No childcare, no work.

[ttcycle]

Ironic isn't it? Staff put in all the work and the work structure doesn't necessarily reflect pay with how much people are contributeing and work...and it seems that money, profits etc are more important than staff welfare - it's a business and with staff interests at the bottom - in some/most places people are expendable.

 

[wafflycat]

One of the joys of being self-employed - I set the rules by how I deal with myself, so to speak!

On the down side, no limit to hours, no set income, no regular income, no paid holiday, no employer's pension contributions, health care, etc., etc., etc.

 

[summerdays]

The issue of why people take the piss is interesting and complex- what are people's thoughts on that as I know what I think about it...

I used to work with someone who always tended to extend his weekends, and was often "sick" after a night out on the town. It really used to annoy me - others at the same office would automatically book the following day as holiday or do it after the event.

I know that it probably depends alot on attitude. Some of my current work colleagues - including myself sometimes have to leave 5 mins early due to some event outside work. But I would say that all of them are of the type where they make up that time and probably stay extra time without question - without claiming it. So its probably dependant on give and take - rather than been seen only to take.

As for why they do it... probably they aren't that interested in work ... its just something to pay the bills, and they can get away with it. Also I guess to do with personal ethics - I often work from home and have to claim what I did - I always claim less than I've done - as I don't want to cheat work.

 

[mangaman]

One of the joys of being self-employed - I set the rules by how I deal with myself, so to speak!

You still ought to have a company policy if you get snowed in I reckon?

Maybe compulsonary mountainbiking around some snowy country lanes

 

[ChrisKH]

I think you have more than a grain of truth there: the change from 'personnel' to 'HR'

Reading some of this, you would think that there had been a groundshift in the way HR operates which is not really true. The Personnel you speak of more than likely existed or exists in non-profit making establishments (eg government departments) or where the workforce was heavily unionised. HR is merely an extension of management the rest of the time so it shouldn't come as any surprise that as a department they will serve the business first and employees second. Personnel acting as representatives of employees is a modern day myth.

A bigger and unmentioned factor are those businesses where there is no real HR influence because HR is seen as an expendable department in the name of profit; a function that, in theory, can just as easily be administered by non-specialists managers. Or outsourced. Not really a recipe for success. Fortunately there are still some businesses where the personnel are still considered important. Now if only I could find one.

 

[wafflycat]

The company MrWC & I worked in that was excellent with employees was a profit-driven private company and it was very profitable. I've experienced bad personnel/HR attitudes in both private & public sector (local authority). Indeed the worst was in the public sector where there were no 'perks' at all, as every single penny had to be accounted for in terms of public service provided. And having an enlightened attitude to staff conditions was seen as a distinct waste of public money.

 

[Trembler49]

It seems to me that some people have a strange view of work. In a commercial environment (the only one I know), the company only exists to make a profit. If it can make more profit be making the employees happy by having generous and flexible working terms and conditions, then it will tend to do so. Otherwise, there is little incentive for the company to do so. When times are hard and profits falling, the employees will be pushed harder.

Smaller companies tend to be be driven by the personalities of the people in charge, larger companies tend to have a more logically defined system.

 

[Alan Frame]

Hi Alan, I'm not sure if I've offended you on what I wrote regarding people getting the wrong impression on how the person complaining feels about those people with children. If I did I'm very sorry. By that comment though I meant that sometimes (deliberately or otherwise) a complaint made to a person of authority will be twisted to make the person complaining sound unduly harsh, rather than the fact that they were making a point.

Personally, I like the idea that snow days given to those who can't sort childcare out are counteracted by giving extra flexi days to those who arrived and stayed (with or without children) as a thank you for struggling in. So you may miss playing in the snow with your children, but you'll get a lovely warm day in the park with them when you want it.

All we need now is an ideal world !!!

Just back in from work.

No offence taken Hobbes... I was simply trying to reinforce the fact that being a parent myself I understand the difficulties of balancing work with home life.
My gripe is not so much with the pee takers who milk the system but the organisation which fails to see the discord they are causing by failing to deal with the problem in an equitable way without favouring one group or another.
The pee takers get away with it because management do not have the gonads to deal with the problem. It is far easier to ignore a problem than to deal with it.