# Why do some management perks bother me so much? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 21, 2016, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-management-perks-bother-me-so-much/775297 "2016-12-21T14:59:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2016, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-management-perks-bother-me-so-much/775297/61 "2016-12-30T12:39:24Z")
What you say is true as a matter of the letter of the law. At least as applied at the C-suite level. The comp plan & perks for the several layers immediately below are solely within management’s discretion. As are wages & bennies all the way down to the janitor. What’s really going on at and near the top is a lot more like a group of frat boys helping each other to the stuff in somebody else’s kitchen. There’s a very large element of mutual back scratching going on. There seems to be a “race to the top” for executive compensation even as there’s a race to the bottom for everybody else. Which is very galling for those people in the latter race whose position gives them a front row seat to watch the people in the former race. Example being **Icarus** in [post #15](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19870718&postcount=15) upthread. As to privately held businesses, there is a spectrum. Some places the owner(s) run it like a benevolent worker’s co-op, spreading the value created across everyone who had a hand in creating it. At the other extreme, some places the owner(s) keep almost all the value created and pay even the high ranking people the absolute minimum necessary to prevent a ruinous level of turnover. The much more common middle ground includes a lot of the behavior **Icarus** reports. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2016, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-management-perks-bother-me-so-much/775297/62 "2016-12-31T02:35:38Z")
> [@Miss\_Gnomer](#): > > The biggest perk I get bothered by: the flexibility of their work time. Many high level managers are able to move things around, arrive an hour later, “work from home”, go out to lunch for hours … and the lower level people are the ones on time clocks, stuck to a desk or a location that they can NOT leave - even if all their work is done. > > As a lower level person you have to ask for permission to leave an hour early if you need to see a doctor (or take time off with no pay), you can’t just walk out of work a bit early. > > Of course there are some downsides to having to work outside normal times for management (the travel time that is never counted etc) … but when the receptionist is 15 minutes late from public transport delays, it is considered their bad planning and their fault. I also struggle with the idea of higher paid people working “hard” … how hard does the toilet cleaner work vs management!!! > > And not to mention the horror of being tied to a desk all day with little to do and absolutely no way of generating work … but you’ve got to be there to get paid. I don’t think that’s a management/line staff type perk, so much as it’s salaried vs. hourly. I mean, I’m salaried, and perform more or less the same sort of role in my company’s IT department that a senior NCO does in the military (subject matter expert, leader, getter of shit done), and I have pretty much all those perks. The only difference is that technically I have a supervisor who ostensibly has veto power over any of that stuff, but in 17 years in IT, I can’t say that I’ve ever had one give two shits if I was taking half the afternoon off for a dentist appointment, or even just bailing an hour or two early on a summer Friday afternoon. What strikes me as most shady about the companies I’ve worked for is that the C-level types seem to ALWAYS land on their feet, no matter how clueless or incompetent they are. I mean, I’ve known a couple whose mismanagement and idiocy really ought to have had them living behind a dumpster somewhere, yet these clowns got shit-canned for incompetence, and still ended up as VP of something at another healthcare company. I have to figure that it’s either extremely good networking on these guys’ part, or (my pet theory) recruiters and HR people have a nasty habit of hiring people within the existing job titles, and never actually work a promotion into a new hire. In other words, if they have a C-level opening, they’re not going to hire a rock-star director or manager, they’ll hire some retread C-level doofus because, you know, C-level. So these asshats got the job titles, and they’re set for life apparently. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2016, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-management-perks-bother-me-so-much/775297/63 "2016-12-31T03:23:57Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I don’t think that’s a management/line staff type perk, so much as it’s salaried vs. hourly. > > I mean, I’m salaried, and perform more or less the same sort of role in my company’s IT department that a senior NCO does in the military (subject matter expert, leader, getter of shit done), and I have pretty much all those perks. > > The only difference is that technically I have a supervisor who ostensibly has veto power over any of that stuff, but in 17 years in IT, I can’t say that I’ve ever had one give two shits if I was taking half the afternoon off for a dentist appointment, or even just bailing an hour or two early on a summer Friday afternoon. Some of it has less to do with salaried vs hourly and more to do with the particular role. A payroll clerk may be able to shift their schedule by an hour without a problem but that doesn’t mean a receptionist can. And that flexibility often goes both ways - maybe the manager can work from home while others cannot , but maybe the manager is expected to respond to phone calls and emails nights/weekends/holidays and vacation days while others are not. I actually am not permitted to work my regularly scheduled hours from home and I’m sure some of the people I supervise think that it’s some sort of perk if I leave early on a Friday - but it’s not really. They see me leave work early on Friday, but didn’t see me on the phone dealing with some issue from 9-11 pm Tuesday night. Or realize that I don’t get paid extra when I drive 3 hours each way to a six hour meeting and the only way I can get that time back is by adjusting my schedule the other 4 days _if_ my workload allows for it. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2016, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-management-perks-bother-me-so-much/775297/64 "2016-12-31T03:29:23Z")
> [@bump](#): > > What strikes me as most shady about the companies I’ve worked for is that the C-level types seem to ALWAYS land on their feet, no matter how clueless or incompetent they are. I mean, I’ve known a couple whose mismanagement and idiocy really ought to have had them living behind a dumpster somewhere, yet these clowns got shit-canned for incompetence, and still ended up as VP of something at another healthcare company. I have to figure that it’s either extremely good networking on these guys’ part, or (my pet theory) recruiters and HR people have a nasty habit of hiring people within the existing job titles, and never actually work a promotion into a new hire. In other words, if they have a C-level opening, they’re not going to hire a rock-star director or manager, they’ll hire some retread C-level doofus because, you know, C-level. > > So these asshats got the job titles, and they’re set for life apparently. That’s the god damned truth. The most lucrative job in the world is incompetent CEO. Get hired with a nice bonus, fuck up for a couple of years, “move on to other opportunities” with a golden parachute and repeat. ---
**Author:** ![Mama\_Zappa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/71e660/32.png) [@Mama\_Zappa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mama_Zappa)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2017, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-management-perks-bother-me-so-much/775297/65 "2017-01-03T17:14:19Z")
> [@jz78817](#): > > a couple of employers ago, the upper management had company-provided vehicles, but they were included as taxable income which also meant they were prohibited from expensing mileage even if they used a personally-owned car for business related travel… That seems a bit odd. If they received a company car, and its cost was considered income, they should have been able to offset that income by the cost of miles driven for business purposes. My father had company cars for his work the last 10-15 years he worked, but he DID use it for business - he was a sales representative for a packaging company and put many thousands of miles on it. IIRC, he had to reimburse the company for personal miles driven on that car. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2017, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-management-perks-bother-me-so-much/775297/66 "2017-01-03T17:37:45Z")
> [@Mama\_Zappa](#): > > That seems a bit odd. If they received a company car, and its cost was considered income, they should have been able to offset that income by the cost of miles driven for business purposes. I think \*\*jz78817 \*\*may be talking about a slightly different situation that has nothing really to do with the personal use of a company vehicle being considered taxable income because (s)he mentions expensing mileage, not a tax deduction. My employer assigns vehicles based on how many miles an employee drives in an average year- over the threshold, you are assigned a vehicle, and under the threshold you can use your personal vehicle and get reimbursed for mileage. Assigned vehicles come with a gas card, an EZ pass and fleet maintenance, so if you have an assigned vehicle, you don’t get mileage as you have no expenses. Even if the gas card wasn’t working and you had to pay out of pocket- you would be reimbursed for exactly the cost of the gas, not a per-mile rate. If you have an assigned vehicle you can’t get reimbursed mileage for using your personal vehicle - because you weren’t supposed to be using your personal vehicle for business to begin with. You could still deduct that mileage on your tax return - in the unlikely event that it was worthwhile since presumably you used the assigned vehicle for most of your driving. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-management-perks-bother-me-so-much/775297/67 "2017-01-05T13:46:32Z")
> [@Miss\_Gnomer](#): > > The biggest perk I get bothered by: the flexibility of their work time. Many high level managers are able to move things around, arrive an hour later, “work from home”, go out to lunch for hours … and the lower level people are the ones on time clocks, stuck to a desk or a location that they can NOT leave - even if all their work is done. > > As a lower level person you have to ask for permission to leave an hour early if you need to see a doctor (or take time off with no pay), you can’t just walk out of work a bit early. > > Of course there are some downsides to having to work outside normal times for management (the travel time that is never counted etc) … but when the receptionist is 15 minutes late from public transport delays, it is considered their bad planning and their fault. I also struggle with the idea of higher paid people working “hard” … how hard does the toilet cleaner work vs management!!! > > And not to mention the horror of being tied to a desk all day with little to do and absolutely no way of generating work … but you’ve got to be there to get paid. Again…if you as a manager couldn’t work from home, come and go as you please or take long lunches, then why BE one? I don’t want to work “hard” cleaning shit, grinding through bullshit make-work or write code 20 hours a day. I want to get paid a lot of money, spend most of my time meeting with clients over lunch or whatever, and opine on corporate strategy. I had to work very hard to get to a position where I don’t have some asshole standing over me tapping his watch if my train is late.😉 It’s a different kind of work. It takes me 5 minutes to clean my fucking toilet. And no one’s going to lose any money or their job if I screw that up. > [@bump](#): > > I have to figure that it’s either extremely good networking on these guys’ part, or (my pet theory) recruiters and HR people have a nasty habit of hiring people within the existing job titles, and never actually work a promotion into a new hire. In other words, if they have a C-level opening, they’re not going to hire a rock-star director or manager, they’ll hire some retread C-level doofus because, you know, C-level. > > So these asshats got the job titles, and they’re set for life apparently. That’s your “pet” theory? Of course recruiters only hire laterally. No one is going to take the risk of promoting someone into a higher role. Best case scenario, you will get hired at your same level and then promoted after a probationary period. And generally, regardless of what your actual title is, they look for: how large of a P&L did you manage for executives how much sales did you generate for salespeople how many people did you manage for managers what certifications or skills can they check off for worker bees ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-management-perks-bother-me-so-much/775297/68 "2017-01-05T14:47:23Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > That’s your “pet” theory? Of course recruiters only hire laterally. No one is going to take the risk of promoting someone into a higher role. Best case scenario, you will get hired at your same level and then promoted after a probationary period. I’m failing to see how hiring a c-level person of questionable competence who got shit-canned somewhere else for being poor at their job is a less risky decision than hiring someone up a step. I mean, someone may have a VP title, but the director in the next department over may have more underlings, a bigger budget and more P&L responsibility than he does. Why in the world would someone hire the first guy over the second, except for the title? This is one reason the job market sucks so bad; it gives undue weight to illusory and meaningless things like job titles and buzzwords, and not enough to things like the work you actually did. It essentially rewards people who work at places with “title inflation” and penalizes those who allow people to take on more responsibility without necessarily giving them the commensurate job title. I mean, my former boss was a director, and when he picked up my group as part of his existing one, he picked up a group that was formerly headed by a VP level position. So we had a director with an existing set of responsibilities picking up a group formerly headed by a VP. No boost in title. Come 4 years later, he switched jobs… STILL a director. He got fucked on the deal because they were stingy with the promotions, not because he’s not competent enough or unable to do the job. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-management-perks-bother-me-so-much/775297/69 "2017-01-05T18:45:53Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I’m failing to see how hiring a c-level person of questionable competence who got shit-canned somewhere else for being poor at their job is a less risky decision than hiring someone up a step. Because there’s a huge difference between being in charge and being assistant to the guy in charge. Ideally you want to hire a competent C-level exec. Not an incompetent one or an inexperienced one who is going to “grow into their role”. It depends though. A VP of a 500 person multi billion dollar business unit may be qualified to be CEO if a company of equivalent size. One of thousands of "VP"s at a bank who are essentially junior to mid level managers might not be. > [@bump](#): > > I mean, someone may have a VP title, but the director in the next department over may have more underlings, a bigger budget and more P&L responsibility than he does. Why in the world would someone hire the first guy over the second, except for the title? That was my point above. > [@bump](#): > > This is one reason the job market sucks so bad; it gives undue weight to illusory and meaningless things like job titles and buzzwords, and not enough to things like the work you actually did. It essentially rewards people who work at places with “title inflation” and penalizes those who allow people to take on more responsibility without necessarily giving them the commensurate job title. Sort of. The job market sucks so bad IMHO because there really isn’t a lot of “work” that needs doing. At least not by people earning six figures a year. Also, no one really cares about the “work” you do. “Work” gets outsourced to vendors or guys in India or wherever. It’s all about joining an overclass of overeducated, overpaid corporate drones to sit in meetings all day. > [@bump](#): > > I mean, my former boss was a director, and when he picked up my group as part of his existing one, he picked up a group that was formerly headed by a VP level position. So we had a director with an existing set of responsibilities picking up a group formerly headed by a VP. No boost in title. Come 4 years later, he switched jobs… STILL a director. He got fucked on the deal because they were stingy with the promotions, not because he’s not competent enough or unable to do the job. That’s because before a company is going to give you a big title with money and stock options and all that, they are going to submit you to all sorts of scrutiny to make sure you are worthy of such an elevated station in life. They will require years of you performing at “above expectations” (which really doesn’t make sense when you think about it). You must already be doing the work (which begs the question as to why your organization is so screwed up it’s directors have to carry the weight of a VP), they will often have you create a business case for the company paying you for the work you are already doing. They’ll need to post the position online and do a job search, just in case there is someone else out there who is better at doing your job than you. They might even hire a firm like PwC or Deloitte to come in with their compensation and organizational change consultants to make sure you are evaluated by the smartest 28 year olds with 18 months of experience that they can find. Then assuming someone’s nephew or cousin doesn’t want the job, they might consider promoting you with a deferred 5% pay increase. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-management-perks-bother-me-so-much/775297.md?page=3)