Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace
-
So if the job description says: install centos and configure for x.
You'd assume it to mean, describe where and onot what to install it too?
-
If I hire a waiter at a restaurant and end up needing them to cook, do they have the right or a reason to refuse? No. Can they quit if they want? Of course. Can I fire them for not doing the job that is required? Of course.
This is normal and how jobs work.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
So if the job description says: install centos and configure for x.
You'd assume it to mean, describe where and onot what to install it too?
Job descriptions mean nothing, in nearly all cases. Not all that many jobs even have job descriptions. Most jobs are "do what is needed." Under literally zero scenarios would I accept someone working in IT saying "I was hired for Linux, I don't touch Windows." The answer there is simply "Ok, resignation accepted, have a nice day."
-
But you've changed the job. Let's take something more drastic.
Let's say @Minion-Queen hires you to consult, but then changes her mind and wants you to be a janitor.
Would you then do said janitor functions? You'd outright refuse.
-
Can you complain that you don't know how to do the thing or you are not efficient at it? Sure. But they already know that. Is it smart to hire an IT pro and use them as a plumber or vice versa? Of course not, but sometimes you have to. And people hired for other roles get asked to do IT every day, when do you hear about people refusing to work on computers because they were hired for something else? Never, that's how often.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
But you've changed the job. Let's take something more drastic.
No, you've changed tasks.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
Let's say @Minion-Queen hires you to consult, but then changes her mind and wants you to be a janitor.
Would you then do said janitor functions? You'd outright refuse.
Would I? Why? That's stupid and foolish. Refuse is just another term for "quitting" there. Why would you refuse, that makes no sense (unless you have a physical limitation keeping you from being able to do the task that is needed.)
-
@scottalanmiller said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
@DustinB3403 said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
But you've changed the job. Let's take something more drastic.
No, you've changed tasks.
But that's a part of the conversation. Task differences.:bath_tone4:
-
I think you have a union mentality (union = worker has no value and can't negotiate based on their value so job scope is required.) Not an employee mentality. Union workers actually work for the union, not the company, hence the difference. It's union job scope, not employment scope then.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
@scottalanmiller said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
@DustinB3403 said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
But you've changed the job. Let's take something more drastic.
No, you've changed tasks.
But that's a part of the conversation. Task differences.:bath_tone4:
It's part of WHAT conversation? None that I know of.
-
What's funny is, you started this conversation talking about the problems with people and their "not my job" attitude problems. And here you are saying that they SHOULD have them. Isn't that weird?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
The "Not my job" mentality obviously has some caveats. Such as not mopping the cafeteria floors, when you work in IT.
That's silly. If you negotiate your value based on being an IT pro and get to get paid that rate to mop floors, you rejoice. That's a total score. Of course any smart IT pro would do that every time.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
What's funny is, you started this conversation talking about the problems with people and their "not my job" attitude problems. And here you are saying that they SHOULD have them. Isn't that weird?
Not funny at all. I agree people should have a clear line in the sand of things that they aren't responsible for.
You're misconstruing the difference between the original post, and this topic you've dragged us into.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
@DustinB3403 said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
The "Not my job" mentality obviously has some caveats. Such as not mopping the cafeteria floors, when you work in IT.
That's silly. If you negotiate your value based on being an IT pro and get to get paid that rate to mop floors, you rejoice. That's a total score. Of course any smart IT pro would do that every time.
I wouldn't rejoice in doing something mind numbing. Maybe you'd take that, but I certainly would not.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
This is employee abuse, and needs to be addressed.
How is this abuse? In what way is it a negative to the employee? They are paid for their time, correct? They are fairly compensated based on a pre-negotiated value? They negotiate for the job for which they are best suited and any deviation is to the detriment of the company, not the employee, correct?
Unless you are a skilled CEO but taking a huge paycut to slum it as a janitor because you just want to be a janitor and they pay you as a janitor but then task you with being CEO or some similar "accepting low pay based on job description" anomaly, there can be no abuse in this setting.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
@DustinB3403 said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
This is employee abuse, and needs to be addressed.
How is this abuse? In what way is it a negative to the employee? They are paid for their time, correct? They are fairly compensated based on a pre-negotiated value? They negotiate for the job for which they are best suited and any deviation is to the detriment of the company, not the employee, correct?
Unless you are a skilled CEO but taking a huge paycut to slum it as a janitor because you just want to be a janitor and they pay you as a janitor but then task you with being CEO or some similar "accepting low pay based on job description" anomaly, there can be no abuse in this setting.
The abuse lies with the amount of work thrown onto the person. Sure the employee can try to negotiate more money or benefits, but rarely does this happen when the employee has been slowly piled onto over any length of time.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
@scottalanmiller said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
@DustinB3403 said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
This is employee abuse, and needs to be addressed.
How is this abuse? In what way is it a negative to the employee? They are paid for their time, correct? They are fairly compensated based on a pre-negotiated value? They negotiate for the job for which they are best suited and any deviation is to the detriment of the company, not the employee, correct?
Unless you are a skilled CEO but taking a huge paycut to slum it as a janitor because you just want to be a janitor and they pay you as a janitor but then task you with being CEO or some similar "accepting low pay based on job description" anomaly, there can be no abuse in this setting.
The abuse lies with the amount of work thrown onto the person. Sure the employee can try to negotiate more money or benefits, but rarely does this happen when the employee has been slowly piled onto over any length of time.
But we never talked about MORE work, only different work. More work is a completely different discussion. And we are talking about hourly workers, right? So "more" means nothing to an hourly worker.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
@DustinB3403 said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
@scottalanmiller said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
@DustinB3403 said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
This is employee abuse, and needs to be addressed.
How is this abuse? In what way is it a negative to the employee? They are paid for their time, correct? They are fairly compensated based on a pre-negotiated value? They negotiate for the job for which they are best suited and any deviation is to the detriment of the company, not the employee, correct?
Unless you are a skilled CEO but taking a huge paycut to slum it as a janitor because you just want to be a janitor and they pay you as a janitor but then task you with being CEO or some similar "accepting low pay based on job description" anomaly, there can be no abuse in this setting.
The abuse lies with the amount of work thrown onto the person. Sure the employee can try to negotiate more money or benefits, but rarely does this happen when the employee has been slowly piled onto over any length of time.
But we never talked about MORE work, only different work. More work is a completely different discussion. And we are talking about hourly workers, right? So "more" means nothing to an hourly worker.
I made no such declaration of an hourly work or salaried. That was something you jumped too.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
@scottalanmiller said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
@DustinB3403 said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
@scottalanmiller said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
@DustinB3403 said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
This is employee abuse, and needs to be addressed.
How is this abuse? In what way is it a negative to the employee? They are paid for their time, correct? They are fairly compensated based on a pre-negotiated value? They negotiate for the job for which they are best suited and any deviation is to the detriment of the company, not the employee, correct?
Unless you are a skilled CEO but taking a huge paycut to slum it as a janitor because you just want to be a janitor and they pay you as a janitor but then task you with being CEO or some similar "accepting low pay based on job description" anomaly, there can be no abuse in this setting.
The abuse lies with the amount of work thrown onto the person. Sure the employee can try to negotiate more money or benefits, but rarely does this happen when the employee has been slowly piled onto over any length of time.
But we never talked about MORE work, only different work. More work is a completely different discussion. And we are talking about hourly workers, right? So "more" means nothing to an hourly worker.
I made no such declaration of an hourly work or salaried. That was something you jumped too.
As did you with the idea that MORE work was added. If salaried, you still have a concept of "you work about fifty hours a week" in the US and the number of tasks doesn't change that. And it is only a problem for salaried as well if there is more, not different, work. So even salaried, doesn't matter.
But you had mentioned MSPs, which cannot be salaried, hence why I thought that.
-
As an MSP doing IT work, if we are asked to do other work. Say, janitorial, we do it. No question - as long as it is either in scope or we are hourly. As long as we are hourly (working like an employee) then there is no grounds for questioning the work load as long as the client will pay. Zero questions about it. If they want us to lick stamps for thank you cards at IT consulting rates, great.
