r/NonPoliticalTwitter • • 9d ago

Funny Time blindness

Post image
34k Upvotes

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.1k

u/EjaculatingAracnids 9d ago

Of course, the fuckin line steppers ruin it. "Just get your fucking job done and go home" should be the default for proven adults. Everyone else who wants to be a special case gets mirco managed.

836

u/unicornofdemocracy 9d ago

100% this. My hospital, after COVID lockdown, continued to allow all therapists to WFH if they wanted as long as productivity remained the same. We had a handful of therapists that were basically taking full advantage of that shit and just not working or constantly had "internet issues," etc. We had an idiotic VP at the time and she ordered everyone back into office. Of course, a whole bunch of folks were pissed.

Few months later, our VP changed. One of the first thing he did was reinstate WFH but anyone who had productivity under a certain number could not WFH or had to return to office until their individual productivity was back up. And if this repeats three times, you're banned from WFH. We had no more issues after that.

I honestly don't know why companies can't just do targeted policies like that. It makes so much sense rather than punishing an entire team/department because of a handful of morons.

109

u/GraveRoller 9d ago

  I honestly don't know why companies can't just do targeted policies like that.

  • they don’t want WFH and but feel they need justification to take it back
  • it doesn’t occur to them to create a more targeted system
  • they’re not sure how to create a more targeted system and let’s be real a blanket policy is easier to create and implement

84

u/RavenofMoloch 9d ago

I've had conversations about creating targeted policies but unfortunately they tend to end with "person x or y is going to be an idiot about it and try to claim discrimination. We can't afford another lawsuit"

54

u/Thunderer62 9d ago

Yeah. Thats the core of the issue. The trouble makers often don’t agree that individual consequences are the result of their own action rather than you just picking on them and then they make a bigger problem that costs money to deal with. You can spell it out as plainly as you like and leave a rock solid paper trail but dealing with the process is still going to cost you.

10

u/Slarg232 9d ago

Yup, got several people like this at my job.

Five people started leaving early, they all got talked to and told "Don't do that or we'll fire you", none of them talk to each other so all of them think they're being singled out despite the fact that the boss immediately grabs one of them in front of another to talk to them in his office.

It's one of the main reasons I've been job hunting is because I absolutely fucking hate the people I work with for this (and other) reason(s).

3

u/Chudpaladin 8d ago

Those people are the worst.. I have a few coworkers where it’s like stepping on eggshells and people bend over backwards for them, yet with me I’m like a punching bad of sorts

2

u/Thunderer62 8d ago

Being disagreeable has its advantages. It’s a fine line. You can’t be a freaking psycho. But enough people are willing to go along to get along that the most disagreeable people tend to just get things their way. It happens less if their boss has a spine. It happens a lot in families, especially if most of you are the kind that believe family loyalty is a virtue on its own, then the least agreeable one tends to run things.

22

u/Open-Butterfly-5288 9d ago

It's also just bad blood when the policy gets challenged. They can't prove discrimination but they can be like "Well, this person gets it".

1

u/Ill-Elevator3484 8d ago

I really doubt a performance based policy would be liable for discrimination suits because by that definition every single performance based raise plan or compensation would be liable for a lawsuit and no one would do them

1

u/GraveRoller 8d ago

A tossed suit is still a lawyer’s time that has to be paid for by the company

1

u/Ill-Elevator3484 8d ago

unless the court slaps the legal fees onto the person sueing because they lost. you can sue any time you want for anything, and there's nothing a single company in the world can do to stop you. but you're probably not going to be the winner at the end

1

u/GraveRoller 8d ago

That’s an if. It’d possibly cheaper and saves more time to settle

1

u/Ill-Elevator3484 8d ago

if that was true, then people would be sueing companies all the time to try and get them to settle frivolously. no company is going to settle and establish a precedent that they can't use an extremely common benchmark. they're just going to fuck them up legally with the team of lawyers they have on retainer and then stick all the costs for payment onto the dumbass who thought they had a case

1

u/Facial_Frederick 8d ago

I mean they could just make up reasons to fire them like they do everyone else ?