In defense of lazy Employees

a reply to: James1982

Your argument is valid only if the lazy employee doesn't complain about their low wage and doesn't complain about not advancing in their job.

It's fine if you want to do the bare minimum just to get by...but you have no right to complain about your job then.

It's fine if you want to do the bare minimum just to get by...but you have no right to complain about your job then.

By the same token, it's fine if you want to pay the bare minimum but you have no right to complain about your lazy employees.

originally posted by: BlueMule

It's fine if you want to do the bare minimum just to get by...but you have no right to complain about your job then.

By the same token, it's fine if you want to pay the bare minimum but you have no right to complain about your lazy employees.

I absolutely agree.

IMO, a lot of the "lazy workers" are doing nothing more than conserving energy for their 2nd or even 3rd jobs. You can't possibly give 100% of yourself at each job. A great portion of this problem could be alleviated by simply paying workers a living wage so that they didn't need that 2nd job. THEN they would have every reason in the world to give 100%.

a reply to: LeatherNLace

I had a retired school teacher work for me in a call center once. She was an amazing employee, and I repeatedly tried to promote her. She always refused, and told me, "I don't even do that good. I only try enough to hit my metrics goals, and thats it".

She was right. She was always at goal. Never failed to meet goal.

She also told me, "I don't want any more stress. I am happy just coming to work, putting in my time, and going home to see my grandkids". I understand this viewpoint. Some days I long for it, too.

originally posted by: James1982
I appreciate the replies guys but you really aren't addressing the topic.

Why is it OK for an employer to do the bare minimum, but not the employee?

^^That's this thread distilled down for anyone confused. I'd appreciate it if we could stay on topic.

What you are forgetting about is the blood and sweat that the owner put into building his business, the sleepless nights and the sacrifices of time, money and effort.

In my line of work I'm exposed to business owners all the time, mostly construction and landscaping companies, as well as their employees. The one thing that most of them have in common is: they work a lot of hours. Heck, I know one owner that hasn't taken a day off from work for over 10 years. Even when his guys are off, he's working...writing estimates, repairing vehicles, organizing and prepping for the next job. If he took a day off and was lazy, maybe the world would stop turning.

Now to address lazy employees: If the culture for the employees is to be lazy, I'm not going to work there. I don't want to just "get by" I want a job where I'm challenged and have to constantly rise to meet the challenges.

So sorry, I don't see where it's acceptable that employees are lazy. Especially if they're working for sustenance.

originally posted by: James1982
I appreciate the replies guys but you really aren't addressing the topic.

Why is it OK for an employer to do the bare minimum, but not the employee?

An employee CHOOSES to accept a contract of employment. If an employee is being lazy, and laziness is not acceptable in the contract then they can't bleat if they get sacked.
All these arguments that people are forced into jobs because of economic circumstances are not the employers concern.
I don't care what the local employment situation is or the personal circumstances of individuals, if I agree a pay rate with someone for a certain job to be done I expect them to do it. If they don't they won't get any work with me again.
Don't like the pay rate offered? Don't agree to work for me, simple.

originally posted by: Aazadan


Pay is irrelevant. Either you have a good work ethic or you don't.

I don't think it's quite that simple.

Employment, for most people, is not a choice. If they don't work, they don't eat, they have no roof over their head. When you are basically forced to be employed in order to live (a rather new and western point of view) it changes things.

I had a co-worker/ work friend back when I worked warehouses that I thought was pretty lazy, he seemed aloof and didn't seem to care about his job. The truth is he didn't. After he quit we became better friends as I no longer felt the resentment of carrying weight for someone else.

He ended up moving to back to Alaska. If you ever watch those discovery channel shows about those homesteaders up there, he is basically doing the same thing. He has to work incredibly, incredibly hard for every single thing he has up there. And guess what? He thrives? Every time I talk with him there is a light and energy in his voice that I never saw when he lived here.

He has very strong work ethic as his life depends on it. He has no boss, nobody telling him what to do, yet he thrives in an incredibly harsh environment under his own control.

If you were to judge him by his work performance you'd think he'd be dead within a week living up there, and that would be a mistake.

It's similar to judging a person's intelligence based on their success at school. Everyone probably had a family member or knew someone that did bad in school, then it was discovered they were actually highly intelligent and not being challenged, switched to more advanced programs and then they thrived. Someone could say "you are either smart, or you aren't" and then call the person stupid because they failed their classes. Not even considering when given a challenge that person could demonstrate intelligence higher than their peers they are being judged against.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: James1982

Why is it OK for an employer to do the bare minimum, but not the employee?
.

It's a contract. A company is hiring you for an agreed upon compensation and package of benefits in exchange for an agreed upon level of effort. The door is always open for the employee to walk out of and seek a better offer, but that would take effort which a lazy employee probably has a serious lack of. So long as the company is compensating the employee at the mutually agreed upon rate, the company is upholding their end of the contract. If, however, the employee fails to put forth the agreed upon level of effort and workmanship, they are in breach of the contract and can justifiably be impacted by the consequences.

Indeed it is a contract, the employer agrees to provide money in exchange for time. Working labor jobs my whole life until recently, not once was level of effort ever discussed during the interview or mentioned on the paperwork. There is no agreed upon level of effort. There is simply "whenever we want, we can/will fire you, for anything we want"

The employee is then left to determine the required level of effort they must display in order to retain their position,usually done by observing the effort put forth by co workers, or using the trial-and-error method of testing the employer. That's the reality of the situation on the ground, and has been for a long time. The movie "Office Space" was made something like 15 years ago and the situation has continued to degrade.

If an employee is paid an hourly wage they are not trading labor for money, they are trading time for money. How good of a value that time they purchase is the true thing to consider for an employer.

If an employee is paid salary THEN they are trading labor for money, not time for money. THEN it becomes an issue of whether or not you are providing the agreed upon level of labor, instead of whether the time you are selling is of good value.

Hourly workers are not paid to complete tasks, or to provide labor, they are paid for time. Every job I've had I always finish early, managers tell you to run the clock out sitting on your butt and not leave early. Why? If the agreement was about labor, I should be able to leave, as I provided the required amount of labor.

My point? As long as you are present for your paid-by-the-hour job, you are fulfilling your end of the bargain. You are selling your TIME for their MONEY, and the transaction was completed by both parties.

If employers want employees to provide value and labor they should start paying for it, instead of paying for time.

A lazy hourly employee who does the bare minimum is not failing to provide his end of the deal. He is giving you time just like you agreed upon. His time is the product being sold, whether that product is of good value is up to the employer, but it's not true to say that lazy employees are failing their end of the deal.

If I purchase a new couch, I agree to give the store money in exchange for a couch. Once purchased, I posses the couch, and the store has my money. Both parties upheld their end of the bargain. If I get home and the couch isn't very comfortable, or it's way too small, or it falls apart quickly that means the couch was a bad value, that doesn't mean the store failed to uphold their requirement of providing me a couch.

If an employer purchases 8 hours of a person's time, and the person is present for 8 hours, they completed their end of the deal. If the employer finds out that 8 hours isn't as good as they thought it was going to be, that means the value of time being sold is low, not that the employee is failing to uphold their end of the bargain.

originally posted by: James1982
Working labor jobs my whole life until recently, not once was level of effort ever discussed during the interview or mentioned on the paperwork.

I've always explained the work rate I expect if someone is labouring for me, before agreeing the work, and within the first 5 minutes of actually doing the work.
If they don't meet their side of the agreement then no more work for them. I know loads of blokes I'd call in a heartbeat for a job, and I know loads who I won't, and I'll tell others that I would not have them working for me to save them finding out for themselves.
Why are you crying for the workers? Every one of them CHOOSES to accept a job or not.
Economic conditions and personal circumstances are no consideration of mine if I want someone to do some paid work, agree the work for the pay rate, or CHOOSE not to.

originally posted by: Cancerwarrior
It sounds like you have never had the oppurtunity of working a job like this. Otherwise you would see just how relevant pay is.

When I was paid like I was a valued employee, thats when I acted like one. When I was treated like a lazy fieldhand, thats when I acted like one.

You're right, I've never had a job like that. Since my first job I've always gotten minimum wage or less, skilled labor or not. My most recent job was at a local college part time teacher/part time tutor, officially the job was 25 hours per week, unofficially it was about 45. Still paid the same $7.45/hour, and even required a college degree. Eventually I wasn't rehired in the annual rebids for our jobs because I would have had to agree to "do all the work" in 20 hours instead, a 20% cut.

I've never even worked for a company where an employee was treated like they were valued, as far as I'm concerned they don't exist though I've heard plenty of people claim to have jobs where they are.

I still don't see how working less hard does anything though, it punishes the customer not the business. I'm on the side that thinks companies exist to serve the community, as such as an employee your first concern should be serving that community, getting paid is a side benefit. Not doing your best is simply a way of saying to hell with society.

Besides, I don't see the point in worrying about money. Thanks to current banking/economic policies I'm never going to be able to afford the more expensive things in life like a house, family, or retirement so why worry about it? The only difference between say 10,000 and 50,000/year is the illusion of having a future.

OK, now I know you have never done factory work. Every product that comes out of it is the same regardless of how well I pulled my lever or operated my machine that day.

Correct, I've never worked factory work. I did a little bit as a delivery driver and in fast food, and otherwise it has been all tech jobs like web development, database design, 3d modeling, computer programming, and so on.
I bet that even in factory work however you could find ways to improve efficiency or create a better product if you wanted to.

I'll explain this one more time to you. There is this thing called money. If I did not need it to live in this world, I would never work for another one of these co**sucking companies ever again. And neither would anybody else.

Then maybe work for someone else? You could do government work. Why help a company get rich exploiting your labor when you can make your city/state/country a better place?

We've all been screwed by companies. Right now my current project is a database driven ecommerce website, inventory management, and point of sale system for a local company. I gave them a quote after I got the requirements (and I gave them a huge deal in the first place... I was just happy to have the work). They came back a couple weeks later and changed everything then said they would pay less. They just came back two days ago after getting a beta copy, wanting a few additional features, "renegotiating" again saying take yet another lower wage or they walk and I'm left with a useless product, and then finally taking the cost of the hardware/software they need to run the thing (that I told them they would need to get upfront) out of my compensation. When all is said and done my final pay rate is going to be approximately $3/hour for 200 hours worth of work.

That's just the way corporations are and I'm making enough to live for a month so... it could be much worse.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
At one point in the US's history, "equality' related to opportunity, not possession/wealth. Yes, there are some very wealthy people who are given greater opportunity. But there is still plenty of meat on that bone for a stepper with a brain.

To be fair, at that point in the US's history the wage gaps (for those that weren't slaves or members of company towns) were much smaller.

originally posted by: James1982
Employment, for most people, is not a choice. If they don't work, they don't eat, they have no roof over their head. When you are basically forced to be employed in order to live (a rather new and western point of view) it changes things.

Most of us have to work, I just don't see why a low pay rate justifies not doing a good job. I see where people are coming from but I just don't agree because I take pride in my work regardless of what I'm doing. If you do your best and constantly look for ways to improve, you'll get better. Why not seek to make yourself the best at what you're doing? Whether that's flipping burgers, competing with chinese workers that can charge 5 cents/hour, or working one of those mythical good jobs.

a reply to: James1982

I've been enjoying this thread. It has an interesting proposition and I find it interesting that so many are not, in fact, responding to that proposition at all but reading into in all manner of things that simply are not there.

I too, was raised, to do the best I could in whatever I did; however I was also raised with the concept that respect and loyality go both ways, up and down, and that it starts with employers treating their employees with respect and loyality.

That said, the OP makes an excellent case for the "just lazy enough to keep the job employee". If the ideal is that Employers only treat there employees with the least regard as possible (to supposedly increase profits) then it only follows that an employee should only do the least required to retain their position.

Leaders lead best by example - and the OP is only stating what many employers are teaching their employees by their own actions.

Never require somebody to do something that you won't do yourself - another thing I was taught.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I forgot my example. I'm a bookeeper and I work both W-2 and 1099 jobs. Lately I've been hired (w-2) for x number of hours a week. After a month or so I'm able to do the actual work of the job for x-y hours. So doing my best doesn't benefit me in this position. What would you do.

I solve this problem with my 1099 clients by giving them a sizeable discount for the first X hours of service and it works pretty well - I do get dicks that will have me fix their books then fire me and hire some one for half to maintain them (I sometimes get them calling back and surprise surprise - no discount). It's not a perfect system but it works mostly.

I'm going to approach W-2 work by saying yes I'll work X hours a week for X dollars; however it must be on salary (based on work done) so that I can reap the benefit of MY work and experience. A company budgets X for their weekly bookkeeping, if I take the job I get X each week regardless of hours work. There may be weeks where I have to work more, but it's up to me to perform.

I have come to the realization over the years that nobody but myself is to blame if I can't get by on my income.

My version of getting by would probably cause many to kill themselves, but if you have to go into debt to drive to and from work you had better find another method of transportation.

I had my license revoked for 5 years back in 2004 and worked 33 miles from where I lived and figured out ways around my revocation by riding a bicycle the entire distance to my job and back for the entire 5 years....I occasionally got help from co-workers but the nearest one lived 14 miles away and I had to ride there to meet them, another I had to ride 22 miles to meet and other times I managed to catch the bus back home after work, but had to ride 11 miles to the bus stop to meet it....

Up at 0230, out the door at 0300 or o330, ride 14 to 33 miles to meet my ride, ride full distance to be to work by 0600 , 5 to 6 days a week....It made me strong....

Anyway, back to the first sentence of this post, your employer cannot be relied upon to pay a living wage or even keep you employed from day to day but it is up to you to make what you are paid go far enough for you to live your life.

I have never had a problem getting motivated, and am frequently told I am overqualified in job interviews which is a pseudo honest way of telling me they can't pay me a fair wage for my skills.

It's not that hard to get by if you don't gauge yourself against other people and pay the opinion of others of you little mind, take it easy and enjoy your life and don't get caught up in the debt-snare.

Sometimes it is more cost effective to do nothing, like working some waste of time job and missing out on a better one because you are too busy going backwards fighting the current instead of watching for a better opportunity.

In closing, I suppose it could be said that you work for a business which has to make enough profit to sustain and maintain and grow itself in return for the funds to conduct your business of living to do the same.

If the numbers don't work, don't do it.

Pardon me if this post is not entirely on topic, but there are many things to be considered aside form just lazy employees.

There are lazy people everywhere, there are even lazy animals out there in the woods if you're not too busy to take the time to watch.

Oh, and there is this also...."The Peter Principle"....

The Peter Principle is a special case of an ubiquitous observation: Anything that works will be used in progressively more challenging applications until it fails. This is "The Generalized Peter Principle." There is much temptation to use what has worked before, even when it may exceed its effective scope. Peter observed this about humans.

In an organizational structure, the assessment of the potential of an employee for a promotion is often based on their performance in the current job which results eventually in their being promoted to their highest level of competence and potentially then to a role in which they are not competent, referred to as their "level of incompetence". The employee has no chance of further promotion, thus reaching his or her career's ceiling in an organization.

Peter suggests that "n time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties" and that "work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence." He coined the term hierarchiology as the social science concerned with the basic principles of hierarchically organized systems in the human society.

He noted that their incompetence may be a result of the skills required being different rather than more difficult; by way of example, an excellent engineer may find that they made a poor manager due to limited interpersonal skills which a manager requires to lead a team effectively.

Rather than seeking to promote a talented “super-competent” junior employee, Peter suggested that an incompetent manager may set them up to fail or dismiss them because they will likely "violate the first commandment of hierarchical life with incompetent leadership: [namely that] the hierarchy must be preserved".



Maybe give this a watch if you can make the time, it helps in understanding how we ended up here in the first place....
metanoia-films.org...

edit on 15-5-2014 by MyHappyDogShiner because: typographaljujucurse

edit on 15-5-2014 by MyHappyDogShiner because: jujuprooffailjuj

edit on 15-5-2014 by MyHappyDogShiner because: jujucoffeejuju

edit on 15-5-2014 by MyHappyDogShiner because: jujufb