Slashdot Mirror
Aristotle, Dilbert And The Working Life
Decisions about work may be the biggest ones many of us ever make, And though career decisions are perhaps the biggest ones we face, we often make them unthinkingly, ignoring or perhaps unaware of the enormous consequences for our happiness, our peace of mind, the meaningfulness of our lives.
Our paradoxical culture -- particularly the tech part -- both celebrates work and continually strives to eliminate it. While this employers value efficiency above all other work traits, workers seek creativity -- interesting jobs that are lucrative and satisfying, that offer fulfullment and identify.
So Joanne B. Ciulla's very fine book The Working Life: The Promise and Betrayal of Modern Work, tackles a timely and nearly universal conundrum: Ciulla argues that many people have moved beyond a simple work ethic to let work engulf them and deprive them of a lot of the good things in life. It's dangerous, she says, that so many contemporary workers depend on their jobs as the primary wellsprings of individual self-esteem, when all the job asks of them is more work with less security.
This profound emphasis on work, says Ciulla, who has taught at Harvard and Oxford and is now an ethicist at the University of Richmond, is dangerous.
Companies have no qualms laying off, downsizing or exploiting thousands of workers but, contrary to popular belief, have not generally cut their management ranks. While companies savagely root out low and mid-level workers in order to stay lean and mean, executive salaries have shot through the roof. Ciulla cites research showing that U.S. managerial staffs have grown without interruption despite the loss of employment for millions of workers. What drives many workers to be more productive, Ciulla argues, isn't loyalty, a fierce work ethos or new tools of the booming hi-tech economy, but fear. They know they are vulnerable.
Commitment, loyalty and trust as bonds between employers and employees have nearly vanished. General cynicism about work permeates culture -- that's why "Dilbert" appears in 1,700 newspapers in 51 countries. The strip makes its way onto bulletin boards and refrigerator doors around the country; it's the voice and spirit of contemporary tech and office workers.
The reality is less amusing. Many workers feel exploited by their employers, writes Ciulla -- overworked, subject to dismissal or reductions, forced to work for idiots who are overpaid and perform too little. They face fundamental new issues about work and life. If the old social contracts of corporate America have been obliterated by the competitive demands of the new economy, where does that leave workers like Ciulla's character, identified only as Mary, whose company forces her to choose between putting in more time at work with no guarantee of reward, or working nine-to-five and having time to spend on things like her children and her church. "To do the latter may mean risking her job. More and more people find themselves in this bind," says Ciulla. And Mary's lucky she's not working for a Net start-up. "Such choices require reflection on what is important and how one wants to live his or her life."
In the tech world, as in others, these choices prove particularly tricky. Industries offer lots of jobs, many high-paying, so people tend to plunge into high-intensity employment before they even have a chance to consider life's other dimensions or the alternatives they might want to explore. Once employed, workers are tethered as never before to brutally competitive work environments and all sorts of techno-devices which keep them bound to their desks or jobs much of the time. Ciulla says many will come to regret not having considered their work choices more deliberately or seriously.
But they may not have had much time. Technology links people to their jobs more than was possible before. People are expected to remain constantly available via e-mail, cellphone and wireless gadgetry. The lines between work and "other things" people like Mary want to do grows blurrier over time, which means the consequences of choosing work poorly get bigger.
The Working Life looks at workplace innovations like flex time programs, which Ciulla calls the most radical management innovations of the century. Most management initiatives have been geared towards helping people fit their lives into work. Flextime promises some opportunity to shape work around one's life, if that's what workers want to do -- some opportunity.
The machines that Aristotle fantasized about have become the commonplace tools of everyday life in industrial society, Ciulla points out. Among other changes, technology means that work no longer involves being at a particular place at a regular time. Theoretically, we can be where we choose, although few companies trust their workers to do that.
Companies have betrayed their workers by making efficiency their paramount concerns. Workers can alter that reality by getting pickier about the the work they do and valuing non-work related activities more highly. We can, if we wish, choose to consume less and be less dependent on salaries. We can choose work that gives us mobility and independence. We can pursue other interests as intensely as we pursue job success.
Ciulla points out that this involves asking fundamental questions:
Do we know what kind of life we want? Are we willing to give up something for it? Is the life we have now worth what we are sacrificing for it?
Meaningful work is rare, says Ciulla, but it's there for people who really want to find it. A work-dominated life is perfectly acceptable, she says, if it satisfies the worker. But if it doesn't, "Then we should start thinking of how to fit work into our lives instead of fitting our lives into our work."
Actually it's not. My manager's only claim to fame is that he was good at configuring routers and was an excellent BSer. That's how he got where he is today. If asked to help on any other type of problem he'll do what he does best, reconfigure the router. It's all he really knows.
2 months ago, one of our top techs, Dan, told him he was tired of the long hours, low pay and lack of respect. The manager told him to either "suck it in or get out." So Dan went out and got another job.
3 weeks later when we were having some perplexing network problems the manager came into the room and started yelling about why wasn't this fixed yet and who the person was who's supposed to be responsible for it. We told him it was Dan's responsibility but that he had quit and hadn't been replaced. Our manager's answer? "Page him and get him back in here, NOW!" (Dan moved several hundred miles away and his pager sits on his old desk.) When we tried to explain that wasn't possible our 'genius' manager just waved his hand and said "I don't want to hear excuses, I only want to hear results." (One of his favorite phrases.)
One of the software developers told him that if he wants Dan back, HE should be the one calling him up and kissing Dan's ass, not us. He's now an ex-developer for us (fired on the spot).
We did finally get the system back up, but it took all day. And no, neither Dan nor the software developer have been replaced yet and we're still falling behind schedule for some reason.
As for me, my resume's in the mail.
If Dilbert had no bearing on reality, no one would be able to relate to it. It's nothing new, the Peter Principle covered the same issues (incompetency, stupidity, etc.) a LONG time ago.
"Under capitalism, fantastic new technologies are developed. A capitalist economy is the *only* kind of system that can produce such technical advances."
Oh yes: the capitalist economy in the Soviet Union gave it the technology edge so that they were first into space and the only country with a permanently manned space station. Getting to the moon was just an attempt by the US not to lose face completely.
I would suggest that war leads to greater technological advances than capitalism. But then, it's hardly a sensible solution.
Sometimes I have to wonder about people whining about low salaries and to much time at work who are living in San Francisco, or any one of 100 places. I think this is a major element not included in so many complaints. No one is requiring you to live in New York, or Chicago, or San Francisco, or LA. Part of the sacrifice that you undertake when living in one of these places is being paid next to nothing, with an incredibly high cost of living, and working over time like hours. Don't like what I describe??? Move to the midwest, or the south, or to a smaller city. I am paid what I consider to be pretty reasonable for my education level and experience, and the type of person I am. And I recently found out that I am making easily 2x as much as my friends out west, I live in a city with half the cost of living, and I am making over the average income of a family of 4 in my same city. I am 23 with 4 years of Internet related programming experience and a 4 year college degree in economics, and yet I only work an average of 42 hours a week. The technological revolution doesn't mean you can have your cake and eat it to, it just means it won't be so hard to cut.
Funny and I thought Perl == Paid employment recently located
What's the news here? I didn't move to the valley because I like paying $2500/month in rent. I plan to move out in a few years to somewhere I can afford to live.
These are all about balance of choices. The better paying (remember risk/reward?) and more challenging jobs generally require more dedication.
People complain about the gender wage gap. There are genuine problems here with pay disparity, but a significant percentage is probably based on life choices.
Most of my female friends when faced with a choice between high pay and long hours versus reasonable pay and reasonable hours make a life choice decision towards a reasonable job (40-45 hours/week).
Most of my male friends faced with the same options look at the higher pay and jump on it.
There are no absolutes and all men and women are different. I am suggesting that, in general, men prefer pay over lifestyle, women prefer lifestyle over pay. The cynic would say that men still think that money can buy lifestyle.
So make your choice... just understand that you do have a choice.
Chris
-- I need more coffee. It's Monday. There is no such thing as enough coffee on a Monday.
I don't see how even an idiot can hire more idiots unless the cirterion to hire such people is something that can easily fall victim to foolishness. Individual human differences are what allows for people to really do what they can and their interactions with others will randomly change things. Maybe an actual case study or some documented evidence of this so called "Peter Principle" or what not. Ancedotal evidence is not a good thing.
Let me know when you get into the real world or out of middle management. My company is a case study of "Peter Principle" and idiots hiring idiots. Thats why I am getting out. BTW, it is an insurance company, no surprise there.
Simple fact, current management ideals of 'the supervisor is there to manage people and doesn't need to know the job' is full of ____[choose your own name for a pile of dump]. Up until the last three years, I was supervised and managed by folks who were trained in IS AND management. These folks knew how to handle both people and the machines. There was no BS. There was just a work ethic and understanding. There was also a career path within IS. Management was not a hated item.
Roll the clock forward to the present.
I am now looking to leave my job of 15 years because I can no longer handle the stupidity. My boss, third in three years since the reorg, has no idea what I do and can not even give me a proper review. Oh, and he is leaving for another position just in time for my next review. I have not gotten a promotion in five years because they all change supervisors a mont before the review and the response is, 'I need to see how well you work before I promote you.'
Also, a boss that doesn't know your job can't represent your concerns at management meetings and leads to ridiculous projects and requests. IE, 'this department has decided to move up its move date from January 1 to October 15, can you get a router and T-1 installed by then. Sorry for the short notice.' That was an actual I question I got two days ago. Don't laugh. The order for the T-1 had only been placed on Friday, when I first heard about it.
Management is full of idiots who lead because they can not do. So many of them were promoted because they are good at one thing, BS'ing. These ARE the same people who can't use thier laptops. These ARE the same people who think they can get email in the car without a modem[we don't have wireless]. These are the same people who I can go and guess their password without even asking becuase it is usually written on a yellow sticky on the screen. I'm not making this up. Its too stupid to make up.
Evry bloody reorg, the idiots take more control and run off the intelligent ones. I guess I am an idiot for hanging around so long; but the idiots have finally got me.
If you are so niave to think it doesn't exist or is not very bad, you must be one of them or have a lot to learn.
Oh, one last shot.....A supervisor here was busted for having a gun on property, a major company violation. Do they fire him, no. They place him into a IS Tech position as punnishment!!! He had never had any tech experience! They had a job posted for the opening and told two very well qualified candidates that it was filled when hey did this. Idiots hiring idiots, need any more proof??????
Believe it or not they don't teach "how to screw your employees" in business school. In fact they teach us just the opposite, alot of the examples Katz cited in his article are very close to examples used in class to illustrate how NOT to manage. A little background, I am a senior going for my BBA in Management at UAA. One of the reasons I chose managment over cios/mis programs was simply because I didn't think (and still don't) that many managers understand geeks at all. And just as bad most geeks don't know, and don't want to know, jack shit about running a business, hence many startups have shitty shitty management. It's from that shitty management that you get the 18 hour days, high turnovers and the lay-off and outsource mentality. Here's an interesting tidbit for ya'll: loosing and replacing one "normal" employee costs the company roughly 4 times that persons salary for the time it takes to replace them (ie if it takes a month to replace them it costs 4 months salary in hiring costs, lost work etc...) for a tech worker I've heard it being as high as 10 times salary for replacement. High turnover is bad M'kay? Believe me, trained competent employees are any company's most valuable assets.
;->
Ok so why is there so much shitty managment and boneheaded HR moves then? I have a theory, at least for the technology sector. Most professional managers, good or bad, don't have an understanding of the geek subculture, they don't know how to motivate us and keep us happy. At first they fall back on what works for "norms" standard bennie packages, bizzare sports related pep talks, lame incentive programs, and finally in frustration slip either into a comatose state where they make no decisions and play solitare all day or become fire breathing assholes who drive off all the best workers. On the other side you get some very talented geek types that start their own business, they can code like the devil but know nothing of running a business. Maybe they do well at first when it's just a small group of friends sweating out all nighters together to get the first product out the door. The success begins to take it's toll, and these very talented programmers find themselves at the helm of a company with 50 other employees. Some turn out to be natural leaders, like Linus for example, who can herd cats and get a job done, others find they can't do it and fall back to coding. So instead of delegating specific tasks out to the staff the founders are still pulling all nighters working in one direction while the other employees are following suit by pulling all nighters working on what they think the company needs. Opps. Then they get frustrated and quit.
Anyway that's just my take on it. Sadly I havn't encountered any other full-fledged geeks in the management program here, but on the bright side alot of the other younger managment majors seem to at least understand that geek types have different motivations that other employees will and will hopefully do a better job than the current generation of management in the tech field.
Incidently I graduate in May if anyone has a PHB they want to replace
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
REPLACE television WITH coding
REPLACE reading a book WITH writing a book
REPLACE talking WITH consulting
REPLACE playing games WITH writing games
REPLACE listening to music WITH playing music
...
People can leave their day jobs by being active and productive. Absorbing content, such as reading this post, is important. But, it won't get you rich and it won't spread your name around. By posting, for example, you build your reputation and name recognition. The transfer of energy becomes in>>out versus out>>in. There is no magic to this. Produce and build value. Turn value into dollars. Quit your day job. Or, continue to consume, and ultimately feed the producers.
- John
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
John S. Rhodes
WebWord.com -- Industrial Strength Usability
How to Download YouTube Videos
At my latest job, I get in at roughly 9:15 (my fiancee works a half mile from home, but has to be in at 9, so I drop her off there and then go in to work. Today I got in at 10:00 and no one blinked an eye. My uniform is a t-shirt and shorts. And I get to PROGRAM IN PHP ALL DAY!!
I'll take this over McJob any day of the week, thank you very much.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
This article is pretty important for those of you fantasizing about a job in corporate America (as anyone that actually does work instead of managing to do nothing).
The world has changed radically with the explosion of the Internet. Information which was once hard to find is now harder to find, but easier to look up. (Search engines and spider engines help somewhat.)
Now, with the exponential growth of computers in in EVERY aspect of corporate life, the white-collar world is changing the same way the blue-collar world changed in the 1970's with the introduction of robotics to assembly lines, and automation in lower-eschelon tasks.
It used to be that computers were something of a novelty except for number-crunching. Desktops were word processors and Rolodexes with Solitaire. Big iron was written in COBOL to figure out the numbers so the shareholders would look and say, Gee, the company made a profit this term, good job, keep it up, and I'll buy ten thousand more shares.
Now, everything is computerized. Accountants use spreadsheets and overglorified adding tapes for the books. The media uses computers to help shape the images on the screen, the words on the page, the pictures in the two-page spread. Managers can type their own memos and torture their departments with OneOS mentality (Aka You use Vin-dose!)
The corporate towers are changing. Cat5 is required in every office. The jobs of today will be gone or radically altered in less than a decade, some estimates say in as little as 5 years. 95% of the jobs will be different or gone. (The other 5% is the Top Escelon Positions, the CxO's VP's and Presidents and Chairs of the Board.)
Here endeth the lesson.
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
You are *very* lucky to work in a place where Dilbert is not the truth. Most of us are stuck in a place where Dilbert is the truth. It is not even a lack of tech knowledge by managers that is the bad thing. If they could admit that they don't know it tell us what needs to be done and then let us do it it would be good. The problem is when they try to tell us how to do it and because they are not technical they are wrong. Best boss I ever had did not know a thing about tech. But he also knew he did not know and therefore gave me the tools I need to do my job and got out of my way. The idiots are the ones who can't admit that they don't know anything and try to micromanage everything. And there are alot of those.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
In many, if not most companies, executive management is much like a social club (usually a Boys' Club). Ability and intelligence is not irrelevant, but the selection of executives may have more to do with the personal comfort of peers than anything else. Will you be politically reliable? Will you identify completely with "the club" and not your own subordinates? Are you good company on the golf course? Are you someone who the other execs will enjoy hanging with? Are you likely to represent a threat to them or their status in some way?
Back in the 80s I was the software VP for a small company that developed scientific software and systems, mostly because I was the technical cofounder. After a while I found myself in the position of being the only one in management with any computer or science background whatsoever, and believe me, it was no picnic. I was sensitive to the situation at the time, but in retrospect there's probably nothing I could have done about it; I was identified more as "one of them" than "one of us", and it was only a matter of time before I was forced out, to be eventually replaced by a manager who had no sci/tech background and therefore would not be a threat to management cohesiveness. I could get all self-righteous about it, but to be honest I don't remember hiring many people either with whom I felt threatened or uncomfortable. That's how you end up with technology companies run by managers who are clueless about what they are managing.
BTW, after that I was completely disillusioned with corporate politics and started my own company. Things went well for a while but it ultimately failed, largely because I spent nearly all my time on technology matters and gave short shrift to things like raising capital and building a sales and marketing apparatus. But just wait 'till next time...
In the mid-to-late 70's, spending was at an all-time high, saving rates were lower than depression-era rates and people would quit jobs to go on vacations, certain another better one would be there after a few weeks.
Sound familiar?
BTW, you may want to do a search for the "Processed World" anthology for a different perspective on the temp worker situation in the '70's (and now). Big companies like HP *love* to paint the picture of the independent temp gunslinger, while making sure that over 60% of their workforce is temp. Gosh, no benefits or paid sick days, "work-at-will" contracts, and a workforce you can shrink at will (and still report "no layoffs"). Huzzah!
-- clvrmnky
You've never actually had a job at a company like those described in Dilbert, have you? You've never actually read Scott Adams, except for the occasional laugh at a comic strip, have you? One must realize that Dilbert is humorous because it is an exaggeration, but it is not a pure invention. Most of the story ideas come from people who work for those large companies, or from Adams' own time as a telco employee. In fact, if you go to the Dilbert website, there is a stock index page where one index is built on the prices of the stocks of companies from which Mr. Adams says he has gotten the most ideas. Incompetence is mostly irrelevant because life is not that fragile when viewed en masse (greenhouse effect and associated theories notwithstanding). Getting up in the morning, eating, getting dressed (and I would have to argue that some are barely able to do this), moving around the planet, working in jobs that rarely require the same brainpower that it took to get past fourth grade, reproducing... these do not require an incredible amount of competence. In fact, all it takes is a few smart people to set up systems, plans, policies, and organizations, and you've got something running which will largely perpetuate itself as long as no one actually stops to question it too much, or try to change it drastically. This is not to suggest that everyone, especially bosses are morons or incompetent. But in any group, most of the people are downright average.
I do not have a signature
I dunno - I just got an email that is offering me $50,000 / week working part time at home. Hey, I can't wait to get started!
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Nonsense. People work longer hours due to stupidity not technology. They need to work longer because they're not doing anything useful anymore - they're sitting in meetings discussing mission statements or ISO9000 compliance tests or a million other worthless activities. Dilbert is entirely accurate. The more extreme useless people use technology to generate anti-work more efficiently than ever before, but the root cause is addiction to ritual, not technology (www.reciprocality.org). In fact it's only technology that prevents the whole edifice from disintegrating and snapping people out of their stupors through economic collapse and eventual starvation. Left to their own devices the majority of humnity will slump into an eternal ritual where every moment of their lives is entirely predictable from the greetings that their co-workers give as they walk into the office to the format, outcomes and even dialog of their favorite shows. As it is, the economic surplus provided by increasing mechanisation nicely matches the increasing stupidity and worthlessness of humanity. We're already living in a post-scarcity world (in the west at least), the wheels would keep turning just fine if only 10% of the population worked. People don't want more leisure time though, they want to keep their minds in a state of minimum utilization, so everyone spends more time at work performing pointless rituals and spends the rest of their lives watching predicatable television. Anything unpredictable must be destoyed - such as children who don't follow the rules - that's OK though, there are drugs to cure that (ritalin).
And here endeth the rant, for today anyway.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
I've always thought that most so-called knowledge workers have about 4 or 5 hours of good concentration in them each day. The rest is spent farting about, not out of laziness, but because you need the social stimulation and distraction for your own well-being and to let your unconscious mind process stuff.
:-)
If you read books on software engineering (Mythical Man Month, Peopleware, Death March Projects) you'll see that the more people work, the less benefit to the company in terms of output there is - more than 1 60 hour week in a row, and you'll be LESS productive than you used to be with 40.
So most overtime, or early arrival and late departure, is in fact symbolic: it acheives nothing for the company. It only proves the devotion of the worker to the company. Worker devotion is not a tradable asset
Everybody recognises this, but no one seems to be able to do anything about it. (Just as managers will sagely nod when someone says "adding more programmers will make a late project later", and then go ahead and put more on anyway.)
The best thing that the young and nerdy audience of Slashdot could do is excercise its collective discretion not to work stupid hours for little benefit. (See http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/13813.html for another "High tech labour is scarce" story). Refuse to worship at the altar of the company: take a rational attitude to your life. Unless it's enormous fun, in which case knock yourself out.
I hate this sort of drivel about how things are 'especially difficult' for tech workers. Bull SH*T! Try spending 10-15 years in almost any NON technical career (except, perhaps, for lawyers and psychologists) to get up to 40 or 50 thou a year, and then try to stomach the sniveling of the 'poor techie' who gets 40-50 grand on his first, entry-level position!
I'm on the Hi-Tek Gravy Train and I'm NOT COMPLAINING! My job is blast compared to pretty much anything else I've done.
Try working at McJob for 7 or 8 bux an hour, with a trashy boss who fumes and threatens whenever you're 5 minutes late. There's plenty of folks who, for a variety of reasons, HAVE to rely on those jobs to survive, and have to say 'yes sir' to all the crap that gets thrown about them.
Nobody writes books or articles about THEM because they're not a good market. They don't make enough to buy books in the first place.
We 'poor techies' are a great market; trumpet one of our pet concerns on the cover of a hastily-thrown-together book or article and maybe now you'll cash in! Them techies got money and them techies buy books!
**>>BELCH
The problem with managers is not the fact that they don't hack the kernel, or can't even log into the network, but it's the fact that because they have NO idea what the people they're managing do, they make stupid management decisions.
:)
They give the upper management promises that are near impossible to keep, they take away budgets that are definately needed, they move people to where they don't belong (like moving your FreeBSD web site admin to administrating the NT servers, or taking a rookie VisualBasic programmer and trying to make him configure a Cisco router).. and because of things like that, the workplace becomes unorganized, hecktic, and even hellish.
Of course the REAL problem is not so much that the middle managers don't know what they're dealing with, but that they don't listen to their employees who are trying to politely(at least one would hope) show them what they're doing wrong.
They're so concerned about their advancement, and their newfound power, that they don't care if they're screwing over employees, or even the company itself... and those types of managers are bad.
In any case, if I just re-stated what Katz said, ignore me. I don't like reading Katz articles, just the comments.
The reason Dilbert is so funny is because it's true. I'd rather read that then a boring tome of how work sucks.
Yes, it's true. I worked at Microsoft for 2 years and left recently. And guess what? They don't put up with this Dilbertesque Crap. Why? Because the damn place was founded by a PROGRAMMER. I have met BillG and he convinced me that he is a programmer (please put your snickers aside. The MBAs who work at Microsoft work for a programmer, and everyone in my large group (500+ people) doesn't ever have to report to an MBA. Programmers rule the place. It's got it's downside too, but it is like paradise in many ways.
The only way you can advance at Microsoft (at least in my groups) is that if your team agrees you would be a good leader. Nepotism is shot down pretty fast. So, look at www.microsoft.com/jobs. Go up for an interview. I've heard things are changing, and I left because of the current DOJ problems to go to a startup, but it does have a nonbullshit feel to the place. It values results and results only. --BlueRain
No,
People invent things like Dilbert to caricature the following
I write database driven websites for a living, including e-commerce.
My boss does not know how to write website or database code.
My boss does not understand what the difference between http and https is and which should be used where.
My boss does not know what sorts of functions are done on the website side of things and what sort of things are done by the database
My boss does not understand what a database is for.
My boss has heard of Internet Explorer and Netscape but is incapable of installing them without my help.
My boss believes that the password field in a HTML form prevents anyone from intercepting your password.
My boss believes that if they change the password on the intranet administration website that the database developers will no longer be able to access and change their information without permission.
My boss does not realise that you must be connected to the internet to access a website.
My boss gets confused when his laptop stops working after a few hours, especially as I can fix it by plugging it in.
My boss believes that his first name is a great password for the company systems, it helps him to remember it (as does the post it note on his monitor).
My boss provides the client with an accurate estimate of how long a project will take and how much it will cost *without* consulting me - afterall my boss must know better than me - otherwise he wouldn't be my boss.
Now do you see why I have little confidence in my boss. The only reason that any money is made is because my boss multiplies the number of paragraphs in the specification by ten and quotes for that many hours, shows it to me for about ten seconds and if I don't yelp sends it to the client, afterall we must be a forward looking proactively leveraged organisation.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
I've just entered the employment market in May and I'm already on my second job. Granted I like this one and will stick with it for a while, but I can't see myself working for just one company in my life. Used to be that companies took care of their employees, now it's part of their bottom line to screw them over (working more hours for less) and try and get them paid less with less benefits. Enter the independent contractors who work for less and don't need benefits, the modern mercenaries.
Instead of caring for our workforce, we make them compete against each other. No longer are we a goal-oriented work structure, everyone has their own agenda, fighting back and forth to gain points with the pointy-haired ones who operate on a separate plane of existence from the very real one that dominates the real office.
It seems like there are more people who focus of cohesing (is that a word?) teamwork than actually do any work. Take for example this guy I work with. He is a fantastic teacher, but not the best manager. He works too hard at managing, setting too many rules, too many requirements of his fellow teachers. When we try too hard, no one succeeds.
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.