Nothing literary has ever occurred on Twitter. C’mon, Man! 
Do these employees have a binding employment contract that states as much? (Most U.S. employees aren’t under contract at all.) If they have a contract, and they think it was breached, they can bring it before the appropriate tribunal for adjudication.
I fail to see what their whining about it on the internet is supposed to accomplish.
I never worked in a plush place like that, but I did once work somewhere that a little FREE serve yourself lunch buffet was available. Like most folks, I’d eat my lunch and go back to work.
A year or so later a new Supervisor was hired and the FREE lunch that was promised to me when I was hired started costing 2 dollars. Yes, the food was worth more than 2 dollars but the resentment caused me to spend all of my lunch hour not working.
This same new supervisor taught us all to never clock in early or late because while one minute late would cause us to be docked 15 minutes, nobody cared how late we clocked out because we signed something saying that we would not be paid for time worked after we were scheduled to clock out.
I’m not sure if that supervisor ever understood why productivity took a nose dive but I’m guessing the lose of free labor made a big difference in the numbers.
No, that’s not the scientific method.
The scientific method is when you gather evidence and then form conclusions to explain why that evidence exists. And then design tests to see if your conclusions are right or wrong.
It will make them feel better. Why does anyone whine on the internet? It will also further paints their new boss as a short sighted douche bag who as no concept the the importance of employee morale.
Any CEO with half a brain can see that the moves he’s made since coming in, massive law offs, taking away remote work, possible legal jeopardy, rapidly changing guidance with no clear vision is sending morale on a straight line to the center of the earth. He should have been looking for ways to convince his employees that there is a reason to work rather look out for themselves by finding the nearest exit. The free lunch was a 10 cent band-aid on gaping chest wound, which he just ripped it off to save money.
But on the other hand he brought a sink to a staff meeting, which shows what a fun guy he is.
It doesn’t require strategy. Being high on the smell of one’s own farts will do it, seemingly.
Hey, I didn’t say it was a good idea. Just that it feels like Musk trying to decentralize verification, i.e. figure out how to offload responsibility for the problem to anyone other than himself.
Where are you seeing these Twitter employees whining on the internet?
As much coverage as I’ve been reading about the dumb shit Elon Musk is tweeting nowadays, it somehow took until today for me to discover that he has a habit of going to Elon Musk quote bot accounts and replying approvingly.
The degree of second hand cringe I get reading this somehow surpasses every single other dumb thing he’s done in the last year which I never imagined could be possible. Seriously, who is this man?
I don’t think “too much respect for authority” is an issue at Twitter at the moment.
:sigh:
I could write a lengthy post about dissertations, thesis, viva voce to try to prove a point. I won’t, as I said that being contrarian could be viewed as the Scientific method. Note the weasel word.
But this is not a dissertation or an academic committee. It’s a msg board for chit-chat, at least outside FQ, although there’s still a quite poor signal to noise ratio there, but I digress.
The big breaks in science is not when someone does what you describe, although that’s normally a small step on the way. The big breaks are when someone manages to take down an established truth/theory. (This is currently happening with the Big Bang, where some heavy hitters are voicing concern about it all (not that I understand any of it)). They are being contrarian. There is value in being contrarian, if only to make those adhering to their axiomatic thinking re-state and redefine their arguments for a newer audience, and in light of later research.
There is little value, in and of itself, to claim that the sky is polka dotted, contrary to common knowledge. But shutting down everything that’s contrarian by saying it has no virtue is stifling debate and telling the kid that he’s stupid: The Emperor does have clothes.
That underscores the stupidity of Musk’s (and others’) insistence on return-to-office policies for work that can be done from home by employees who are providing the comforts of home at their workplace at no cost to the company.
Er, what now? Most employees just kind of show up whenever and leave whenever and do whatever and the employer pays them whatever money happens to be available on payday?
I am sure what D_Anconia means is most employees don’t have a complex CBA or an individual employment contract that spells out in detail behaviour they cannot engage in. Most people have either nothing signed at all, or something generic that basically just says they’ll work and get paid.
Of course, everyone has a contract in the legal sense of an agreement to do X and be paid Y.
Not to defend @D_Anconia’s POV in this thread in general, but he 100% has a point here.
A employment contract is a deal where neither party can make any unilateral changes. Everything is spelled out and any nonadherence is legally punishable (at least in theory). As a union worker in the US under a collective bargaining agreement, neither I nor my employer may change anything about my work without a mutually binding written contract amendment with the union.
Some non-union employees also have employment contracts. But typically only high-flyers like VPs and above, super-star techies, etc., have contracts. Which are also legally enforceable and subject to renegotation, not to arbitrary abrogation.
What most US employees have is an employment agreement. Which is a totally different concept. At a Fortune 500 it’ll be written. At, say, Joe’s Diner or the local Kwik-E-Mart, it may be just a few spoken words. “You’ll work this much, I’ll pay you that much, vacation or sick time is this much, etc.” In most cases these are take-it-or-leave-it offers from the employer. With a little room around the edge to alter the employee’s starting rate of pay.
But implicit in the agreement, and explicit in US labor law, is that either party can alter or break the agreement at a moment’s notice in any way they choose. (Less doing a few certain prohibited things like discrimination).
You can suddenly insist you won’t work on Tuesdays, and the Boss can suddenly insist that the cafeteria is closed.
The other party’s remedy is simple: In response the employee can quit, or the employer can fire them. Or, less drastically, they can choose to just accept whatever change the other side just shoved down their throat. Possibly after some discussion to meet somewhere in the middle.
The parties have a general expectation the other side won’t chaotically alter the deal willy-nilly. But if the other party chooses to alter the deal willy-nilly, their response is the same: unilaterally terminate the employment relationship. After which the two sides must promptly settle up any money earned or owed.
This all sounds nice and symmetrical until you consider the balance of power between the Boss and each individual worker. Where (again baring things like discrimination) the Boss is free to treat each worker differently for any reason or no reason.
It also reminds their friends that they might be in the market for a new job. It’s pretty common to find a job because your friend works for a place that’s hiring.
Yeah, I doubt the free meals were part of any formal agreement or contract. It’s just a perk that gets shown off when a prospective employee is touring the campus. “Here’s our cafeteria where you can eat for free. We’ll be back here at lunchtime and you can see for yourself how Twitter takes care of its employees.”
Contract or not, it’s a valuable perk and removing it does represent a significant pay cut for employees who make regular use of it.
I mean, Jesus, the internet gets used for entitled whining all the time. Pick any one you like. But this happens to be a legitimate grievance.
Twitter is a remote company. Heracles nailed it up thread – the on-site cafeteria has likely been scaled down to almost nothing, and when Elon decreed that everyone would return to the office, someone probably pointed out to him that they weren’t staffed or funded to feed that many people anymore. His solution was to just kill that perk rather than figure out how to make it work. It was easier for him.
There are very few Twitter employees who have been used to free lunches who will now find themselves having to shell out of pocket for food because there are very few Twitter employees who have been in the office at all.
My impression is that Musk is wondering why twitter was spending 12 million per year on employee meals when there were hardly any employees on-site. Where was all that $ going?
These employees don’t have a binding contract to work for Twitter, either. If Musk makes the working arrangements less advantageous, the people who actually do the work that makes his company run can leave to work elsewhere. The people who are actually good at their jobs will be the first to go.
The reason Musk bought Twitter was to enable his own entitled whining. Musk has to realize that freedom of speech, which he claims to support, means more than him being allowed to say things. It means everyone is allowed to say things, even when he doesn’t like what they’re saying.
So Musk can promote a positive image of Twitter with his posts. And other people, including Twitter employees, can post things that put Twitter in a negative light.