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 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.
-
@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 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.
Right, we are NOT talking about retaliation whatsoever. SO that does not apply, period.
-
You assume that an employer needing work done and having limited staff is a form of retaliation, it is not. So you are confused at the core of the issue. This is a discussion about getting work done and lazy workers not using "it's not in my job description" as an excuse to avoid working.
-
Ergo, since we are NOT talking about anything illegal, discriminatory or retaliatory, clearly changing your job requirements is legal.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
Ergo, since we are NOT talking about anything illegal, discriminatory or retaliatory, clearly changing your job requirements is legal.
A change in job requirements is completely legal, and in the initial link you posted, requires that the employee know of said changes before being tasked with them.
You can't be hired to perform X for the company and then the next day tasked with picking pineapples out of a tree.
You need legal notice.
Anyways, this is completely out of what the conversation was posted about.
Edit: granted the legal notice could be as simple as a meeting the day before hand stating so. I don't disagree here.
-
@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:
Ergo, since we are NOT talking about anything illegal, discriminatory or retaliatory, clearly changing your job requirements is legal.
A change in job requirements is completely legal, and in the initial link you posted, requires that the employee know of said changes before being tasked with them.
You can't be hired to perform X for the company and then the next day tasked with picking pineapples out of a tree.
You need legal notice.
Anyways, this is completely out of what the conversation was posted about.
Sure, but what is legal notice? You always have to be told of what you are expected to do before you would know to do it. Legal notice might just be a few minutes. Maybe there are details on that somewhere, but I bet you'll find that they are instantaneous and that they do not apply to tasks, only to changes in pay or working hours.
-
@scottalanmiller read my edit.
-
It's not, really. The "not my job" problem is generally one of two things:
- A union mentality whether from union workers (where they are actually not allowed to do tasks as needed) or normal workers where they are.
- Permissions as to who is allowed to do work. This often applies to MSPs.
-
For a lot of MSPs, the issue is that whoever oversees them at the customer curtails their rights to "do what is needed" either by refusing to pay for certain work or by refusing permission for access. This is incredibly common and might cause this kind of impression.
-
For example, we fired a customer who refused to let us fix his switches, then yelled at us for not fixing his switches. We were not allowed to do that task and therefore the switches were his responsibility. There is no "we can just fix it" option, it's literally illegal (and foolish) for us to do so.
-
So lets take a made up job description for an MSP.
The MSP's responsibility is to ensure that the server systems are operating as expected, mail flow works, file shares operate, backups functional.
If said MSP then point's back to "it's not us, its microsoft" then job clearly falls into their lap of getting whatever is wrong, fixed.
Correct?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
So lets take a made up job description for an MSP.
The MSP's responsibility is to ensure that the server systems are operating as expected, mail flow works, file shares operate, backups functional.
If said MSP then point's back to "it's not us, its microsoft" then job clearly falls into their lap of getting whatever is wrong, fixed.
Correct?
Depends, it's not that simple. Did they get to select Microsoft as the vendor? Are they taking responsibility for the vendor's issues? It's far from black and white. An IT MSP is there to implement what is selected, they are not the provider of the product and if the product has an issue, the MSP cannot be the one to fix it. Unless they have the authority to rip it out and replace it, then maybe. But what MSP is given that? It might be the MSP's scope to work with MS on getting a fix. But "make it work" is not a viable description.
-
@scottalanmiller Why would it not be this simple? Or maybe the terms need to be reworked with the MSP in the example to declare their duties and responsibilities to include "getting it working, and maintaining it".
Which is likely not what is in place at most organizations. So I get your point, but I also disagree at the point about the vendor taking responsibility for other vendors involved.
It isn't their responsibility to correct an issue, cause by Microsoft for example, but if the issue is due to a configuration issue with the system that they setup and are responsible to maintain, then they shouldn't play the "it's them not us" game.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
@scottalanmiller Why would it not be this simple? Or maybe the terms need to be reworked with the MSP in the example to declare their duties and responsibilities to include "getting it working, and maintaining it".
Which is likely not what is in place at most organizations. So I get your point, but I also disagree at the point about the vendor taking responsibility for other vendors involved.
It isn't their responsibility to correct an issue, cause by Microsoft for example, but if the issue is due to a configuration issue with the system that they setup and are responsible to maintain, then they shouldn't play the "it's them not us" game.
Look at it this way, if you want to put "unlimited" responsibility onto the MSP, the most you can do is task them at the full level of an internal IT department. And even internal IT has to share responsibility with the vendors.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
It isn't their responsibility to correct an issue, cause by Microsoft for example, but if the issue is due to a configuration issue with the system that they setup and are responsible to maintain, then they shouldn't play the "it's them not us" game.
Sure, if it is configuration. If it is, then the issue is not scope, it's false blame.
