Some thoughts about jobs in general and employers for that matter...

[Arab Nights (imported)]

The lack is of intelligence. The demand for human intelligence exceeds the supply. The world pours in education to make up the difference. While not mutually exclusive, intelligence and education are not the same thing and are not always mutually interchangeable. You see the same lack in management, unions, politics, religion, etc. It is the human condition and is not going to change.

Just an opinion.

[A-1 (imported)]

There are always state inspection boards, the GAO (http://www.gao.gov/) and Whistle-blower laws for protection. You can get a job with a license but you cannot get a job without a license.

[Losethem (imported)]

There are always state inspection boards, the GAO (http://www.gao.gov/) and Whistle-blower laws for protection. You can get a job with a license but you cannot get a job without a license.

Your points are valid. We had a state survey coming, I ranted and raved because they were not fixing problems. Then they fixed problems, used my labor to get through the survey, then starting making moves to get rid of me. I quit. It's easier to find a job if you leave another voluntarily instead of waiting for someone to fire you. And the stuff they were doing was nitpicky crap all the others were doing.

So I suppose I should say, "you're welcome" to them for getting them to get things organized 2-days before the state walked through the door. It's really telling when all the staff is looking for a job elsewhere. I didn't have that with the last place I worked. I only went to this one because it was close to home and not an hour drive away. I liked the previous place.

--LT

[george2u2 (imported)]

The Peter Principle. managers are promoted to their levels of incompetence or cream rises to the top where it soured.

Ego is another problem. Especially when "Not invented here" turns to the game of "Oh, no you don't you SOB."

[Sweetpickle (imported)]

Management by erection.

Not to be confused with management by exception. This is where management gets a hard on about

some percieved problem and stops all useful work to attempt a solution.

[erikboy (imported)]

Fhunter, efficiency does not depend much on how fast or efficiently employees work. It is mostly depending on how management is able to arrange bits and parts to work together so they can give their maximum. Also, it is as important to make that effort of a company as useful for a customer as possible, so he or she is able and willing to pay more, which in the end turns into profitability of your work and efficiency.

Such attitudes like you describe, sooner or later will have disastrous results. I've seen that. I would suggest you to start to seek for other job just in case your current company may suffer "setbacks". Or if you really have power and desire, you can fight from inside for the company you are working foe. It could earn you something one day. I can tell you that it is the same shit everywhere. only shit is located in different places.

[Uncle Flo (imported)]

As far as IT is concerned it is no longer new, magical nor highly regarded. Employers no longer want creativity they want low cost and adherence to the "company philosophy" (whatever that may be). Now IT people are regarded in the same light as any other office employees, thus their opinions are not of any exceptional value. They are just faceless extensions of management policy. --FLO--

[considering (imported)]

There's a big clue when you say you work for a "big" company. Those are perfect breeding grounds for errors, covered by other errors heightened by mistakes and then it goes around again. It's very difficult to find who actually has some authority to get anything done. (I can think of one American company, quite large, in which these things don't hapen and that's Koch Industries. It's privately owned so whatever is needed is almost immediately produced if it exists.) Is there something in you that would find a smaller, more personal organization to your liking? No criticism, please understand, but when experessions such as "corporate culture" begine to be discussed I always see conformity coming down the pike.

As to SAD...it may distract you to learn that there are those of us to whom gloomy, overcast days, days that are dark, short of sunshine make us happy. At one point I worked at a lab in Murmansk and the sun went away for 34 days...It was terrific. At one point I considered living in the Southern Hemisphere from April to October and then retreating back across the equaltor for the balance of the year. My two ideal places would have been San Carlos de Bariloche in the Andes and Fargo, North Dakota. If I want winter, I want guaranteed winter.

[A-1 (imported)]

Your points are valid. We had a state survey coming, I ranted and raved because they were not fixing problems. Then they fixed problems, used my labor to get through the survey, then starting making moves to get rid of me. I quit. It's easier to find a job if you leave another voluntarily instead of waiting for someone to fire you. And the stuff they were doing was nitpicky crap all the others were doing.

So I suppose I should say, "you're welcome" to them for getting them to get things organized 2-days before the state walked through the door. It's really telling when all the staff is looking for a job elsewhere. I didn't have that with the last place I worked. I only went to this one because it was close to home and not an hour drive away. I liked the previous place.

--LT

LT,

Look into getting on as a government-salaried inspector. Unless it is a peer-inspection system. Usually, it is best to do things anonymously and let the inspection/inspectors do the dirty work. Later, you can be part of the team to clean things up, if they let you. If you are in a situation where you DO have a peer inspection system next time try to get in the system and become a volunteer inspector. It gives you credibility.

[A-1 (imported)]

The over-arching philosophy that informs management attitudes toward labor in America were formed around the mid 19th to early 20th century. There were 3 major players in this formulation of management attitudes.

1. Frederick Winslow Taylor. The Principles of Scientific Management 1911.Here is a free pdf download. (http://archive.org/download/principleso ... 11tayl.pdf) This download is sponsored by Brigham Young University and was the first one I found in a GOOGLE search. I could have looked farther and maybe found another source. If you have a problem with downloading a free book from them, you may want to find another source. As you read it be sure to pick out the BAD attitudes toward the "common man" in favor of the "Ideal Man". It is pure nastiness. (http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/fred ... tard-ever/)

2. Max Weber HERE (http://danawilliams2.tripod.com/authority.html) is a copy of (artificial) Cliff Notes such as moi wants to gain a quick understanding. An even briefer cliff not version may be summed up in one word. BUREAUCRACY... if you hate this word, you will hate Max Weber.

3. Henri Fayol Henri hawked 14 Principles of Management. (http://managementinnovations.wordpress. ... anagement/) HE glorified management, minimized credit to subordinates and in short felt that all problems could be solved by layering in another level of management.

Of the 3, Henri Fayol was perhaps the best from a standpoint of fairness. Taylor was the WORST with his negative attitudes and beliefs about why people worked and what motivated them.

In America today Taylorism is rampant. IT is almost as bad as a feudal system in some industries.

American government has de-volved into a BUREAUCRACY... as far as I am concerned, however, American fiscal policy when left to the pure Capitalist will eventually become a feudal system that benefits only the richest. In short, it will end up being a Plutocracy.

These ARE my thoughts about jobs in general.