Work hard or hardly work?

Great Debates
81

First sentence: I disagree. Using a personal example, I love owning books. Owning a pet makes me happier than I would otherwise be (IMO). I appreciate being able to buy birth control so my chances of contracting an unwanted pregnancy are lessened. I am healthier than I would be without health insurance. If my income were at the absolute minimum required to keep me alive, I can’t believe that I would be just as happy, or healthy, or comfortable as I am now. If I had to work two or three jobs to support my lifestyle, I wouldn’t have the emotional energy, or the time, to pursue things I enjoy and/or would find fulfilling if I had them as work, like writing fiction or playing on the internet. :wink:

I don’t believe that enjoying one’s job and working hard will, by nature, cause money to fly into one’s bank account. Other things are required like good luck and good connections.

Second sentence: I agree, somewhat. But a person with $1 in reserve now will possibly be in the very dubious care of their local government once they retire, or will not be able to retire until they cannot physically work anymore–while those with $1,000,000 in reserve now, will possibly be summering in their second home on the Maine coast.

Now tangentially wondering to what degree the current crappy corporate culture (CCCC) that discourages those who might otherwise be putting in an honest, or even innovative day at work, ensures high incomes for consultants. Once the revolution comes (when/if the CCCC en masse realizes that helping its own employees to put in an honest, or even innovative day at work is more cost-effective than hiring a consultant), they’ll have to find work that isn’t an income-inflated temp job, I guess. In the meantime I can keep workin’ on my novel–with the understanding that success as a writer entails a very similar good luck, good connections, and effort (and sometimes even talent) to that of anyone else successful in their work.

(How’s that for a first post)

82

Jobless rates are at the worst they’ve been in 8 years, and still I am employed despite my slacker strategy. My new bosses are on my jock so hard - I’m making my own schedule and I would have to say I operate at about 15% of my potential productivity. It’s all in the perception. Tell them it will take 4 hours when you can do it in 1 and then turn it in in 3 - now you look like a super star and you got in 10 posts on the SDMB!

DaLovin’ Dj

83

msmith537, I received full scholarship to college, graduated summa cum laud, got a fellowship to grad school, and, again, am about to graduate summa cum laud. I have worked my share of my temp jobs. I was competent, friendly, and professional, but I did not do more than was required. Honestly, what more do people expect of a receptionist than that she answer the phone, send faxes, open mail, etc? I took temp jobs to pay the bills, not out of any desire to get ahead in the corporate world.

I love my current job as the education coordinator at a local history museum. I bust my ass at this job. However, I’m moving out of the area and no one is hiring in my field where I’m moving. I’ll probably go back to temping for awhile and resume my “slacker” ways.

84

My three cents:
Cent one: The best workers get the most work. It’s the path of least resistance for those doling out the work.
Cent two: I won’t speak for the temp world, but in the office, it is cutthroat. Too many people and too few promotions/raises means that you have to perform. I’ve seen people ‘skate’ by, not looking for promotions and accepting (though complaining about) minimal raises. These people did not put in the effort, and eventually priced themselves out of jobs.
Cent three: I’ve given up hope for the ‘fulfilling’ job. I find the least unacceptable way to earn my current salary. Before I read this post, I talked with a coworker about this. As much as many people think working a hobby would be perfect, once it becomes your meal-ticket, it’s no longer a hobby.

85

I think part of the debate stems from what is meant by being a “good worker” or by being a “slacker.” Is a good worker required to give 110% to the company? Or is it enough to perform your job competently? If I perform all of my tasks by 3:30 and don’t ask for more, am I a slacker? I think I was a good temp. I showed up on time, did my work, and was pleasant to my co-workers. Did I lie awake at night thinking, “Gosh, if we only did X, we could make our filing system so much more efficient”? Most definitely not.

86

How the holy hell did I miss this thread when it last went around? What a great read. Some excellent points made all around!

I have some comments to make toward the “efficiency/management” crowd. Ever wonder why corporations spend so much money on these sorts of things when the end result is just to make the bulk of their labor worry about how much more they have to do just to keep their job on something resembling a secure footing? Then who rakes in the extra cash, there? Oh, sure, consultants make great money. They get part of the income of people that get fired, and they get part of the income of all the extra work people do without extra pay.

Well, hey, not everything is a meritocracy, right? So When i am hired at a place and told that I will be responsible for X, and I take care of X, then I’m not doing enough? Of course I’m not. I need to take care of X and Y while only receiving pay for X on the off chance that someone will decide to pay me for doing X and Y some undetermined time in the future? How’s this sound:
“Sure, Ford, I’ll buy your truck. Here’s the deal, though. You have to provide me with better than standard tires, a CD player, and air conditioning. If everything works out like I feel it should, I’ll go ahead and pay you the extra money for it, ok?”

:rolleyes:

And people wonder why workers are so disenchanted with working life.

A poster on page one made a great analogy to electronics. We build our circuit boards and choose our power supplies so that components are working at approximately 50%-75% capacity (usually 50 but it can’t always be helped). This enables the components’ inherent tolerances be ignored and keeps things running well for a looooooong time. Shouldn’t ever even have to think about anything going wrong with them from heat stress or anything else one can imagine, including mechanical failure of the solder joints themselves. So why are workers so often hired and told, “Here is your requirement. This is what we’ll pay you for it. But, if you ever want to get ahead, you’ll have to work at some undetermined level above your requirement and maybe we’ll notice it and consider you worth the money.” Now, hey, I myself just got a $6000/year raise by asking for it, so I know companies exist that will listen to their employees. But not every company is like this.

If you feel you aren’t being listened to, do not do anything more than is required. Maybe spruce it up a little so that in case you honestly screw up (though or without your fault) then it can be overlooked, but don’t bust your ass. That’s a waste of your value as a worker. Let them miss out on your fire.

Furthermore, I detest the notion that everyone has this perfect job suited to them. I like what I do, and there are several other tasks I would also enjoy doing for money: writing fiction, programming, designing video games in some capacity (though no artwork, not very good at that), teaching… really, a great many things that I really love to do in my spare time… any of these things I would do for pay. But once I put that effort into a pay scale it ceases to mean anything for me: I am using this effort to please or serve someone else, and in doing so they are willing to let me live at some slightly negotiable level of comfort. As much as I love playing video games, if I was a paid beta-tester it would change the paradign completely.

Sorry, no job can be that. In capitalism we are all whores… which isn’t a problem, mind you, it just needs to be realized that what you are willing to sell is only a fraction of everything you do in life, and you should never offer for free what you could (or should) get paid for (or benefit in some other way). otherwise the market paradigm is off-balance and pricing isn’t accurate. :wink:

87

I don’t think a good worker is required to give 110%, but I also don’t think that simply completing tasks necessarily means they were performed competently. The type of job matters a great deal. I really can’t think of an essentially clerical job with tasks that can be completed, but yet not be done well. If every thing is misfiled, or phone messages are wrong, or if a letter is full of typos, you can’t really say the tasks were completed. If that’s the sort of job you have,then if the tasks are done, you’re not slacking. Other jobs are different, and don’t necessarily involve being assigned a specific task. For example, my job involves proving that people on parole have violated the conditions they agreed to (IANAL) and recommending if they should be returned to prison. I can either investigate and build a case, or I can negotiate a plea that “gives away the store” because I don’t feel like doing any work . In either situation, the case was completed, but in only one was it done competently.

Doreen