Millennials

[xjay1337]

red_slr said:

Horses for courses though. Back when I worked for a blue chip I would often stay 10 ish hours per day. Not through not being able to do my job but because I liked to go into detail and also because I would often find issues along the way which I could either carry onto the next day or just sort out that day. I prefer to leave with a clean slate. They paid me a lot of money, an extra few hours was not an issue. I also found it much easier to do an hours work after 5pm, left alone it was basically 2x productivity.

When I first started at that place the management would make people bring sleeping bags in, we used to work till midnight and then get 4-5 hours sleep under our desks and then back to work again for 6am. Didn't last long but we had to get the work done by a set date. Sometimes you have to do what you have to do. The bottom line is we all had a nice lifestyle because of that company. I am sure if they tried that today it would be in the Daily Mail within 20 minutes..

If you're getting paid a fair whack, then that's totally fine!

I agree with your thinking.

I was earning mid 40s +++ and frankly it was a cake walk. However if something came in at 6:30am (customer calling me that their system was down) or at 5:59 (whole system decided to die and needed to be fixed) then that wasn't an issue.
My normal hours were 9:30 - 6 and I would just work without complaining. I could also claim overtime, I didn't always, only sometimes. But the option was there so I didn't take the piss.

I know in previous roles I was earning half as much, working twice as hard, without as many benefits - Being expected to travel 2 hours without being able to claim overtime and getting paid a pittance in mileage ...

Working "hard" is fine if you are paid fairly for the role. But it's wrong for companies to pay average to low pay for the industry and then expect you to work at the higher end.

[gregs656]

Another thread confirming how powerful confirmation bias is.

[FredClogs]

gregs656 said:

Another thread confirming how powerful confirmation bias is.

That's what I though. Thanks for confirming it.

[Kermit power]

gregs656 said:

Another thread confirming how powerful confirmation bias is.

How is it doing that, given that there looks to be a roughly even split for and against the OP's opinion?

[b0rk]

spikeyhead said:

Have you considered improving your interviewing skills?

Okay I'll bite how should I improve my interviewing skills.?

Sadly you can't ask if they are going to dick about on their phone all day or rock up at whatever time they feel is appropriate at interview, well I could but HR have advised against it.

Competency can be tested and is hence the number interviewed vs hired. Those that have been let go for poor standards are perfectly capable of doing the job in terms of skills and knowledge but just don't seem to have the focus or desire to do it properly first time round. Indeed many have done excellently at the competency test.

[Moonhawk]

joshcowin said:

In all seriousness the issue is with discipline, ask a secondary school teacher about discipline its a joke!!

Everyone has to have a label or an illness now, in most cases they are just naughty kids but there is no mechanism to discipline them. They have no respect for people who are older than them, and many adults don't seem to care.

Seems apt



A lot of it is down to parenting. When I was young - if I went home and told my parents i'd been given detention or was put on report (which I was a few times - down to failure to do homework), i'd get little sympathy and would be asked "what did/didn't you do" and my parents generally supported the disciplinary actions the school had taken.

Fast forward a few years and parents would be storming into the school and demanding to know why their child had been put on detention/report.

I noticed the change sometime around the turn of the 1990s. My own mum took a very different approach with my younger brother than she had with me and my sister - she was much more protective of him - not really allowing him out of her sight (my and my sister had always been trusted with a certain amount of freedom of movement), she disciplined him far less and allowed him to get away with behaviors that had been drummed into me and my sister as being unacceptable.

I saw this change replicated in many parents - and discipline in schools seemed to decline rapidly each year as a new set of youngsters became of secondary school age. It was also around that time you started to hear about kids being "hyper active" etc.

Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 13th June 05:17

[anonymous-user]

One of my best managers always said to leave on the dot, to enjoy life. If you had a lot of work and getting distracted, then you would work from home. She was great until they bullied her out the business. Very clever, doctorate. The vast majority of managers I've met just like having the manager title and that is it.

Millennials seem to think they pioneer everything. Like they think what they say and write people really give a fk about.
"I write a blog," what blogs, you know been around for 20 years.

[Countdown]

ash73 said:

Countdown said:

"Time spent at at desk" is probably the least accurate way of measuring productivity and usefulness to the organisation. If people are regularly doing long hours then they've either got too much work or they're not very good at their job. Either way, it's a line management issue, not a badge of honour.

To caveat that - some people love their job, are keen to progress their careers and enjoy doing more than 40 hours per week. That's excellent but it doesn't mean those who work less are slacking in any way.

I would never support anyone in a promotion review if I see them leaving regularly at 4pm, they should be looking for more work and responsibility, not leaving early. It's easy to establish who works remotely just by chatting to people about ongoing issues in the morning.

As others have mentioned, "time spent at desk" does not equal either quantity or quality of work. So, as a metric for promotion, it's useless. That's before you take into account the myriad of different ways of working nowadays without being "at your desk"

[Countdown]

-C- said:

Why not? Clearly they are capable of doing their allocated work in the time given, just because you are the mug who will sit there until 9pm every night to fatten other peoples pockets - it could be argued you are the one who isn't competent enough.

I'm not a millennial , but i'm sure a sh*t not doing anything over & above my hours on a daily basis, unless there is a crisis.

They probably consider you the mug, wasting your life behind a desk 5 days a week.

There is more to life than work.

Playing devil's advocate...everybody on PAYE in the private sector is working "to fatten other peoples pockets". There's nothing wrong with doing your regular hours on a daily basis but it's important to bear in mind that your "value" to your Employer is based mainly on how much profit you generate for them.

All other things being equal, somebody working X+10 hours will generate more profit than somebody working X hours. So, all things being equal, somebody working X+10 hours will be the one getting a bigger bonus / better company car / promotion.

There's nothing wrong with a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. But equally there's nothing wrong with working hard (even though it might not be of benefit in the short term), in order for long-term gain.

[bitchstewie]

Hard work isn't the same as free work on the off-chance you get rewarded which seems to be what some are advocating.

May as well just leave your screen on and stick a jacket on your chair to make it look like you're in the office if that's the yardstick of the older generation (oh look, stereotyping )

[Countdown]

bhstewie said:

Hard work isn't the same as free work on the off-chance you get rewarded which seems to be what some are advocating.

What's the difference between hard work and free work?

ETA - the way I see it "hard work" is working over and above your Job description, maximising the amount of profits you earn for the firm. That's pretty much how every professional services firms work. If you want to make Partner a big part of that is the amount of billable hours you work.

Edited by Countdown on Tuesday 13th June 08:02

[spikeyhead]

b0rk said:

spikeyhead said:

Have you considered improving your interviewing skills?

Okay I'll bite how should I improve my interviewing skills.?

Sadly you can't ask if they are going to dick about on their phone all day or rock up at whatever time they feel is appropriate at interview, well I could but HR have advised against it.

Competency can be tested and is hence the number interviewed vs hired. Those that have been let go for poor standards are perfectly capable of doing the job in terms of skills and knowledge but just don't seem to have the focus or desire to do it properly first time round. Indeed many have done excellently at the competency test.

I've always looked for three things in an interview, attitude, aptitude and a sense of humour.

[bitchstewie]

Countdown said:

What's the difference between hard work and free work?

"I'm here until 9pm and it wouldn't do any harm if you were, oh but we're not going to pay you for it".

I'm not a clock watcher as there's always give or take but there's a point where some employers will try to take the piss.

[FredClogs]

Having worked in Japan briefly and for a Japanese corporate for many years - I can tell you that silly brinkmanship as to who can stay at work the longest is a short strategy game, it yields nothing other than daft macho discipline in the medium term, I've slept under my desk once and swore never to do it again, It's all quite daft.

[-C-]

Countdown said:

ETA - the way I see it "hard work" is working over and above your Job description, maximising the amount of profits you earn for the firm. That's pretty much how every professional services firms work. If you want to make Partner a big part of that is the amount of billable hours you work.

I would rather someone in my team worked smarter to maximise their productivity than longer hours, creating the illusion they are working 'hard'.

Plenty of studies out there to show how ineffective we become after relatively short periods of time.

I manage a sales & marketing team for an engineering & manufacturing company. They come in at 9 & go home at 5. I could count on one had the amount of times we collectively stay late as a team a year & that's only because its events/trade shows.

Thankfully the owner of the business understands the performance of my team is based on what we achieve, rather than how long we sit behind a desk.

[Countdown]

bhstewie said:

"I'm here until 9pm and it wouldn't do any harm if you were, oh but we're not going to pay you for it".

I'm not a clock watcher as there's always give or take but there's a point where some employers will try to take the piss.

If Employers are taking the mick then employees will leave. If, OTOH, employees can see that they get rewarded if they put in the extra hours, then they'll work harder.

If you work for one of the Big 4 accountancy firms the rewards at Partner level are pretty good. But you work your backside off to get there. And if they have to choose between somebody who works extra hours regularly and somebody who does 9-5 every day then they're probably going to choose the person who does extra hours.

To put it another way - why wouldn't you choose to reward somebody who you know works harder for your company?

[Countdown]

-C- said:

I would rather someone in my team worked smarter to maximise their productivity than longer hours, creating the illusion they are working 'hard'.

Plenty of studies out there to show how ineffective we become after relatively short periods of time.

I manage a sales & marketing team for an engineering & manufacturing company. They come in at 9 & go home at 5. I could count on one had the amount of times we collectively stay late as a team a year & that's only because its events/trade shows.

Thankfully the owner of the business understands the performance of my team is based on what we achieve, rather than how long we sit behind a desk.

If that works for your employer then all well and good. And it may be that you can differentiate the high performers in your team from the average. However in some industries the amount of work you do depends on the hours you put in. And the more hours you do the more profit the company makes.

Do you think somebody who earns £50k for the company (by working longer hours) should get the same pay as somebody who earns £20k?

[vonuber]

I do 9 - 5:30 pretty much everyday - but then I've got daughter who is 2yrs and one who is 7 months old, and I'll be buggered if I'm going to miss out on them growing up.
Luckily a lot of the other managers and directors feel the same, even those without kids.

[Slagathore]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhwHkq4AMt0

It's not just the workplace they get things wrong!!

"That's how I think drunk driving should be dealt with".

Righto, dhead!

[Sa Calobra]

I blame mobile devices, broadband, wifi, gaming (it started in Ernest not too long back) - this addiction is terrible. It created a 'NOW' expectation. It created a narrow band of focus and interaction. Even though I'm a child of the 80's I slip into this addiction. My wife panics if there's no phone connection anywhere.

I get irritable at times and it's a godsend when the phone is turned off for an evening.

So imagine growing up from year do as a child with all this tech to hand? Addicts.