America's Worst Christmas Parties

Ant writes "Slate Magazine asked its readers to submit reports of horrible office Christmas parties, gifts, and bonuses. Of nearly 200 submissions, they've chosen quite a few tales for The Corporate Scrooge Contest Results ... and they're not pretty. From the article: 'A contract consultant sends word that the company to which he is currently assigned recently sent out an e-mail to some 2,000-odd consultants. The company would give away two $100 gift cards--to two of the brave souls who would commit to work 80 hours between Dec. 18 and Dec. 31. As our correspondent noted: "Hey, if you work Christmas, we'll put you in a pool of 2,000 other folks to maybe win a hundred bucks."'"

Comments

Bah humbug.

[IANAAC]

I'll get modded troll for this, but...

When I was working for corporations, I always expected a bonus, gifts, whatever at holiday time and was nearly always dissapointed.

Now that I've been working for myself the last couple of years, I don't make as much money as I did with corporations, but I'm generally a happier person, in that I can set my own hours (well, somewhat) and spend more time with my family and friends. That to me is far more useful than any trinket or bonus.

I've also come to realize that token gifts from the company NEVER meant anything, and was never anything I could ever use - the corporate logo paperweight fits that bill - much like the years of service gifts with the coporate logos on them.

Sure, when I got bonuses the extra money was nice, but really, it's not something anyone should come to expect.

Don't expect anything and you won't be dissappointed. They're already paying you to do you job.

Re:Bah humbug.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

When advice on to how to deal with the current state of the employment market is summed up as, "They're already paying you to do you job," perhaps it is time for workers to get pissed off about people who deliberately misquote summaries.

Re:Bah humbug.

[rjshields]

It's actually quite sound advice. Take the scenario that you are contracted to a do certain number of hours, but often work over that for whatever reason, and then feel hard done by that you get nothing in return. If you just try a bit harder to stick to those contracted hours, you won't feel so bad. People might also respect you more for not allowing yourself to be treated like a bitch.

Re:Bah humbug.

[killjoe]

You are right. Every working person should realize that they are just cogs in a machine. You don't matter to your employer, you are just a body easily exchanged for another body or better yet some machine. You should do your job, collect your money and never ever give your employer anything beyond exactly what you are paid to do. By the same token demand to be paid for every minute you work and demand that your employer define exactly what is expected of you so that they are not asking you to do a bunch of stuff for free.

Remember your company is not a person. You don't owe it anything beyond your time and the terms of your employment. Anything else has got to cost more to your company. Also demand as much money as possible, they will never ever give you a penny above that.

Finally, unionize. Your employee is trying very hard to reduce your pay as much as possible, you need a way to fight for what you are due.

It's a war, fight to win.

Re:Bah humbug.

[Joey7F]

I am not sure if your post was serious or not (I am leaning towards not) but just in case:

If you never do anything more / work a minute more than what is expected of you I would like to ask you if you tend to shop at stores that fulfill the simplest of obligations or the ones that have employees which go out of there way to help you?

The only saying that hard work is its own reward might be a little bit bullshit, but let's face it, you feel better when you do a good job over doing a poor one. The people who view the boss-employee relationship as an antagonistic one seem less happy than those of us that want to be productive but realize we aren't family and that yes, no one is irreplaceable.

--Joey

Re:Bah humbug.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

There is no contradiction between doing a good job and only doing what you have agreed to do. If an employer wants employees that will do a good job, then they need to make sure that is part of the employment agreement. For example, as a contractor who bills top-dollar I promise and deliver top-quality work -- my clients are happy with the results and I am happy with the compensation. In fact, that's the underlying premise of free markets - both parties derive value from the transaction and neither party is exploited.

Furthermore, I do tend to shop at minimum service stores for exactly that reason - no matter how up-scale the store, there is no guarantee of quality of service. I've been screwed over enough times - paying up-scale prices and receiving down-scale service, that I've learned not to play that game any more.

Re:Bah humbug.

[karmatic]

Wow. Who are you working for? Might I suggest you work somewhere else?

I've worked 9 to 5 (IT and services), union and non-union (Airlines). Unions have their place, but they are always going to have overhead. When the jobs aren't in horribly short supply, you can typically negotiate way better on your own. Working for America West (union), the guys I worked with would always do the bare minimum of what they were required to do to get paid. The pay took this into consideration, and it wasn't very good. I was there to work (didn't really need the money, but the flight benefits were nice); my coworkers would get ticked that I would take break time to go help out people on other gates. I'm paid to work, not paid to sit around - despite what the union contract said. Merit didn't matter, promotions and pay were based on time served, and it was almost impossible to get yourself promoted, or fired.

I also went to work for Mesa Airlines (America West Express, same facilities and terminal. Non union.) From what I understand, they weren't allowed to pay more than America West (contractual obligations); however, it didn't really matter. On time for work - $0.25/hour bonus. Working during the summer - $100 bonus. Company did well - $100 bonus. I made way more than any of the America West guys did in the same position, and since my coworkers could be fired, we got a way better caliber employee. Since the union didn't get involved, it was a lot easier for motivated people to make more money, and get promoted. On the other hand, lazy people who are just there to pay their dues do tend to stay where they are.

Finally, unionize. Your employee[sic] is trying very hard to reduce your pay as much as possible, you need a way to fight for what you are due.
This, quite frankly, can be stupid advice depending on the state, and the company. I run a software company, and I hate unions with a passion. I'm in a right to work state for a reason (sadly, airlines are covered under the railway act, and can unionize). If you are a competent, hard-working, educated person, with a skill useful enough to justify your salary, you should not (generally speaking - there are some exception) need a union.

I do take offense to the "trying very hard to reduce your pay" quip. Not all employers are like this, and I most certainly am not one of them. Paying employees the same, regardless of the quality of the work they do, results in disgruntled, unproductive, unhappy employees who do the bare minimum required to not get fired. Why would you want to run a company you wouldn't want to work for? I choose to pay above average rates, for above average service. I'll pay for education, too. Employees who have fun, and are paid well for what they do are less likely to go to the competition, less likely to produce crap software, less likely to steal. I have one employee (a developer) who is utterly irreplaceable. He is one of the top people in his field. He also makes more than I do, because he adds more to the company than I do. I can be honest; he does things for the company that I can't. I have another employee who will be making a $25,000 USD bonus after this last contract we made. That's more than what he made in two years at his last job (not a US guy).

In short, while I don't know everyone, I do know me (and a few jobs I've worked). Not everyone is out there to screw you; however, large corporations tend to be really large for a reason (and it's not being nice). Learn a skill worth something, and go to work in a field where you can make a difference (whether for yourself, or someone else). Work with a group of people who care about each other, where it's not just about squeezing every last bit of productivity out of an employee before you discard his drained husk.

Of course, if the economy gets REALLY screwed up, unions may once again serve a useful purpose. When you have college graduates working at McDonalds (nationwide, so moving isn't an o

Re:Bah humbug.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know... "$$-centered attitude and a fixation on short-term returns" is a description that probably fits 96% of corporations. Oh, the irony...

Re:Bah humbug.

[Billly Gates]

IT workers including programmers are being exploited like you said thanks to third world countries. How can we compete with someone willing to work for $25,000 a year for a job worth $65,000 a year? They can hire 2 Indians and still make a profit if they are not as good.

Worse any good programmer may still have a job but with the influx of extra unemployeed workers on the market the salary goes down.

To me unions are no different than corporations getting together and putting caps on the price of workers or price fixing. You guys do it all the time but when employees get together to prevent supply you all have a fit and cry boo hoo.

Unions are not great and I am not pro union but employees need to excersize market power to prevent our salaries from declining like they have been. MEanwhile corporate profits are at an all time high while wages have fallen every year since 1999.

Re:Bah humbug.

[killjoe]

Most companies hate unions for the same reason that you hate them. It allows your employees to bargain collectively for what is best for them. You would rather negotiate with each one separately for what is best for you.

This allows you to pay the absolute minimum in wages in order to get your work done.

"Employees who have fun, and are paid well for what they do are less likely to go to the competition, less likely to produce crap software, less likely to steal."

Sure. But they are just as likely to get canned or laid off if you fuck up and lose a contract.

"At times like that, unions can serve a useful purpose, provided they still leave room for profit for the employer. When unions make it impossible for the owner to produce a profit, the company will cease to operate."

I shed no tears for companies who can't survive without paying their workers slave wages. Besides companies go out of business every day and leave their employees thoroughly fucked in the process. Not just their employees but their customers and vendors too.

If you read my post I said you should fight tooth and nail for every dime due to you exactly because companies go out of business all the time. Your company doesn't owe you shit and they know that. If the choice was between you or the hotshot programmer you would fire him and not you right?

Re:Bah humbug.

[killjoe]

"Unions bargain collectively for what is best for the interests controlling the collective (which is quite often very different from the interests of the collective of a whole - just ask Michigan auto workers how they felt about their unions in the 70s and 80s)."

What the fuck? Unions exist to get the best package for employees. All the employees. The employees know that if they don't stand together they will be fucked.

"Negotiating on an individual level allows each employee to demand what s/he feels is the most advantageous work environment/compensation possible."

This is very good for you because it allows you to pay some people less then others. It may also be good for a few employees who get paid more then average. It sucks for the rest of your employees.

"Only if the employee refuses to do nothing more than the minimum amount of work! "

You hired somebody to do X. Now you are going to punish them for not doing more then X. Why?

"But even if the employee's extra value added over market is exactly equal to the additional salary you offer over market, there are numerous other advantages to higher-value employees. Better services, better reputation, better investor confidence, etc. These don't immediately show up on a balance sheet, but they're the cornerstones of almost any successful business that grows from the ground up."

Well pollyanna how come every business isn't doing that? How come service sucks no matter where you go? I tell you why because people don't believe the line of bullshit you are spewing. They know they are working for the bottom dollar so they are doing just enough to keep their jobs and obey their work description and no more. WHy should they do more?

"The only reason for employees to get fired is if the company is losing money on them."

Really? Is that because management is infallible and never fucks up. The CEO doesn't throw the golf game so the customer drops them, the money dries up, the employees get fired. That never happens?

Also when was the last time you worked at a company where all the firing was done on merit? Seniority doesn't play a part? Ass kissing doesn't play a part? What world do you live in?

"Here's a tip - there are plenty of employees who hate unions. I'm one of them. They drive up my taxes by placing unnecessary burdens on business (which ends up getting charged back to us in the form of government subsidies eventually anyway), they make it difficult for me to find work in certain regions/industries unless I join their little cabal, and they often encourage nothing more than complacency and near-zero turnover (again, making it hard for me to find work in certain circumstances). Out of the people I know who work that are in unions or not, those in unions are much more likely to be -content- at work. But they're rarely happy or mentally/emotionally invested. Those people I know who aren't in unions are less likely to be content, but when they are content, it goes beyond that to very happy and entertained by what they do."

Bingo. Unions suck for you but they are great for employees. That's why everybody who works for a living should join or form a union and that's why people like you work so hard to keep unions out.

Unions do not exist to make your life easier. That's why you hate them. Unions exist to make your employees life better. That's why they should form or join one.

Sucks for you, great for them. See? Simple.

Re:Bah humbug.

[karmatic]

If the choice was between you or the hotshot programmer you would fire him and not you right?

You obviously don't understand how a _sensible_ company works. I am an owner in the company - with the exception of a buyout, that's not going to change any time soon.

That being said, when it comes to salary, I can (and have) gone without, so that the employees can be paid. When times are lean (all companies are startups at some point, and we didn't use VC money), we all make sacrifices. A company without direction doesn't do as well; a company without something to sell withers and dies. Replacing the hotshot programmer with 3 crappy programs (or 8 Indians) would "save money" and increase the amount of code produced, but it wouldn't do our company any good in the long term. If it comes down to me getting paid, or him leaving the company (for not being paid), I will make sure he gets paid. It's not altruism; if he leaves, the future of myself and the company is not as bright.

That being said, when we had a big contract pay late, I went to the other employees and _asked_ them to take a little less that month so that I could pull out what I needed to take care of myself. They knew how much I was making (pulled about $2k that month), I wasn't screwing them over. Fortunately, those times seem to be behind us now, but it isn't easy starting from nothing. If I'm not paying my employees well, I'm most certainly not paying myself large bonuses.

Companies aren't people; rather, they are an extension of people. If the owners work for the good of the people in it, rather than just themselves, the company will do better in the long run (why do you think so many companies go under?). Human greed being what it is, I've found the best way to do this is to make the employees owners - when they serve the interest of the owners, they serve the interest of the other employees.

Re:Bah humbug.

[jeremyp]

IT workers including programmers are being exploited like you said thanks to third world countries. How can we compete with someone willing to work for $25,000 a year for a job worth $65,000 a year? They can hire 2 Indians and still make a profit if they are not as good.

If you can easily find people to do a job for $25k then it isn't worth $65k.

You missed the last part.

[IANAAC]

I said "They're already paying you to do your job."

If you wanted or expected more, you should have asked for it up front. It amazes me that people complain about not getting something they didn't ask for in the first place.

Ah, yes! My first Christmas bonus.

[flabbergasted]

I was straight out of graduate school. I took a job in the Northeast, and the company paid all of my moving expenses to relocate me from Texas to Massachusetts. Five and half months later I'm sitting in my office when the vice president comes around to give me a bonus check. Now I wasn't even expecting a bonus, so I was thrilled to get it! Then I opened the envelope and discovered that they had given me a bonus of $2400...from which they then deducted my moving expenses, leaving me with $59. In a matter of seconds, I went from being thrilled to get any kind of a bonus (no matter how small!) to feeling like I had been servered a piping hot bowl of cream of shit soup.

Re:What companies give the BEST Christmas Gift?

[Junta]

We also received 'end of the year' checks for $1,000 after taxes and our bonus is usually around 10% of our yearly gross (so anywhere from $11,000 to $20,000 for most employees). No, not just $450, a $450 gift plus $1000 bucks, plus a large bonus, and if $11,000 is 10% of their low-end pay.... holy shit nothing to complain about there.

I think I might need to work in Big Oil now...

Wait a minute....

[TrappedByMyself]

Atheism is the new cool, but we're still expecting perks for Jesus day?

Re:Absolutely.

[YU Nicks NE Way]

There's another side of it. There's absolutely nothing illegal or even unethical about not giving a bonus when one has "always" been given in the past; that does not make withholding one during a good year or after exemplary performance, or, worse, offering an insulting one, any less insensitive and crude.

Just scraping by on the safe side of the law is poor business.

Re:At least I got a bonus!

[karmatic]

My boss would rather keep my happy instead of trying to find a replacement for me.
Winning formula for small businesses:
1) Hire competent people
2) Let them do their job
3) Pay them well for 2

I run a small software company, and your boss sounds like he runs things similarly to me. What's the point in having burned out, unhappy employees who work for less than everyone else (usually for a good reason). Makes much more sense to hire good people, and pay them well - ideally sharing in the success of the company either directly (bonus) or indirectly (raise).

This article has made me appreciate the people who work with me a lot more, too. I'm making plenty - why nickel and dime everyone else? It's certainly not the road to happiness (for anyone).

Re:Cookies

[Tongo]

I was really happy with our Christmas bonus this year (I work for a small ILEC, 65 employees or so). The owners had one of the nicer places in town cook up a bunch of salmon and prime rib for our Christmas party. The the president of the company made the rest of the side dishes. In the past when the main course wasn't catered, he also would make the main dish. It's all quite good, as he could probably be an accomplished chef if he didn't like to code so much. During the party they also had drawing and prizes. Each employe we also given $50 cash and a gift certificate for two to the movies in our Christmas card. All in all it's a pretty great place to work.

Re:No mention of HP?

[AuMatar]

Did you even have to ask? Of course it was a Carly idea. Note that this idea was after she already asked people with saved time off to use it (and come in to work anyway, thus working for free).

Sounds like Apple made a classy move. I'll have to keep it in mind for the future.

Re:No mention of HP?

[AuMatar]

Nope, we were salaried. No time cards, no overtime. They did it anyway. Although that makes me wonder about the possibility of a class action....

Unions ?

[unity100]

Unions are generally just another way for some other parasites to suck on the workforce - this time by 'leading' them.

Unions and such are not needed. Only thing is needed is the awareness of the 'people'. If people know and accept that some wage is very suckily low, and have the awareness not to go for it (unless they are desperate), there will be no exploit.

And as for the argument that says 'there always be desperate people', i can say only this : in a civil society there should be no desperate people. If you left out some people to be desperate, you ask for whats coming.

Check some european countries - there are good social security coverage in some of them - noone is desperate or starving - employers cant exploit nobody.

Re:Christmas Vacation

[cayenne8]

"My poor father has it pretty bad. He is an architect and puts in around 80 a week (not as an option) ..."

That sucks. A suggestion?

Maybe suggest your father, for the New Year, looks for a better job? I'm betting he is salary? There is NO reason to be working an extra 40 hrs for them for free.

Never work for free.....you time is too valuable.

Re:Christmas Vacation

[SirKodiak]

The expected rewards and the cost are the utility value of the money, which does not necessarily scale linearly with the dollar amount of the money. To give an extreme example, if I need $1000 today, and otherwise will die a horrible death, but only have $100, and my only opportunity to make money is to play a game which pays $1000 on a $100 bet 1/20th of the time, it would be entirely rational for me to play. In that case, the utility value of $1000 is much more than ten times the utility value of $100.

Lottery playing is not necessarily irrational even if most people who play the lottery are acting irrationally. While many parts of our society treat the utility/dollar curve as linear for the sake of simplicity, that isn't inherently true.