261
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2024
261 points (94.8% liked)
News
23367 readers
3126 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
In a word? No. Companies need to adapt to changing conditions which includes hiring. An individual person needs to adapt, but the companies need to adapt to cultural shifts. That's similar to the classic, "if I owe the bank $50k I can't repay, I have a problem. If I owe the bank $50M, the bank has a problem."
Nope, this article focuses on just one side however it is and should be a two way mutually beneficial deal, like any successful relationship. Good managers understand their employees and work within business needs to make their people happy.
Then they can enjoy a high turnover rate as the best of best seek employment elsewhere. I'll never understand this thinking. How do you expect to get anything other than shit employees if you treat them anyway you want? You aren't the only employeer on earth
Pay peanuts, get monkeys
Disagree - there is a degree into which the needs of a managers direct report should be taken into account. Ignoring these needs in full comes with the risk of turnover and productivity loss. It's a balancing act between business and employee needs. Again you're taking it the the extreme by saying an employer should kowtow to the employee when the reality is that it should be a good balance in an ideal scenario and not entirely in either direction. A balance leads to the best outcomes for both parties.
That fact that you would use a word like kowtow to describe a company being willing to meet its employees halfway says a hell of a lot. This is why "nobody wants to work anymore."
I think you're both right. Employees are free to choose jobs they like, and employers are free to hire people they like, for the most part. In theory.
Of course, the economy isn't in great shape, and hasn't been for almost the entire adult lives of millennials, so it's not like people really have much of a choice in practice. You work at Soulless Company A, or you work at Soulless Company B...or you starve. Individual job-seekers don't control the job market.
Similarly, companies don't have that much of a choice, either. They can't just exclusively hire senior citizens. They don't control the hiring pool. It is expensive to hire and train new employees, and infeasible to replace a large percentage of your workforce on a short time scale.
Anyway, if you have a corporate culture that is hostile to the majority of employees under 40, you've got a big culture problem. You can't just dig in your heels and expect two entire generations to come around to your geriatric worldview.
He’s just saying these companies need to adapt their culture to fit the culture of younger generations or the companies will die with the boomers in a few years.
Culture changes over time, those that refuse to change get left behind, this has always been the way of the world
Personally I’m ok with a lot of companies failing and being replaced with healthier alternatives. In my mind we need to get back to the economy of thousands of smaller businesses rather than 15 mega corps owning everything on the planet.
Yes, I would encourage everyone to take as little shit from their job as possible. Frequent job-hopping has been the norm for millennials, because it's typically the easiest way to increase your salary.
I think it's more useful to think in terms of trends than in terms of individuals. This isn't about one person or one company. One person can leave one company, no problem. Millions of people cannot leave thousands of companies. There's nowhere else for that many people to go.
It seems more realistic for a small number of companies to adapt to a large number of individuals than vice-versa. If you have one unproductive employee, then they're a bad employee. If you have hundreds or thousands of unproductive employees, then you are a bad employer.
And if no employee is interested in adapting to that employer's conditions?
""nOboDy WAnTs tO WoRk AnyMoRe!"
your hired! get in the wood chipper... scab.
Real question? If you like companies so much, why are you on Lemmy?
deleted by creator
Do you make barrels for a living? Do you forge iron with a big hammer? Do you rivet? I would wager not, and this is due to the people who employ people changing with a changing world. Add humans into the equation, and you can see how employers also need to assess that aspect of their operation; changing with the people who themselves change with the world around them.
And the good empoyees who make lots of profit will happilly choose a employer who caters to their needs.
Companies are competing. Workers just gain advatages if more and more are fed up with shit employers.
Btw https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kowtow
I don't know if you're trolling or just don't get the argument.
If a company needs employees, they have to make the positions that they offer attractive, otherwise their workers will find different jobs. If an employer cannot or will not adjust to a changing labor market, they fail.
Call it Dutch Disease if you want, but that doesn't change the equation.
Employees aren't a right either.
It's not a privilege. It's a contract with two parties. If either one of those doesn't like it, they can go elsewhere.
I meant in the colloquial meaning of contract meaning "an agreement between parties to exchange money, goods and services", not the legal meaning of an employment contract.
That said, it's unbelievably shitty that most jobs in the US don't have written documentation about the actual contract that parties engage in and are only word-of-mouth or non-binding bullshit. The US should join the rest of the world in having actual enforceable rights around employment and should quit overregulating unions.
I would say it's neither.
When a job is required to survive, it's not a privilege.
"No society is more than three meals away from a revolution"
A society that cant take care if it's own people will collapse into bloody revolution
Having productive workers isn't a right. If your company needs productive workers to remain profitable, then pay your employees more so they'll be motivated to work harder. Simple. Don't expect workers to lower their standard of living just for your benefit. That is entitlement of the worst kind.
Capitalism requires people have jobs for commerse to work. The whole system falls apart if people dont have jobs. For the sake of its own preservation, it seems like jobs should be a right.
A company is not a right, it is a privilege.
If they do not contribute positively towards society, then we should be obliged to burn them to the ground.
No, it is up to the employee to so as much as they oblige in their contract.
Because it is not like those employers are going to do more than what is in there either.
The employee's job is to deliver value to the business. The business's job is to enable the employee to deliver that value. Mentorship, fair wages, career growth oppurtunities, etc. Many businesses fail on their end of the bargain. Its no wonder the employees are repaying the effort in kind.