Reagan Posted December 6 Report Posted December 6 This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up Quote
Separation Scientist Posted December 6 Report Posted December 6 Times are about to change. The bums have a freight train coming at them, arrival is scheduled for 1-20-25, around noon, EST. Can't wait! Quote
baddog Posted December 7 Report Posted December 7 Seems to me that lots of government workers have some kind of lifetime payment plan should they lose their job. Must sever the connection to the teat. Quote
SmashMouth Posted December 10 Report Posted December 10 I don't have as big an issue of remote working (and for the record, I work on-site - not remotely) as I do the massive inefficiency of government in the first place. Get rid of unnecessary bureaucracy, unneeded positions and make government employees accountable for their output. That will probably handle the remote working issue in the first place. Remote working actually makes sense for some positions (many of them tech related). Quote
CardinalBacker Posted December 10 Report Posted December 10 11 minutes ago, SmashMouth said: I don't have as big an issue of remote working (and for the record, I work on-site - not remotely) as I do the massive inefficiency of government in the first place. Get rid of unnecessary bureaucracy, unneeded positions and make government employees accountable for their output. That will probably handle the remote working issue in the first place. Remote working actually makes sense for some positions (many of them tech related). Yes, but no. There's a very, very small percentage of SELF MOTIVATED individuals who are capable of being productive without supervision. Frankly, most people are not productive when working remotely. Studies have shown that most full-time, remote employees actually work less than 12 hours per week. Great for the employees, not good for the employers, or more importantly it's terrible for the customers who ultimately pay the price for the loss of productivity in the way of higher prices for goods/services. Quote
thetragichippy Posted December 10 Report Posted December 10 1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said: Studies have shown that most full-time, remote employees actually work less than 12 hours per week. Depends on the job. My Son works for Owner.com and makes VERY good money working from home. They sign in on computer, make calls on computer, everything recorded. He has a quota and daily check ins. I do agree most jobs needs to be at the business I would HATE to work from home. SmashMouth 1 Quote
SmashMouth Posted December 10 Report Posted December 10 1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said: Yes, but no. There's a very, very small percentage of SELF MOTIVATED individuals who are capable of being productive without supervision. Frankly, most people are not productive when working remotely. Studies have shown that most full-time, remote employees actually work less than 12 hours per week. Great for the employees, not good for the employers, or more importantly it's terrible for the customers who ultimately pay the price for the loss of productivity in the way of higher prices for goods/services. I agree 100%. I couldn't work from home and do a quality job. Too many outside distractions and quite frankly, not disciplined enough to stay on task. And I'm the boss! Lol. But if an employee is accountable for a certain standard of output and they meet those standards, I personally don't have a huge issue. It saves money in other ways too. Less office space required, utilities, all the way down to the coffee bar... But that only works in certain environments. We have certain functions in our office that require on-hands & on-site interaction - namely, our accounting department. Off-site workers would not be acceptable in that case for me. The biggest message in my original post was to concentrate on efficiencies of scale. Don't have 5 people in a department when 3 could do the job whether on or off-site. Set employees to a standard and don't accept crappy output. Quote
thetragichippy Posted December 10 Report Posted December 10 21 minutes ago, SmashMouth said: Set employees to a standard and don't accept crappy output. DUDE......... Before I was in banking, I managed big box retail and I was good at it....lol My secret was running a tight ship with extremely high standards. Generally, people WANT to do a good job. People also want structure. If they did well, I publicly praised and celebrated them. If they did bad, we had weekly visits until they improved or left - always their choice. Todays employment standards are WEAK. As an example I went to Wal-Mart yesterday evening. I used the self check outs. There are 8 checkouts, 2 dedicated for Spark (who I have never seen use them) and 2 were down. So we are at 50%.......As I'm waiting on my left a family checking out, trying to scan a head of lettuce and it keeps sounding some sort of alarm. On my right 2 employees standing next to each other, both on their phones looking down. They would not walk the 4' to help them until the customers asked them for help. Sad what customer service has become these days and the restrictions managers have on them now. SmashMouth 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.