Workplace Wellbeing Is a Scam?
tribunemag.co.uk
tribunemag.co.uk
Meanwhile, down on the leaves of the org tree, you have delivery pressure from users, peers, and so on. If the pressure is high, no amount of messaging about wellbeing will make any difference. Taking time off, whether it's some kind of leave or for some wellbeing meetings of some kind, just takes time out of your workday, resulting in increased pressure because now you're even further behind.
It's quite hard not to become cynical about the disconnect between aspirational messaging and these pressures.
There are answers, but they require cultural and managerial enforcement. Heroism needs to be discouraged. Delivery slippage and failure to make dates need to be seen as organizational process and planning failures, and not as individual failures: feedback that schedules are too tight, expectations are unsustainably high, resourcing isn't right.
If your team or org has a culture of heroism - people risking burnout, working into the night, on weekends, on holidays, to make deadlines - stop it. Don't reward it. It's not sustainable, it creates peer pressure to do the same, and it is one of the most damaging things you can do to employees' wellbeing.
Why not? Can’t lose.
The most stressful part is that as you transition from IC to manager and work your way up the org chart, you become more abstracted away from actual being able to do the work and influence the outcome yourself. More responsibility, less direct influence.
Some managers struggle with this pressure and resort to trying to make their teams feel as much of the pressure as possible. Good managers learn how to set a healthy cadence, manage expectations upward, and keep a healthy but reasonable amount of delivery pressure on the team.
There is no realistic scenario where teams have zero delivery pressure, but it needs to be kept in balance. Burning everyone out all the time only works if you have a constant stream of replacement employees as everyone leaves, but then you lose institutional knowledge and reputation tanks. Managers who use these tactics need to be coached or removed from the company.
You're definitely less able to do the work yourself, but ideally you can still influence the outcome by getting the right people to do the work and making sure they're not blocked, etc.
Truly, my heart bleeds for the plight of the beleaguered CEO.
Sure, they get paid well. So you could argue that they have to take the pressure.
Or, at least tell them, our growth target this year is 2%, our growth max is 10%, if we grow more than that I'm concerned about the pressure on my employees and my goal is to have a great and sustainable place to work and not to fill the universe with paperclips, and I'm going to start laying off sales and marketing if we're taking on more commitments than we can handle. We're not letting you into the board if you disagree with it, and you'd better price this assumption into the stock if you want to hold stock.
You don't have to grow forever just because you're a company.
(I think I've heard companies register as a public benefit corporation to make it easier to push back on growth-seeking entryists.)
There is a lot of value in being good for your people, the environment and the rest of your supply chain.
From what I've read about co-ops, I would definitely love to work at one one day. Even having to work more hours would feel more meaningful because I'd by benefitting my own bottom line in a way, not just going towards the CEO's private island fund.
It is in deed ideal in many ways or ay least has been while I've worked there.
(It doesn't hurt either though that it is the first place I've worked for more than two - three years without spotting an a__hole or two. Take this into account.)
Being ~8 layers deep in the corporate hierarchy at my current place is very frustrating, and I think it probably affects my current a-hole level just due to apathy...
Maybe it also helps that everyone has a financial incentive in making sure everyone else performs at their best since that means more bonus and also higher stock prices.
I just wonder how one would handle this beyond ~Dunbar's number. I've only heard of the company that makes Gore-tex handle this in a creative way [0], essentially splintering organizations into separate orgs once they became large enough.
[0] https://blog.gembaacademy.com/2011/06/21/dunbars_number_span...
I mean, there's a strict hierarchy there of who answers to whom and who gets to choose who to work with.
If the CEO tells the board "our growth target this year is 2%, our growth max is 10%, if we grow more than that I'm concerned about the pressure on my employees and my goal is to have a great and sustainable place to work and not to fill the universe with paperclips" then the board is likely to answer "it seems that our goals are not aligned, you'll be replaced with someone who does not share your concerns". If the board tells something like that to shareholders, then there's going to be a shareholders' meeting to replace the board.
"We're not letting you into the board if you disagree with it" - who's "we"? CEO's certainly can't say that unless they happen to be majority shareholders since e.g. founding the company; CEOs don't get to veto who comes on board, the board gets to choose who will be appointed CEO.
"you'd better price this assumption into the stock if you want to hold stock." - those who bought the stock get to set the rules including changing most company bylaws, so it's a legitimate tactic to buy stock in a company that's focused on being a great workplace instead of growth (i.e. the stock is likely to be cheap due "pricing in that assumption"), then destroy that assumption and replace the management to focus on growth, and sell the (now more expensive) stock. And it's very likely to happen since there are organizations whose whole business is to identify such opportunities and execute on them.
You don't have to grow forever just because you're a company, you're required to try to grow forever because the company shareholders want to. Companies can register as a public benefit corporation iff shareholders choose to do so, it's certainly not a way for someone to stop having shareholders.
You're right, once you've given up ownership to the public, it's a little too late for the current legal entity. But it's not too late to quit your job and start a new workplace.
Ed: I can't take the first question seriously... Is it really a serious question?
Or do you think HN is an exclusive forum for actual business owners and shareholders?
I don't think HN is exclusively business owners and shareholders, but I do believe that there is a lot more of it here than in hacker culture in general. I'd like to own a business myself one day, but I'm not sure I can extend myself to the ruthlessness required to survive as one.
When it's short term, put pressure.
When it's long term, plan.
In a sense, a company run by the owner is more inclined to think long term than one where some CEO takes the wheel for 5 years.
I envy you how you have no idea how many devs are almost literal slaves. Not me, but I know plenty.
That and a general narrative from the news media that C-Suite has it pretty good relative to the rest of the world (financially they definitely do).
And the only real way to make it real is for management, starting at the Board, being willing to take some pain - real pain like "we didn't get X done because we were concerned about employee wellbeing" instead of the "pain" of a budget item for some consulting company.
Workplace wellbeing
Wholesome workplace
Workplace is a family
The ground reality is when the company feels you are not needed, all that touch-feely stuff goes down the drain.
No, my company is not my family. I may have good friends and great co-workers, but, at the end of the day, I only have the amount of loyalty to the company, as much as it has towards me.
Perhaps its time the internet comes up with training sessions that promote the real face of large corporations.
This one is the biggest eye roll for me. Family and friends don't give performance reviews and push other such metrics down your throat.
Oh, but society sure is hard at work moving towards this.
Edit: I'm short of time, but as someone asked me to elaborate, I'll briefly give a few examples:
- "Networking" replacing genuine friendships; related things such as "cut out friends who don't let you grow" which may be valid but usually translates to "replace them with someone who will lead you to material success" (that is, "networking")
- Parents micromanaging their children's lives, measuring their performance on various tasks and rewarding/punishing them accordingly, often without regard to possible underlying issues (e.g. mental illness)
- Parents making children pay rent after they turn 18
- "Tinderification" of relationships, followers as social currency, etc.
My point is basically that family and friends are being replaced by the individual and advertising oneself.
The most common form of interpersonal interaction has changed from genuine offers of assistance to displays of status and evaluations of said displays.
It's unthinkable to do something as basic as ask your neighbour to "borrow" an egg or bring them some cake just because you have too much. On the other hand, you can sure as hell expect them to let you know that what you own isn't good enough.
The obvious conclusion to this shift, which is already playing out, is that people minimise the amount of interaction with others and we all become lonelier.
Really? This is a common occurrence in my neighborhood. Like it happens almost weekly. Is this really unthinkable in other areas? If so, we probably shouldn’t move.
I don't actually mind the lack of cake. There's never going to be "too much cake", even if the communists got what they think they want.
I'm not much of a gift-giving person, so if a neighbor brought me cake, I'd feel like I owe them something in return, which is a weird feeling I don't want.
And I don't feel any status pressure, because I never even talk to my neighbors. My lawn looks like shit, my neighbors probably know, who cares.
No, it seems to me the principal component is online vs. offline. The most common form of interpersonal interaction for me, even before 2020, is talking to people online, on Reddit, Discord, or Hacker News.
Most of my neighbors are not people who I really want to be friends with. They're mostly older than me, mostly parents, probably with no shared hobbies or interests. But that's probably not even the result of "modernity" or "The Whest", it's probably because I'm a programmer with no kids who moved into a suburb where people assume you'll eventually have kids.
So the upshot is, I have to drive a long ways if I want to see a friend in-person. Which puts a chilling effect on making friends at all.
I often miss the college dormitories. Everyone is within a few years of age, nobody had children, many people had the same major or similar majors, and everyone was packed in close with no need to drive. But you can't treat a studio apartment as a real estate investment, so Real Adults don't want to live in a place like that.
> The obvious conclusion to this shift, which is already playing out, is that people minimise the amount of interaction with others and we all become lonelier.
Yeah, I don't like it either. But part of me thinks, it's also just becoming obvious how many people are not worth talking to.
Why? In cities with universities a studio will rent out immediately and has the best cost to rent ratio (at least where I live)
> And I don't feel any status pressure, because I never even talk to my neighbors. My lawn looks like shit, my neighbors probably know, who cares.
> Most of my neighbors are not people who I really want to be friends with. They're mostly older than me, mostly parents, probably with no shared hobbies or interests.
Lot of assumptions in this post, and they all seem to be coming from you.
There's always "too much cake" if someone in your household cooks.
Cooking and baking are more efficient when doing larger quantities. In our case, whenever my wife feels like baking, half of it goes to one or two of our neighbors, because there's no way the two of us would eat an oven shelf's worth of cake (and conversely, baking just enough for the two of us feels like a huge waste of time). Just having that option - neighbors who like my wife's baking and are happy to reciprocate with their own - means more good stuff is being made at home and enjoyed by everyone, on top of building good relations with the neighbors[0].
Local cooperation and sharing is a good thing. I think communists/collectivists were wrong in forcing people to share, against their will.
> Most of my neighbors are not people who I really want to be friends with. They're mostly older than me, mostly parents, probably with no shared hobbies or interests. But that's probably not even the result of "modernity" or "The Whest", it's probably because I'm a programmer with no kids who moved into a suburb where people assume you'll eventually have kids.
Being a programmer and having no kids is definitely a factor. Suburbs, probably less so. I've experienced the same in both large (1M+) and small (~20k) cities. I've learned two things, though.
- Kids change things - having a child means you now have a big thing in common with everyone else who has children. You end up bonding with other parents effortlessly - experience of child rearing is a topic that carries you way past ice-breaking stage. And it's worth it, because parenting is challenging, so mutual assistance is worth everyone's weight in gold.
- Being friendly with neighbors isn't about shared hobbies or interests, it's more about being able and willing to offer some assistance. That can be as simple as having a toolbox, or some life-relevant skills[1], or raw strength to help someone push a car, or even just being there[2]. I'm not friends with any of my neighbors, but I have a couple of people I can count on to e.g. borrow some power tools, or to feed our cat when we need to go away for a couple of days. And they can count on us if they need someone to push the car, or have their smartphone checked out. These are all low-maintenance, shallow relationships, that nevertheless simplify day-to-day logistics for everyone involved.
> So the upshot is, I have to drive a long ways if I want to see a friend in-person. Which puts a chilling effect on making friends at all
That's the flip side of suburbs and small towns. I get a lot of weird looks when I say that we want to move back to a large city, from the small one we're in now - everyone seems to go the other way. But honestly, small towns are fucking boring. Even having kids doesn't change that.
> But you can't treat a studio apartment as a real estate investment, so Real Adults don't want to live in a place like that.
This seems to be changing, though :). Not in the sense of living in one (which is a different topic - Real Adults don't like small apartments simply because they need more space, especially once they have kids), but from what I've seen on my local markets, small apartments are hot stuff. Probably because short-term rentals are very popular now.
--
[0] - For the same reason, I'm happy somebody set up a community fridge ~5 minutes from us. While surprise sweets are always appreciated, a surprise dinner less so - so if we end up cooking more than we feel like eating, we can just package the rest up and anonymously drop it off for the less well-off members of the local community. It's a win-win: it solves the food waste issue for people like us, and people who couldn't afford it otherwise regularly get to eat high-quality homemade food.
[1] - Of which programming currently isn't one - none of your neighbors are likely in need of an app. The adjacent skill of fixing problems with computers & smartphones is in huge demand, though. As much as I hated fixing other people's machines as a teenager, I'm now learning to like it again: it's the one skill I can offer to my community.
[2] - For example, I have nothing in common with any of my neighbors, but I work from home. Some of the neighbors now tell delivery people to bring their packages to me if they're not at home.
You've hit the nail on the head there, but what made me so angry about it wasn't that it was an out-of-the-ordinary experience but the norm.
i have two boys, if they're >= 18 and doing nothing but laying on the couch i don't see asking for rent being unreasonable at all! Coddling young adults as if they're still children does so harm to everyone.
I don't think turning 18 is the common boundary line here. Entering the workforce is. If you're making money while still consuming your parents' household resources, it's only reasonable to contribute something back. FWIW, I'd hope most people who generate income while living with their parents would recognize this as obvious, and volunteer to pay rent.
Having to put up with shit "because it is family" can be really unhealthy.
Statements like "workplace is a family" really give me the creeps. I have never experienced it though so not sure how I would react.
I don't know about you, but I absolutely got 'performance reviews' every single time a report card came in. At least my manager doesn't beat me when I fail to meet expectations.
A business simply fires you for poor metrics with little notice because they care nothing about your past, current, or future well-being, they care about the metric itself that presumably measures how you help them.
If there was an overall well being performance review or report card, your employer wouldn't really care unless you were neigh irreplaceable. Your family on the other hand would care deeply (again, hopefully).
Start promising things to friends and family, build expectations and then never deliver.
In the end you can start doing drugs and see how people react when you show up to grandma birthday stoned.
Family is also a family as long as you stick to some norms. No one loves you unconditionally. Workplace is a family but there is obviously different set of expectations and evaluation is more direct.
While family doesn't expect you to deliver value for them every day like a workplace, there is still a lot of expectations to be met.
Now I have this question for all the HR departments who engage in spreading those "touchy feely" terms : either you do realize that there's a problem with that, then why do you go on spreading it OR you don't realize there's a problem, then why do you feel those terms are acceptable for the employees ?
I honestly ask. Because all of that looks to me as a total intellectual scam. And usually, when I think this way, either there's really a scam, either my system of values is completely at odds with reality (and I need to understand my blind spot)
Its like those oil commercials of "We care, we really do", showing a few ducks being wiped off from some horrid oil spill disaster, and doing nothing to solve the root cause.
What is also apparent is that there are clearly objective differences in the ability of collections of people to thrive (or even barely cope) with the same set of circumstances based on the mindsets from the people composing the team. A good read to bring these into sharp focus is the book written on Shackleton’s voyage with the ‘Endurance’. ‘These mindsets are also clearly ‘contagious’ once they hit a certain point.
If a team hits a certain tipping point and is able to look at their circumstances and smile, it is self reinforcing. They’ll be able to face hardship productively, work together despite differences, and everyone will be better off. If no matter how good it is, they’re going to be miserable - that is also self reinforcing. It will be miserable for everyone, and the only people who stay will be those who feel at home in misery.
Being miserable is also associated with worse health, personal relationship issues, higher insurance costs, absenteeism, turnover, difficulty retaining key talent, etc.
The company wants (and often needs) people that work hard regardless of the circumstances, that will find a way to make a situation positive and productive, etc. This can be abused. Even when not abused, the company needs people who can tackle problems to solve customer needs to survive (quite plainly).
If a company is well managed, they are able to make this a mutually beneficial situation without it lapsing into co-dependence or abuse on either side. Not very many companies are well managed. Partially because it is really hard, partially because American culture doesn’t seem to value or recognize proper management skills and the importance they have.
Covid has turned the screws and also pushed a lot of people into negative territory. This means a lot of companies that were near a tipping point before are now clearly over it - as are a whole lot of people.
Most upper corporate messaging I've seen is an intellectual scam or intellectual dishonesty (be it HR or any department), although I'd say that's putting it far too politely.
These are typically well educated and skilled individuals that aren't oblivious of reality. They have careers and want to maintain them, so they maintain the corproate narratives that work and pass responsibility for lower level managers to maintain plausible deniability as to why efforts seem disingenuous. There are strategies to any of these moves or messaging and rarely ever are they in anyone's interest but the business unless you coincidentally have interest alignment with the business.
It's a lot easier in business (perhaps in life) to strategically lie and achieve measures of success than to be honest and be successful.
I am completely and utterly cynical of any piece of information and communication passed off by corporate entities or those who have heavy sway in their control and direction. They have far too much incentive and motive to be intellectually dishonest and little-to-none to be honest. Even apparently benign information is often strategically crafted, reviewed, and re-reviewed before passed off with very carefully chosen wording. It's not until you get to the underlying employees that I have any trust in what they say.
HR honestly seems like a terrible career to me if you actually care about people in modern business environments (I couldn't do it). You're essentially powerless in terms of business decisions and more often than not act as damage control between what business management unilaterally decides to do and how it effects employees. If your goal pursuing an HR career was to improve wellbeing of employees, it seems like a career where you'd be in for quite a culture shock in most environments. Of course they also serve to maintain and smooth out other legal compliancey issues and staffing needs.
People encouraged to bring their ‘whole self’ to work has made my workplace miserable. I miss the days when work was just work, devoid of world politics, beliefs, and all the “let’s all exercise and be happy together” activities.
Did you mean “coaching”? Or is “couching” some new SV term I am unfamiliar with?
Depends on which side of the couch you are, I expect. The couchers (couch-workers?) probably do get stressed by providing couching sessions 8 hours a day.
Just let me choose how and with whom I spend my time, thanks.
"oh you wanna play videogames/have a massage/play table tennis after work? sure! but you can't leave the office, which means you are accessible by everyone even after hours. and because you are not technically working, you won't get overtime. oops."
I don't understand why _anyone_ should be on a salary model of compensation. It doesn't feel like a privilege awarded to me as a middle-class white-collar worker. The privilege is the fact that I can tell my manager to stick it and I won't get canned immediately.
Of course, employers hate this, but the privilege of salary is being able to tell your manager to stick it to them on a daily basis by pointing to the tasks and showing that they're done.
Maybe at some enlightened place. But all places where I have worked in last 15 years, if it is more that 8 hrs its requirement of job but when its less, one still need to be at office for at least 8 hrs.
The sticking part may be true for once in a while but on daily basis, I need to just suck it up and stay at office regardless.
In part I'm paying 40% in tax so if I'm going to buy coffees it's actually more effective to have them provided by the company. But in general, that sort of convenience and benefit is often worth more than the monetary value.
Tea/coffee in the office is very different to a expensive social events, but it's all on a spectrum, and I value some of those things more than the money. I do however earn a good salary, this could well be different for many others.
That companies have then reframed it as an "employee perk" is a very slick PR move.
I was thinking of it more as the human right to a cup of tea (not meaning to belittle real human rights struggles)
I actually started of my working career as a factory worker (nightshift, 12 hour shifts, seven days a week). It was customary to bring along a flask of coffee and a packed lunch.
Right now, even though we have company-provided coffee, I'd rather they just give me the money to bring a flask of my own coffee.
It's more convenient, I get to make a trade-off between quality and cost as the situation calls for it, I get to switch coffees if I need to.
In current reality, though, you are correct - overall it's cheaper for the company to provide coffee instead of giving you the marginal cost of the coffee you consume. I just wanted to provide an alternative viewpoint.
I just think that saying "just give me the money" in all cases is a) not necessarily efficient, and b) glosses over the idea that a benefit can be worth more to people than the monetary value.
It can also be worth more to the employer! The UK government don't provide tea/coffee typically because it all ends up on public record and there's a perception that the media will be outraged if the government spent £10k on tea bags, even if that might be a perfectly reasonable expense across tens of thousands of employees (made up numbers, not important). The result is that in some offices you get contractors being paid £800 a day taking a 15 minute break to go down to the shop to buy milk for their tea, or to get a coffee from a coffee shop, costing far more than it would cost to just have some available in the office.
The real problem is, wellness seminars are an attempt to push the issue on the employees. Just like "plastic recycling" initiatives push the guilt and the effort onto the consumer. It's a redirection strategy.
I agree with b0surk that this is redirection and fundamental changes to society need to take place. Like an end to wage slavery.
I wish my company would give us a handbook...
It's not a genuine attempt to solve the root cause; so much as a way to alleviate symptoms just enough so they can keep ruthlessly exploiting the employee.
I feel like this is the point of the first half of the article. Obviously if you work for a generous, profitable company, and you get good remuneration, healthcare and work–life balance, then workplace wellbeing may be honest and beneficial for both employers and employees (this side doesn’t seem to be mentioned in the article). If you work for a company that pays poorly, has poor benefits, and low margins, then workplace wellbeing is more of the same. That all seems pretty obvious (there are benefits which are perhaps harder to fake, like pay or vacation days or limited working hours per week.) I suppose there is also a third kind of wealthy employer which tries to pamper employees into not wanting things the employer doesn’t want (eg collective bargaining).
The first half of the article seems to just be a vehicle for a proposed solution to poor working conditions, which doesn’t really seem so connected to workplace wellbeing.
You know what's also more stressful? Having to make more decisions in domains outside my circle of competence.
Give me total autonomy in my area, while also not burdening me with having to contribute to EVERY decision.
Meanwhile, the whole IT department had to be moved at some point in a tiny office with no windows. They were also putting a lot of pressure on employees to come work on weekend to fix bugs and get releases ready - and of course at no extra pay. But yeah, you had cake on your birthday and free pizza once a month. Such a great place to work for!
"To thank you for your hard work, I've ordered pizza for everyone!"
'What time is it arriving?'
"7pm"
'Right so you're stealing 2 hours of my time, which you're valuing as a couple of pizza slices - and imagined I'd be grateful?'
The worst possible way to create a 'safe' environment is to infantalize people and direct them like emotionally dependent children because by treating people as non-adults, it removes their basic dignity. Without this, people act out without normal boundaries, and think personal observations and other bizarrely inapproapriate behavior is acceptable or warranted. Corporate yoga and pseudo religious mindfullness probably often has the opposite effect. "Asking" people to submit to religious activities like meditation, smudging ceremonies, ancenstral acknowledgements, mindfulness, hypnosis, yoga, and others is not relating as normal adults. Sometimes I wonder what the conversations on an HN for HR people would look like.
The most successful wellness programs I have seen came in the form of a self-improvement/hobbies bonus, and the 10%-20% open research/dev projects in some tech companies.
A good example is working from home: now it's the employees responsibility to find a good environment for working. The company now has several responsibilities less... I couldn't care less for that chair or desk that the company offers. Work environment isn't about where I put my butt and my computer. Hopefully working from home will become and option and never a mandatory thing.
Anyways there is more and more responsibilities on the employees and less on the employers (at least it feels like it).
Lucky you :) Seems you didn't work on uncomfortable chair or on the kitchen table with kids running and screaming around. For me such basic stuff is very high on the list of priorities regarding work environment.
One thing I’d like to see is independent co-operatives which a group of tech workers (across different companies!) chip in to pay for. They could include veterans for mentorship, agents to help with negotiations/job-hopping advice and possibly even representing you during negotiations, lawyers to help cross out stupid post-working-hours IP clauses etc
Something like a union but minus the grossest parts like mandating actual pay, employment terms, and benefits. More of an easily accessed professional services group. I’m sure this exists in other industries.
This is for everyone, workers and management.
True, people maybe feel more entitled. But I think we also are getting introduced to a phenomenon new since 2001 -- having a solid "living wage" (which Trubune says noting else replaces), but burning out repeatedly, hating the job but being unable to quit, as providing for family takes more now than it used to in 2001, too.
It is just that it feels hopeless either way: companies who strip it down bare to what the employed work really is -- a wolf-pack hunting together -- don't feel that great, and the opposite, pretending that we all are in the middle of a nice cozy great-place-to-work -- gets down on nerves after some point too.
The only solution, switch jobs regularly by all means. Play the national lottery.
In terms of salary and purchasing power in Western countries, yes I think so.
This sounds horrible, but I have a feeling London/Wester Europe is unique in this regard, I can make that kind of money remoting from Croatia.
Alternatively, I would really love to keep the same pay levels, but reduced working hours, to account for increased productivity.
Nowadays people are supposed to do their own Excel sheets and use complex internal systems, instead of letting specialists do it.
So devs are way more efficient but are too fine dining to do every day Excel.
Sure, if there were no farmers, there'd be no food.
But if there were no mechanization, the current number of farmers would be wildly insufficient.
We're adding 1 + 1 and getting 102, and the tricky part is dividing the extra 100 points amongst everyone.
If Georgism is right, in long term the extra 100 points go to those who own the land, via rent.
Not just the rent you pay directly for the place where you live, but also indirectly whenever you buy someone's product or services, because that other person also had to include their rent in the cost of their product or service. Thus when the rents increase, everything gets more expensive, and ironically that makes it more difficult to notice that most of that money ultimately goes towards paying someone's rent.
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progr...
You are not wrong, from the BLS:
"For several decades beginning in the 1940s, productivity had risen in tandem with employees’ compensation. However, since the 1970s, productivity and compensation have steadily diverged." [1]
[1] https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-6/understanding-the-labo...
I have no doubt some people manage to find this, but at this point I want a job that pays well and is tolerable, I've done the fun job for less money enough to know I'm terrible at predicting what's going to be "fun" to work on.
If I'm paid more I need to sell less of my time and get to find things that are enjoyable without my livelihood being tied up with it.
Definitely look for a job with high pay, good benefits, lots of time off, etc., etc., But it's extremely unlikely you're going to find one that actually brings you joy - so learn to live with that.
Leave: It used to be that most companies had a formula for accruing leave, and that vacation and sick were separate buckets and you could accumulate quite a bit. You earn X hours of vacation and Y hours of sick leave per 40 hours worked. This was nice because it was an asset that belonged to the employee and had to be paid out upon separation. Most companies also paid out unused leave over the rollover amount at each year end, and working overtime meant more leave would accrue. Now most companies put everything in the same bucket, give you 30 days, and it's "use it or lose it." This amounts to financial engineering on the company's part, as it makes their balance sheet look better by not carrying all those liabilities, and they generally twist it to make it seem better for the employee.
Health insurance: this just adds to the cacophony of voices lamenting the state of health care in the US today. When I first entered the workforce in 2002 health insurance provided way better benefits, more doctors took the typical insurance plans provided, you didn't have to fight the insurance company, file pre-authorization paperwork, etc. Now every time I get a medical procedure it's a battle waged via paperwork.
Where can I find a job with 30 days of leave? A lot of places seem to think 15 days is beyond generous because they treat all PTO as vacation time and ignore that sick time used to exist. Meanwhile, my health issues make it extremely difficult to bank any amount of PTO.
I would hope that coming out of the pandemic there would be some rethink of a system that basically provides a strong incentive to come into the office sick. (OTOH, there may be more flexibility in terms of WFH so that may do the job at least partway on its own.)
And much research done academically and in business magazines shows that people use LESS PTO when it's "unlimited".
Tl;Dr. It's another scam companies use to bilk workers.
Being absent due to illness has no bearing on holidays either…even if you’re sick in one of your holidays it doesn’t count against your holiday time. There’s no concept of a fixed number of sick days.
I think average working conditions did get worse over the past few decades, primarily because so many more jobs are working for such companies. Consider how many more grocery store jobs are working for a huge supermarket chain vs owning your own small store in 2021 vs 50 years ago.
We used to have decent cadence in releasing software - maybe every couple of months, or even six. Now, everyday seems like a fire drill or a race to nowhere in particular. Managers generally seem to have lost the ability to plan or predict out over periods longer than a month. I thought this was just my bad luck, but after talking with others, I realize this is commonplace.
And, everyone on the team could at least partially explain most things in the system. Now, I run into so much copy-paste code. When I ask the programmer about what it does, they say "Not sure. I found it online."
And, there was a time when the programmers used to be the ones with offices with doors, if you can believe that.
There was also a short period of time (around when programmer salaries went to 6-figures) when programmers used to make more than their managers. Then, managers scoffed. To account for the rise in salaries, managers gave themselves bigger raises and decided to not hire as many senior programmers, because they're too expensive (or too old).
These days (before COVID-19, because that made things a bit unusual) the industry standard is open spaces without fresh air. Daily meetings in the morning, and then optionally more meetings during the day. Doing a few things in parallel, almost every week is a deadline for something, no time to refactor or learn new things. Free coffee.
Something has to give when you need to making up time, when there's no slack. That's where the wellbeing deficit comes from.
I have had people fiercely contesting this with me during a table conversation, only for them to eventually begrudgingly admit in the end: "Yeah, I see your point, maybe preaching yoga to very stressed people who already almost don't have free time in their day isn't the best way to go about this...". And I am like -- oh, you think, dude?
There are a number of things that can be done but I found many organizations to not care about enforcing policies like "no Slack messages after 19:00" or "minimize emails religiously" or "is this meeting actually useful for anyone except me who is in a chatty mood?" etc. Not to mention have people who police the meetings to keep them on topic and brief. And somebody paying attention if you are loaded with responsibilities outside of your job description? That's science fiction.
Start from these: multi-tasking and having too many responsibilities. Reduce these two factors for each person as much as possible -- or, if the person likes the extra load, maybe consider a pay bump plus reducing a smaller chunk of their stress.
Before something else outside of empty virtue signalling is done, the problem will persist. Companies just refuse to see the huge problems that even a single employee possessing a lot of institutional knowledge leaving will entail, so I guess they'll just keep suffering and pretending that some extremely half-done measures will fix the problem.
They will not. Nobody cares about your luxury coffee at the office. Nobody cares about the funny furniture. Nobody has their life sustainably improved by a free neck massage for 15 minutes a week (although it does help somewhat).
If any manager or business owner is here, take this single piece of advice: aim for measures that solve problems long-term.
Similar to 'self-guided learning' - Sure it's nice being able to get cash to pay for any online course I like, but it doesn't give me the "week in a room just focussing on a topic" that a more formal course would provide. It's the time given, not the course provided that was more valuable.
It can work though if initiatives are related, ranked clearly and measured. (Hypothetically) A company might provide bonuses to management for the profitability of projects. Simultaneously, it might wish to discourage weekend working - people quit and quality suffers. With those two goals disconnected, you can guess what happens.
If you link them - say internally bill for hours worked and double for weekends, rather just time-elapsed, then suddenly weekend work mainly vanishes - and projects are better resourced at the outset.
To loop back to the "Wellness" you could implement it with commitment to resources, metrics, stated goals and I think it would work fine.
Why are we promoting wellness? How are we going to measure it? What resources are you providing I didn't already have? etc.
This wellness spam is virtue signaling. Whether it is truly based on values becomes only visible when the boundaries are tested.
Because of how well they have treated us, I see the occasional advertisement for yoga classes or meditation sessions as a perk I’m not interested in, instead of as a symptom of a poor workplace environment. However, if I felt constantly overworked, under appreciated, and under-equipped, each one of those emails would definitely feel like a slap in the face.
The motivation behind not providing these things is so that employees are too burned out to look for another job: https://issendai.com/psychology/sick-systems.html
They also constantly promote walking as a real form of exercise---which is a joke. You have to workout to be healthy: working out, in case you don't know, is painful and it makes you smell bad; but there is No substitute.
I'm sure the response will come something about the company do not care about you, however now I've started to see people here regard anyone just one "level" above them as part of the global capitalist elite.[4] All seems a bit unsustainable to me.
[1] https://twitter.com/IanColdwater/status/1359940513621827592 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27114714 [3] https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1381474017773641731 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27116464
1) fed up with useless benefits 2) get no possibilities for developing their skills while on the job 3) are expected to work unpaid overtime for wages that won't pay the rent in the larger cities
I've no idea how it will end to be honest, but I suspect there'll be a lot of buzz about it once post-COVID hiring starts.
same where i live, tons of headlines saying there's shortage, but in our case, the salaries are just horrible. not only that but when you have a job that pays well, they basically demand your life for the company.
it's much better to work as a contractor for foreign companies than working at local ones.
It is a business, moving at will is how resources get allocated and how it is supposed to play out.
>As conditions at work deteriorate,
How so?
Normally I travel a lot so nights and at least parts of weekends away are pretty routine for me. But companies should attempt to minimize it to the degree possible.
What you're describing are more like team building. Enforced lunches or dinners with coworkers are not just about directly rewarding you with free food, but also enforcing some informal time with team members that you might not choose to spend time with outside of work (or even those you might but maybe wouldn't normally make time for). In many cases it's not even disguised that this is the goal. Although I might not always be a fan of spending time with some of those people, I see the benefit to the business and even myself and it's quite orthogonal from compensation.
Regarding optional programs, sure these exist - unfortunately you are unable to get a cash equivalent if you don't want to use it.
This is just wrong. Team building has a place like anything else and reasonable people can disagree about how much is too much.
No, and there are many companies that serve as counterexamples. Companies can offer both high compensation and small office perks, food and other gimmicks.
It is actually possible to have a well paying job, at a company that also try to care about your well-being.