Would you take this 'perfect' job (poll)? (pay, money, college)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In my roles in senior management, I've never worked less than 60 hrs/week - except when I'm on vacation. While on vacation, I'm still working 30+ hrs/week. Moreover, my experience mirrors that of every other director/VP/SVP/EVP/Cxx level employee I've ever worked with.
So your premise is wholly unrecognizable to me.
I found it curious that people just automatically assumed I was stating all of management does nothing.
Like I said, I'm also a manager (but middle) and one of my current managers is the hardest working person I ever have met.
The management part was just because the person I was thinking of happens to be in that role, but like I said before, it doesn't have to be a manager.
The people below you work their butt off and are under the gun to produce. They're under constant pressure to produce and work harder and stay much later than you do. Workplace conditions might not be 'grueling' for them, but rest assured they work much harder than you. For now, the serfs have not revolted for years, and may not for the forseeable future, let's say. You were lucky enough to get 'suckers who just work hard without always whining about more pay'.
So, the question is ... do you take the job?
Why are they "under the gun to produce"?
Do the higher ups (i.e. people YOU will report to) act like sociopaths who do not value their employees?
Or was the person who vacated your position a sociopath who caused this bad situation?
If the people you are reporting to are sociopaths, do not take the job. You will burn out and be out of that role quickly.
If the people above you are decent people and the person who worked in your new role was the sociopath, you have a chance to make things better for the company AND the employees and be able to become the next rising star.
So basically speaking, your question does not have enough information.
Anonymous poll. Please answer the poll question ... thanks!
I'm curious as to how people think about this. It's almost as much of a psychology question. If it gets moved, that's fair.
So, here's the job.
Upper management job. Your primary 'duties' are sitting in meetings and managing projects. Lets' say you have no stake in ownership.
You have a great salary. Very good. Whatever you consider good, you got it, but rest assured, it's north of 150K a year. All your benefits, etc, etc.
Your hours are flexible, you generally have to be at work, but have unlimited days off. Of course, you're not going to be able to use them all because you'll have meetings, face to face with clients, meeting with middle management, etc.
You'll have some stressful moments interacting with angry clients and dealing with projects that have gone in an unfavorable direction, and enough 'work' to keep your days interesting, but for the most part, you can get away with doing 3-4 hours of work a day, sometimes much less. Long lunches not a problem.
Here's the catch.
The people below you work their butt off and are under the gun to produce. They're under constant pressure to produce and work harder and stay much later than you do. Workplace conditions might not be 'grueling' for them, but rest assured they work much harder than you. For now, the serfs have not revolted for years, and may not for the forseeable future, let's say. You were lucky enough to get 'suckers who just work hard without always whining about more pay'.
So, the question is ... do you take the job?
This sounds like an old "white collar vs. blue collar" type of debate.
Many a large corporation has a top down salary structure, with upper management/owners having built the company, and the lower educated/skilled employees working harder (physically or longer hours).
The only exception to what I stated would be if the sales team were tasked with selling the widget/service that the company provided, and paid commission based on their performance.
They could make some big bucks as a result, but yet the assembly line worker or secretarial type staff will just get a lower hourly wage commensurate with their education/skill, and value to the company for what they do.
Your obvious disdain for such systems and/or bias against them, is evident in the way you refer to "suckers who just work hard without always whining about more pay".
Did it ever dawn on you that a low educated person might be grateful to have such a job, because they do not have XYZ that can result in a better paying job?
Let me give you a real world example here in America where most of the production/factory workers were content to make X amount and had worked for the company for many years. A few malcontents convinced a slim majority of the workers to form a union, then threatened to go on strike.
Upper management tried to convince them not to, as they could not stay profitable with other companies that produced the same widget, but who had shipped their production facilities overseas years ago.
[Keep in mind that this facility was in a more rural area, so it was not as if there were tons of other jobs to choose from for low skilled/educated people]
So as you might have guessed, the workers went on strike, the company folded their American factory, and most all of the manufacturing jobs were lost, with plenty of long term employees left out in the cold.
Many still wanted what they had, and had voted against unionizing. However the union (who is only interested in getting more members for power and money for their own uses) convinced them they were victims in the same manner you frame this thread, and everyone lost their jobs.
The company is Penn Tennis and the widget they produced in America were the tennis balls used to play the game.
They were the last tennis company to have an American production facility, so they were already making less of a profit compared to others who hired real slave labor overseas.
Anyway, lets see what you have to say about my comments and example.
Yes. I would take the job. Happily. Workplace equality is a myth. The fortunate (or lucky) often end up in the job you describe, and it's just ok. Ideal? No. Fair? No. Factual? Yes....and the yet the world still turns.
But if given the exact opportunity you spell out, which I don't think is out of the ordinary from what I have personally witnessed or experienced, I take the job. Turning down the "perfect" job makes no sense. It is after all, the perfect job. What would be better? I turn it down and bust my ass as one of the underlings for less money and less time with my family and friends? I think that would be a dumb workplace move.
Like others, possibly I would improve upon the working conditions for the people lower than me in the food chain...but maybe not. To be completely honest, it would depend on if it affected me negatively.
I come from the old school where 40 hours pay for 40 hours work was expected. Yes, I lived it and yes, I slept good at night living and working that way. However, I could also sleep good at night holding the position you spell out. I would consider it a payoff for the 36 years I have put in not having that job.
I checked "Yes" on your poll.
This sounds like an old "white collar vs. blue collar" type of debate.
Many a large corporation has a top down salary structure, with upper management/owners having built the company, and the lower educated/skilled employees working harder (physically or longer hours).
The only exception to what I stated would be if the sales team were tasked with selling the widget/service that the company provided, and paid commission based on their performance.
They could make some big bucks as a result, but yet the assembly line worker or secretarial type staff will just get a lower hourly wage commensurate with their education/skill, and value to the company for what they do.
Your obvious disdain for such systems and/or bias against them, is evident in the way you refer to "suckers who just work hard without always whining about more pay".
Did it ever dawn on you that a low educated person might be grateful to have such a job, because they do not have XYZ that can result in a better paying job?
Let me give you a real world example here in America where most of the production/factory workers were content to make X amount and had worked for the company for many years. A few malcontents convinced a slim majority of the workers to form a union, then threatened to go on strike.
Upper management tried to convince them not to, as they could not stay profitable with other companies that produced the same widget, but who had shipped their production facilities overseas years ago.
[Keep in mind that this facility was in a more rural area, so it was not as if there were tons of other jobs to choose from for low skilled/educated people]
So as you might have guessed, the workers went on strike, the company folded their American factory, and most all of the manufacturing jobs were lost, with plenty of long term employees left out in the cold.
Many still wanted what they had, and had voted against unionizing. However the union (who is only interested in getting more members for power and money for their own uses) convinced them they were victims in the same manner you frame this thread, and everyone lost their jobs.
The company is Penn Tennis and the widget they produced in America were the tennis balls used to play the game.
They were the last tennis company to have an American production facility, so they were already making less of a profit compared to others who hired real slave labor overseas.
Anyway, lets see what you have to say about my comments and example.
`
As I said before, the managerial example was just a 'title'.
It could be that you make 90K a year to be on the production line and put the widgets together for 4 hours, and drink coffee and BS for 4 hours a day, but the guy next to you makes 50K which is more market rate but had to spend a full 8 hours really making widgets.
Do you take THAT job?
Of course, the managerial example is more realistic, which is why I used it.
ok...to repeat myself, HOW would you change what you want to change? What's you plan to convince that owner to give up part of their own profit? After all, they took the risk to start the business, they worked to get where they are, why should they give up what they have? Unless you can tell me a viable plan to convince them to change, it's difficult to take this conversation as anything but unfounded idealism.
Again, how are you going to translate this well intentioned idea to a practical plan that is realistic to implement? Ideas are easy. Finding ways to make them happen is the hard part.
At least you as a poster are considering the concept of a better workplace.
I don't even think most people are willing to even consider that.
As I said before, the managerial example was just a 'title'.
It could be that you make 90K a year to be on the production line and put the widgets together for 4 hours, and drink coffee and BS for 4 hours a day, but the guy next to you makes 50K which is more market rate but had to spend a full 8 hours really making widgets.
Do you take THAT job?
Of course, the managerial example is more realistic, which is why I used it.
Yes, I would take that job, too...assuming I was already working that job. I wouldn't want to do ANY production work for even 4 hours a day. Though as you point out, $90k is good pay for that type of work for 4 hours.
If this is truly a psychological exercise, or dare I say- philosophical, exercise, I don't know where I stand morally compared to others. But less work, more pay is a no-brainer, even though I believe in earning your money. I've done more work, less pay. That sucked. I'd take the opposite now.
Yes, I would take that job, too...assuming I was already working that job. I wouldn't want to do ANY production work for even 4 hours a day. Though as you point out, $90k is good pay for that type of work for 4 hours.
If this is truly a psychological exercise, or dare I say- philosophical, exercise, I don't know where I stand morally compared to others. But less work, more pay is a no-brainer, even though I believe in earning your money. I've done more work, less pay. That sucked. I'd take the opposite now.
More pay, less work is a trap. I really don't think that makes people happier, and could have the opposite effect. Does it beat more work, less pay? In most cases, yes, but that's not even the case all of the time even if it's the same exact type of work.
I believe humans want to naturally work. They parameters of work hours and tasks are just messed up.
The need to work for 'survival' is getting minimized each and every year. I do believe that in ~200-300 years, if people really put their mind to it and we'd have universal free healthcare, the system could be set up so most people have jobs they actually LOOK forward to going into every day.
At least you as a poster are considering the concept of a better workplace.
I don't even think most people are willing to even consider that.
Nearly everyone would like a better workplace. Most people are just realistic about it. You're fundamentally talking about changing the attitudes of business owners towards their businesses. Honestly, I have no idea how you'd go about making that change. That's the problem. The idea of everything being equal and fair is great in theory, but complicated in practice. What does equal mean? What does fair mean? How do you measure increased responsibility vs risk vs effort (hours worked)? How do you actually CHANGE people's minds on how they approach their job?
Until there are proposals to address HOW to enact change, ideals aren't worth thinking about too seriously. Most people you encounter are just being pragmatic in their responses. Take your original scenario: I don't see managers who have less stress and work less hours than the people below them. That's not to say it doesn't happen, but in reality the only times I hear people say things like that is when they don't really understand what that manager does day to day.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
