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:
With a service provider this is called a "scope" and it is very important.
Very much so, and the "scope" for a service provider can cover everything from restarting a Windows Service to the Moon.
It needs to be outlined and described. Without it, its a he said, she said cluster of finger pointing.
Yes, but it also creates a lot of cost. Scoping is super expensive.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
This is employee abuse, and needs to be addressed. If you've never run plumbing, and your job description you were hired for has nothing at all to do with plumbing, would you pick up materials and build a bathroom in the business because they asked?
Of course you wouldn't. There are people who do this kind of work for a living, they are the professional for the job space.
You'd hire them for these kinds of tasks. Even the non-trade skill tasks have professionals.
Is that really true? I thin that most people would do that. If you are an employee and you are asked to do something that isn't illegal or dangerous, on what grounds would you refuse to do it?
-
@scottalanmiller it's certainly true. If I hired you Scott to set up my linux servers, not the infrastructure. Would you then go and setup the infrastructure when you were hired to do a specific function.
If you're hired for a specific set of tasks, then being asked to do a completely separate set of tasks means you essentially interviewed for a position, accepted the terms of that position, and began work for that position.
It's another job entirely, when it becomes the "norm".
-
@DustinB3403 said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
@scottalanmiller it's certainly true. If I hired you Scott to set up my linux servers, not the infrastructure. Would you then go and setup the infrastructure when you were hired to do a specific function.
Yes, 100% of the time, not a doubt in the world. I can't believe that the question even gets asked. Of course you would.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
If you're hired for a specific set of tasks, then being asked to do a completely separate set of tasks means you essentially interviewed for a position, accepts the terms of that position etc.
It's another job entirely, when it becomes the "norm".
And? People do this every day. What you interview for and what you are expected to do day to day rarely line up and there is no reason for them to do so. Is it practical to bait and switch roles? No. Is there any grounds for you to refuse to do the work? No.
-
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.
