The idea that written document, that may not even be relevant to current circumstances, is absolute law for a company and that changing procedures or standards without changing the document is absolutely unacceptable is at odds with my experience at every company I’ve worked for. The way things are done rarely matches ‘the book’, to the point that before an ISO 9000 (or similar) audit management makes a point of reminding everyone where they can find the correct procedures because no one actually knows what they or looks them up except for audit purposes.
Agreed.
I’ve had exactly one written job description, and that’s when I was a state employee. There have been a few written ethics and sexual harassment policies
Everywhere I’ve worked, nobody would hit excess of the minimum. They’d carefully craft their week to hit the exact minimum required and no more, and leave every day at the tick of 5.30pm.
Mine’s the opposite; there are lots of written job descriptions, employee handbooks, and procedures. But the vast majority of the they’re either written vaguely enough to be useless (employee handbooks are like this), or have lots of written steps that get ignored in practice. Posting a job description that doesn’t include ‘and other duties as assigned’ is pretty much a rookie mistake. Also the idea some people have that telling her ‘you could get fired for this’ is too abrupt is odd; employee handbooks generally tell you that there are a bunch of things you could get fired for right from the start.
It may not be ‘fair’ in some sense that the written procedures go out of date and get ignored, but it’s so common (especially in companies that want things like ISO 9001 certification) in my experience that talking about it like a rare bad thing is just odd.
“ISO 9001,” and in modern practice the emphasis on written procedures is rather far less important than it used to be. Technically, there is no rule that most activities have a procedure at all.
Textbook case of cherry-picked data, I think. There are a lot of studies that say those extra hours don’t really make much difference, and if anything cause a general malaise from exhausted staff.
Australia is famous for its leisurely lifestyle, but also its high productivity. A happy workplace is a productive workplace.
Or at least it used to be. It’s been a bit gloomy lately.
You just posted about carefully crafted laziness…
My point is it’s for maximum leisure time. Also I was pointing out that working within your hours and at minimum efficiency is not “laziness”.
From Ruken’s link:
“I’ve simply found the harder someone’s upbringing has been, the harder they’ll work…They just get it. They work hard, they’re polite, they get the work done, they don’t bitch and moan. They want to work, to learn, they’re not looking for excuses to do less work, which I find so many Australian-born workers do”
Translation: As an employer, I have more leverage over poor immigrants than educated domestic employees when hiring “parking inspectors, cab drivers, kitchen and cleaning staff” and other “shit jobs”.
Unfair. She’s meeting the ideal quota. Perhaps as a woman there are days when it gets a little harder for her to work. Perhaps she refused the advances of her supervisor.
What I want to know is with all these companies making widgets, why have I never seen one?