What Are You Doing Right Now
-
@coliver said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@nerdydad said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@coliver said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@nerdydad said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Of course they value their employees...
I've definitely, as a C level advisor, talked to companies that were extremely clear in that they did NOT value their employees and viewed them as a drain on resources but felt compelled to keep them employed.
Wow. That is kind of blunt. Do C-levels think that they can do better by themselves without the help of a workforce? Just think of the number of hours they would have to spend doing each individuals position just to keep the business running.
Well... a lot of tasks can be automated and many could probably be done with fewer people.
Or outsourced to other specialized companies? Such as PayCom for payroll, PayPal for payment processing, etc? Just have the business focus on its core duties? How much money would a company be spending by outsourcing all of this? How much could it save? I bet you the costs would outweigh the savings.
Depends. From what I've seen the costs are often minuscule to outsource this type of prescriptive stuff.
Typically all outsourcing is cheap compared to insourcing.
-
@dustinb3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@coliver said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@nerdydad said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Of course they value their employees...
I've definitely, as a C level advisor, talked to companies that were extremely clear in that they did NOT value their employees and viewed them as a drain on resources but felt compelled to keep them employed.
Wow. That is kind of blunt. Do C-levels think that they can do better by themselves without the help of a workforce? Just think of the number of hours they would have to spend doing each individuals position just to keep the business running.
Well... a lot of tasks can be automated and many could probably be done with fewer people.
Paying for the automation is what is difficult.
Not really, people are expensive, automation is cheap.
-
@fuznutz04 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Dealing with Comcast issues.
A fire in NYC melted a major fiber line and is effecting internet on the east coast. Fun fun! http://downdetector.com/status/comcast-xfinity/lancaster
Again. No redundancies at all?
-
@nerdydad said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@coliver said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@nerdydad said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Of course they value their employees...
I've definitely, as a C level advisor, talked to companies that were extremely clear in that they did NOT value their employees and viewed them as a drain on resources but felt compelled to keep them employed.
Wow. That is kind of blunt. Do C-levels think that they can do better by themselves without the help of a workforce? Just think of the number of hours they would have to spend doing each individuals position just to keep the business running.
Well... a lot of tasks can be automated and many could probably be done with fewer people.
Or outsourced to other specialized companies? Such as PayCom for payroll, PayPal for payment processing, etc? Just have the business focus on its core duties? How much money would a company be spending by outsourcing all of this? How much could it save? I bet you the costs would outweigh the savings.
Who typically automate
-
@nerdydad said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@fuznutz04 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Dealing with Comcast issues.
A fire in NYC melted a major fiber line and is effecting internet on the east coast. Fun fun! http://downdetector.com/status/comcast-xfinity/lancaster
Again. No redundancies at all?
For Comcast? Ha.
-
@nerdydad said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Of course they value their employees...
I've definitely, as a C level advisor, talked to companies that were extremely clear in that they did NOT value their employees and viewed them as a drain on resources but felt compelled to keep them employed.
Wow. That is kind of blunt. Do C-levels think that they can do better by themselves without the help of a workforce? Just think of the number of hours they would have to spend doing each individuals position just to keep the business running.
Yes, they said that they would not pay for working computers for their staff because the faster that people could "work", the faster that the company would lose money. They felt that much of their staff actively hurt the company by coming to work and that they did nothing useful.
-
Cleaning and putting the house back together landlord's showing the house tomorrow to potential tenants
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@nerdydad said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@fuznutz04 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Dealing with Comcast issues.
A fire in NYC melted a major fiber line and is effecting internet on the east coast. Fun fun! http://downdetector.com/status/comcast-xfinity/lancaster
Again. No redundancies at all?
For Comcast? Ha.
They are "rerouting traffic" in the mean time... or so the rumors say.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Of course they value their employees...
I've definitely, as a C level advisor, talked to companies that were extremely clear in that they did NOT value their employees and viewed them as a drain on resources but felt compelled to keep them employed.
Burger King?
-
@dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Of course they value their employees...
I've definitely, as a C level advisor, talked to companies that were extremely clear in that they did NOT value their employees and viewed them as a drain on resources but felt compelled to keep them employed.
Burger King?
Large marketing firm.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@nerdydad said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Of course they value their employees...
I've definitely, as a C level advisor, talked to companies that were extremely clear in that they did NOT value their employees and viewed them as a drain on resources but felt compelled to keep them employed.
Wow. That is kind of blunt. Do C-levels think that they can do better by themselves without the help of a workforce? Just think of the number of hours they would have to spend doing each individuals position just to keep the business running.
Yes, they said that they would not pay for working computers for their staff because the faster that people could "work", the faster that the company would lose money. They felt that much of their staff actively hurt the company by coming to work and that they did nothing useful.
Then why keep the unproductive / unuseful staff around collecting a paycheck?
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@nerdydad said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Of course they value their employees...
I've definitely, as a C level advisor, talked to companies that were extremely clear in that they did NOT value their employees and viewed them as a drain on resources but felt compelled to keep them employed.
Wow. That is kind of blunt. Do C-levels think that they can do better by themselves without the help of a workforce? Just think of the number of hours they would have to spend doing each individuals position just to keep the business running.
Yes, they said that they would not pay for working computers for their staff because the faster that people could "work", the faster that the company would lose money. They felt that much of their staff actively hurt the company by coming to work and that they did nothing useful.
and they kept them why?
-
@dafyre said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@nerdydad said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Of course they value their employees...
I've definitely, as a C level advisor, talked to companies that were extremely clear in that they did NOT value their employees and viewed them as a drain on resources but felt compelled to keep them employed.
Wow. That is kind of blunt. Do C-levels think that they can do better by themselves without the help of a workforce? Just think of the number of hours they would have to spend doing each individuals position just to keep the business running.
Yes, they said that they would not pay for working computers for their staff because the faster that people could "work", the faster that the company would lose money. They felt that much of their staff actively hurt the company by coming to work and that they did nothing useful.
Then why keep the unproductive / unuseful staff around collecting a paycheck?
Exactly - at least with BK, they told you they felt that they where a form of welfare for people.. what was the Marketing Firm's excuse?
-
@dafyre said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@nerdydad said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Of course they value their employees...
I've definitely, as a C level advisor, talked to companies that were extremely clear in that they did NOT value their employees and viewed them as a drain on resources but felt compelled to keep them employed.
Wow. That is kind of blunt. Do C-levels think that they can do better by themselves without the help of a workforce? Just think of the number of hours they would have to spend doing each individuals position just to keep the business running.
Yes, they said that they would not pay for working computers for their staff because the faster that people could "work", the faster that the company would lose money. They felt that much of their staff actively hurt the company by coming to work and that they did nothing useful.
Then why keep the unproductive / unuseful staff around collecting a paycheck?
Felt compelled to not fire them, it's amazing how many jobs exists because companies feel that they owe it to people.
-
-
And internet is back. UNMS reports outages nicely.
-
@donaldlandru said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
And internet is back. UNMS reports outages nicely.
Damn you were down for 13 hours?!
-
Yes, but given I wouldn't want to climb a 350' tower in a thunderstorm, I don't expect my ISP to either.
-
@donaldlandru said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Yes, but given I wouldn't want to climb a 350' tower in a thunderstorm, I don't expect my ISP to either.
They have grounding equipment for that. .. . put the guy in a faraday suit.
-
@donaldlandru said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Yes, but given I wouldn't want to climb a 350' tower in a thunderstorm, I don't expect my ISP to either.
Slackers
