.); he's penned a number of satirical novels lampooning academia. A bit dated now, but still worth the read.

DH


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Thanks! I'll check him out.


----------



## clark_kent (Aug 26, 2015)

I hate my job! 

I work at ShopRite similar to Pathmark, and I cry a little each day I have to go to work.

I don't remember the last time I brought home a paycheck in the $200s region. That's because they don't give me hours at all! I'm paid $9.00 and work 15-20 hours per week. I'm searching for a second job.

The only cheer up factor about my job is my coworkers who make it fun with jokes and being cool people. I feel that I'm just a pair of hands to my employers and they don't really care for me. I work in the grocery department.

What really depresses me about my job is that it makes me regret not doing the correct thing in college. I feel like it's a punishment for too much partying, etc., I'll be going back to school in the spring semester though. Hopefully things pan out better this time around so I can get a career and not this job. It's just not a field I enjoy even if I was making $20/hr I wouldn't want to be at this job.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Thank you for sharing your experience with us, clark_kent. There is much hard earned wisdom in your words. I sincerely hope your future pursuits lead the success you seek! :thumbs-up:


----------



## clark_kent (Aug 26, 2015)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Thank you for sharing your experience with us, clark_kent. There is much hard earned wisdom in your words. I sincerely hope your future pursuits lead the success you seek! :thumbs-up:


Thanks, E. I'm hoping for that too. I'm already feeling like I'm behind in life...


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

It seems that so _very_ often, in any outfit that has grown enough to need levels of administration, there is somebody with enough authority to "NO" a lot of reasonable, simple changes, but with little knowledge or feel for what that outfit actually *does* for a living. And they always seem to impress the hell out of someone higher-up, so you can't work around them. Usually not bad enough to run you off, it just casts a pall over things.

Strangely, sadly, they're often internal promotions, so you'd think they'd be amenable to suggestions, but no, they bring out "The Book", or some old policy paper, and show you why "we just can't...."

Luckily, my dept. was pretty much isolated from this, but I saw it affecting the people I worked beside quite a bit.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

> I work at ShopRite similar to Pathmark, and I cry a little each day I have to go to work.


Where in grocery do you work?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Do you think it's right for employers to work employees to a death cause when our store was Pathmark, they had small parties and get togethers in the break room and we'd have food and drinks but now that they made the switch from Pathmark to Stop N Shop, managers have become a bit arrogant and literally work us to a death. How do you feel about being overworked?


----------

