Training - A Company or a Worker's Responsibility?

r0wan asks: "I'm currently working as a Microsoft Systems Administrator. Through a series of bungled management decisions, have found myself responsible for a Windows Server 2003 Active Directory network, that I know nothing about (the person who was sent for training was: not the Microsoft point person, as I was; and left the company, soon after the domain upgrade). It doesn't look as though training will be forthcoming, and I've just been moved from the lab, where I was training myself while simultaneously handling the domain. I've got the MCSA/MCSE Training Kit, but recently I've found numerous errors, so many that I was sent a free Press Kit book, for submitting all of the errors I had found. Between management's reluctance to shell out for training, and being moved from the lab, I'm getting the distinct sense that training is something I'm expected to take care of, on my own time. Is this the de-facto standard within IT, and for all jobs within IT? If so, how do you Slashdot readers keep up with your continuing education, while still maintaining a personal life? Is it naive to try to leave my work at work?" "I'm especially interested in hearing from the Slashdot readers of the female persuasion, as I have a husband, a dog, and a household to keep up with (no kids by choice, but I wouldn't have the time to take care of them, even if I wanted to). I also have the added responsibility of being the primary breadwinner. My free time is valuable in that it allows me to take care of that which I can't during the day (grocery shopping, dog responsibilities, cleaning, etc), and decompress/de-stress in order to prepare for the next day's work. I like tinkering with computers and learning new stuff, but I fear that if I'm expected train myself, outside of work, I may need to consider a different career.

Thanks in advance for the input."

Comments

Normal for my employer

[Easy2RememberNick]

I'm lucky if they tell me what day it is.

Re:Normal for my employer

[martin-boundary]

Ok, uhm, that's great. We're going to need your stapler, thanks. Didn't you get the memo?

Re: Normal for my employer

[Black Parrot]

> I'm lucky if they tell me what day it is.

Why does a mushroom need to know what day it is?

Re:Normal for my employer

[AKAImBatman]

I'm lucky if they tell me what day it is.

That's right. Because you're expected to do your job. If you need information, go find it. It doesn't matter how many people you have to push your way past. Find what you need, and act on it. You may annoy several folks along the way (do try to be somewhat cordial about it), but you'll become invaluable simply because you're the one who gets the job done.

Here's my advice for the submitter:

1. Make a plan. It doesn't have to be anything fancy. Just identify the problem and find the solution that you think will best solve it. If it's training, then make that your plan. If it's simply some reference materials, then make that your plan.

2. Sit down with your boss when you get a chance and say, "Hey, we've got this hole in our operations. It's a big problem for the company as a whole as we're not able to respond as well as we should be. Here's the plan I'd like to execute."

3. If you've got a good boss, your plan will actually be increased seven fold just to ensure that it gets done right. If you've got a mediocre boss, you'll get what you asked for. If you've got a REALLY bad boss, you won't get anything other than a "make due". Since you're already "making due", you're not going to lose anything. Plus you have some ammo in case your boss's boss ever happens to question the operations of your department.

4. ???

5. Profit!!! (Just to be complete.) ;-)

I know that coporate life seems like a bottomless pit sometimes. But no one else is going to change it, so you might as well make your own best effort. As long as you make something of an effort not to tick off every higher-up you meet, you should gain at least some leverage. Good luck! :-)

Once the camel's nose is in the tent.....

[DoraLives]

rely on seeing the rest the smelly thing in there with you sooner instead of later. Resist ALL attempts to cause you to spend your OWN time and money on things that benefit your bosses and/or the owners of the company instead of yourself.

Re:Once the camel's nose is in the tent.....

[WhyCause]

One thing I would suggest, keeping in line with this, would be to 'spin' it such that it is to the company's great benefit to ensure that you are properly trained. For example, you don't want to spend hours trying to solve a problem that a properly trained domain admin might spend 5 minutes fixing (think of the downtime!). This is the polite way of batting the camel on the nose (as it were) to make it back out of the tent.

If necessary, keep records of the time you spend on figuring out problems, and present this (in accumulated form) to your manager, insisting that training will reduce this. Present this in paper memo form, making sure to cc: to file (yours, paper, of course), and make certain that your manager's secretary stamps each memo you deliver to him or her with one of those "Received On" stamps (they still use those, right?). If your manager still refuses training, your ass is covered when the shit hits the fan (and it will).

I've never been in an IT position like this. It doesn't matter, though, because just about every manager with a lean training budget will act the same. Once you prove to your manager that this training is worth the investment, you'll generally get the support you need. On the other hand, you might see (currently) intangible benefits by training yourself. You're a go-getter with initiative. A straight-shooter with upper management written all over you.

Re:Once the camel's nose is in the tent.....

[klparrot]

If necessary, keep records of the time you spend on figuring out problems, and present this (in accumulated form) to your manager, insisting that training will reduce this.

You might want to be careful, though, that your manager doesn't just decide that laying you off and hiring someone with the training is cheaper.

Some advice

[aliscool]

Hey,

Get your company to front for some M$ premier support. When something comes up you are not sure of or are having a hell of a time resolving, call in the experts at M$.

Except for one or two "M$ Alliance partners" I have always had good luck with M$ premier support. And we have had some major fiascos to unscrew over the years.

And best of all you can consider it free on the job training, don't let the M$ Engineer hang up until you completely understand what was wrong and how to fix it in the future.

Also, document everything you do! Two years from now you will be fighting the same or similar fires you are fighting today. Have a reference to fall back on and help remember what steps you took before that fixed something.

Sounds like you are a lone gun, but a 800 Premier support help number and some documentation may help greatly.

Best of luck with the new responsibilities.

Training

[flosofl]

I have eight guys in my specific dept (a section of security). As it stands right now, we are averaging about 10,000 USD per person for training this year. It will probably double before the end.

Every company I've worked for (small, large, huge) have either paid for or reimbursed employees for relevant training.

The norm for the industry?

[lamasquerade]

Not at all! Sounds to me like your company is being miserly. Most IT companies, I believe, see the value of continuing education in our field and provide it. At my company, where I have been for two years, I have been on three training courses so far (one of three days, two of a week each). They have been for ITIL foundations, which is required for all employees, even non technical, and two HP Administration courses for products we support and deploy. In all cases I was paid while training as though I was at work, and in two cases I was flown to other cities in Australia, with the expenses taken care of - as is the norm I believe.

In fact this Sunday I'll be off to Melbourne for another course of a week, the second admin course for HPOV Performance Insight. Without the training I can't imaigine being able to deploy and support this quite complex (and not overly intuitive) product, it would in fact be negligent to have me do so.

I'd reccommend taking your need for education to your managemnt quite firmly, and if they won't budge look elsewhere - not just because of this particular issue, but because such behaviour is indicative of a lack of management vision IMO. If they can't outlay some cash now to train for the future it doesn't sound like they'll have much of a future to worry about - at least not a very interesting high growth one.

Re:The norm for the industry?

[Andr0s]

I cannot say if it's the norm for the industry... but I just saw the loose ends of my department's budget for last year wrapped up, (I'm Remote Site Admin in a sizeable corporation's IT) and I was shocked at how much money was in it for IT staff training, unused. After chatting with some other friends in the industry, I discovered that often companies don't refuse to pay for training... but do expect employees to go through training without dropping any of their tasks. And since so many of IT people work 60+ hour weeks, we can all see how frequently that kind of training is a feasible scenario.

Re:The norm for the industry?

[lamasquerade]

I hope 20 or so of those hours are paid overtime. I can't stand seeing some of my friends (grad lawyers and engineers) doing unpaid overtime because it's 'standard' in the industry or necessary to 'get ahead'. I'm out of here the second the clock strikes five (actually, usually 5 to 5 to get the good bus:) unless there's a project that needs to be worked on to meet deadline and I've got some pre-approved paid overtime (or some agrreed time off in lieu). Happily this is the norm at my company and it is the first job I had out of Uni, and I know it's harder to quit such a job if the culture in your workplace is all about unpaid overtime, but once you start submitting to that bullshit you can wave bye to your life IMO. If I didn't have a good five hours after work to relax and do other things I think I'd go quite mad...

Sounds like my job...

[Jere H]

I moved from being an Excel junkie to being a network administrator with 5 servers. I had not used Active Directory or Windows Server 2003 before this point, so it was all new to me. My boss knows less than I do, and the people who installed the equipment basically showed us how to set up a new user when it was necessary.
Nobody told us how to map home folders, shared network drives, printers, set file permissions, or anything else. Everything I know was learned on my own, however, it was all researched on company time.
They've been pleased with the system so far. It's not too hard to learn.

Small company vs. big company

[douglips]

In a big company, the company will train you on their time and their dime. In a small company, they may not train you, but they should allow you the time to train yourself and/or learn by doing. Do NOT front any money for technical training like this. Maybe for a Masters degree, but not for some Microsoft certificate.

You have to choose what kind of company to work for, essentially.

Having done both, I liked the small company when I was young and had no kids, and now I like the big company.

Funny story.

[Council]

How do you Slashdot readers keep up with your continuing education, while still maintaining a personal life?

Your question implies a misunderstanding.

Re:But who does it really benefit?

[Mr. Underbridge]

But does it benefit the company more, or does it benefit the employee more? If she gets training, she'll be better able to demand a higher salary from the company he's working for now, or a higher salary in his next job.

In this case, neither, but it benefits the employee the least. The company is being shortsighted by forcing an (admittedly) underqualified employee to manage something beyond training. They're also forcing said employee to "train" during free time from manuals and such instead of investing in real training.

It would be fair for the company to send the employee to real training, which would benefit both. If the company's not willing to invest in the employee, they shouldn't expect the employee to give up a ton of free time.

Okay, you asked for it...a female perspective!

[SlashChick]

Oh, sigh. I see the flame war erupting already, since Slashdot is primarily male. But this needs to be said anyway.

"My free time is valuable in that it allows me to take care of that which I can't during the day (grocery shopping, dog responsibilities, cleaning, etc."

WHY are you doing all of this grunt work IN ADDITION TO being the primary breadwinner of your household?

What is your husband doing?

Now, if your husband is doing 50%+ of the household work (I say plus, since you're the primary income), that's one thing, and I would argue that a housekeeper/cleaning service would save a lot of your sanity. That's a given. I hire a cleaning service to clean my house. I need to keep myself focused on work that benefits my career instead of busywork.

However, if your husband is not doing at least 50% of the job, that's a whole other can of worms, but one that I'm willing to open because I think it's an important point of discussion.

I read a great article about this the other day. It's called My Radical Married Feminist Manifesto, and it's a must-read for most women who are primary breadwinners and who are or plan to be married. It's in response to America's Stay-At-Home Feminists, which is in itself an important article to read.

One of the most important points of the article is as follows:

"The home-economics trap involves superior female knowledge and superior female sanitation. The solutions are ignorance and dust. Never figure out where the butter is. "Where's the butter?" Nora Ephron's legendary riff on marriage begins. In it, a man asks the question when looking directly at the butter container in the refrigerator. "Where's the butter?" actually means butter my toast, buy the butter, remember when we're out of butter. Next thing you know you're quitting your job at the law firm because you're so busy managing the butter. If women never start playing the household-manager role, the house will be dirty, but the realities of the physical world will trump the pull of gender ideology. Either the other adult in the family will take a hand or the children will grow up with robust immune systems."

Sounds like a trap that you might have fallen into, and even if you haven't, it's important to be aware of "the butter question" in case you get into this situation in the future.

In case you plan on having kids, I also want to quote this stunning piece (from the same article):

"Bad deals come in two forms: economics and home economics. The economic temptation is to assign the cost of child care to the woman's income. If a woman making $50,000 per year whose husband makes $100,000 decides to have a baby, and the cost of a full-time nanny is $30,000, the couple reason that, after paying 40 percent in taxes, she makes $30,000, just enough to pay the nanny. So she might as well stay home. This totally ignores that both adults are in the enterprise together and the demonstrable future loss of income, power, and security for the woman who quits. Instead, calculate that all parents make a total of $150,000 and take home $90,000. After paying a full-time nanny, they have $60,000 left to live on."

...which is so incredibly true that I'm amazed it's even looked at any other way. Remember that if you stay home to take care of the kid, this calculation assumes that your salary would have remained the same indefinitely -- an invalid assumption for a career-oriented woman.

I sincerely hope you haven't fallen prey to the butter question. However, if you have, now is the time to reassess who does the work in your marriage. Do it like you would any other job -- figure out which parts you can outsource (grocery shopping? You can shop online and get groceries delivered. Cleaning the house? You can hire someone) for very lit

Re:But who does it really benefit?

[slaker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Parent looks at dirty pictures at work all day.
I worked 88 hours last week and had to wait until I got home every night to look at teh boobies.

To the OP: seriously, read the stupid Microsoft books, or as much of them as you can stand without puking. Don't bother with the tests until some tells you that it's a requirement that you certify. At that point, you tell them with a straight face that you want compensation for your study time. I say this as a Microsoft Certified Trainer. The stuff on those exams can be pretty out there, and unless you really WANT to be on a "Microsoft Certified" career track there are better things to do with your life.

From the across the desk

[Spazmania]

I can speak to this issue from the other side of the desk.

1. Yes, you are supposed to teach yourself. When I hire, I look for folks who are always learning, all day, every day. "Training" means I have to pay good money to have you absent from work for a week every couple months so that you can come back and spout off about the way X-Corp says it should be done instead of the way that would actually integrate into the system I spent years building. No thanks!

If you need a reference book, I'll buy it for you. If you want to take some night courses in computer science so that you can get a better grounding in the fundamentals then I'll help out in whatever way I can. Just don't waste my time or yours with these so-called training courses.

2. I expect that you'll spend a certain amount of time at work experimenting and gathering knowledge about the software and hardware you use to make my systems run. That's part of the job. You don't have to know everything ahead of time, you just have to know how to figure it out.

If you were a consultant it would be different. I'll pay a consultant twice what I pay you because I expect him to already have the answers when he hits my door. If HE doesn't know, he won't be invited back and if its bad enough he won't be paid. You, as an employee, have more leeway.

3. I expect that you'll spend a certain amount of time at home using similar technologies in the pursuit of your own hobbies. I expect that you'll learn things there that you apply to work just as you learn things at work that you'll apply to your hobbies.

Its not about taking your work home with you; its about getting paid to do work that you enjoy. This work I do was my hobby before it became my career. I enjoy it immensely and I want people around me who feel the same way. If you're just here for the paycheck then I hired the wrong guy. You won't deliver the standard of quality I want because when push comes to shove you just don't care.

Now, if you're like four out of five people out there then having read this you think I'm full of shit. And that's OK. There are plenty of suck jobs out there that will pay you well enough to drive a nice car and vacation at the beach. I wish you all the best in life and may you find your bliss.

But if you're the one out of five that finds the job worth working for its own sake then I want you working with me.

Re:From the across the desk

[kaiser423]

I agree with every sentiment of your post except for this one:

Its not about taking your work home with you; its about getting paid to do work that you enjoy. This work I do was my hobby before it became my career. I enjoy it immensely and I want people around me who feel the same way. If you're just here for the paycheck then I hired the wrong guy. You won't deliver the standard of quality I want because when push comes to shove you just don't care.

I do take my work home because I love it; but I can't say that I'm able to get more than an hour or two of half-assed work done at home before I realize that I'm gonna be burnt out on it the next day.

The most motivated, intelligent and best employees I've worked with have often been those who punch out exactly on time. They love their work, and they'll work obscene hours if needed. But they know what they like to do, and they know how to do it. Pure business for a 9 hour workday, and then a straight line to the door -- they have other activities in their life that are different, interesting, and keep them from being burnt out! In my book, knowing that is a quality judgement. Knowing where your point of diminishing returns is is crucial to being good at your job.

I'm not saying that you're wrong. People who do their job as a hobby also are usually great employees, I'm just saying that the people who have the motivation and will-power to stand up to a boss like you and demand a fine line between work and the rest of their lives also usually have great qualities that you want in an employee. They think that the job is "worth working for its own sake," they just have other things that also are -- and let's be honest here, they're working not only to enrich you, but themselves also. You're not selling yourself short here, so why disrespect other people who demand their fair compensation also?

A company might get built on a one-trick workhorse, but they rarely survive for long on one.

He's discovering reality. Isn't it cute?

[crovira]

I just love the way the stars in their eyes fade to be replaced by the circles and bags under where the glow was.

Congratulations. You're beginning to wake the fuck up.

Rule 1: Companies need to generate profits. Cash flows from the customers pockets to the stock holders pockets. In order to maximize profits, there must be as little spent on things that are known in accounting circles as expenses.

There is no rule 2, only legal complience issues.

Training is an expense. Training is expendable.

Hell, you are an expense. If you weren't being paid so much, or at all, the stock holders would be delighted.

Hint: When ever you hear somebody say "Our employees are our greatest asset" they're lying, or they don't understand basic accounting, or they're slavers and illegal after-market organ transplanters.

If management doesn't seem interested, its because they aren't. All the arguments about it being counter-productive and costing more in the end don't matter.

See rule 1.

Re:He's discovering reality. Isn't it cute?

[ranton]

what's your lifestyle advice ? How does a person make money while being employed by a corporation ?

While I do not agree with your parent's post, I think the answer to your question is to not work for a corporation. If you are working for someone else then you are making them rich. It is almost guaranteed that you arent being paid what you are worth, because then where is the profit for your employer?

The only way to make what you are worth is to go into business for yourself. If you cannot hack it, then you were never worth that much in the first place. I program small niche software, and make sure that there is some reason for the customers to have to keep paying (like updates). After launching and dealing with initial patching, it can run by itself with just the cost of a tech support guy making $10 an hour. Sell only 50 copies a month of a $100 program and you are making $5k a month, with only $2k going to employees. Keeping releasing a new peice of software every couple of years and you are soon a very rich man. And this does not count updates or tech support fees. Just find some way to make someone else's life easier and they will pay you for it.

Sure you are paying your employees alot less than they are making for you, but that is life. If they were smart enough to actually do something with their life other than working for someone else, then they would branch off and start their own company. If they arent smart enough, then I am doing them a favor by employing them and helping them feed themselves. Most of my employees are only treading water while finishing school or saving up some money to work on something they really want to do; and I wouldnt have it any other way.
--

Re:He's discovering reality. Isn't it cute?

[garyboodhoo]

If you cannot hack it, then you were never worth that much in the first place.

That's unnecessarily harsh and also unrealistic. While I've chosen to live on my own terms, I've also gained priceless experience/knowledge working for certain companies. The scale of certain (non-niche) projects often requires greater resources and better distribution than any individual or group of individuals will be able to muster. Not forming your own ventures has nothing to do with native intelligence or initiative. Some people either don't want to or simply aren't suited for it.

Certainly, not all companies are created equal, and there are those who do in fact choose to hide inside companies, trapped by self doubt or cluelessness. However, your argument doesn't account for other possibilities. According to you, a talented animator or software engineer (for example) working on a contractual basis would be a fool to accept a position at a company like Apple, Google, ILM, Blizzard, EA, etc... where she'd gain excellent benefits, stock options and regular exposure to new methods & ideas.

Asking slashdot won't help

[NullProg]

This is not a flamebait response, but most moderators will treat it so.

"I'm currently working as a Microsoft Systems Administrator. Through a series of bungled management decisions, have found myself responsible for a Windows Server 2003 Active Directory network, that I know nothing about (the person who was sent for training was: not the Microsoft point person, as I was; and left the company, soon after the domain upgrade).

Your a Microsoft Adminstrator but you know nothing of AD services. Your on Par with most MCSE/MSVP/PMS/MS whatever certificate holding persons. Your fine, it's just that most of what you need to know is buried in Microsofts SDK documentation.


It doesn't look as though training will be forthcoming, and I've just been moved from the lab, where I was training myself while simultaneously handling the domain. I've got the MCSA/MCSE Training Kit, but recently I've found numerous errors, so many that I was sent a free Press Kit book, for submitting all of the errors I had found. Between management's reluctance to shell out for training, and being moved from the lab, I'm getting the distinct sense that training is something I'm expected to take care of, on my own time. Is this the de-facto standard within IT, and for all jobs within IT?

Is it your career or mangements career? Who trained Bill Gates or Wozniak? Its up to you to figure stuff out. If your into computers why should you care about the platform? Your next job could be Windows/AIX/AS400/Linux whatever. Always be ready for the next career jump.


If so, how do you Slashdot readers keep up with your continuing education, while still maintaining a personal life? Is it naive to try to leave my work at work?"
"I'm especially interested in hearing from the Slashdot readers of the female persuasion, as I have a husband, a dog, and a household to keep up with (no kids by choice, but I wouldn't have the time to take care of them, even if I wanted to).

I'm male. I have a wife and three kids, one dog and one cat and a habitat they all call home. Yes I work overtime most/sometimes. We do family things on the weekends. I'm currently learning OCAML in my private time (I get up early on weekends, have coffee and learn something new). Whats your problem?


I also have the added responsibility of being the primary breadwinner. My free time is valuable in that it allows me to take care of that which I can't during the day (grocery shopping, dog responsibilities, cleaning, etc), and decompress/de-stress in order to prepare for the next day's work. I like tinkering with computers and learning new stuff, but I fear that if I'm expected train myself, outside of work, I may need to consider a different career.

You may need a new significant other if he/she is not willing to share (along with his/hers) in the responsibilties of your lifes vision quest. I have time to play network games with my kids, satisfy my wife, work (+- 50 hours), play with my dog, and clean house when my wife is too busy.

Without trying to sound mean, whats your problem? Is everything supposed to be given to you?

I like computers, its a life choice for me. Maybe you don't. My advice? Use common sense and choose your own path.

Enjoy,

Oddly enough...

[DaedalusHKX]

I grew up under communist policies, and then moved here...

In the last 15 to 20 years I've seen the following VERY disturbing trend here in the USA.

People here do not leave their work at work. We work EXCESSIVE hours and are expected to kill ourselves, damage our health and wound our minds to "be more productive" or "increase productivity". (Ever since I left IT, I sleep more, I have more restful sleep, and I'm not at the edge of becoming homicidal.)

In Europe, even the eastern side, people left their work at work. I recall my mother telling me stories when I started hating the working world I encountered here. "Yep, I remember how we used to have it back home, it wasn't as bad as it seemed, now that I think about it. At least we had assured work, nobody got laid off, everyone had assured (and delivered, without need for lawsuits) pensions and retirement, and when they walked out the door at the end of the day, and off the premises, the coat of "labor" wore off, and it was time to enjoy life.

(Nevermind that she left for work at 0700, came back around 1600 in the afternoon, that would be, 4 o'clock for those who cannot read 24 hr clocks.)

I don't know, but now that I look back at it, the commies weren't nearly as abusive in the work place (corruption was rampant, but at LEAST one could actually get ahead based on their skills, if those skills were formidable, here, its very hard because your healthcare is assured by massive expenses, and the healthcare is rarely there when needed, because most people do not want to "get into expenses", I should know, I've been there... or perhaps "they can't find the time" (I've spent weeks trying to plot a day off to go get a filling for a tooth...)

~D

PS - I'm not praising communism, but I am saying that there are some merits to limiting the amount of power CEO's and CoB's have. Perhaps even making them "the people"... it wouldn't hurt to make those dirty bastards have to EARN a living. They bleed the same as we do, perhaps they should put something back into society before they see another dime.

Re:Oddly enough...

[Alpha_Traveller]

I think you've got a great point there. I think what we need to see in America isn't Communism , it's Socialism... How anyone can presume a business has your best interests at heart, and freely gives a business the keys to effect your life at a massive scale (i.e. Healthcare) without better regulation is an incredible insult to human intelligence.

Re:Oddly enough...

[antarctican]

In the United States we have a free-market where small business is the backbone of our economy. If people don't like working for corporations they always have the option of starting up their own business and working for themselves. The other option is getting an MBA and learning business where you can work your way up the ladder on the business side instead of being in the trenches of the Data Center. Either way everyone has options.

The business world is a pyramid, isn't that what the economics and MBA classes always teach? A large number of people have to be at the bottom so others can climb up.

Not everyone can climb up, otherwise the system wouldn't work. So who gets left at the bottom? Do those who don't get the breaks and can't climb up the ladder deserve their conditions and life? Should they be left to a lesser life because in every competition someone must lose, no matter how good the competitors?

That's a very simplistic answer that doesn't actually solve the problem, that someone is always going to have to take these crap jobs. And unless it's a job seeker's market (which last time I checked it wasn't, particularly with increasing outsources), the employees left at the bottom are not in a position to make such demands for better treatment. That is why unions were formed.

So, rather then being confrontational through organizations such as unions, why can we not proactively correct the system so all workers, including those at the bottom of the pyramid, get the respect and decent working conditions they deserve?

Re:Oddly enough...

[jdavidb]

Pretty cool insight. Personally, I grew up aware that many companies would try to take more time than they were entitled to, so I entered the workforce prepared to make my stand and say "No." I work for a large corporation (with all the heartlessness, bureaucracy, and inefficiency that entails) where I started as a co-op student. When I became a full time "exempt" (salaried: they don't pay me for overtime) employee, I quickly realized there were no benefits for me, only potential benefits for my employer. So I strengthened the backbone I had already grown. Now I'm married, and still trying to finish my master's degree. I have a life and responsibilities outside of work. But even if I did not, it is still My Time.

When work needs me for emergencies or a big push, I've got no problem with it. But in general, I simply do not work more than forty hours a week. I change managers frequently, and when I get into a new organization there's often a lot of highly-stressed people expecting that we're all going to have to put in a ton of overtime. I never let that faze me. I figure out what tasks need to be completed by when and move heaven and earth to complete them before that date during my normal work weeks if at all possible. When people ask me to show up for extra work (non-emergency), I explain that I have something previously scheduled. And I always do. I am a very busy man. As I said, I have a life.

This has worked just fine for the last decade. All I needed was a backbone.

IN CAPITALIST AMERICA...

[yobjob]

...work finishes YOU.

Hehe, keep your words in mind kid :)

[DaedalusHKX]

This will be revisited when YOU are on the other end of the blade :)

Remember your words when you've spent 40k and 5 years of college learning a subject which recently became the target of massive outsourcing and layoffs.

I look forward to seeing if you make it past that, I have :) but that doesn't mean I don't look out for my fellow man, which, I believe, is what makes me a better citizen than you. I don't help others only when it gives me a tax break.

~D

Of course. Capitalism no longer has competition

[Animats]

The problem, which is obvious when you think about it, is that capitalism no longer has competition from communism. When communism promised "the worker's paradise", and at least took some steps towards delivering it, the capitalist world had to treat its workers better than the communists did, out of fear that the workers would revolt, or vote in a different system.

With that competitive threat removed, capitalism can be as nasty as it wants to be. Because it has monopoly power now.

Re:Of course. Capitalism no longer has competition

[jdavidb]

That's actually a really cool thought. I'm a laissez-faire capitalist, and it is still very interesting.

Under the system I envision, groups would be free to form communist, socialist, or whatever systems for themselves within the larger system. They just wouldn't have the right to force participation from everybody. That would provide a lot more competition, and I've always seen that as one of the benefits. Indeed, I'd argue that without that kind of freedom, we are not truly Free.

Another aspect of her statement

[SmallFurryCreature]

"My free time is valuable in that it allows me to take care of that which I can't during the day (grocery shopping, dog responsibilities, cleaning, etc."

If she said the same to her employer/manager I am not suprised she didn't get training.

Training is expensive. Not just the training costs themselves but also because it usually removes the person from work.

Now who would you choose for training? Female A: claims she has a life outside of work, probably going to have a baby anytime now or Male B: Work is his life, can't have babies.

Gee, that is a thoughie. Oh the baby argument is sexist but I am telling you what it is like in the real world. One woman in a company of thousands pulls the being absent for years trick and every woman in the company and every woman in companies where the male managers know a guy in another company where it happened will be tainted with the brush of being unreliable.

Common perception is that women see work as something to do until they get kids. You put them in a position where they are critical and they will just disappear for months. True? Sorta, while I never met any "highlevel" females who did this it sure can mess up a company when the "lowlevel" secretary decides that she has had it and is going to take care of her own baby and no a bunch of middle aged babies. Offcourse the fact that this female was underpaid, undervalued is never mentioned. Just maternity leave is risky. Every male knows this. Sorry.

Then stating also that you value your private life is not a good thing. I am male and even I can't get away with that one. Companies investing thousands of dollars in a person want to be sure they get a willing slave in return. Doesn't matter if that person is going to leave right after completing the training what matters is perception.

And finally the biggest killer in getting training? Just being to damn valuable. I actually been told I couldn't get trained because they couldn't get me the time off needed from projects. So the guys who were "unemployed" got the the training while the guy who was earning the salaries by being outsourced had to buy his own books. Oh and ended up having to be the teacher to the guys just having received a 20.000 guilder training. Grrrr.

Whenever an employer starts talking about training your bullshit meter should spring into the red. I have had several "offers" and it never works out. In the rare occasions where it actually reaches a "planned" stage there is always some project that I am suddenly needed on because the guy that was on it and received lots and lots of training can't hack it. Or left for greener pastures with his shiny new diploma.

Those who can, do. Those who can't get trained and leave the company.

As for the whole butter trap, can you blame men for trying it? Call us sexist pigs if you want, just also remember to call us master and serve us. Resistance is futile. We are male, you will serve us.

If you think it is wrong, just realise that no matter how fucked up men are, women are worse. Just examine yourselve (if your female) what you want in a male partner and then check how many of your wishes contradict themselves. Strong, yet caring. Able to express his emotions but not a cry baby. And the biggest one, "he musn't mind me earning more then him" vs "he better earn a good income". No women respects a man with a low paycheck. The only way for a woman to get the man she wants is to have a harem or someone with a split personality.