Trivial Grumblings

[Jim]

Union members being dicks? Give them unrealistic performance goals, sack them because they couldn't meet them then hire foreigners.

[Moonburp]

Often, the people who are the most irritating to work with are the ones who drop everything the minute their shift ends and just go home there and then. Obviously, sometimes needs must but I've worked with people that were halfway through a task and left it half finished just because their shift was up. You gotta allow yourself to be flexible, without being everybody's bitch - it's not even a fine line.

That said, the people I talk about have zero career potential.

[Jim]

I leave the office at 4.15pm every day, bang on when I can (today I didn't get out til 4.30pm) - but if I am in the middle of a task I'll just remote into my laptop when I get home and finish it off.

[TheLotusEater193]

I joined a union with my last job because I hadn't ever signed a working time directive and I was doing 55-65 hours a week. That's one thing but when my salary was £14k it was hard work.

Saying that, it was mostly because I was bitter about how I was being treated in other aspects of the job. My new job will be the same hours and exactly the same pay but I'm happy to do it because I'm being trained and I know I can never have this kind of job if I'm not willing to put those hours in.

[Jobdone]

I like flexi for that reason.

I try to get it at 8, and finish by 4, but I was overloaded with work the other week and kept on til 5 for a few days. Got some nice ass flexi time, so when the workload was lower could roll in at 9/10ish and still leave at 4.

[skull-wart]

I think limiting hours is a good thing. It distributes the workload between workers + a less stressed workforce = A happier workforce. And I'd rather work with someone nice who left before they'd finished they're task than a career chaser who is too involved.
Life is for living after all.*

*Any opinions on this post may not be representative of your own.

[Jim]

And I'd rather work with someone nice who left before they'd finished they're task.

You clearly have never had to clear up after the dayshift.

[metalsam]

I think limiting hours is a good thing. It distributes the workload between workers + a less stressed workforce = A happier workforce. And I'd rather work with someone nice who left before they'd finished they're task than a career chaser who is too involved.
Life is for living after all.*

*Any opinions on this post may not be representative of your own.

That's bullshit. No-one is forced to accept a job with X or Y hours, if they don't want it they can go elsewhere. Life is for living, but not at the forced expense of someone else.

[Jim]

working hard isn't a bad thing.

I know so many people that would disagree with that now their bodies are fucked through work. That's not to mention the amount of people that have suffered with work based stress.

Depends on the line of work. I could easily do 90 hour weeks if I wanted to and I had enough continual work - but through the course of the week a single work stream will be held up by say at least 3 times by a total of say 2 whole working days.

Even if I'm working on 4 projects at once (my average) I'm still not 100% occupied as I'll be waiting for other people a lot of the time.

[metalsam]

I think limiting hours is a good thing. It distributes the workload between workers + a less stressed workforce = A happier workforce. And I'd rather work with someone nice who left before they'd finished they're task than a career chaser who is too involved.
Life is for living after all.*

*Any opinions on this post may not be representative of your own.

That's bullshit. No-one is forced to accept a job with X or Y hours, if they don't want it they can go elsewhere. Life is for living, but not at the forced expense of someone else.

Yes you are. You have to take anything you can get. And if you refuse jobs that you get sent for by the dole, they stop your money.

There might be plenty of jobs in the area that you live, but most people don't live there, they live in places where jobs don't exactly grow on trees. And don't start saying move or any other nonsense as people have homes and families to consider.

I seem to think that you don't really live in the real world.

Aren't these two statements contradictory? If there are no jobs near you and there are jobs someplace else, and you choose to stay where you are... the only person responsible for you being unemployed is you. Surely moving to get a job would be considering your family, as opposed choosing to remain unemployed? :S

[skull-wart]

I think limiting hours is a good thing. It distributes the workload between workers + a less stressed workforce = A happier workforce. And I'd rather work with someone nice who left before they'd finished they're task than a career chaser who is too involved.
Life is for living after all.*

*Any opinions on this post may not be representative of your own.

That's bullshit. No-one is forced to accept a job with X or Y hours, if they don't want it they can go elsewhere. Life is for living, but not at the forced expense of someone else.

What jobs are you working? If someone isn't flexible for the hours offered at my agency they don't consider you for that job. I was just saying I prefer people who have a social life to careerists. I always clear up after myself too.

[metalsam]

Oh, if there aren't jobs near you get on your bike and look for work, as if it's a catch all for everyone who is unemployed.

Why is that not the case? Should I pay extra taxes so someone who doesn't want to move can have benefits?

That implies that if you don't like your job then pack it in and go somewhere else as there are plenty of jobs. Most people can't just up sticks and move.

Well... why not? Or learn a new skill so you become more valuable to the market. I'm fairly sure the vast majority of the population are capable of using a bus so I don't see why they can't move.

[metalsam]

I think limiting hours is a good thing. It distributes the workload between workers + a less stressed workforce = A happier workforce. And I'd rather work with someone nice who left before they'd finished they're task than a career chaser who is too involved.
Life is for living after all.*

*Any opinions on this post may not be representative of your own.

That's bullshit. No-one is forced to accept a job with X or Y hours, if they don't want it they can go elsewhere. Life is for living, but not at the forced expense of someone else.

What jobs are you working? If someone isn't flexible for the hours offered at my agency they don't consider you for that job. I was just saying I prefer people who have a social life to careerists. I always clear up after myself too.

That's kinda what I meant. If you're not going to create a job for yourself, you rely on someone else creating a job for you. To dictate to that person giving you a job what hours you want seems kinda entitled. Anyway, if you were really that bothered about it you'd find a way to do something about it.

[TheLotusEater193]

Everything you think on these issues seems to be so naive. These are always the obvious solutions but just because you manage them fine doesn't mean everyone can. Sure, some people do take the piss, but a hell of a lot of people have genuine reasons for not upping sticks and moving or doing whatever else you suggest.

[metalsam]

You failed to actually say anything of meaning in that post