Slashdot Mirror
Half of All Tech Workers Surveyed Think Their Workplace Is 'Unhealthy' (wfaa.com)
"Half of tech employees think their work culture is toxic," reports one Texas news site, citing a new survey by Blind:
Blind, an anonymous work talk app, asked more than 12,000 tech staffers to respond to the statement: "I consider my current workplace a healthy working environment." Slightly more than half, 52 percent, said the survey statement was "false," versus nearly 48 percent who responded with "true."
Intel was named the tech company with the least healthy work environment, by 48.5 percent of its employees, followed by Amazon at 46.5 percent, and eBay at 44.5 percent. Employees who consider their workplaces healthier work at LinkedIn, where 17.3 percent responded true, followed by Google, at 23.7 percent, and Uber, at 29.7 percent.
It depends on how you define "unhealthy," of course -- but it'd be interesting to hear how Slashdot's readers respond to the same question. So leave your own thoughts and reactions in the comments.
Is your work environment unhealthy?
Intel was named the tech company with the least healthy work environment, by 48.5 percent of its employees, followed by Amazon at 46.5 percent, and eBay at 44.5 percent. Employees who consider their workplaces healthier work at LinkedIn, where 17.3 percent responded true, followed by Google, at 23.7 percent, and Uber, at 29.7 percent.
It depends on how you define "unhealthy," of course -- but it'd be interesting to hear how Slashdot's readers respond to the same question. So leave your own thoughts and reactions in the comments.
Is your work environment unhealthy?
The question is, "I consider my current workplace a healthy working environment," so a high percentage of true responses means the workplace is healthy. Yet the summary says:
Employees who consider their workplaces healthier work at LinkedIn, where 17.3 percent responded true, followed by Google, at 23.7 percent, and Uber, at 29.7 percent
If a low percentage of people are responding true, then, contrary to what the summary says, that means they find their workplace unhealthy.
I get "Access Denied" when I try to look at the article so it's not clear if the summary has simply been worded wrongly or if Google is the toxic shithole we all thought it was.
If by unhealthy, you mean:
"Our bosses are insane, and keep mandating inhuman and inhumane hours, while simultaneously cutting pay and benefits. They tell us that this is just the market responding to industry pressures, but somehow our quarterly reports remain stellar, and our bosses bring home multi-million dollar bonuses every year."
then yes. That is epidemic. The only real solution is the Pyrrhic option of unionization. (Yes. I know it has real bad sides. There really isn't a valid alternative without legal enforcement from the feds, and face it-- the suits have more money than you do, and will never support such an initiative without a shotgun pointed at them.)
If you mean "There is an unhealthy sexist culture that makes me feel uneasy or victimized."
That is somewhat supported, but it also goes the other way-- "I am afraid to even so much as mention the word "sausage" at the office, lest I be fired for being gender insensitive." This is a situation where a carefully balanced degree of enforcement is the ideal, and management needs to resist the urge to over-enforce to placate vocal minorities at the expense of silent majorities.
If you mean "The building is literally toxic. There is fucking asbestos hanging out between the ceiling tiles, falling on us every day."
that too has a surprising incidence rate. (It combines with the first interpretation, where "employees and their welfare are not worth spending investor money on!" is the pathology.) However, it is ALREADY illegal to provide such a work environment... which brings us to--
If you mean "My employer is abusive, and threatens extraordinary consequences for addressing grievances of any kind. Shit is real here, but if I speak up, I will not only be sacked, but never work in this industry ever again."
That too is a thing, especially in the hyper-connected world we live in today. Sadly, this would require sweeping changes in how HR approaches social media and how it automates its hiring practices in order to prevent abuses in the employer/employee relationship of this kind, as well as stronger penalties for industries that defacto engage in it. This suffers the same problem as the first interpretation; the solution requires the individuals with all the political momentum to work against their own interests, in favor of those with little to no political or financial power.
This is still a useful question to ask, but it needs the followup to clarify. Of course, I dont think industry or government really want to know.
It depends on how you define "unhealthy," of course
It sounds to me like a more generalised level of dissatisfacton. Whether specifically with the work environment or the company, or the boss, or the pay rates or the amount of holiday.
Or even the weather on the day the question was asked, indigestion, the quality of the coffee, the distance to the car park or any of a multitude of other potential issues.
In short, asking people how they feel about anything is neither a reliable basis for a professional study, nor a robust measure of the actual question asked.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
I mean really. The question itself is designed to give non-meaningful results. Why waste the time of /. readers with something so flawed?
How's life in the hypocrite lane?