Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace
-
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.
-
@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:
@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.
So you're understanding of jobs in the US is, "Do whatever you are paid to do, so long as you the employee are paid for the time". Is that correct?
-
@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:
@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.
So you're understanding of jobs in the US is, "Do whatever you are paid to do, so long as you the employee are paid for the time". Is that correct?
Correct, absolutely. Outside of things like unions (which is the antithesis of employment) or things that require certification or are illegal, of course.
-
In fact, everyone is aware of how unions cause this issue with people suddenly having to avoid doing work from other areas because you might overlap with union rules. It's a shocking thing when normal employees run up to the "not in my job description" union folks.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
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.
And that would be one thing in which, obviously you are paid to do as told. You are there much like a seasonal workers on a farm.
Do whatever is needed, I'm paying for you to do as needed.
That is not nearly the same as being responsible for a set of items, and literally saying "not my job" because something is to difficult or you haven't the slightest clue about it.
The shirking of responsibility is the core of "not my job", and that is what the topic is about.
Is "this" your responsibility as an MSP, ok then fix it. Don't point fingers back at this or the other people, the answer is "well get it fixed".
Correct?
-
It's a natural effect of "right to work." Sure, you can even make a law that says that you can only be required to do what is in your job description. But the company can fire you if they no longer need the job description that you had. It makes the job description thing pretty moot, even if a law exists about it because you can part ways with or without a change of that nature.
-
@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:
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.
And that would be one thing in which, obviously you are paid to do as told. You are there much like a seasonal workers on a farm.
Do whatever is needed, I'm paying for you to do as needed.
That is not nearly the same as being responsible for a set of items, and literally saying "not my job" because something is to difficult or you haven't the slightest clue about it.
The shirking of responsibility is the core of "not my job", and that is what the topic is about.
Is "this" your responsibility as an MSP, ok then fix it. Don't point fingers back at this the other people, the answer is "well get it fixed".
Correct?
No, that's different. As an MSP, we are VERY often (read: almost always) given a scope of responsibility and are not allowed and/or paid to touch things outside of that. We are required to work under or with other parties and our job is to not change those things. What you are describing is very different. Different parties have different tasks assigned or allowed.
-
@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:
@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.
So you're understanding of jobs in the US is, "Do whatever you are paid to do, so long as you the employee are paid for the time". Is that correct?
Correct, absolutely. Outside of things like unions (which is the antithesis of employment) or things that require certification or are illegal, of course.
And I agree, do as you are told for the described job you interviewed for. Edit: Not the new responsibilities that the business says you need to fill. Adding things (to an extreme) like cleaning toilets to the Controllers job list would obviously fly in the face of the persons qualifications and assigned duties when they were hired.
You can't just tack on new responsibilities, without the interview process. This is a legal matter, literally. There have been court cases about.
-
@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:
@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.
So you're understanding of jobs in the US is, "Do whatever you are paid to do, so long as you the employee are paid for the time". Is that correct?
Correct, absolutely. Outside of things like unions (which is the antithesis of employment) or things that require certification or are illegal, of course.
And I agree, do as you are told for the described job you interviewed for. Adding things (to an extreme) like cleaning toilets to the Controllers job list would obviously fly in the face of the persons qualifications and assigned duties when they were hired.
You can't just tack on new responsibilities, without the interview process. This is a legal matter, literally. There have been court cases about.
Can you find one? Because every company I know does this and it is normal business. What legal basis is there for your interview determining your job for forever and that there is no way to change what you are required to do over time without firing you instead?
-
@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:
@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:
@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.
So you're understanding of jobs in the US is, "Do whatever you are paid to do, so long as you the employee are paid for the time". Is that correct?
Correct, absolutely. Outside of things like unions (which is the antithesis of employment) or things that require certification or are illegal, of course.
And I agree, do as you are told for the described job you interviewed for. Adding things (to an extreme) like cleaning toilets to the Controllers job list would obviously fly in the face of the persons qualifications and assigned duties when they were hired.
You can't just tack on new responsibilities, without the interview process. This is a legal matter, literally. There have been court cases about.
Can you find one? Because every company I know does this and it is normal business. What legal basis is there for your interview determining your job for forever and that there is no way to change what you are required to do over time without firing you instead?
The interview process can occur at a moments notice, in the bosses office.
Which may be "hey can you do this, yes no." That is a legal interview, and delegation of new tasks to an existing employee.
The offset to this is either the implied or expressed means of compensation for the newly assigned duties.
-
This lawyer says otherwise: http://bwlaw.blogs.com/employment_law_bits/2012/08/can-my-employer-change-my-job-description.html
-
Another that says that they can change them, and even mentions that they can do so for salaried employees:
http://work.chron.com/can-employer-change-job-description-19200.html
-
@scottalanmiller The first sentence in the 3rd paragraph describes the exact issues that we're discussing. At least in that state.
You can't be hired to work in accounting, and after being hired tasked with cleaning toilets. Or any such other job duties changes.
It also says that an employer can change the duties, with conversation with the employee, not including just hours worked, and shift.
So you're proving my point.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
@scottalanmiller The first sentence in the 3rd paragraph describes the exact issues that we're discussing. At least in that state.
You can't be hired to work in accounting, and after being hired tasked with cleaning toilets. Or any such other job duties changes.
It also says that an employer can change the duties, with conversation with the employee, not including just hours worked, and shift.
So you're proving my point.
What link? I searched for the word accounting on both sites and came up dry.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
@scottalanmiller The first sentence in the 3rd paragraph describes the exact issues that we're discussing. At least in that state.
You can't be hired to work in accounting, and after being hired tasked with cleaning toilets. Or any such other job duties changes.
It also says that an employer can change the duties, with conversation with the employee, not including just hours worked, and shift.
So you're proving my point.
Which means that the employee, gets to know in advance of what work / changes to work are being asked of them.
-
@scottalanmiller I was using accounting as an example. But this link.
-
Not finding your reference at all in the links that I provided. Everything that I can see on them, they state exactly the opposite.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
@scottalanmiller I was using accounting as an example. But this link.
BUt that link, at that spot, says nothing of the sort.
-
In fact, it points out the opposite. You've just read an article that says that they CAN change your job description and somehow think that it says that you can't. Read it again. I have zero clue where you got the idea that it supported you when it is as plain as can be telling you that you are wrong.
-
@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 I was using accounting as an example. But this link.
BUt that link, at that spot, says nothing of the sort.
"Your employer may not, however, violate a law when changing your job description, job duties, pay, or other terms or conditions of your employment. Under an employment, labor, or whistleblower law, an employer may not adversely change the job description of an employee as retaliatory “punishment” because the employee reasonably exercised his or her rights under the law. "
it's rather long, but says exactly this.
