Tammy the Lich |
Rosita the Riveter |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2 associates and a supervisor sacked (or transferred) in one week, all for separate issues. The boss is just about done with some of the problems we have. I don't even disagree with any of it so far. The supervisor couldn't go 5 minutes without picking a fight with somebody, one person wanted to be irresponsible with a cash drawer, and one just cannot be persuaded that the weekly schedule is not a suggestion.
Aranna |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah some of my younger workers have the same attitude (that the weekly schedule is merely a suggestion). Was there a thing for a certain group of parents to do everything they could to shelter their children from responsibility? If so they weren't doing their kids any favors as nobody is going to promote a person who can't be bothered to show up as scheduled. That is if they don't just fire them outright. I wonder if that is a part of the statistic showing a large number of children living at home after school is finished.
Bill.Cipher |
The Green Tea Gamer |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, any boss who can't give the same schedule to their employees every single week is kind of a dick, anyway. I don't care what the industry is, there's no excuse if you have sufficient numbers of workers to not offer consistency. I don't care if everyone else in the industry does it this way - it's stupid, wrong, and inconsiderate to your employees.
...and any job you lose for not bending over backwards to swap hours week after week after week is probably one that doesn't check your references, drug test, or even look at a resume, so it's not like it'll be hard to replace, anyway.
This isn't necessarily about Rosita's situation; I just was reminded of my days working in restaurants and retail long, long ago.
Rosita the Riveter |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, any boss who can't give the same schedule to their employees every single week is kind of a dick, anyway. I don't care what the industry is, there's no excuse if you have sufficient numbers of workers to not offer consistency. I don't care if everyone else in the industry does it this way - it's stupid, wrong, and inconsiderate to your employees.
Thing is, a lot of retail shifts suck, and I wouldn't want to do them consistently every single week. Especially as a weekend worker. With shifti g schedules, I get a Saturday or a Friday off every few weeks, and only have to open on Sinday half the time. I'd rather this than open every single Sunday, or never get a Saturday off. Also factors into hours needs. With three sackings, they need more of us. That means thirty hour weeks. With school, I can't do that consistently. So we and a few other guys are taking turns doing it for one week each, instead of one person getting slammed. If I could choose between a consistent weekly schedule and a shifting one, I'd keep the shifting one.
...and any job you lose for not bending over backwards to swap hours week after week after week is probably one that doesn't check your references, drug test, or even look at a resume, so it's not like it'll be hard to replace, anyway.
Well, San Francisco does have a low wage labor shortage. Pretty much any retail takes some effort to replace (which makes three sackings all the more surprising). There is a good rationale for not drug testing, though. The rate of recreational drug use is sky high here, given our quasi-legalization of weed. If we actively drug tested, we'd lose good people like crazy, so we only drug test if the supervisors think the employee is high on shift. Corporate has basically decided on an informal Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.
Rosita the Riveter |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah some of my younger workers have the same attitude (that the weekly schedule is merely a suggestion). Was there a thing for a certain group of parents to do everything they could to shelter their children from responsibility? If so they weren't doing their kids any favors as nobody is going to promote a person who can't be bothered to show up as scheduled. That is if they don't just fire them outright. I wonder if that is a part of the statistic showing a large number of children living at home after school is finished.
Eh. Older generations have been calling newer generations lazy and irresponsible since before Plato, and everything I know about the 60s tells me we aren't really any different now in this regard.
Rosita the Riveter |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe they're not getting any lazier, but this is easily the wimpiest generation with the "oh please no free speech on campus, words hurt so dearly" movement.
I think you'll find that most of us college kids don't really like those people, and they aren't so common as they are loud and attention grabbing. The media likes to sensationalize the stupid, attention grabbing bits and not cover the more reasonable fights most of us are picking.
And, again, 60s. I've seen no evidence that the Baby Boomers were any more or less sane with their protesting than us today.
NobodysHome |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah some of my younger workers have the same attitude (that the weekly schedule is merely a suggestion). Was there a thing for a certain group of parents to do everything they could to shelter their children from responsibility? If so they weren't doing their kids any favors as nobody is going to promote a person who can't be bothered to show up as scheduled. That is if they don't just fire them outright. I wonder if that is a part of the statistic showing a large number of children living at home after school is finished.
I've posted it before and I'll post it again: Show up to work on time, do your job, and don't slack off, and you'll be the best employee your boss has ever had.
Sad, but true.
And now that I've been in the work force for 30+ years, I'll say that slackers have always existed, but a higher percentage of today's teens and early twentysomethings have the "I'm too good for this job" attitude. Yes, I have 50-year-old friends who are STILL like that. But having been on hiring committees for 20+ years now, I am definitely seeing more of the, "Who cares that there's a typo on my resume? It's the cell phone era! No one cares about spelling any more!" attitude and the like.
Not some fundamental paradigm shift, but if I had to throw numbers at the thing I'd say around 10-20% of my 1990's interviews had that, "You should be honored I'm considering working for you" attitude, and nowadays it's closer to 30%. Enough to notice. Not enough to scream that the sky (or flaming bikes) is falling...
Spike, The Flaming FAWTL Bike |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aranna wrote:Yeah some of my younger workers have the same attitude (that the weekly schedule is merely a suggestion). Was there a thing for a certain group of parents to do everything they could to shelter their children from responsibility? If so they weren't doing their kids any favors as nobody is going to promote a person who can't be bothered to show up as scheduled. That is if they don't just fire them outright. I wonder if that is a part of the statistic showing a large number of children living at home after school is finished.
I've posted it before and I'll post it again: Show up to work on time, do your job, and don't slack off, and you'll be the best employee your boss has ever had.
Sad, but true.
And now that I've been in the work force for 30+ years, I'll say that slackers have always existed, but a higher percentage of today's teens and early twentysomethings have the "I'm too good for this job" attitude. Yes, I have 50-year-old friends who are STILL like that. But having been on hiring committees for 20+ years now, I am definitely seeing more of the, "Who cares that there's a typo on my resume? It's the cell phone era! No one cares about spelling any more!" attitude and the like.
Not some fundamental paradigm shift, but if I had to throw numbers at the thing I'd say around 10-20% of my 1990's interviews had that, "You should be honored I'm considering working for you" attitude, and nowadays it's closer to 30%. Enough to notice. Not enough to scream that the sky (or flaming bikes) is falling...
rides around the thread
Okay, Freehold is in better shape. Thus isn't as agonizing as it could be.
Still.
HE ain't light.
Drejk |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe they're not getting any lazier, but this is easily the wimpiest generation with the "oh please no free speech on campus, words hurt so dearly" movement.
Is that worse than the "oh no, someone said bad things about me, I must publicly murder him because I was hurt by his words" social attitude of the ages past?
Fritzy, Flaming Bike Artillery |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes sir, I realize absinthe doesn't make targeting easier. Yes sir, I realize ultimate power brings ultimate responsibility. No sir, I don't think we should've given you the remote targeting system for the weekend. I understand sir, an epic bike bonfire in the shape of Prince it is sir. No sir, you're crying!!
Tacticslion |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This explains so much: in politics, in religion, and in forum debates, this little look at anti-vaccination concepts is... illuminating.
It also reveals just how much confirmation bias I have towards science-sounding groups that seem to know what they're talking about. :D