IT Employment

More people want less responsibility in their jobs

A recent study from the Families and Work Institute reveals that the percentage of college-educated workers who want more responsibility in their jobs has dropped in the last few years.

A recent study from the Families and Work Institute reveals that the percentage of college-educated workers who want more responsibility in their jobs has dropped in the last few years.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to a recent Families and Work Institute study, from 1992 to 2002, the percentage of college-educated women and men among all ages who wanted more responsibility in their jobs dropped 21 percent and 16 percent, respectively.

Finally! I'm smack dab in the middle of a trend!

I don't know if the feeling of wanting to rein back some comes with age or just comes with the arrival of children, but it comes, apparently to a whole lot of us. Also, I've been through the experience of devoting most of my waking moments for ten years to a job that just went away -- poof! -- when the parent company decided to relocate it and change the business plan to something that appeared to be thought up in a drug-induced haze.

In other words, I know firsthand how futile utter devotion to a job can be in the long run. I still want to do well in my job. I still want to be on the cutting edge of things. But I don't want to work 16 hours a day to maintain that edge. It's just not worth it. Or maybe it's kind of worth it, but it wouldn't win out in a head-to-head competition with my kid, my husband, my elderly father, and the rest of the hoodlums that make up my extended family.

What do you think is driving this trend? Is it driven by the increased (both direct and indirect) demands on the worker?

About

Toni Bowers is Managing Editor of TechRepublic and is the award-winning blogger of the Career Management blog. She has edited newsletters, books, and web sites pertaining to software, IT career, and IT management issues.

147 comments
jpzorg
jpzorg

The headline says "More people want less responsibility in their jobs." Why is that? Because employers are squeezing more out of their workers than they have ever before with NO CAREER or PAY in compensation. You have IT grunts (us right?) reporting to VPs/Directors your responsibilities start looking managerial 25% of the time hands-on 50%. I had a VP hand me a contract and asked to change anything that didn't look right! Change the terms of the contract! Welcome to the new new.

mark.giblin
mark.giblin

Duh, well yeah, people want the money but not the baggage that comes with it. The problem here is more of a case where employers will add new tasks to a job of a lower paid employee giving them more responsibility when it is not wanted and it is only done by the employer as a way of distributing one of more jobs where people have been replaced by this idea of breaking a job down and distributing it across several employees. Cheap skates at the end of the day, mainly because thats what they are in expecting you to take on more work for no more reward.

simon.g
simon.g

As a baby boomer who has worked in IT for over 20 years, I came to the same conclusion that I wanted less responsibility. It seems that the higher you go, the more chance you have of being let go (unless you know how to play the political game), and frankly the stress is not worth it. I have been a general manager, and a business owner, but I am much happier now that I am back being a project manager.

Aaron
Aaron

More and more I am seeing the sea change in the work force. As outlined in TR previously, companies view IT as a tool, and tools get upgraded, traded or discarded depending on the flavour of the day. However, working as an independent consultant in conjunction with a number of other like minded individuals who are all typical Type A personalities, we can under-commit and over deliver while truly enjoying working 12-16 hour days. When you reap the benefits of your efforts, it is a pleasure to put your all into delivering a world class service and keeping up with the latest technology. It does help that my wife sells my time, so she knows why I am working the hours that I do. She can also coordinate family needs with my professional schedule and that keeps us both from feeling that the other is being unreasonable in their demands.

mch.camargo
mch.camargo

After working 25 years in IT for a Bank I was fired because the IT Dept. was outsourced. Now I regret all the time and good moments I could dedicate to my family and that was giving to an employer without any consideration to you as a person, and treat you as disposable resource.

wrlang
wrlang

This all seems to be a misnomer. Responsibility has no relationship to hours worked. The higher you go within a company the more responsibility you have. It makes sense that as a population ages it turns its attention towards life instead of career. As you get older you become more confident in your abilities, pick up new abilities, make more money to afford to do more in your spare time. Move from an apartment to a home where even more work outside the job is waiting in upkeep. Begin to truly understand the warning signs of poor management. Mismanagement seems to be the only constant in American business. Phrases like "whatever it takes" and "no breaks until its done" are spoken by people who have no idea what they're asking for and couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag. You must watch for phrases like that in the job interview because it will tell you loads about the type of people managing the organization. We're looking for people who want to work in a dynamic environment and are willing to do whatever it takes to get the job done. Translation = We're looking for suckers to work in an environment of chaos, headed by idiotic lunatics who can't figure out what's actually needed to get the job done so they'll need you to change direction many times to accomplish the poorly defined objective. Always read the mission statements of the companies you work for and interview with. Your activities should be tied to making that mission happen. If the mission statement makes no sense or is so vague as to be meaningless, then you know how high up the lunatics are. Getting all your work done during normal business hours is the sign of an efficient worker and a well determined job function. Granted, everyone needs to work long hours at certain times or on certain projects, but to work 16 hours every day is to need some education/mentoring or a new boss/job. Loyalty is an emotional attachment not based on mutual needs and objectives. I've seen companies hire full time people for a platform they want to get rid of in 3 years without telling them the position is really temporary. My father was loyal to his company for 45 years and they didn't do him any favors other than give him a paycheck. He was distraught when I left my first job after 5 years just to get a better position. I told him what the new world was like. Every employee should treat themselves as a private contractor and constantly look to upgrade their skills and know where they stand in the marketplace under the premise that they will eventually need to look for another job. This reminds me to update my resume with the new certification I just received. Not that I want to change jobs, but knowing that I'm locked and loaded for a job hunt gives me a certain amount of freedom. Career resilience.

dewey56
dewey56

Maybe the employees are finally realizing that the "hurray for the company, screw the employees" attitude does not work any more. I'm not busting my ass for the company when they don't appreciate me anymore than a filing cabinet for information.

ps2goat
ps2goat

First of all, there are supposedly less people interested in IT careers (pre-college/college survey), so hopefully we can all get raises out of this! The most important thing I see happening, at least with regard to my personal views on less responsibility, is that there is too much expected from us within corporations. Not just IT people, but all salaried and skilled employees. How many times have you viewed Dice.com to see that there are at least 15 things that you MUST be an expert at, and some of those things are so out of the ballpark (oddball proprietary systems you couldn't have been an expert on unless you have worked at that company) that it is unreasonable. Or how about this one, posted circa 2006: required skills include .Net 2005: 3 years. Explain how that is possible. It gets worse in the Midwest versus the coasts, where the same (or more) responsibilities are required, but with less pay. I could easily get a job on either coast making $80,000+ per year with a year of professional experience, but in the Midwest they want 8+ years specific to a skill, and 10-15 years of professional experience. Oh, and they only offer about $40,000 a year. I think there needs to be a revolution. Why do salaried Americans have to break their backs [brains?] for 40+ hours a week for bad pay? Europeans have less hectic schedules and, as a new report on msn showed, are more productive as far as the working hours to GDP ratio. Less pay should mean less time at the job, and salary should not be the equivalent of 'slave.'

ssamay
ssamay

More commitment needs to come from employers to provide real career growth, both in title and $$$. In technical areas, more companies need to provide a parallel ladder ( tech/management) for their best people. Going short here may be one of the reasons why the US is loosing in the high tech markets

cyberdragon666
cyberdragon666

...the apathy most companies show their workforce. Historically, you can look back at how companies treated their workers and see a violent change. A long time ago, basically when my Dad was working while I was growing up, the powers that be at a company recognized people who put in quality work and or extra time, etc. There were alot of people that were considered irreplaceable to the company. That feeling made them feel like "a company man" that had job security. And they did. Over time, and it is at almost the lowest point I can fathom, companies treat all employees as cannon fodder. If anything comes up they will even tell you to your face that they can find someone else to do your job. Faced with that kind of attitude who would want to put in extra time or bend over backwards for the company. I can give you an example, I was in a Director role for a company for several years. I worked a minimum of 12 hours days and alot fo the time more. I was available 24-7-365 even on my vacation. They always told me I was doing a great job. One day I walk in and the laid off the entire management force (all people of director level) and replaced us with a bunch of 20 year old "kids" (no offense to those of younger stature). They decided that it was "a good buy" to have people with no experience working for 30% of the salary they were paying the seasoned veterans. Five years of basically unlimited devotion and dedication meant nothing. They didn't even give any of us a severance package or severance pay. I have not encountered a company in my time in the work force (about 20 years) that treated anyone very well. And I can honestly say that after that fiasco (above mentioned) I have no faith in the companies and no interest in dedicating my life to a company that doesn't value it. I know people are sitting there saying I'm bitter or something but look at the trends. Look at your peers. Compare them to how your parents or older relatives were treated 20 to 30 years ago. I think you will find they align with my statements above. No offense to anyone. Just my humble opinion.

Steve Romero
Steve Romero

I find the results of the study VERY interesting but I yearn for clarification. I don't have time to go through the dozens of responses posted but many appear to relate to the amount of work or worklife balance. I did not get that impression at all from the statement you provided from the study. The title of the blog attracted me because I took it literally - that people want less "responsibility" which is the "state or fact of being responsible." Responsible means "answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power, control, or management. Given this interpretation, I am quite worried about the study's results. I am a HUGE process proponent. In a process-centric environment (vs. function-centric) "workers" have much more responsibility, accountability and decision-making. The customer triggers the process and the process defines the work and directs the workers. The workers function without managers or supervisors because they understand the customer, they understand the process, they understand each other, and they take responsibility for getting the work done and meeting deliverable targets. A process worker must think, act, and take much more responsibility than a functional worker who is under the constant direction of a boss who cares only for the tasks associated with the function. So I find myself advocating this process-centric view, knowing we are challenged with changing our current workforce to one that accepts and manages more responsibility. We have beaten decision-making, risk-taking, and accepting responsibility for results out of our workers - having placed these things on the shoulders of their managers. The results of this study bums me out because it appears it will be even more difficult to adapt these folks to a process-centric model. I need more information on "why" they want less responsibility - which I can only guess at this point. Steve Romero, IT Governance Evangelist http://community.ca.com/blogs/theitgovernanceevangelist/

scarville
scarville

Here is the US overt and covert taxation at all the various level of government rip off half the average worker's income. It's even worse in Europe, I'm told. Add to that the multiplier effect from such taxation that increases consumer prices by up to 800% (maybe as high as 1200% in food and energy). Then factor in inflationary monetary policies that cause prices to obviously outpace salaries and the growth in retirement savings. Now factor in the perception that the worker is not a valued part of a holistic process but just a replaceable gear in a huge machine and it should be no surprise that people are getting cynical about working longer hours with more responsibility.

jackz1
jackz1

Less people want more responsibility is totally different than more people wanting less responsibility. The study states that the percentage of people who want more responsibility has shrunk to 16%. It says nothing about the other 84% or about the people in the 5% that used to want more responsibility, but don't anymore. It also doesn't say why they think there are less people who want more responsibility. It could be a demographic change and nothing more - e.g. baby boomers are retiring soon and on the downhill side of their career path. If it is an attitude change, then only 5% of workers have changed. The comments here show something totally different than the study. It shows that companies that do not have their priorities straight about people, and relationships to them - employees, customers, etc. are also the same companies that are re-organized, bought out, go out of business. If you work for that kind of company, the probabilities are higher. Good companies - where people love to be, while rare, have a much lower probability of disappearing.

IT-->PM
IT-->PM

Toni, Regarding your questions: What do you think is driving this trend[fewer people wanting more responsibility]? Is it driven by the increased (both direct and indirect) demands on the worker? I believe there are many drivers. Below are the ones that come to mind. 1) The benefits/rewards (bonuses) of taking on more and more responsibility are realized by fewer and fewer workers/employees/executives and are more unevenly distributed (more at the top, less farther down] than in the past (The Lexus and the Olive Tree - Tom Peters). In my case the bonus cut-off point moved from mid-level management to executive management, several grades beyond my expectations. The realization that the "golden ring" is farther away and takes more skill and dedication than one possesses comes sooner. 2. With extended longevity, many baby-boomers have been squeezed between caring for their own children and their aging parents. Many times this care takes as much personal time as money so family care matters are consuming more time. This trend will continue with following generations. 3. The baby boomers started the shift to a majority of families with dual incomes - many times to make ends meet but in others to pay for a higher standard of living. If one has the means to pay for the life style but no time to enjoy it, what was the point? Cutting back may not be an option but choosing not to take on more responsibility is an option many folks are taking. 4. More responsibility may or may not mean more hours and more stress but it is an assumption many people make. With the assumption that the effort (more hours, more stress) exceeds the benefit (usually more money but also perhaps more job satisfaction, more prestige, more power), few people will opt for the increase. 5. At present baby boomers fill many top positions and have begun retirement, leaving room for others at the top. Companies have not adequately prepared for this transition and younger employees may not perceive that they have the experience and training to be successful in a higher responsibility job. 6. Sheer demographics may affect the overall numbers and thus percentages reported. If the workforce size is declining, there would be a drop in total numbers reporting a desire to take on additional responsibility and therefore a percentage drop in the reported numbers. 7. The global economy is affecting American and other industralized work cultures more and more. The drive for lower costs and higher profits has meant some negative changes in the workplace that people familiar with better times may be willing or forced to adapt to. However, thay may not be willing to take more of the same if they have a choice.

The Cars Forever
The Cars Forever

Long hours, fear of layoffs, can't survive with a lower salary, no jobs in my area - aren't they all fun concepts? Many of us came from families where working harder and longer hours was just what you do. If you work hard, the rewards will come. Sometimes we also feel important because we are 'needed' and sometimes it is an unnecessary burden placed on us. Many of us - me included - do things both conscious and unconscious that open us to more responsibilities and longer days. I was in this position a few years ago. I made very good money and lots of responsibilities as well as being able to use a lot of cutting edge technology. This was in a multi-billion dollar organization and I was respected in my industry and community. All of this said, I got very tired of long hours (70+ hour weeks), stress, rare vacations and basically being 'owned' by the company My wife and I decided to make a major change by moving to a new state with the express desire to create a new life. Along with this change both of us decided that we would have real 40 hour jobs - no pagers, blackberries, rare overtime, etc. To make this happen, I knew I needed to take a job that many would consider 'lesser.' I also knew I would have to stop my tendency of ???just staying a little longer??? to finish something up ??? it will always be there tomorrow. We had been saving to purchase a home for a while, so we decided to use some of that money to take a serious break from working before settling back down. You never know when both spouses will not be working at the same time, so we wanted to take advantage of it. Since we were moving to a new state already, we left our belongings in storage, bought an inexpensive RV and wandered the country for six months to see family and friends and sightsee. This was the most important part of the change as we both got away from our old work habits and remembered what was really important to us. At the end of that time, we started looking for a house and jobs in the new state. We picked a region that appealed to us for a lot of reasons and then selected an area that had decent job prospects. It took a little bit, but I got a job where it was recognized that they were getting someone with a much greater skillset than expected and for a bargain. I rarely deal with anything work related off-hours and don't carry a pager or blackberry so I think it is a fair trade. Our household income is about 70% of what it was previously, but the cost of living is less and we are both much happier. It is surprising how much you use money to try and fill your life when you are unhappy with work. I still have my geek toys and lead a comfortable life, I just don't have as many of those 'things' that get purchased and rarely used in the hopes that they will make me happy. It is remarkable how quickly you can save if you rent a cheaper place/get a smaller mortgage, stop buying things and get focused on seriously making a change. My level of change may not be for everyone, but realizing you do have a choice is the first step to making a happier life for yourself. Chris

g01d4
g01d4

Today one's given the responsibility to dig a hole with the authority select any tool as long as it's a hammer.

admin
admin

Great responses here, the discussion has gone in a lot of interesting directions. As someone who's probably going to buy a house in the near-term, some of the comments about living within or below your means really hit home. I just wanted to point out that the author of this post flipped over the statement actually made in the study, which may still be - but is not necessarily - true for the study participants. The study found that fewer people want more responsibility in their jobs. That is not the same thing as finding that more people want less responsibility in their jobs. Take me for example: I absolutely don't want to take on anything new in my job. I'm busy enough with the areas of responsibility already on my plate. So I am among the people they found in the study that don't want more responsibility in their jobs. However, I enjoy all the aspects of my job. I have pretty wide-ranging and varied responsibilities, which keeps my job interesting and prevents me from getting bored at work. I am not looking to give up any of my areas of responsibility, because I enjoy all of them. So I fit the findings of the study - but I don't fit the author's interpolation of the study's findings. I might be picking nits, but I think it's important not to let the distinction go unnoted.

nrayburn
nrayburn

I fear that a lot of it has to do with the attitude that says "whats in it for me?". Why work your butt off if the company lets you go for some outsourced or recent college grad that is cheaper. In the end the customer suffers and companies wonder why there is little loyality any more. Storman Norman

foges70
foges70

Why? You said it yourself - the product of relentless application by you and your co-workers can disappear in moment thanks to some corporate whim. If they don't care a fig about you, why care back? Personal pride in your work is the only way to go. For corporations, you're expendable.

magillj
magillj

I wasn't going to go here, but since everyone is getting so deep and philosophical... Employees get fired. Companies go bankrupt. Technologies fade into obscurity and economies crash. Even friends and family become estranged and break apart. Everyone already knows that money cant buy happiness. There's a lot of good things in this world, but they are all going to die and so they will all disappoint. The only hope that is worth having is the only one that isn't going to die and will never disappoint. My hope is in Jesus Christ! *steps down from my pedestal* Thanks :)

Killer-J
Killer-J

I work simply because I need to provide for my family and myself. I have ALWAYS had the perspective that I work to live not live to work. A job is a job...I find one I like, close to home, and if the pay isn't stellar who cares...can I do the things I need/want to do? Yes. SO many people out there buy a big McMansion, the expensive cars, kids in daycare...and for what!?!? My wife and I (both engineers) planned it out so she'd stay with the kids while they were young...so we bought a house we could afford on one income. Someone above said "live below your means"...and that is so true. People are nuts these days...they need to hit the brakes and ask themselves what they are doing and where they are going. The trend reported in this article is just the natural outcome of all this.

glennsnead
glennsnead

Everyone must have a six-month emergency fund, avoid consumer debt, and live by a budget. If you're expecting the government to take crare of you, think again.

MavMin2
MavMin2

I have found for years that more and more people are wanting to do less but make more money. Call it lazy, entitlement mentality or union training. It doesn't matter the results are the same. So why should companies put up with that mess when they can just go offshore where people will work their butts off for less and be as happy as pigs in slop? As I get older I tend to handle stress less than I once did but I am still happy to have a job so I fuss very little in comparison to many of my younger co-workers who think promotions and raises should come monthly as well as perks and bonuses.

reisen55
reisen55

I enjoy responsibility in my job per se: network management, recommending purchases and people management (oh yes, staff!!! of my clients) is all enjoyable and I want more responsibility here. BUT I also recognize that LIFE is out there too, and I do not work myself to pieces in it's pursuit. One job almost killed me - literally as I remember that day very well. The view from the 101st floor of the South World Trade Center tower was magnificent and it was 1,500 stairs down to the ground. Spending 5 hours in front of Macy's later "that day" realizing that I WAS ALIVE AND HAD SURVIVED.... puts a different perspective on everything.

kbruster2
kbruster2

One of the biggest problems is that companies are trying to save money by combining positions. This has happened at the last three jobs I worked. At the first job I was the Tech Manager\Dispatcher\Help Desk, second job I replaced 6 techs, and my present job I replaced the Help Desk Manger and Enterprise Manager, as well as doing hands on tech work. Each time I took a job it was originally just to replace one position. All three companies where downsizing to cut costs. I am presently looking for a government job with the DOD, less responsibility and hours. Luckily for me I have military under my belt so I will get consideration (first pick). I have accepted the fact that any government job will probably pay less than a private sector, but at least there is more job security and training available.

Morti
Morti

Toni, It seems like many folks are trading their lives for the illusion of security. That illusion is going away as downsizing becomes the norm. For some there are real alternatives; alternatives that don't require jumping ship immediately. Many won't even consider those alternatives. Many are comfortable grousing about where they are in life but uncomfortable with the thought of making a change. They are unwilling to work through that uncomfortable feeling to make life better for themselves. Each of us is where we are because of decisions we made 5 years ago. Imagine where you will be in 5 years if you don't make new decisions today. Here's a link to one possible alternative. www.jackmortimer.com This link will not be right for those unwilling to take responsibility for their lives.

jmbrasfield
jmbrasfield

I???ve been through the experience of devoting most of my waking moments for ten years to a job that just went away ??? poof! ??? when the parent company decided to relocate it and change the business plan to something that appeared to be thought up in a drug-induced haze. Been blind sided by that one three times. And with little or no warning. If they don't care, no matter how much they preach 'we are a family', then why should we care. There are many important things in life, THEY aren't one of them anymore. It's just a job and WE are just a number, so be it.

nwm
nwm

Employers have learned how to give responsibility desired and the results merely reflect greater satisfaction with current levels of responsibility?

Paul R.A.
Paul R.A.

I found the same thing, We hired last august - one role I have is worldwide training for employees and customers, yet 3 months after training the 4 new staff we get told we need to lost 4 people - and to be "fair" everyone must be evaluated equally for the same positions- 4 people out of uni and people like me. It turned into a house cleaning session and only one of the new people were let go. I stayed but now expect to be cut next time.

Spin State
Spin State

You hit it right on the button. Employers give out responsibility without authority. "You are now responsible for our new data system...Call me before you do anything." Same old story same old micromanagement. What the heck did you hire a qualified person for if you dont let the qualified person make the decisions you have made that person responsible for. Guess what ..There is a perfect reason. It's called "Deniability". If the boss @#%$ the pooch he can blame on the poor guy who is "responsible"

Stan.Williams
Stan.Williams

Let me just take the time to thank you. Lots and lots of people in this thread/blog saying the same thing. I am excited I'm not the only one with a job that does not fulfill, complete or define me. Thank goodness! magillj@ is absolutely correct folks - your hope should be in Jesus Christ. For many of you that's exactly the case and I've enjoyed most of your remarks. For the others, please, PLEASE, consider eternity and not a 20, 30 or 40 year career?

Jessie
Jessie

Is the reason for the current real estate "crisis" in the US. People bought houses that were WAY beyond their means (and the banks loaned them the money for it) and when the economy tanked, their jobs probably did too, and then POOF, there went the dream. It's called budgeting your money and planning for the future people... and anyone can do it. I supported myself and my young son some years ago on $8 an hour and I could do it again now... Okay, with 7 mouths in the house to feed, $8 an hour would be a bit of a stretch... but we could do it... if I sold my blood plasma too.

MavMin2
MavMin2

With my wife's and my income I could live in a $250,000 home and drive something other than my 7 year old S-10 but I have chosen to live in a doublewide in the country because I don't want to be a slave to a mortgage company or to some city's high taxes. My property taxes will be under 1K this year. I owe less on my house and one acre than some people owe on a car. I hope to have it paid off in two years or less. I have no other debt. Thus, if the economy gets crazy or gas goes to $10 a gallon I can still make it fine or retire and work as a greeter at Wal-mart six miles from my home. I spend most of my life outside the house so as long as it is there to sleep in that is all I need and the Jones' can be danged. Who made them the ideal to keep up with anyway? I'm keeping up with Bubba Beauregard III and will be debtfree. Power to the Rednecks! Y'all get some boots and a hat and head for the country where you can actually see stars not the air. Gee haw!

AttackComputerWhiz
AttackComputerWhiz

Obviously you haven't heard of NSPS. It basically give the government the right to fire you at will now. It also gives them the right to make you go to war zones. Your pay would be based on your supervisor's good will and allocated funds. If you think you will work less hours, then there is this bridge I'd like to sell you... 20+ years and I have set my retirement date so I do not have a heart attack or stroke due to all the stress. Once I get away, I already have a second career mapped out that allows me to set my hours.

security101
security101

"If they don't care, then why should we care." You and so many like you just don't get it. You don't understand that it's that very attitude that makes you first in line when layoffs come. Why do you expect your company to care about you as a person? They're in business to make money... pure and simple; no different than YOU. You would GLADLY leave your company in a HEARTBEAT if you could make a more robust salary ELSEWHERE. Why do you condemn your employer for relishing money just as you do? You do a job because it supports you and your family. Some people are lucky enough to do what they love. Even if you don't do something you love, consider it a privilege to be employed at all and stop expecting a hug and a pat on the back for merely showing up every day. Take pride in your work... do it well... don't slack... become indispensable NOT by working harder, but by working smarter; be likeable. Make other people's jobs easier. Smile and have something positive to say. Don't expect loyalty from your company... do these things because you can't control anything in life except how you RESPOND to life.

peetoom_J
peetoom_J

A lot of reactions mention long hours, stress, and underpayment. Sure, these things come (sometimes) with responsibility. But over all resposibilty is much more than these possible negative side effects. I'am an Enterprise architect, sometimes responsible for decisions that cost quite a lot of money. I don't leave the office at exactly 5pm when a report is not finished; I'll compensate that time shortly afterwards. I work 36h/week, try to be there for my kids and wife when needed, have a decent salary. I have the luck to be in a responsible, and therefore very interesting and satisfying job. Seen that work is such a big part of my life, it has to have a quality of life in itself. Do things that are worth repeating!

reisen55
reisen55

Bangalore!!! 1/4 Salary with no health care benefits either. American management is so short-sighted on QUALITY of the job, they forget it. All back-office work is just a JOB per se and if it can be done cheaper somewhere else, so be it. W. Edwards Deming would be rolling over in his grave. All his work on QUALITY OF WORK goes out the window these days. But shareholder value, cutting expenses at the bone level (hey, let's close the building too, cuts down those power bills) is so stupid, and doing so makes the situation worse and worse and worse. Oh, I forgot. Would you like an email survey?

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

If you give me responsibility, you also give me the authority to apply that responsibility. If you tell me "Call me before you do anything," you'd better be ready to sign off on [u]every[/u] action I take. Don't like it? Give me the authority to make the changes myself. I'm man enough to stand up and say I screwed the pooch.

glgruver
glgruver

Just got back from a "homecoming" (aka funeral) for a friend. What a joy to know that we will see each other again! Yes, I too know Jesus, and I enjoy my job. I could have retired a couple of years ago, but this is where He wants me for now.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Or was that s'posed to be "yee-haw!"? Lawdy, boy, if'n'yall wanna be a redneck, at least get the terms right! ;)

DataWeaver
DataWeaver

Congrats to you, ACW. I hope you know how fortunate you are to be able to plan your retirement date in advance; and expect to still be employed by then. The average non-Gov't worker doesn't even get to think about retirement anymore. Most of us in the private sector have to hunker down under our desks to avoid all the lightning strikes during a lay-off every other month.

RFink
RFink

In my experience the people who get laid off first have the following benefits: 1. Better severence packages (before the budget runs out). 2. First crack at the jobs out there. Interview before the rush. 3. Less stress because you'll not at work wondering if and when your turn is and doing more work to cover for the people being laid off. Given the choice, lay me off first.

richard.wilson
richard.wilson

I couldn't have said it better myself! It's true, sometimes isht happens and people lose their jobs. Does this mean you should sit around and do just enough to get by because you're expecting to get laid off? Security101 is DEAD ON when he stated that it is exactly this attitude that make you the first to go. Here's the reality...your manager or boss or whatever KNOWS you're doing "just enough". You're sinking your own ship with your crap attitude. I give 110% every chance I get. I am widely known, respected, and even "loved" by my company and co-workers. Why? Because they see that I am dedicated and I am there not only promoting my company, but promoting myself. I know that the only real way I am going get ahead is if I push ahead. Do I work a lot of hours? Sure I do. Not all the time, but sometimes. But because of that, my bills get paid and I am able to do things for my family and myself that I wouldn't be able to otherwise. If anyone here can show me a job where I get paid a LOT of money for doing very little and hardly working, please do so! I'll sign up tomorrow. But as we all in the REAL world know, that is just a fairytale.

MavMin2
MavMin2

Actually, they have gone from organic to chemical filled and back to organic again in some places, but their essence remains the same. ;-)

MavMin2
MavMin2

Shoot, I was raised in a rural area and once frequented lots of Honky Tonks so I know whereof I speak. ;-) I was raised by a widow in a blue collar area. I was the only truly philosophical hippie in that town so I was the Friday night entertainment. If ya got bored just go beat up the hippie. Now cowboys have longer hair than I did and some "country" has gone Rock. Go figure?

MavMin2
MavMin2

The orignal term is Gee Haw iffen yer workin' the plow behind the horse or mule. I is in the country. Yee haw is the cheer at the Honky Tonk. ;-)

glgruver
glgruver

can the village idiot become President.....what a country!!!!!

jpmorgan
jpmorgan

"If anyone here can show me a job where I get paid a LOT of money for doing very little and hardly working, please do so! " How about George Bush's job ?

Editor's Picks