nitram

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:42:01 +0200, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:31:21 +0200, [email protected] wrote:
    >> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:04:13 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>The Reids writes:
    >>>> Only (a few) Americans perceive these problems, along with the
    >>>> idea we are ruled by monarchs.
    >>>Only a few Germans perceived problems sixty years ago, too.
    >>
    >> In August 1944? You are joking?
    >Aha, this is a bug. Maybe we can work out when the Mixi program was
    >written. It obviously still uses the compilation date, rather than the
    >actual date.

and just when I was starting to agree with everything he said :-)

Mxsmanic

Tim Challenger writes:

    > What? not working as hard as the boss wants?

No; not working the hours required by your employment contract. Also,
failure to meet specific performance objectives is cause for dismissal.
Remember that many employees are salaried and are not subject to the
same specific limitations on working hours as hourly workers are.

    > Bollocks.

A nice store at one time, but I don't see how it fits in here.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

nitram

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:47:54 +0200, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 22:27:01 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
    >> Miguel Cruz writes:
    >>
    >>> But how do they do that in an environment where it's very difficult to fire
    >>> anyone?
    >>
    >> That's one of the few things you can fire people for.
    >What? not working as hard as the boss wants? Bollocks.

another Mxsmanic glitch, this referred to heresy and to Joan of Arc
in particular.

    > In the US maybe(if
    >popular stereotypes are to be believed), and casual or temporary labour
    >maybe. It's difficult to fire permanent staff in the Austria and Germany at
    >least.

and in Italy and the Netherlands.

Mxsmanic

[email protected] writes:

    > and even worse, it turns good expert productive people into dead wood.

Yes, I've seen that happen many times. In the most extreme cases, I've
seen competent people give up the management job, which they hated, and
go back into non-management, even though they had to give up a higher
salary.

The assumption that managers are worth more money than non-managers is
one of the most widespread and severely damaging assumptions made in
business today.

    > That's because those deciding who to pay a lot of money are part of
    > the dead wood.

Yes. The raison d'être of many middle managers is signature authority;
they serve no other purpose, and the signature authority is there just
to justify their existence.

You can tell how useful a manager is by how long he can be absent from
the job without causing problems (disregarding the artificial problem of
signature authority). In many cases, managers can be on leave for
months--or even years--without their absence being noticed.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

The Reids

Following up to Mxsmanic

    >> Only (a few) Americans perceive these problems, along with the
    >> idea we are ruled by monarchs.
    >Only a few Germans perceived problems sixty years ago, too.

Arithmetic aside, we had a long thread here recently (the
constitution one) which partly concerned itself with how we
protect our freedom and democracy, I came away from that thread
with no impression that European countries were any more or less
at risk of losing our freedom than the US, but with the
impression that quite a few americans (or at least usenet
americans) live in a fantasy world about what is involved.
--
Mike Reid
If god wanted us to be vegetarians he wouldn't have made animals out of meat.
Wasdale-Lake district-Thames path-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

The Reids

Following up to [email protected]

    >>><pays GBP5> Oh no it won't!
    >>You have to pay £5.
    >No I don't

Tim Challenger

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:23:21 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

    > Tim Challenger writes:
    >
    >> What? not working as hard as the boss wants?
    >
    > No; not working the hours required by your employment contract.

You said "It's easier to compel employees to work harder
during their official hours, and that's exactly what happens."

and then you said:
"That's one of the few things you can fire people for."

So which is a sackable offence? Not working your official hours (certainly)
or not working as *hard* as the boss wants within those hours (doubtful).


    > Also, failure to meet specific performance objectives is cause for dismissal.
Only if these objectives are found to be reasonable, by a tribunal or
court. If they are found to be unreasonable then it is a case of unfair
dismissal - which is another subject.


    > Remember that many employees are salaried and are not subject to the
    > same specific limitations on working hours as hourly workers are.
And many are. If I work more hours than my weekly set hours then I can take
the extra time off at a later date or get paid overtime, whichever *I*
choose.

The boss (except maybe in the US) doesn't have a right to change working
hours willy nilly. There is often a contract and/or unions or even the
government to convince as well.


    >> Bollocks.
    >
    > A nice store at one time, but I don't see how it fits in here.


--
Tim C.

Tim Challenger

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:26:10 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

    > In many cases, managers can be on leave for
    > months--or even years--without their absence being noticed.

... even by their secretary.
--
Tim C.

nitram

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:23:21 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >Tim Challenger writes:
    >> What? not working as hard as the boss wants?
    >No; not working the hours required by your employment contract.

There's a very big difference between sitting at a desk from 9-5 and
working hard.

    >Also,
    >failure to meet specific performance objectives is cause for dismissal.

but arguable, in a wrongful dismissal case, if the performance
requirements are not realistic.

    >Remember that many employees are salaried and are not subject to the
    >same specific limitations on working hours as hourly workers are.

Official working hours and doing productive work have little in
common. Some of the most productive people I knew rarely worked the
official hours.

    >> Bollocks.
    >A nice store at one time, but I don't see how it fits in here.

[Turin Test Failed :-) ]

Tim Challenger

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 12:21:23 +0200, [email protected] wrote:

    > On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:51:04 +0200, Tim Challenger
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:26:10 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
    >>> In many cases, managers can be on leave for
    >>> months--or even years--without their absence being noticed.
    >>... even by their secretary.
    >
    > except when he takes the secretary on holiday with him :-)
    >
    > It is more an more frequent that the absence of the secretary goes
    > unnoticed too.

Like our office.
--
Tim C.

nitram

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:49:25 +0200, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:23:21 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
    >> Tim Challenger writes:
    >>
    >>> What? not working as hard as the boss wants?
    >>
    >> No; not working the hours required by your employment contract.
    >You said "It's easier to compel employees to work harder
    >during their official hours, and that's exactly what happens."
    >and then you said:
    >"That's one of the few things you can fire people for."

I blame object oriented programming for these inconsistencies.

or is the server running the BETA 1.0 version again?

Miguel?

nitram

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:26:10 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >[email protected] writes:
    >> and even worse, it turns good expert productive people into dead wood.
    >Yes, I've seen that happen many times. In the most extreme cases, I've
    >seen competent people give up the management job, which they hated, and
    >go back into non-management, even though they had to give up a higher
    >salary.

me too.

    >The assumption that managers are worth more money than non-managers is
    >one of the most widespread and severely damaging assumptions made in
    >business today.

yes

    >> That's because those deciding who to pay a lot of money are part of
    >> the dead wood.
    >Yes. The raison d'être of many middle managers is signature authority;
    >they serve no other purpose, and the signature authority is there just
    >to justify their existence.

yes

    >You can tell how useful a manager is by how long he can be absent from
    >the job without causing problems (disregarding the artificial problem of
    >signature authority). In many cases, managers can be on leave for
    >months--or even years--without their absence being noticed.

yes a good test.

nitram

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:51:04 +0200, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:26:10 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
    >> In many cases, managers can be on leave for
    >> months--or even years--without their absence being noticed.
    >... even by their secretary.

except when he takes the secretary on holiday with him :-)

It is more an more frequent that the absence of the secretary goes
unnoticed too.

Mxsmanic

Tim Challenger writes:

    > So which is a sackable offence? Not working your official hours (certainly)
    > or not working as *hard* as the boss wants within those hours (doubtful).

Both. The latter is achieved through performance objectives.

    > Only if these objectives are found to be reasonable, by a tribunal or
    > court.

The court looks at them only after the fact, and only if the fired
employee can afford to spend thousands of euro and wait two or three
years for its decision.

    > The boss (except maybe in the US) doesn't have a right to change working
    > hours willy nilly. There is often a contract and/or unions or even the
    > government to convince as well.

It happens all the time.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic

[email protected] writes:

    > but arguable, in a wrongful dismissal case, if the performance
    > requirements are not realistic.

Wrongful dismissal cases take years to move through the courts, and cost
thousands of euro. This makes them virtually useless to a fired
employee unless he is independently wealthy.

    > [Turin Test Failed :-) ]

What sort of test is the Turin Test, and why did you fail it?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.