GRcade

Death's Head wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Frank wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Frank wrote:You're assuming the people who only work the hours they're meant to aren't the hardest working. How do you know that the people who say they're working 40+ hour weeks aren't only doing 30 hours of work but taking long coffee breaks and chatting gooseberry fool about the football instead of working? Hours put down on a sheet in no way shape or form relate to how hard somebody works. You'd think, as a manager, they'd have taught you that

EDIT: Also, if you did have to lay people off and used that as your sole reasoning wouldn't you be opening yourself up to a whole load of unfair dismissal lawsuits?

Frank, I've worked with these people for years. It is a little silly of you to make assumptions based on nothing.

As for your edit, no. If the company is not profitable they have the right to take measures to make it so.

It's a little silly of you to expect people to work for free, too

How many hours do you work, as well? How many are you contracted for?

This is how the real world operates (at least in some companies). I just don't expect people to do the absolute minimum.

My original contract was 37.5 hours per week. I probably do 42-45 per week.

It might be how the real world operates, but it’s not how it should operate.

Totally agree, but in the world of cost cutting we live in, that will never happen. Brexit is a good example of this. Some companies complain that they will struggle or go out of business due to reduced access to cheaper labour. Here is an idea, pay the people you can get more!

Pay more? Good luck with getting companies to do that.

Judging people on hours worked is poor though. I get more done in 35 hours (more like 15 with GR time ) than most people at my place do in 45.

Imagine what you could do with a full day of work!

Death's Head wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Frank wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Frank wrote:You're assuming the people who only work the hours they're meant to aren't the hardest working. How do you know that the people who say they're working 40+ hour weeks aren't only doing 30 hours of work but taking long coffee breaks and chatting gooseberry fool about the football instead of working? Hours put down on a sheet in no way shape or form relate to how hard somebody works. You'd think, as a manager, they'd have taught you that

EDIT: Also, if you did have to lay people off and used that as your sole reasoning wouldn't you be opening yourself up to a whole load of unfair dismissal lawsuits?

Frank, I've worked with these people for years. It is a little silly of you to make assumptions based on nothing.

As for your edit, no. If the company is not profitable they have the right to take measures to make it so.

It's a little silly of you to expect people to work for free, too

How many hours do you work, as well? How many are you contracted for?

This is how the real world operates (at least in some companies). I just don't expect people to do the absolute minimum.

My original contract was 37.5 hours per week. I probably do 42-45 per week.

It might be how the real world operates, but it’s not how it should operate.

Totally agree, but in the world of cost cutting we live in, that will never happen. Brexit is a good example of this. Some companies complain that they will struggle or go out of business due to reduced access to cheaper labour. Here is an idea, pay the people you can get more!

Pay more? Good luck with getting companies to do that.

Judging people on hours worked is poor though. I get more done in 35 hours (more like 15 with GR time ) than most people at my place do in 45.

Imagine what you could do with a full day of work!

Imagine what I could do if I was properly motivated and didn’t have to put up with spreadsheet wielding middle managers!

More posts here?

Qikz wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Frank wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Frank wrote:You're assuming the people who only work the hours they're meant to aren't the hardest working. How do you know that the people who say they're working 40+ hour weeks aren't only doing 30 hours of work but taking long coffee breaks and chatting gooseberry fool about the football instead of working? Hours put down on a sheet in no way shape or form relate to how hard somebody works. You'd think, as a manager, they'd have taught you that

EDIT: Also, if you did have to lay people off and used that as your sole reasoning wouldn't you be opening yourself up to a whole load of unfair dismissal lawsuits?

Frank, I've worked with these people for years. It is a little silly of you to make assumptions based on nothing.

As for your edit, no. If the company is not profitable they have the right to take measures to make it so.

It's a little silly of you to expect people to work for free, too

How many hours do you work, as well? How many are you contracted for?

This is how the real world operates (at least in some companies). I just don't expect people to do the absolute minimum.

My original contract was 37.5 hours per week. I probably do 42-45 per week.

It might be how the real world operates, but it’s not how it should operate.

Totally agree, but in the world of cost cutting we live in, that will never happen. Brexit is a good example of this. Some companies complain that they will struggle or go out of business due to reduced access to cheaper labour. Here is an idea, pay the people you can get more!

Pay more? Good luck with getting companies to do that.

Judging people on hours worked is poor though. I get more done in 35 hours (more like 15 with GR time ) than most people at my place do in 45.

Imagine what you could do with a full day of work!

It's scientifically impossible to do a good job for a full 8 hours of working. The human brain isn't built to concentrate for that long in a row and part of society forcing us to do this is what is leading to an increase of mental health problems, heart attacks and early onset dimentia because of stress.

Moggy wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Frank wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Frank wrote:You're assuming the people who only work the hours they're meant to aren't the hardest working. How do you know that the people who say they're working 40+ hour weeks aren't only doing 30 hours of work but taking long coffee breaks and chatting gooseberry fool about the football instead of working? Hours put down on a sheet in no way shape or form relate to how hard somebody works. You'd think, as a manager, they'd have taught you that

EDIT: Also, if you did have to lay people off and used that as your sole reasoning wouldn't you be opening yourself up to a whole load of unfair dismissal lawsuits?

Frank, I've worked with these people for years. It is a little silly of you to make assumptions based on nothing.

As for your edit, no. If the company is not profitable they have the right to take measures to make it so.

It's a little silly of you to expect people to work for free, too

How many hours do you work, as well? How many are you contracted for?

This is how the real world operates (at least in some companies). I just don't expect people to do the absolute minimum.

My original contract was 37.5 hours per week. I probably do 42-45 per week.

It might be how the real world operates, but it’s not how it should operate.

Totally agree, but in the world of cost cutting we live in, that will never happen. Brexit is a good example of this. Some companies complain that they will struggle or go out of business due to reduced access to cheaper labour. Here is an idea, pay the people you can get more!

Pay more? Good luck with getting companies to do that.

Judging people on hours worked is poor though. I get more done in 35 hours (more like 15 with GR time ) than most people at my place do in 45.

Imagine what you could do with a full day of work!

Imagine what I could do if I was properly motivated and didn’t have to put up with spreadsheet wielding middle managers!

More posts here?

As you’ve been posting here all day, maybe you’re not the best person to judge?

Moggy wrote:You’re a boss

<]:^D wrote:the state of this thread
DH youre fully part of the problem, whether you can see it or not
"yes your job contract says youll get 35k a year for 37.5 hours per week of work, but actually its more like 42-45 but we wont mention that it will just be something we can threaten you with if we have to make cuts (to your jobs, not to our executive pay)"

Hime wrote:

Moggy wrote:You’re a boss

Agreed

I'm not actually incharge of anyone, I used to manage projects. Pro tip, use sub contractors rather than staff.

Death's Head wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Frank wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Frank wrote:You're assuming the people who only work the hours they're meant to aren't the hardest working. How do you know that the people who say they're working 40+ hour weeks aren't only doing 30 hours of work but taking long coffee breaks and chatting gooseberry fool about the football instead of working? Hours put down on a sheet in no way shape or form relate to how hard somebody works. You'd think, as a manager, they'd have taught you that

EDIT: Also, if you did have to lay people off and used that as your sole reasoning wouldn't you be opening yourself up to a whole load of unfair dismissal lawsuits?

Frank, I've worked with these people for years. It is a little silly of you to make assumptions based on nothing.

As for your edit, no. If the company is not profitable they have the right to take measures to make it so.

It's a little silly of you to expect people to work for free, too

How many hours do you work, as well? How many are you contracted for?

This is how the real world operates (at least in some companies). I just don't expect people to do the absolute minimum.

My original contract was 37.5 hours per week. I probably do 42-45 per week.

It might be how the real world operates, but it’s not how it should operate.

Totally agree, but in the world of cost cutting we live in, that will never happen. Brexit is a good example of this. Some companies complain that they will struggle or go out of business due to reduced access to cheaper labour. Here is an idea, pay the people you can get more!

Pay more? Good luck with getting companies to do that.

Judging people on hours worked is poor though. I get more done in 35 hours (more like 15 with GR time ) than most people at my place do in 45.

Imagine what you could do with a full day of work!

Imagine what I could do if I was properly motivated and didn’t have to put up with spreadsheet wielding middle managers!

More posts here?

As you’ve been posting here all day, maybe you’re not the best person to judge?

I'd made about 20 posts today, which is a lot more than my normal input so I'm good thanks.

Moggy wrote:But just imagine how many more staff you could have forced to work for free if you cut out those 20 posts.

And in case it’s not clear

Death's Head wrote:

Moggy wrote:But just imagine how many more staff you could have forced to work for free if you cut out those 20 posts.

And in case it’s not clear

I'm only ribbing you. Instead of the extra posts you could have created Moggy's forum.

Moggy wrote:But I’m (mostly) ribbing you. So who is the ribber and who is the ribee?

Death's Head wrote:

Moggy wrote:But I’m (mostly) ribbing you. So who is the ribber and who is the ribee?

Making it sound gay now, who does what to who?

Death's Head wrote:Perhaps some of you have not had exposure to some of the things I've seen and have to work with and I understand that. Clearly this is not a discussion for this topic and is better placed in the work topic if people want to discuss it.

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Death's Head wrote:Perhaps some of you have not had exposure to some of the things I've seen and have to work with and I understand that. Clearly this is not a discussion for this topic and is better placed in the work topic if people want to discuss it.

The work topic is where all the people without management experience tell people with management experience how they should be doing their jobs. It's definitely more suitable.

Better put a or Moggy will have my balls.

Moggy wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Death's Head wrote:Perhaps some of you have not had exposure to some of the things I've seen and have to work with and I understand that. Clearly this is not a discussion for this topic and is better placed in the work topic if people want to discuss it.

The work topic is where all the people without management experience tell people with management experience how they should be doing their jobs. It's definitely more suitable.

Better put a or Moggy will have my balls.

Staydead’s more likely to seriously call you a banana split. You banana split.

This thread is perfect though. It’s all stuff that annoys us and if it annoys anybody else then the thread is also doing its job.

Karl wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Death's Head wrote:Perhaps some of you have not had exposure to some of the things I've seen and have to work with and I understand that. Clearly this is not a discussion for this topic and is better placed in the work topic if people want to discuss it.

The work topic is where all the people without management experience tell people with management experience how they should be doing their jobs. It's definitely more suitable.

Better put a or Moggy will have my balls.

Staydead’s more likely to seriously call you a banana split. You banana split.

This thread is perfect though. It’s all stuff that annoys us and if it annoys anybody else then the thread is also doing its job.

The wink emoticon is great, it lets us all pretend to be joking when we call Bob a split. You just have to put one the line after your post and then no-one can call you out.

Moggy wrote:

Karl wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Death's Head wrote:Perhaps some of you have not had exposure to some of the things I've seen and have to work with and I understand that. Clearly this is not a discussion for this topic and is better placed in the work topic if people want to discuss it.

The work topic is where all the people without management experience tell people with management experience how they should be doing their jobs. It's definitely more suitable.

Better put a or Moggy will have my balls.

Staydead’s more likely to seriously call you a banana split. You banana split.

This thread is perfect though. It’s all stuff that annoys us and if it annoys anybody else then the thread is also doing its job.

The wink emoticon is great, it lets us all pretend to be joking when we call Bob a split. You just have to put one the line after your post and then no-one can call you out.

Oh I meant the . He supports Nottingham Forest so he has enough problems without me adding to his misery.