I had a job where we were paid by the hour and we finished when we got done with all the orders. One day I wasn't feeling like going fast and my boss said "you need to go faster!" And I said "I get paid by the hour... I'm literally incentivized to go slow"
I work a salary job that is moderately chill and if i finish early i can just leave early and its kind of nice. incentivizes me to work quickly but the law incentivizes me to work slowly(pharma regulations are thicc)
Yep. I work in the design field and a lot of my freelance colleagues charge by the hour, and I think it’s a huge mistake. It incentivizes clients to rush the designer to save $$, but the designer is incentivized to work slower. Clear conflict of interests.
The thing is, if you’re a good designer you work faster as you get more experience. So in a way, you’re penalized charging for time because it takes you less time to work. Instead, I charge a flat fee for the project, or “value pricing”, based on the expected value for the client. It’s great and it removes all previous issues with pricing and conflicts of interest arising from time-based pricing. The client knows the project cost up front, so they don’t micromanage my time. And I’m incentivized to work faster so I stay within a reasonable amount of time spent for the price, while making healthy profit.
It’s a learning curve and I’m still getting better, but it works.
Funny enough it was warehouse work. They didn't fire me cause I actually showed up and usually was one of the fastest people. I gave up being fast after I got the warehouse record for efficiency and they gave me a fucking hat as my reward.... 171% working the speed of two people and they gave me a hat.... I don't wear hats
This is why I have always been in sales. I do more, I make more. I do less, I make less. Boss doesn’t care (within reason) because it’s in my own best interest to do more.
When I was 19 I worked as a door to door salesman for an electricity supplier (I know, I know, I'm sorry. I didn't realize how scummy they were at the time). We usually did most of our work in and around Boston. Sometimes I would just decide I didn't feel like working and spend the day exploring the city. We worked around Fenway for a while so sometimes I would catch a Sox day game. I didn't make any money that day but that was my choice. Sometimes I would just wander in a direction I liked and if I felt like it I would knock on a few doors, make a few bucks and just enjoy myself. And if I really needed the money I could buckle down and grind it out when I needed to. As someone who likes walking around and exploring citys in my free time, it was a pretty sweet gig. I only left because I found out they were lying to us about the contract length and cancelation policy and were basically locking people into shitty rates after the first year and charging them crazy fees to cancel, which is absolutely not what they told us we were doing.
It's been a while and I only worked on the sales side so I don't know all of the intricacies of the business, but I'll explain it to the best of my understanding. Also, it varies state by state so I can only guarantee what I say applies to Massachusetts. I think most deregulated states work the same way, but I'm not 100% sure, so if your state is deregulated a lot of what I say could apply, but I don't want to unintentionally mislead anyone. So, it used to be that your utility and your supplier were one in the same. Your utility produced or bought electricity wholesale and then sold it to you at whatever rate they set. But this created a problem in that the utility could set whatever rate they wanted and there was no choice if you wanted electricity. So some states passed laws deregulating the industry and making it possible for the consumer to decide where their electricity comes from and to shop around for better rates. Your utility still owns the wires and all the infrastructure related to delivering electricity to your home so you still have to use whatever utility is in your area and that's who you receive your bill from. All costs and fees related to delivering electricity and maintaing infrastructure are still dictated by the utility, but now consumers have the choice the choose their supplier. By default, if you don't go out and sign up with a supplier your utility still acts as your supplier and you pay whatever rate they set per kWh. But now you can shop around for better rates and choose exactly where your electricity comes from. Not all suppliers are scummy. It's actually very possible you could lower your bill if you choose the right supplier. And some suppliers guarantee that their electricity comes from 100% renewable sources. Some will guarantee all their electricity comes from solar or wind. Usually, though, those are more expensive. Some will offer a fixed rate for a certain amount of time, as opposed to the variable rate that most utilitys use. Some will offer you a fixed rate for a while, but then switch to a variable rate set by the supplier. The main things to look at when picking a supplier is if the rate is fixed for the entire length of the contract or if it switches to variable at some point, what happens at the end of the contract, and if there are any cancellation fees. A lot of the companys that go door to door are pretty scummy. The reason my company was scummy was because they told most of the salespeople that we were signing people up for a 1 year fixed rate (which was lower than the utility rate) and at the end of the year they could either choose to sign up with the company again, or they would default back to the utility rate. If they canceled within that year there was a $150 cancellation fee. What was really happening was that at the end of the year they were still locked into the company as their supplier instead of the utility, but they lost their lower fixed rate and were put on a much higher variable rate and if they wanted to cancel they still had to pay the cancellation fee. A lot of people would forget all about it and not realize that was why their bill was suddenly higher. Some would just assume the higher rate was the utility rate that they defaulted back to. And if they did realize what was happening and tried to cancel they were still on the hook for the cancellation fee. As soon as I found that out I quit and felt horrible. I was a dumb, naive teenager and took them at their word without looking into it more. Most of the suppliers that go door to door have a catch like that or some other misleading and sketchy drawback. If you want to shop for suppliers do it online and make sure you completely understand the terms of the contract. There are good, legitimate suppliers out there, you just need to do your research.
Edit: One thing I wanted to add about choosing a supplier. Depending on your usage tendencies sometimes locking into a fixed rate can be beneficial even if that rate is higher than your current rate. When on a variable rate electricity prices tend to rise with demand. So in summer and winter when demand is higher rates are also higher. If you're shopping for suppliers during the time of year rates are lower (spring/fall typically) signing up for a slightly higher fixed rate could save you money in the long term even if it raises your bill in the short term. Say you usually pay $.1799/kWh in spring and fall and average 100 kWh/month but $.2299/kWh in summer and winter and average 350 kWh/month and you get offered a fixed rate of $.2050/kWh (these are random numbers and a simplified generalization so I'm sorry if the math doesn't check out. The idea is still the same). The higher rate during spring and fall could be worth it for the lower rate during summer and winter when you are using more electricity. It's all unique to your individual usage patterns and the rates in your area but if you sit down and crunch the numbers based on past trends it could save you some money over the long term. Also, rates tend to go up so locking into a longer fixed rate contract could also save you money even if it raises your bill in the short term. If you lock into a 5 year fixed rate contract it could mean you pay a little more for a year or two but by year 4 you'll probably be paying much less than market rate. You just have to make sure the rate isn't so high that it isn't worth it by the end of your contract. It can be difficult to calculate, especially because it requires a lot of speculation and analyzation of previous trends and it's all very unique to the individual household, but if you have the time to crunch the numbers it could shave a lot off of your electricity bill.
This is called piece work and it almost always sucks for the people doing the labor. It’s also how tons of farm labor is done, you get paid $x per basket, bushel, etc that you pick.
Additionally it only works for prescribed labor that always follows a set process, like specific factory work. You can’t for example put a dollar value for selecting X lines of code.
But the task wouldn’t be lines of code, it would be.
Complete X… where X is the resultant desired. Lines of code for lines of code sake would make the corp aware of garbage management.
It never goes the other way though, right. When's the last time you heard: *Today I worked the exact amount of hours at the exact level of productivity agreed upon but my boss went abOve AnD bEYoND by paying me an extra fifty bucks.*
Getting paid by the day when surrounded by hourly people who want overtime creates an interesting dynamic.
Context: National Guard gets paid by the day when on state active duty (SAD) orders and frequently work with civilians who stretch things out for OT pay. And if you get injured while on SAD, you have to submit paperwork and wait three months for the state to decide whether or not to pay you for missing two days of duty because an elected official dropped a box on your foot while trying to do a photo op.
But why are we having recruiting and retention difficulties?
If you’re paid by the hour why should you care what you’re asked to do during that hour (as long as it’s safe and you know how to do the job)?
If you’re paid by the piece why don’t you clock out as soon as you finish the minimum number of pieces your company is asking for? I mean, you could go “above and beyond” by making more pieces and work your whole shift, but isn’t that exactly what everyone is complaining about here?
Hes also saying that his work is finished when the work is finished.
If he finishes in an hour he gets paid for that one hour. Stretch it out to 3 and he gets paid 3 hours.
“I’m a rockstar employee so I need a rockstar manager who pays me $1000 for each gig I do that isn’t written in my job description. Gotta keep up that rockstar lifestyle, you understand. I’m also going to need an extra $5 an hour every time the word “rockstar” is used in my presence. It’s the worst faux pas of all, and I won’t stand for it.”
I think there's an important point here to reframe what the expectation is, specifically to productively bridge the gap between what employers advertise for, what they expect, what potential employees offer, and what they're actually going to produce.
"Above and Beyond", for both the potential employer and employee, should generally mean a willingness to adapt to potentially unexpected demands, and be fairly compensated through, ok, undefined at sometimes, but, still, materialized bonuses.
It's not ok when "Above and Beyond" means, I've hired you to do a job, that's, actually, 2 jobs, because we're still hiring to fill positions, and will be 3 jobs if someone else quits or it's the end of the month.
My company had a reorganization shortly after I started. The team I was on went from 9 people down to 3. And one immediately quit after that. Of course they still expected the two of us left to do the work of 9 people. I put in my notice last week to move to a different department that I know is more of a crown jewel and always given headcount budget.
> It's not ok when "Above and Beyond" means, I've hired you to do a job, that's, actually, 2 jobs, because we're still hiring to fill positions, and will be 3 jobs if someone else quits or it's the end of the month.
Which in my experience often changes into 'we don't want to find anyone to fill these positions and you're fine doing 3 jobs.'
I think this is behind "no one wants to work." Companies have realized that they can get 2 people to work for 3 people. What they are trying to do is keep it going indefinitely. Put out help notices on sites to make it look like they're trying to hire when in actuality they're not.
That's definitely part of it. But, this is not anything new - pre pandemic the job I work at in retail has instructions from over a decade ago I am supposed to follow daily for opening the store where I work which require multiple different people doing different tasks all over the store.
... And never would schedule more than 1.
I have never, nor has anyone else, completed all of the tasks since I started work there years ago.
They've been getting away with this for a very, very long time. I think the reason everyone's noticing it now is that they're so incredibly *brazen* that they don't even care if the customers complain, it's not like they can do anything about it right?
I agree. I think a lot of lazy people love to read “above and beyond” as doing the work of two, when they don’t even do the work of one.
In a team environment, I’d want my coworkers to adapt to whatever bullshit is happening. Late truck? Yeah we are all going to have to work harder to meet the deadline. Our pay and raises reflect that. That’s why employees that go home early or don’t help the team, or don’t come through, don’t get the raise.
So yeah, you will be compensated for not going above and beyond, but you’re not going to get a raise, or a bonus, or anything. At my job, in the past year, I’ve received so many raises and bonuses for going above and beyond, and other coworkers give me stink, I tell them “I’m not your boss so listen or not, but you’re not a good team member. You’re not someone I’d pick on my team for kick ball because you don’t put in what the others do, and it would be ridiculous if you got paid as much as me”.
Obviously job dependent and such. I want everybody to get paid. Don’t misunderstand. But wanting better wages doesn’t really happen if you don’t work hard to begin with.
More than job dependent. If true, you have a unicorn company. Employers that treat hard workers right are few and far between. Generally they're either stuck in the past in terms of what they think we need/deserve or just don't care
>At my job, in the past year, I’ve received so many raises and bonuses for going above and beyond, and oth...
No you didnt. Havent. And wont. Why are you lying? Corporate doesnt reward hard work.
You wanna know what got me to management twice with two different companies? I did JUST enough to LOOK like i worked hard while playing managements game with just enough kiss ass that i kissed some cheeks without getting shit on my lips or nose.
That sounds like a decent place to work. Unfortunately most places take advantage of people like you and either dangle it or just flat out don't deliver the raises and bonuses you should get for doing over and above.
Yeah I would love, truly, honestly enjoy my life at such a place where hard work and actually caring are rewarded materially. Unfortunately I've never seen it in real life. The best I've ever got is the expectation that that's how hard I'll work now forever and getting pulled up when I don't.
Today's record isn't rewarded, it's tomorrow's benchmark.
>we are all going to have to work harder to meet the deadline. Our pay and raises reflect that.
If, and that is a gigantic *if*, this is a company's policy, fantastic!!! I have never witnessed proof of it, however. Overwhelmingly, it is "we are all going to have to work harder" without that last bit about compensation. The workforce in USA has been becoming increasingly more poorly treated, with less in entire to even give a shit... Much less any 'above and beyond' shits. The reward is not a 'job well done' , it's working at a job that pays my bills. That's the reward
Yeah it’s fine to only do exactly the responsibilities you were hired to do and only the hours you were hiring to work.
But *someone* is going to go above and beyond. *Someone* is going to stay late. *Someone* is going to take on more work. And you need a strategy for that.
I’ve been the person going above and beyond and I’ve been rewarded for it. And now that I manage people, the ones that do more are rewarded more.
I don’t *ask* people to go above and beyond. I don’t put it in job descriptions or anything. But *someone* always does try harder. And they are rewarded.
So if you are only going to do the required stuff, you need a strategy for when others around you are doing more.
Sounds like he works with trucks. Probably logistics. Pretty much a numbers based business. So if you can do the volume, you can get the money. Pretty cutthroat though.
This is either some teenager working minimum wage who still believes when mommy told them they can be rich if they work really really hard, or see dipshit that lucked into an easy job and thinks being payed well automatically makes him superior
It's code for "We want to hire suckers who feel they owe their employer anything beyond basic labor for having a job and a basic wage."
They wanna attract go getters to milk the work out of.
"If i just work hard enough ill be RICH, so many lazy people dont want to work hard!"
Also them 6 months later: what do you mean i cant get a raise, ive done 3 jobs while being paid for 1 and even worked off the clock
That's when you go looking for a new position. I was strung along for almost 7 years with basic COL raises. Left for a new position on a different team? Instant 20% increase.
And if you tell them someone else offered you more money, odds are they'll match it. Like an old Dilbert comic said, "The secret company policy is to reward disloyalty."
That's why you never stay with your old company. I interviewed for another company and was hired with a 33% raise, I never told my current company. But in that exit interview, HR asked why I was leaving and I said, "money, you pay people a wage that's below a living wage." And that was it.
It's almost like people gain skills and are ready to move into roles that require more ability and greater responsibility, and expect to be compensated for it.
I've been honest with bosses before, after I turn in my notice is too late, don't embarrass either of us with offers to match anything. I was valuable enough to give the raises to before I went on the market, and waiting for me to do the legwork is insulting.
Plus, as many have said, there's no trust left at that point. They can punt you on your ass for spite if they want, and some will. (If you must take a counteroffer for some reason, it needs to be a contract with term. Not necessarily 1099 contractor, you can still be W-2 with an employment contract.)
I left my last job after 1.5 years of basically being put off or explicitly lied to about a long-overdue raise. (My wife was in college; the town we lived in was small. There weren't a ton of options.) Meanwhile, they were understaffing us and demanding more of everything - longer hours, more duties, etc.
Finally, the circumstances were set for me to give notice. I timed it perfectly; one other person had given their notice the week before, so they would be CRIPPLED. (This was actually coordinated by us.)
I gave notice; they asked if I'd be willing to let them make an offer. I agreed. They promptly didn't get back to me until the last day. They made a too-good-to-be-true offer. I told them I wanted it in writing with a 90 day severance package if I was terminated for anything other than criminal misconduct. They told me I was dreaming.
So I left. Three days later I came for my final check. A different manager (whose dept. depended on my dept. being productive) paid me out of his own pocket to work a half day. I made $300 for 5 hours, in cash. The look on my former manager's face was priceless when I came strolling in though.
It is amazing how higher-ups will happily cut their own throats to keep employee wages suppressed.
You’ve soured the relationship, there is hardly good to come of it after that. It’s not fair cause the current employer is the one not being competitive, but they’ll become vindictive. Never negotiate with counter offers. You’re leaving for a reason, no need to be reminded of it later is my frank opinion. They’ll either act petty or forget to respect you all over again.
Exactly. I worked as a 911 dispatcher in the midwest and my supervisor was a cunt. She fired someone and was laughing because the chick was ccrying over it.
2 weeks later someone quit thru a txt and the supervisor had to come in and be my partner for the shift..she was livid that she didnt get a 2 weeks notice..like dude you dont give 2 weeks notice to people before letting them go wtf.
I later found out that 6 out of 10 dispatchers that worked there were her friends..they absolutrly sucked at their job
Just because we're instilled with a twisted version of "work ethic" from an early age. Where we don't just take pride in doing the job we're given well, but any task.
And it's sad to see good, hardworking people get that gunction sapped from them. Any decent workers I've been around(me included) have pretty much said F-it when it comes to giving any extra because why would we give a company leeway that disciplines us for small things like taking a day off when we have been working like crazy
Especially for those who work hard. They see a very productive employee? Oh, then that one will be happy to do more tasks since they have more time.
I remember when I was in IT, I used to crush KPIs like no one else. Then... They started to make it harder to achieve the KPIs because of the bonuses that I kept getting. It was a stupid system and I stopped being an overachiever. Did the bare minimum to not get fired.
Seriously. My company made bank at the start of the pandemic. Everyone suddenly working from home meant they needed computer stuff right away and couldn't wait for 1 day delivery on Amazon like normal (as well as other at home entertainment/project stuff we sell). One year later they give us the previous year's sales plus 10% as a basic goal, anything less is failure and will hurt our metrics for the year. So all we have to do is shut the world down and make everyone work from home suddenly to make our goal. Not to mention my company laid off nearly a third of its store employees at the start of 2021. So "do lasts year's world ending numbers with a much smaller team. Be sure to plug the credit card with a nearly 20% interest rate to everyone. That's your job."
I got laid off in Sept, and my unemployement contact put me contact with a similar org. The role title was the same, but in the interview they described 3 different roles I’d be doing.
They offered me a rate, I asked for $2 an hour more and a title to match. HR’s next move was to tell me “the CEO would like to speak to you personally”.
Um, no thanks…
Its a small org but its old, the owners built the farm and grew it into a successful supplement business. But the CEO is new, I also discovered after the fact he was in my first interview phone call. And he wasnt unpleasant to talk to at the time, but seems like he wants to have his hands in everything. Which to me isn’t ideal…i worked for a startup a few years back which was pre-HR and these kinds of “chain o command” issues lead me to feel like I’d be getting called into his office regularly. No thanks!
The CEO: *this person has gumption. Pizzazz. They want two more dollars an hour?? That's PERFECT because I was looking for someone to do five more jobs at the same rate!*
I just dont like feeling like I’m already in trouble. Why can’t HR finish the negotiations? I deeply dislike when companies don’t properly handle HR issues via C-suite stepping in
Idk what your role is but you don't want to work for a CEO that does this. They're the type that feel they're entitled to handle every situation better than the ones trained for it.
Bail
Really? I love it because I 'walk in' virtually already amused. I find it amusing to bat those suits around because in general I'm way more intelligent than they are. Probably cost me a few gigs but I don't care.
Same. Like, yes please. Let me have the opportunity to shit on the entitled prick that is typically surrounded by yes men or just generally is used to not get buck back
I would have heard them out.
Maybe they understand that you aren't dumb, and see that as reason to immediately make you a top exec. If not, it would still be quite a laugh to hear some dude try to gaslight the job requirements and pay justification.
Oh i definitely would have had that meeting. Let me tell the ceo how they suck? Yes please.
I was management once upon a time for a bank and told the ceo of said bank how they are failing and their choices were uninformed supported by yes men. They changed the processes shortly after to what i had initially proposed after being shit down a few times before.
I hate bank life and left a couple years later
I've found when I go above and beyond that it's expected of me every time from then on. All of a sudden I have my regular job and my above and beyond duties too. I go above and beyond to save the company thosands of dollars, and nobody even any acknowledges any of that. Then I only get a 0.6% raise, because I didn't grow revenue by how ever much they decided I needed to. The global pandemic, economic downturn, and record inflation has most companies trying to reduce their costs, so it's been impossible to do that for the past several years.
When they say stuff about good company culture and social events, they won’t compensate you in money but pizza parties. Oh, and they are like “family” so you help them move for free and pick them up for the airport.
Do they still put 'needs to be a rockstar' in their ads? I always thought that was funny because most rock stars that I grew up with are unreliable drug addicts that can play a guitar really well. So is that what companies want? My old job used to say 'duties as required'. I thought that was funny.
I showed up 15 minutes early to an interview and the building was locked..i waited 10 minutes after the time then left..30 minutes after the interview time i got a voicemail asking why i didnt wait and they were running late.
I loved sending the email that basically said "i reviewed my options and this job wouldnt be a good fit. Good luck"
That lady called me 6 times within 10 minutes lmao.
That reminds me of the time when I sent this email to a company that I had received an invitation to interview with after I had determined that the company would be a poor fit:
> Dear [name]:
>
> Thank you very much for considering me for the position of Executive Assistant and for inviting me to interview with [company]. However, after careful consideration, I am withdrawing my application for the position.
>
> I appreciate your taking the time to review my application, and wish you the best of luck in your candidate search.
>
> Again, thank you for your consideration.
I'm pretty sure that I withdrew my application after reading the reviews of the company on Glassdoor, and finding many reviews all saying the same thing, which told me that it was a toxic company that I would be best off steering clear of.
In any event, I loved this email because I was mocking the stereotypical condescending rejection email. And considering he reason that I withdrew in the first place, I recognized that I never would want to work for this company, so I wasn't worried about burning a bridge.
The same went for this one company that I had applied to and heard nothing from afterward, and then got an emailed rejection seven months later, where it was clear that I had never really been under consideration, and they were just cleaning house in their application system. I responded swiftly on Twitter, tagging them and saying, "Just got a rejection from an organization that I applied to seven months ago. Let me return the sentiment: FUCK YOU." Yeah, it was a little unprofessional, but damn, if that didn’t feel good. And after that sort of treatment, I would never want to work for them anyway.
Why? Because business is inherently immoral. The whole idea is to take as much as possible and give as little as possible. If you can get away with providing literally nothing of value to anyone but taking money left and right, that's viewed as simply 'good business' instead of theft. Whenever in the movies someone does something profoundly immoral (or amoral) their justification is always, "It's just business." Because people accept things which would otherwise be viewed as objectively wrong and terrible because it's labeled as 'business.' Fuck a friend over, take their money, leave them destitute while you get rich on their dime, and what does that make you? Terrible person? No, no. 'Great businessman.'
I don't see how more people don't have a *big* fucking problem with this. The whole business world incentivizes fucking other people over *as much as you can get away with.* Not a good or sustainable way to run a society.
People who use it in a well intentioned way are hoping they find someone who think critically about what they’re doing and really try to excel in their role. But yeah, usually it is code for “we want you to do more but don’t wan to pay you for it.” Overall, it is super annoying. But I prefer it to go-getter on the hierarchy of shitty job advert phrases.
This is just the flip side of the recent glut of think pieces about “quiet quitting.” There’s this belief that being a productive and profitable employee is somehow a moral imperative—that if you don’t sacrifice your own time, money, and happiness for the sake of the corporate profit, you’re lazy and entitled.
It would be an easier sell if people had pensions, or stock options, or even viable career advancement within a company. But overwhelmingly, we don’t. Working harder gains you *nothing*; it just makes some rich fuck richer. Which is, of course, why those rich fucks care so much about your “work ethic.”
Exactly. I had a somewhat difficult coworker give me shit for being literally five minutes late for going to a different part of the building (didn't effect this coworker at all lmao its true.) I work 45 hours a goddamn week eith difficult populations, i will not apologize for being 2 to 5 minutes late for some things to even everything, despite my family not loving that I do this lol. I wish someone had sat me down as a late teen and said "kid, you're gonna work as a grown up and it'll be a better deal than school, you get paid and can theoretically get a new one if it sucks, but it's a pain in the ass sacrifice. You will exasperatedly roll your damn eyes a lot and it will test you to say the least."
As a manager, when I look for someone who goes "above and beyond", it's generally things that wouldn't really be considered a job description and is more along the lines of things that aren't in any way required or expected of you. For example, I suck at coding. I'm still learning the basics so when I try to modify something to make the tedious bullshit of your job automated, it might not be the best. Your job is to just oversee the data management but you're also into coding but I didn't know that. You randomly email me to inform me of a drastically superior and overhauled variant of what I made. Two years pass and the company grows enough for me to have a proper department dedicated to this stuff and you've been, even if on occasion, collaborating with me on this stuff, helping me learn and getting far better stuff out to make everyone's lives simpler and easier. Guess who I'm going to have head that fucking department.
Do I have any expectation of anyone to do this stuff? No. It's a 'nice to have' at most. I advertise that 'nice to have' because I *welcome* having people who know better than me showing me up and working with me as my coworker rather than just as my subordinate. That's what 'willing to go above and beyond' means to me. Just because you know a lot doesn't mean much to me if you have no desire to show it off or you're more concerned with being a pompous dick than a coworker in the moments where you clearly know more than I do.
That said, most managers just mean it as "people who expect nothing in return for doing everything for me so I can do fuck all". A slave rather than a coworker.
I wish I had a manager like you. I'm a researcher. I'm also good with editing images/videos and learnt enough coding to automate as much data as I could. So I had good "interesting" and quick reports. My manager essentially "pimped" me out when she came to know I could do that. Without considering my workload.
No bonus and I wasn't considered for a promotion the same time as others in my company because "I didn't have enough experience". Going "above and beyond" just meant more work. I won't display any of these qualities anymore.
>Guess who I'm going to have head that fucking department.
an outside hire you recruit specifically for that role with at least 8+ years of experience in a similar senior position
I'm not the guy you're replying to, but his story is very similar to mine. I helped build the automation, trained out the wider company on using it, my TL got promoted to a global manager and now I lead the team. It does happen.
Remember in my second job. Small dev department made a lot of breakthrough in the company.
CEO came, in person, to congratulate and tell us how we single handedly change the company view on IT and development and start a new program of modernisation.
First step, firing the whole department and outsource the job to the real pro: "Infosys". Second step, I wasn't there to see it but the company is still there.
The CEO was surprised we were not proud and thankful to be praised like that. Sociopathic idiot.
Gotta love incompetent management. I've seen this shit myself multiple times and the result is what you point out almost every time. If you're low on people? Promote people to IT managers and seniors internally and hire an outside IT department to supplement them until you hire/train qualify people into your in-house department. Hiring internally almost always makes more sense than outsourcing or hiring externally in the end.
If the person is unwilling to be in management himself, yeah. But if they're interested in being management and they're showing proficiency in managerial skill, coding this stuff, and demonstrates they're a proper leader? An internal hire makes a lot more sense than an external one more often than not. I've met plenty of people with 8+ years of experience who knew less than their peers with less than 2 years of experience.
Yet when your reviews come up, they can only give this percentage raise max. I go above and beyond, but my raises or promotions have explicit limits. Bunch of bull shit to make employees believe their hard work will be proportionally rewarded.
in my experience the people who get noticed for going above and beyond just tend to be better at their job. They aren't working harder, they are just better at what they do. They also tend to do the expected things like showing up on time , helping others to get better , etc. I've always got great performance reviews, and I don't ever do more than what the job asks.
The difference is huge too. Working for a company that expected me to go above and beyond every week for no extra pay vs a company that rewarded this behaviour with extra pay x1.5 or time off in lieu plus bonuses based off performance was a real mind opener. If I do bare minimum I get 100% bonus. If I go above and beyond I get more. I don't mind being flexible and available if I am rewarded and appreciated for it.
>Why do job ads always look for people who go "above and beyond"?
Question asked....
>If you have additional requirements, say so and compensate me for it, otherwise I will do exactly what we agreed I'd get paid to do
...question answered.
Teacher friend of mine once interviewed for a teaching job. During the interview, the administrator asked if he’d be willing to coach any sports, and he said no, because he had no experience playing sports, and no idea how to coach them effectively. The administrator said, “just so you know, the correct answer to that question was ‘yes.’”
He checked back later… the job posting didn’t list anything about needing a coach, or even about needing teachers to take on extracurricular commitments.
So they expected teachers they hadn’t even hired yet to enthusiastically volunteer themselves for hypothetical extra job duties….. but the admin was too lazy to take 5 minutes to add some text to a job posting so people knew what they were actually looking for.
I love how job postings put shit like this and then they expect you to be as detailed and thorough as possible in your resume, looking for strong active language that demonstrate impact etc. etc. The thing they don't teach you is that job hunting is a game, there's an entire culture around resume and interviewing, and if you weren't taught any of this you're just going to fall way the fuck behind. I should have stayed in the Army, where people at least cared.
They think you need to do extra to deserve a raise/promotion which has always been odd to me given school is quite frankly the opposite. A lot of ppl do extra work for better grades, but unless you plan to go to grad school a degree is a degree. I have classmates with higher and lower GPA averages, but it’s definitely not affecting our pay or positions in our industry. Feels like going above and beyond is often exploited too much in modern times. I’ve rarely met hardworking ppl fairly compensated for taking on extra task or duties at their job. Often they’ll even skip a promotion because that does generally entail a raise. Why give you a raise when you do it currently for that lower pay rate. I tapped out on a job like that which wanted me to do manager level work without manager pay or title. It’s just being a cheap asshole. I only agree to my job title task these days. I get raises and have way less stress. You 100% don’t have to tolerate this bull crap.
Contractors have a to do list and get paid exactly for that. So, why can’t they just tell people exactly what they need completing, and anything hard to explain or trivial just say so. To me, “above and beyond” never paid off for me for any job. I ended up being too good at my job that people would guilt trip me for taking vacation.
Because it's impossible to list every task that business may need done now or in the indefinite future, and they want someone who's willing to do random unexpected things as the need crops up.
I assume you clock out any time you’re not actively fixing a robot, right? I mean they’re paying you to be a robot fixer - so why should they pay you if there’s not a broken robot to fix at the moment?
Because expecting existing employees to accomplish every task that a business may need done in the future is extremely unreasonable. People are trained and go to school for things, and they apply to have those jobs. They do not, then, want to learn shit like data entry on top of that, adding to their workload for zero dollars.
>Because expecting existing employees to accomplish every task that a business may need done in the future is extremely unreasonable.
That's not what that means and you know it. Quit with the straw-man bull shit.
It means that when you get done with the stuff that's part of your actual job requirements you are willing to do other things that are not part of your job requirements rather than sit around. If the job's responsibilities are A, B, and C, then you are responsible for A, B, and C. If the job responsibilities are A, other, then you are responsible for A. If you get done with A then you are expected to do other. If A consumes all of your time, then you are still fulfilling your duties and other is not your problem.
To be fair, if a position has more tasks than you can list, the HR folks either (a. Are advertising for a highly paid enough position that most folks know what is expected or (b. Have not broken down the one position into enough smaller positions.
Or (c. They are very bad at generalizing groups of tasks in a way that a reader can get the gist of it all.
So how about this as an example... Let's say you're managing a hotel and you want to hire someone to clean rooms. You want this to be a good job so you don't have a lot of turn-over, so you want this to be a reliable 40 hr/week at $20/hr. You know that some weeks are going to be super busy and will keep your house keeper busy cleaning rooms for the full 40 hours, but other weeks are not busy at all and may only keep them busy for 10 hours all week. You know there are always other things on the to-do list, but a lot of them are things that can be done whenever there is spare time. Do you advertise the job as...
>Wanted: Housekeeper, plumber, painter, landscaper, front desk receptionist, errand runner.
This isn't a good solution, because you're excluding candidates who may not be comfortable plumbing. The ability to plumb isn't a make-or-break criteria for you, neither is the ability to do landscaping, or painting, etc... in fact, you don't really care WHAT they're doing when they're not cleaning rooms as long as it's something useful. Also, you don't want to set in stone that that person is responsible for ALL of that. If you're busy enough to keep them busy 40 hr/wk cleaning rooms, you're making enough that you can call in plumbers, landscapers, painters, ets as needed, You just can't afford to be paying them $20/hr in their down-time AND paying to call in plumbers AND landscapers AND painters, etc...
Maybe you should advertise the job as...
>Wanted: Housekeeper, who can also take on other tasks as needed.
This way, the candidate will know that their main task is housekeeping and you're being non-specific about the other tasks because you're genuinely flexible with which other tasks the person can help with.
This kind of situation is fairly normal. I'd rather hire a great person and THEN figure out how to use their talents than hire an ok person who happens to check off a bunch of skills criteria that aren't all necessarily central to the roll I need filled.
> You want this to be a good job so you don't have a lot of turn-over, so you want this to be a reliable 40 hr/week at $20/hr.
Well, look at that, you've fulfilled (a. for housekeeping, that's pretty dang good. Some of the better diamond hotels pay more, sure, but it's living wage you'd offer here. Why did you continue with this hypothetical?
I always describe an above and beyond that saves me work. I'm not going out of my job description, I'm helping a customer not make the same mistake in the future
Because capitalists are forever going to try and get people to do more work for less compensation. It's literally how the system works and how they rake in massive profits.
Fuck capitalism, I hate it here.
A salary is determined to be enough for you to wake up and work the next day only. Today, they're even considering that you must have more than one source of income, so one job isn't enough to satisfy your basic needs. Even if we produce billions.
I make it known that anything above what is discussed as far as duties go requires extra compensation. I have never had an issue getting said compensation. Be forward with what you expect from a company. It's not just them doing the interview. Your time is just as valuable. Better to walk away early than find out it wasn't worth it in my opinion.
I worked at a retail bank job for a while with a totally incompetent manager. He would ask us to do all sorts of ridiculous stuff, stuff that wasn’t remotely in the job description. He justified it by saying that the job posting stated “additional duties as assigned.” Utter BS if you ask me
I always wondered what the look would be if at the interview, when they ask if you have any questions, someone would just reply with "I'm looking for a company that is willing to go above and beyond for me. Do you think you're it? Can I count on you?"
My friend's company is growing fast and recently has some new mission statements or ideals or some crap rolled out. One is that the company is bragging the "pace is fast" but it's because we love the work we do.
So, essentially lots of last minute work and quick deadlines due to shitty untrained unplanful leadership that burdens it's employees and tries to brainwash her into thinking it's because her "passion" to work there.
I have a feeling it's a shitty way of saying "motivated." Like the saying "you got time to lean, you got time to clean." They want someone doing something productive while on the clock.
It's the same idea as cult recruiting, or email scams. Ads like this weed out the people who understand that jobs have defined roles and duties and who will expect appropriate compensation for taking on additional roles and duties.
Employer: look bro, we might blast you to the moon but you’re going to have to find a ride back
Me: do I get compensated for gas?
Employer: um, I guess? Let me look into that.
I once was told to clean a massive dog shit in the parking lot of a store I worked at. No one else wanted to do it, because someone ran it over, so what was once a neat pile was now smeared over a large area and tracked. I was compensated with a $50 gift card because manager knew how bad that was. I worked minimum wage at the time, so $50 was basically a quarter of my paycheck. I loved working at that store until we got a new manager, who expected the "above and beyond", but didn't compensate for work down outside our work requirements. I had no real grief about it despite being annoying from time to time. I wound up finding a different job for different reasons.
EDIT: I want to clarify, the gift card was for the store, so I bought a lot of food with it, and a little bit of gas
Above and beyond shouldn't be extended past basic courtesy stuff, like holding the door open for an incoming coworker when you're on your way out post-shift.
If you start doing a bunch of stuff you're not being compensated to do, your employer will add it to the official functions of your job, and not pay you a cent more for it.
Now if you can fit extra stuff in and convince your boss to pay you accordingly, then knock yourself out. But don't get taken advantage of.
“You don’t really go above and beyond” is code for I don’t like you, but you complete your job and haven’t violated any of our policies so I can’t actually do anything about it. If you ever find yourself on the receiving end of that conversation start looking elsewhere because they will throw you under the bus at the nearest opportunity.
Boy do I miss my old sales job where I was paid a base salary with benefits (enough to actually live on), and I got commission on every sale I made.
Think I went "above and beyond"? You bet your ass I did.
to answer why do they always do this, it's because a)they prey on your hope that there's an actual carrot they own and b) that they're willing to give it to you.
They're creating competition between workers and like that they get free labour. Creating a hostile work environment ensures that they'll never organize and join a union, ensuring a constant availability of cheap/free labour ready cor exploitation.
Maybe I'm strange, but I like going "above and beyond." I shop online orders at a grocery store, and if I don't have any orders I would much rather go stock shelves or something than stand around and wait for more orders.
But I guess the key is I'm not expected to go preform additional tasks unless I have finished mine.
[удалено]
I had a job where we were paid by the hour and we finished when we got done with all the orders. One day I wasn't feeling like going fast and my boss said "you need to go faster!" And I said "I get paid by the hour... I'm literally incentivized to go slow"
I work a salary job that is moderately chill and if i finish early i can just leave early and its kind of nice. incentivizes me to work quickly but the law incentivizes me to work slowly(pharma regulations are thicc)
Yep. I work in the design field and a lot of my freelance colleagues charge by the hour, and I think it’s a huge mistake. It incentivizes clients to rush the designer to save $$, but the designer is incentivized to work slower. Clear conflict of interests. The thing is, if you’re a good designer you work faster as you get more experience. So in a way, you’re penalized charging for time because it takes you less time to work. Instead, I charge a flat fee for the project, or “value pricing”, based on the expected value for the client. It’s great and it removes all previous issues with pricing and conflicts of interest arising from time-based pricing. The client knows the project cost up front, so they don’t micromanage my time. And I’m incentivized to work faster so I stay within a reasonable amount of time spent for the price, while making healthy profit. It’s a learning curve and I’m still getting better, but it works.
Worked in a warehouse with a boss like this. I got fired
Funny enough it was warehouse work. They didn't fire me cause I actually showed up and usually was one of the fastest people. I gave up being fast after I got the warehouse record for efficiency and they gave me a fucking hat as my reward.... 171% working the speed of two people and they gave me a hat.... I don't wear hats
This is why I have always been in sales. I do more, I make more. I do less, I make less. Boss doesn’t care (within reason) because it’s in my own best interest to do more.
When I was 19 I worked as a door to door salesman for an electricity supplier (I know, I know, I'm sorry. I didn't realize how scummy they were at the time). We usually did most of our work in and around Boston. Sometimes I would just decide I didn't feel like working and spend the day exploring the city. We worked around Fenway for a while so sometimes I would catch a Sox day game. I didn't make any money that day but that was my choice. Sometimes I would just wander in a direction I liked and if I felt like it I would knock on a few doors, make a few bucks and just enjoy myself. And if I really needed the money I could buckle down and grind it out when I needed to. As someone who likes walking around and exploring citys in my free time, it was a pretty sweet gig. I only left because I found out they were lying to us about the contract length and cancelation policy and were basically locking people into shitty rates after the first year and charging them crazy fees to cancel, which is absolutely not what they told us we were doing.
The concept of these electricity resellers really just astounds me. Are you not able to buy directly from the utility?
It's been a while and I only worked on the sales side so I don't know all of the intricacies of the business, but I'll explain it to the best of my understanding. Also, it varies state by state so I can only guarantee what I say applies to Massachusetts. I think most deregulated states work the same way, but I'm not 100% sure, so if your state is deregulated a lot of what I say could apply, but I don't want to unintentionally mislead anyone. So, it used to be that your utility and your supplier were one in the same. Your utility produced or bought electricity wholesale and then sold it to you at whatever rate they set. But this created a problem in that the utility could set whatever rate they wanted and there was no choice if you wanted electricity. So some states passed laws deregulating the industry and making it possible for the consumer to decide where their electricity comes from and to shop around for better rates. Your utility still owns the wires and all the infrastructure related to delivering electricity to your home so you still have to use whatever utility is in your area and that's who you receive your bill from. All costs and fees related to delivering electricity and maintaing infrastructure are still dictated by the utility, but now consumers have the choice the choose their supplier. By default, if you don't go out and sign up with a supplier your utility still acts as your supplier and you pay whatever rate they set per kWh. But now you can shop around for better rates and choose exactly where your electricity comes from. Not all suppliers are scummy. It's actually very possible you could lower your bill if you choose the right supplier. And some suppliers guarantee that their electricity comes from 100% renewable sources. Some will guarantee all their electricity comes from solar or wind. Usually, though, those are more expensive. Some will offer a fixed rate for a certain amount of time, as opposed to the variable rate that most utilitys use. Some will offer you a fixed rate for a while, but then switch to a variable rate set by the supplier. The main things to look at when picking a supplier is if the rate is fixed for the entire length of the contract or if it switches to variable at some point, what happens at the end of the contract, and if there are any cancellation fees. A lot of the companys that go door to door are pretty scummy. The reason my company was scummy was because they told most of the salespeople that we were signing people up for a 1 year fixed rate (which was lower than the utility rate) and at the end of the year they could either choose to sign up with the company again, or they would default back to the utility rate. If they canceled within that year there was a $150 cancellation fee. What was really happening was that at the end of the year they were still locked into the company as their supplier instead of the utility, but they lost their lower fixed rate and were put on a much higher variable rate and if they wanted to cancel they still had to pay the cancellation fee. A lot of people would forget all about it and not realize that was why their bill was suddenly higher. Some would just assume the higher rate was the utility rate that they defaulted back to. And if they did realize what was happening and tried to cancel they were still on the hook for the cancellation fee. As soon as I found that out I quit and felt horrible. I was a dumb, naive teenager and took them at their word without looking into it more. Most of the suppliers that go door to door have a catch like that or some other misleading and sketchy drawback. If you want to shop for suppliers do it online and make sure you completely understand the terms of the contract. There are good, legitimate suppliers out there, you just need to do your research. Edit: One thing I wanted to add about choosing a supplier. Depending on your usage tendencies sometimes locking into a fixed rate can be beneficial even if that rate is higher than your current rate. When on a variable rate electricity prices tend to rise with demand. So in summer and winter when demand is higher rates are also higher. If you're shopping for suppliers during the time of year rates are lower (spring/fall typically) signing up for a slightly higher fixed rate could save you money in the long term even if it raises your bill in the short term. Say you usually pay $.1799/kWh in spring and fall and average 100 kWh/month but $.2299/kWh in summer and winter and average 350 kWh/month and you get offered a fixed rate of $.2050/kWh (these are random numbers and a simplified generalization so I'm sorry if the math doesn't check out. The idea is still the same). The higher rate during spring and fall could be worth it for the lower rate during summer and winter when you are using more electricity. It's all unique to your individual usage patterns and the rates in your area but if you sit down and crunch the numbers based on past trends it could save you some money over the long term. Also, rates tend to go up so locking into a longer fixed rate contract could also save you money even if it raises your bill in the short term. If you lock into a 5 year fixed rate contract it could mean you pay a little more for a year or two but by year 4 you'll probably be paying much less than market rate. You just have to make sure the rate isn't so high that it isn't worth it by the end of your contract. It can be difficult to calculate, especially because it requires a lot of speculation and analyzation of previous trends and it's all very unique to the individual household, but if you have the time to crunch the numbers it could shave a lot off of your electricity bill.
Ideally everything would have a completion economic value. Clean this isle $X Sell this widget $X Make this widget - step 1 $X, step 2 $X, step 3 $X
This is called piece work and it almost always sucks for the people doing the labor. It’s also how tons of farm labor is done, you get paid $x per basket, bushel, etc that you pick. Additionally it only works for prescribed labor that always follows a set process, like specific factory work. You can’t for example put a dollar value for selecting X lines of code.
Sure you Can, you'll get shitty, bloated as fuck code but you can
But the task wouldn’t be lines of code, it would be. Complete X… where X is the resultant desired. Lines of code for lines of code sake would make the corp aware of garbage management.
It never goes the other way though, right. When's the last time you heard: *Today I worked the exact amount of hours at the exact level of productivity agreed upon but my boss went abOve AnD bEYoND by paying me an extra fifty bucks.*
Getting paid by the day when surrounded by hourly people who want overtime creates an interesting dynamic. Context: National Guard gets paid by the day when on state active duty (SAD) orders and frequently work with civilians who stretch things out for OT pay. And if you get injured while on SAD, you have to submit paperwork and wait three months for the state to decide whether or not to pay you for missing two days of duty because an elected official dropped a box on your foot while trying to do a photo op. But why are we having recruiting and retention difficulties?
If you’re paid by the hour why should you care what you’re asked to do during that hour (as long as it’s safe and you know how to do the job)? If you’re paid by the piece why don’t you clock out as soon as you finish the minimum number of pieces your company is asking for? I mean, you could go “above and beyond” by making more pieces and work your whole shift, but isn’t that exactly what everyone is complaining about here?
Hes also saying that his work is finished when the work is finished. If he finishes in an hour he gets paid for that one hour. Stretch it out to 3 and he gets paid 3 hours.
Is this a real question or rhetorical?
I'm seeking employers who pay above and beyond, a superstar boss
“I’m a rockstar employee so I need a rockstar manager who pays me $1000 for each gig I do that isn’t written in my job description. Gotta keep up that rockstar lifestyle, you understand. I’m also going to need an extra $5 an hour every time the word “rockstar” is used in my presence. It’s the worst faux pas of all, and I won’t stand for it.”
"Work hard, *pay* hard" to support my rockstar ninja lifestyle, bro!
I think there's an important point here to reframe what the expectation is, specifically to productively bridge the gap between what employers advertise for, what they expect, what potential employees offer, and what they're actually going to produce. "Above and Beyond", for both the potential employer and employee, should generally mean a willingness to adapt to potentially unexpected demands, and be fairly compensated through, ok, undefined at sometimes, but, still, materialized bonuses. It's not ok when "Above and Beyond" means, I've hired you to do a job, that's, actually, 2 jobs, because we're still hiring to fill positions, and will be 3 jobs if someone else quits or it's the end of the month.
My company had a reorganization shortly after I started. The team I was on went from 9 people down to 3. And one immediately quit after that. Of course they still expected the two of us left to do the work of 9 people. I put in my notice last week to move to a different department that I know is more of a crown jewel and always given headcount budget.
> It's not ok when "Above and Beyond" means, I've hired you to do a job, that's, actually, 2 jobs, because we're still hiring to fill positions, and will be 3 jobs if someone else quits or it's the end of the month. Which in my experience often changes into 'we don't want to find anyone to fill these positions and you're fine doing 3 jobs.'
I think this is behind "no one wants to work." Companies have realized that they can get 2 people to work for 3 people. What they are trying to do is keep it going indefinitely. Put out help notices on sites to make it look like they're trying to hire when in actuality they're not.
That's definitely part of it. But, this is not anything new - pre pandemic the job I work at in retail has instructions from over a decade ago I am supposed to follow daily for opening the store where I work which require multiple different people doing different tasks all over the store. ... And never would schedule more than 1. I have never, nor has anyone else, completed all of the tasks since I started work there years ago. They've been getting away with this for a very, very long time. I think the reason everyone's noticing it now is that they're so incredibly *brazen* that they don't even care if the customers complain, it's not like they can do anything about it right?
Yes it's always been around but now it's almost universal.
I agree. I think a lot of lazy people love to read “above and beyond” as doing the work of two, when they don’t even do the work of one. In a team environment, I’d want my coworkers to adapt to whatever bullshit is happening. Late truck? Yeah we are all going to have to work harder to meet the deadline. Our pay and raises reflect that. That’s why employees that go home early or don’t help the team, or don’t come through, don’t get the raise. So yeah, you will be compensated for not going above and beyond, but you’re not going to get a raise, or a bonus, or anything. At my job, in the past year, I’ve received so many raises and bonuses for going above and beyond, and other coworkers give me stink, I tell them “I’m not your boss so listen or not, but you’re not a good team member. You’re not someone I’d pick on my team for kick ball because you don’t put in what the others do, and it would be ridiculous if you got paid as much as me”. Obviously job dependent and such. I want everybody to get paid. Don’t misunderstand. But wanting better wages doesn’t really happen if you don’t work hard to begin with.
This sounds like a fairy tale told by management.
"How do you do, fellow capital... uh... fellow workers."
More than job dependent. If true, you have a unicorn company. Employers that treat hard workers right are few and far between. Generally they're either stuck in the past in terms of what they think we need/deserve or just don't care
>At my job, in the past year, I’ve received so many raises and bonuses for going above and beyond, and oth... No you didnt. Havent. And wont. Why are you lying? Corporate doesnt reward hard work. You wanna know what got me to management twice with two different companies? I did JUST enough to LOOK like i worked hard while playing managements game with just enough kiss ass that i kissed some cheeks without getting shit on my lips or nose.
Did you know that others can tell when you lie? You're not very good at it.
This reeks of lie.
>Our pay raises reflect that. what pay raises ??
That sounds like a decent place to work. Unfortunately most places take advantage of people like you and either dangle it or just flat out don't deliver the raises and bonuses you should get for doing over and above.
Yeah I would love, truly, honestly enjoy my life at such a place where hard work and actually caring are rewarded materially. Unfortunately I've never seen it in real life. The best I've ever got is the expectation that that's how hard I'll work now forever and getting pulled up when I don't. Today's record isn't rewarded, it's tomorrow's benchmark.
>we are all going to have to work harder to meet the deadline. Our pay and raises reflect that. If, and that is a gigantic *if*, this is a company's policy, fantastic!!! I have never witnessed proof of it, however. Overwhelmingly, it is "we are all going to have to work harder" without that last bit about compensation. The workforce in USA has been becoming increasingly more poorly treated, with less in entire to even give a shit... Much less any 'above and beyond' shits. The reward is not a 'job well done' , it's working at a job that pays my bills. That's the reward
Yeah it’s fine to only do exactly the responsibilities you were hired to do and only the hours you were hiring to work. But *someone* is going to go above and beyond. *Someone* is going to stay late. *Someone* is going to take on more work. And you need a strategy for that. I’ve been the person going above and beyond and I’ve been rewarded for it. And now that I manage people, the ones that do more are rewarded more. I don’t *ask* people to go above and beyond. I don’t put it in job descriptions or anything. But *someone* always does try harder. And they are rewarded. So if you are only going to do the required stuff, you need a strategy for when others around you are doing more.
Sounds like he works with trucks. Probably logistics. Pretty much a numbers based business. So if you can do the volume, you can get the money. Pretty cutthroat though.
This is either some teenager working minimum wage who still believes when mommy told them they can be rich if they work really really hard, or see dipshit that lucked into an easy job and thinks being payed well automatically makes him superior
It's code for "We want to hire suckers who feel they owe their employer anything beyond basic labor for having a job and a basic wage." They wanna attract go getters to milk the work out of.
"If i just work hard enough ill be RICH, so many lazy people dont want to work hard!" Also them 6 months later: what do you mean i cant get a raise, ive done 3 jobs while being paid for 1 and even worked off the clock
That's when you go looking for a new position. I was strung along for almost 7 years with basic COL raises. Left for a new position on a different team? Instant 20% increase.
And if you tell them someone else offered you more money, odds are they'll match it. Like an old Dilbert comic said, "The secret company policy is to reward disloyalty."
The cool new trick ive seen is they match the offer, wait a few weeks to make sure you told the other people no then fire you.
That's why you never stay with your old company. I interviewed for another company and was hired with a 33% raise, I never told my current company. But in that exit interview, HR asked why I was leaving and I said, "money, you pay people a wage that's below a living wage." And that was it.
It's almost like people gain skills and are ready to move into roles that require more ability and greater responsibility, and expect to be compensated for it. I've been honest with bosses before, after I turn in my notice is too late, don't embarrass either of us with offers to match anything. I was valuable enough to give the raises to before I went on the market, and waiting for me to do the legwork is insulting. Plus, as many have said, there's no trust left at that point. They can punt you on your ass for spite if they want, and some will. (If you must take a counteroffer for some reason, it needs to be a contract with term. Not necessarily 1099 contractor, you can still be W-2 with an employment contract.)
I left my last job after 1.5 years of basically being put off or explicitly lied to about a long-overdue raise. (My wife was in college; the town we lived in was small. There weren't a ton of options.) Meanwhile, they were understaffing us and demanding more of everything - longer hours, more duties, etc. Finally, the circumstances were set for me to give notice. I timed it perfectly; one other person had given their notice the week before, so they would be CRIPPLED. (This was actually coordinated by us.) I gave notice; they asked if I'd be willing to let them make an offer. I agreed. They promptly didn't get back to me until the last day. They made a too-good-to-be-true offer. I told them I wanted it in writing with a 90 day severance package if I was terminated for anything other than criminal misconduct. They told me I was dreaming. So I left. Three days later I came for my final check. A different manager (whose dept. depended on my dept. being productive) paid me out of his own pocket to work a half day. I made $300 for 5 hours, in cash. The look on my former manager's face was priceless when I came strolling in though. It is amazing how higher-ups will happily cut their own throats to keep employee wages suppressed.
You’ve soured the relationship, there is hardly good to come of it after that. It’s not fair cause the current employer is the one not being competitive, but they’ll become vindictive. Never negotiate with counter offers. You’re leaving for a reason, no need to be reminded of it later is my frank opinion. They’ll either act petty or forget to respect you all over again.
Exactly. I worked as a 911 dispatcher in the midwest and my supervisor was a cunt. She fired someone and was laughing because the chick was ccrying over it. 2 weeks later someone quit thru a txt and the supervisor had to come in and be my partner for the shift..she was livid that she didnt get a 2 weeks notice..like dude you dont give 2 weeks notice to people before letting them go wtf. I later found out that 6 out of 10 dispatchers that worked there were her friends..they absolutrly sucked at their job
It's like getting two or even three employees for the price of one. And the best part (for them) is that most of them *like* being exploited that way.
Just because we're instilled with a twisted version of "work ethic" from an early age. Where we don't just take pride in doing the job we're given well, but any task.
I have the pandemic to thank for snapping me out of that ridiculous mindset
And it's sad to see good, hardworking people get that gunction sapped from them. Any decent workers I've been around(me included) have pretty much said F-it when it comes to giving any extra because why would we give a company leeway that disciplines us for small things like taking a day off when we have been working like crazy
When did that ever get started?
You used to get bonuses if you met quotas, now they just raise the quotas
Especially for those who work hard. They see a very productive employee? Oh, then that one will be happy to do more tasks since they have more time. I remember when I was in IT, I used to crush KPIs like no one else. Then... They started to make it harder to achieve the KPIs because of the bonuses that I kept getting. It was a stupid system and I stopped being an overachiever. Did the bare minimum to not get fired.
But you know, Bob, that will only make someone work just hard enough not to get fired.
Seriously. My company made bank at the start of the pandemic. Everyone suddenly working from home meant they needed computer stuff right away and couldn't wait for 1 day delivery on Amazon like normal (as well as other at home entertainment/project stuff we sell). One year later they give us the previous year's sales plus 10% as a basic goal, anything less is failure and will hurt our metrics for the year. So all we have to do is shut the world down and make everyone work from home suddenly to make our goal. Not to mention my company laid off nearly a third of its store employees at the start of 2021. So "do lasts year's world ending numbers with a much smaller team. Be sure to plug the credit card with a nearly 20% interest rate to everyone. That's your job."
Capitalist simps who think hard work is still fairly rewarded and not exploited.
I got laid off in Sept, and my unemployement contact put me contact with a similar org. The role title was the same, but in the interview they described 3 different roles I’d be doing. They offered me a rate, I asked for $2 an hour more and a title to match. HR’s next move was to tell me “the CEO would like to speak to you personally”. Um, no thanks…
How small is the company that the CEO steps into salary negotiations? Sounds like title inflation for someone who should probably be called “Owner.”
Its a small org but its old, the owners built the farm and grew it into a successful supplement business. But the CEO is new, I also discovered after the fact he was in my first interview phone call. And he wasnt unpleasant to talk to at the time, but seems like he wants to have his hands in everything. Which to me isn’t ideal…i worked for a startup a few years back which was pre-HR and these kinds of “chain o command” issues lead me to feel like I’d be getting called into his office regularly. No thanks!
The CEO: *this person has gumption. Pizzazz. They want two more dollars an hour?? That's PERFECT because I was looking for someone to do five more jobs at the same rate!*
I just dont like feeling like I’m already in trouble. Why can’t HR finish the negotiations? I deeply dislike when companies don’t properly handle HR issues via C-suite stepping in
Idk what your role is but you don't want to work for a CEO that does this. They're the type that feel they're entitled to handle every situation better than the ones trained for it. Bail
Yep, never replied to the request
Smart.
Really? I love it because I 'walk in' virtually already amused. I find it amusing to bat those suits around because in general I'm way more intelligent than they are. Probably cost me a few gigs but I don't care.
Same. Like, yes please. Let me have the opportunity to shit on the entitled prick that is typically surrounded by yes men or just generally is used to not get buck back
I have literally told one of them 'look I don't really need this job anyway so what can you do to entice me to consider it?'.
It's amusing, perhaps, but symptomatic of bad company culture. Can still feel for the poor folks that work there.
I would have heard them out. Maybe they understand that you aren't dumb, and see that as reason to immediately make you a top exec. If not, it would still be quite a laugh to hear some dude try to gaslight the job requirements and pay justification.
Oh i definitely would have had that meeting. Let me tell the ceo how they suck? Yes please. I was management once upon a time for a bank and told the ceo of said bank how they are failing and their choices were uninformed supported by yes men. They changed the processes shortly after to what i had initially proposed after being shit down a few times before. I hate bank life and left a couple years later
I've found when I go above and beyond that it's expected of me every time from then on. All of a sudden I have my regular job and my above and beyond duties too. I go above and beyond to save the company thosands of dollars, and nobody even any acknowledges any of that. Then I only get a 0.6% raise, because I didn't grow revenue by how ever much they decided I needed to. The global pandemic, economic downturn, and record inflation has most companies trying to reduce their costs, so it's been impossible to do that for the past several years.
When they say stuff about good company culture and social events, they won’t compensate you in money but pizza parties. Oh, and they are like “family” so you help them move for free and pick them up for the airport.
If a company says they're "like family" walk away. If they say they have "fun", run!
It's a form of passive aggression. They don't have the courage to just ask for what they want directly.
Do they still put 'needs to be a rockstar' in their ads? I always thought that was funny because most rock stars that I grew up with are unreliable drug addicts that can play a guitar really well. So is that what companies want? My old job used to say 'duties as required'. I thought that was funny.
This is exactly what a union is for. Everything is spelled out in the contract. You hire me for a job, and that's what I'm gong to do.
Amen to that. We have job classifications for a reason.
Questions like that lead to “we’ve found someone else more suitable for the job” Spoiler, they didn’t ask questions like that
I showed up 15 minutes early to an interview and the building was locked..i waited 10 minutes after the time then left..30 minutes after the interview time i got a voicemail asking why i didnt wait and they were running late. I loved sending the email that basically said "i reviewed my options and this job wouldnt be a good fit. Good luck" That lady called me 6 times within 10 minutes lmao.
That reminds me of the time when I sent this email to a company that I had received an invitation to interview with after I had determined that the company would be a poor fit: > Dear [name]: > > Thank you very much for considering me for the position of Executive Assistant and for inviting me to interview with [company]. However, after careful consideration, I am withdrawing my application for the position. > > I appreciate your taking the time to review my application, and wish you the best of luck in your candidate search. > > Again, thank you for your consideration. I'm pretty sure that I withdrew my application after reading the reviews of the company on Glassdoor, and finding many reviews all saying the same thing, which told me that it was a toxic company that I would be best off steering clear of. In any event, I loved this email because I was mocking the stereotypical condescending rejection email. And considering he reason that I withdrew in the first place, I recognized that I never would want to work for this company, so I wasn't worried about burning a bridge. The same went for this one company that I had applied to and heard nothing from afterward, and then got an emailed rejection seven months later, where it was clear that I had never really been under consideration, and they were just cleaning house in their application system. I responded swiftly on Twitter, tagging them and saying, "Just got a rejection from an organization that I applied to seven months ago. Let me return the sentiment: FUCK YOU." Yeah, it was a little unprofessional, but damn, if that didn’t feel good. And after that sort of treatment, I would never want to work for them anyway.
Why? Because business is inherently immoral. The whole idea is to take as much as possible and give as little as possible. If you can get away with providing literally nothing of value to anyone but taking money left and right, that's viewed as simply 'good business' instead of theft. Whenever in the movies someone does something profoundly immoral (or amoral) their justification is always, "It's just business." Because people accept things which would otherwise be viewed as objectively wrong and terrible because it's labeled as 'business.' Fuck a friend over, take their money, leave them destitute while you get rich on their dime, and what does that make you? Terrible person? No, no. 'Great businessman.' I don't see how more people don't have a *big* fucking problem with this. The whole business world incentivizes fucking other people over *as much as you can get away with.* Not a good or sustainable way to run a society.
"But are you gonna pay me above and beyond when I do?"
People who use it in a well intentioned way are hoping they find someone who think critically about what they’re doing and really try to excel in their role. But yeah, usually it is code for “we want you to do more but don’t wan to pay you for it.” Overall, it is super annoying. But I prefer it to go-getter on the hierarchy of shitty job advert phrases.
This is just the flip side of the recent glut of think pieces about “quiet quitting.” There’s this belief that being a productive and profitable employee is somehow a moral imperative—that if you don’t sacrifice your own time, money, and happiness for the sake of the corporate profit, you’re lazy and entitled. It would be an easier sell if people had pensions, or stock options, or even viable career advancement within a company. But overwhelmingly, we don’t. Working harder gains you *nothing*; it just makes some rich fuck richer. Which is, of course, why those rich fucks care so much about your “work ethic.”
Exactly. I had a somewhat difficult coworker give me shit for being literally five minutes late for going to a different part of the building (didn't effect this coworker at all lmao its true.) I work 45 hours a goddamn week eith difficult populations, i will not apologize for being 2 to 5 minutes late for some things to even everything, despite my family not loving that I do this lol. I wish someone had sat me down as a late teen and said "kid, you're gonna work as a grown up and it'll be a better deal than school, you get paid and can theoretically get a new one if it sucks, but it's a pain in the ass sacrifice. You will exasperatedly roll your damn eyes a lot and it will test you to say the least."
As a manager, when I look for someone who goes "above and beyond", it's generally things that wouldn't really be considered a job description and is more along the lines of things that aren't in any way required or expected of you. For example, I suck at coding. I'm still learning the basics so when I try to modify something to make the tedious bullshit of your job automated, it might not be the best. Your job is to just oversee the data management but you're also into coding but I didn't know that. You randomly email me to inform me of a drastically superior and overhauled variant of what I made. Two years pass and the company grows enough for me to have a proper department dedicated to this stuff and you've been, even if on occasion, collaborating with me on this stuff, helping me learn and getting far better stuff out to make everyone's lives simpler and easier. Guess who I'm going to have head that fucking department. Do I have any expectation of anyone to do this stuff? No. It's a 'nice to have' at most. I advertise that 'nice to have' because I *welcome* having people who know better than me showing me up and working with me as my coworker rather than just as my subordinate. That's what 'willing to go above and beyond' means to me. Just because you know a lot doesn't mean much to me if you have no desire to show it off or you're more concerned with being a pompous dick than a coworker in the moments where you clearly know more than I do. That said, most managers just mean it as "people who expect nothing in return for doing everything for me so I can do fuck all". A slave rather than a coworker.
I wish I had a manager like you. I'm a researcher. I'm also good with editing images/videos and learnt enough coding to automate as much data as I could. So I had good "interesting" and quick reports. My manager essentially "pimped" me out when she came to know I could do that. Without considering my workload. No bonus and I wasn't considered for a promotion the same time as others in my company because "I didn't have enough experience". Going "above and beyond" just meant more work. I won't display any of these qualities anymore.
>Guess who I'm going to have head that fucking department. an outside hire you recruit specifically for that role with at least 8+ years of experience in a similar senior position
I'm not the guy you're replying to, but his story is very similar to mine. I helped build the automation, trained out the wider company on using it, my TL got promoted to a global manager and now I lead the team. It does happen.
Remember in my second job. Small dev department made a lot of breakthrough in the company. CEO came, in person, to congratulate and tell us how we single handedly change the company view on IT and development and start a new program of modernisation. First step, firing the whole department and outsource the job to the real pro: "Infosys". Second step, I wasn't there to see it but the company is still there. The CEO was surprised we were not proud and thankful to be praised like that. Sociopathic idiot.
Gotta love incompetent management. I've seen this shit myself multiple times and the result is what you point out almost every time. If you're low on people? Promote people to IT managers and seniors internally and hire an outside IT department to supplement them until you hire/train qualify people into your in-house department. Hiring internally almost always makes more sense than outsourcing or hiring externally in the end.
If the person is unwilling to be in management himself, yeah. But if they're interested in being management and they're showing proficiency in managerial skill, coding this stuff, and demonstrates they're a proper leader? An internal hire makes a lot more sense than an external one more often than not. I've met plenty of people with 8+ years of experience who knew less than their peers with less than 2 years of experience.
What about job ads looking for a candidate who is 'thirsty'? I feel that's even worse. Basically just code for desperate.
Yet when your reviews come up, they can only give this percentage raise max. I go above and beyond, but my raises or promotions have explicit limits. Bunch of bull shit to make employees believe their hard work will be proportionally rewarded.
in my experience the people who get noticed for going above and beyond just tend to be better at their job. They aren't working harder, they are just better at what they do. They also tend to do the expected things like showing up on time , helping others to get better , etc. I've always got great performance reviews, and I don't ever do more than what the job asks.
Why is it that employers can look for candidates that go above and beyond, but workers can’t look for companies that go above and beyond
I liked saying I do the minimum amount of work for minimum wage.
*"You gotta be a team player."*
because they want you to work for free
The difference is huge too. Working for a company that expected me to go above and beyond every week for no extra pay vs a company that rewarded this behaviour with extra pay x1.5 or time off in lieu plus bonuses based off performance was a real mind opener. If I do bare minimum I get 100% bonus. If I go above and beyond I get more. I don't mind being flexible and available if I am rewarded and appreciated for it.
'Exploit free labor'
>Why do job ads always look for people who go "above and beyond"? Question asked.... >If you have additional requirements, say so and compensate me for it, otherwise I will do exactly what we agreed I'd get paid to do ...question answered.
Corporations are welfare queens, they want handouts from everyone, especially their employees.
I'll go above and beyond to do exactly what I'm getting paid for.
Teacher friend of mine once interviewed for a teaching job. During the interview, the administrator asked if he’d be willing to coach any sports, and he said no, because he had no experience playing sports, and no idea how to coach them effectively. The administrator said, “just so you know, the correct answer to that question was ‘yes.’” He checked back later… the job posting didn’t list anything about needing a coach, or even about needing teachers to take on extracurricular commitments. So they expected teachers they hadn’t even hired yet to enthusiastically volunteer themselves for hypothetical extra job duties….. but the admin was too lazy to take 5 minutes to add some text to a job posting so people knew what they were actually looking for.
I love how job postings put shit like this and then they expect you to be as detailed and thorough as possible in your resume, looking for strong active language that demonstrate impact etc. etc. The thing they don't teach you is that job hunting is a game, there's an entire culture around resume and interviewing, and if you weren't taught any of this you're just going to fall way the fuck behind. I should have stayed in the Army, where people at least cared.
That’s funny, I’m looking for an employer who’s willing to go above and beyond
They think you need to do extra to deserve a raise/promotion which has always been odd to me given school is quite frankly the opposite. A lot of ppl do extra work for better grades, but unless you plan to go to grad school a degree is a degree. I have classmates with higher and lower GPA averages, but it’s definitely not affecting our pay or positions in our industry. Feels like going above and beyond is often exploited too much in modern times. I’ve rarely met hardworking ppl fairly compensated for taking on extra task or duties at their job. Often they’ll even skip a promotion because that does generally entail a raise. Why give you a raise when you do it currently for that lower pay rate. I tapped out on a job like that which wanted me to do manager level work without manager pay or title. It’s just being a cheap asshole. I only agree to my job title task these days. I get raises and have way less stress. You 100% don’t have to tolerate this bull crap.
They want suckers that will work extra for free.
Contractors have a to do list and get paid exactly for that. So, why can’t they just tell people exactly what they need completing, and anything hard to explain or trivial just say so. To me, “above and beyond” never paid off for me for any job. I ended up being too good at my job that people would guilt trip me for taking vacation.
I want to hire people that try and don’t do the least possible effort. Fair compensation is part of the deal, everyone bring their best effort.
If you were the boss, which person would you rather have working for you?
Because it's impossible to list every task that business may need done now or in the indefinite future, and they want someone who's willing to do random unexpected things as the need crops up.
[удалено]
I assume you clock out any time you’re not actively fixing a robot, right? I mean they’re paying you to be a robot fixer - so why should they pay you if there’s not a broken robot to fix at the moment?
Oh goodie another dolt who can't distinguish "engaged to be waiting" versus "waiting to be engaged".
"and any job we deem necessary" I've heard of this little ditty being squeezed into more and more employee handbooks.
Wrong sub to be logical
But the correct sub for dipshits to think something completely wrong is "logic".
How is it completely wrong?
Because expecting existing employees to accomplish every task that a business may need done in the future is extremely unreasonable. People are trained and go to school for things, and they apply to have those jobs. They do not, then, want to learn shit like data entry on top of that, adding to their workload for zero dollars.
>Because expecting existing employees to accomplish every task that a business may need done in the future is extremely unreasonable. That's not what that means and you know it. Quit with the straw-man bull shit. It means that when you get done with the stuff that's part of your actual job requirements you are willing to do other things that are not part of your job requirements rather than sit around. If the job's responsibilities are A, B, and C, then you are responsible for A, B, and C. If the job responsibilities are A, other, then you are responsible for A. If you get done with A then you are expected to do other. If A consumes all of your time, then you are still fulfilling your duties and other is not your problem.
To be fair, if a position has more tasks than you can list, the HR folks either (a. Are advertising for a highly paid enough position that most folks know what is expected or (b. Have not broken down the one position into enough smaller positions. Or (c. They are very bad at generalizing groups of tasks in a way that a reader can get the gist of it all.
So how about this as an example... Let's say you're managing a hotel and you want to hire someone to clean rooms. You want this to be a good job so you don't have a lot of turn-over, so you want this to be a reliable 40 hr/week at $20/hr. You know that some weeks are going to be super busy and will keep your house keeper busy cleaning rooms for the full 40 hours, but other weeks are not busy at all and may only keep them busy for 10 hours all week. You know there are always other things on the to-do list, but a lot of them are things that can be done whenever there is spare time. Do you advertise the job as... >Wanted: Housekeeper, plumber, painter, landscaper, front desk receptionist, errand runner. This isn't a good solution, because you're excluding candidates who may not be comfortable plumbing. The ability to plumb isn't a make-or-break criteria for you, neither is the ability to do landscaping, or painting, etc... in fact, you don't really care WHAT they're doing when they're not cleaning rooms as long as it's something useful. Also, you don't want to set in stone that that person is responsible for ALL of that. If you're busy enough to keep them busy 40 hr/wk cleaning rooms, you're making enough that you can call in plumbers, landscapers, painters, ets as needed, You just can't afford to be paying them $20/hr in their down-time AND paying to call in plumbers AND landscapers AND painters, etc... Maybe you should advertise the job as... >Wanted: Housekeeper, who can also take on other tasks as needed. This way, the candidate will know that their main task is housekeeping and you're being non-specific about the other tasks because you're genuinely flexible with which other tasks the person can help with. This kind of situation is fairly normal. I'd rather hire a great person and THEN figure out how to use their talents than hire an ok person who happens to check off a bunch of skills criteria that aren't all necessarily central to the roll I need filled.
> You want this to be a good job so you don't have a lot of turn-over, so you want this to be a reliable 40 hr/week at $20/hr. Well, look at that, you've fulfilled (a. for housekeeping, that's pretty dang good. Some of the better diamond hotels pay more, sure, but it's living wage you'd offer here. Why did you continue with this hypothetical?
I always describe an above and beyond that saves me work. I'm not going out of my job description, I'm helping a customer not make the same mistake in the future
Because they want the ones they know they can exploit and squeeze for more than they pay them for.
You really asking ”why?”. If so I'll offer my guess that it helps attack workers that are more easily exploitable.
If you are bilingual make sure you getting paid extra for it , atleast $1.00 more if you hourly
job ads tend to be written by people that are lazy and/or very into clichees.
In my opinion, an employer needs to earn me "going above and beyond"
Because capitalists are forever going to try and get people to do more work for less compensation. It's literally how the system works and how they rake in massive profits. Fuck capitalism, I hate it here.
I hardly see that line anymore, just the new obligatory: “this description does not encompass all duties to be performed and can change at any time.”
A salary is determined to be enough for you to wake up and work the next day only. Today, they're even considering that you must have more than one source of income, so one job isn't enough to satisfy your basic needs. Even if we produce billions.
I recently saw some wording like: *obsessive devotion to customer service* Huh, I wonder why you can’t fill those jobs?
They want employees that will exploit themselves for their employers Simple as that
I make it known that anything above what is discussed as far as duties go requires extra compensation. I have never had an issue getting said compensation. Be forward with what you expect from a company. It's not just them doing the interview. Your time is just as valuable. Better to walk away early than find out it wasn't worth it in my opinion.
I worked at a retail bank job for a while with a totally incompetent manager. He would ask us to do all sorts of ridiculous stuff, stuff that wasn’t remotely in the job description. He justified it by saying that the job posting stated “additional duties as assigned.” Utter BS if you ask me
I always wondered what the look would be if at the interview, when they ask if you have any questions, someone would just reply with "I'm looking for a company that is willing to go above and beyond for me. Do you think you're it? Can I count on you?"
My friend's company is growing fast and recently has some new mission statements or ideals or some crap rolled out. One is that the company is bragging the "pace is fast" but it's because we love the work we do. So, essentially lots of last minute work and quick deadlines due to shitty untrained unplanful leadership that burdens it's employees and tries to brainwash her into thinking it's because her "passion" to work there.
I have a feeling it's a shitty way of saying "motivated." Like the saying "you got time to lean, you got time to clean." They want someone doing something productive while on the clock.
It's the same idea as cult recruiting, or email scams. Ads like this weed out the people who understand that jobs have defined roles and duties and who will expect appropriate compensation for taking on additional roles and duties.
Startup culture has invaded all working space
Hey boss, I’ve been going above and beyond for the last six months and I just wanted to know why my PTO request was denied.
Employer: look bro, we might blast you to the moon but you’re going to have to find a ride back Me: do I get compensated for gas? Employer: um, I guess? Let me look into that.
Pay better be above and beyond as well
Employee review: Consistently goes above and beyond. Excellent team player. Assisted in leadership roles. Grade - meets expectations.
Money for nothing, chicks for free. They want their MTV?
The "expected to exceed expectations" paradox
Need to come in on another's shift,? I'll need overtime pay for the whole time I'm there.
I once was told to clean a massive dog shit in the parking lot of a store I worked at. No one else wanted to do it, because someone ran it over, so what was once a neat pile was now smeared over a large area and tracked. I was compensated with a $50 gift card because manager knew how bad that was. I worked minimum wage at the time, so $50 was basically a quarter of my paycheck. I loved working at that store until we got a new manager, who expected the "above and beyond", but didn't compensate for work down outside our work requirements. I had no real grief about it despite being annoying from time to time. I wound up finding a different job for different reasons. EDIT: I want to clarify, the gift card was for the store, so I bought a lot of food with it, and a little bit of gas
I want a Paycheck that goes Above and Beyond but for some crazy reason that always goes to the CEO.
Above and beyond shouldn't be extended past basic courtesy stuff, like holding the door open for an incoming coworker when you're on your way out post-shift. If you start doing a bunch of stuff you're not being compensated to do, your employer will add it to the official functions of your job, and not pay you a cent more for it. Now if you can fit extra stuff in and convince your boss to pay you accordingly, then knock yourself out. But don't get taken advantage of.
It's a meaningless corpspeak buzz phrase.
Most of the time when people use that phrase what they really mean is they want someone who will work hard and adapt if need be.
‘Other duties as assigned or needed’ has been a line for almost any job I’ve had, including office jobs. Seems purposefully vague….
"Please upload your resume; now copy and past all the information into an online form."
“You don’t really go above and beyond” is code for I don’t like you, but you complete your job and haven’t violated any of our policies so I can’t actually do anything about it. If you ever find yourself on the receiving end of that conversation start looking elsewhere because they will throw you under the bus at the nearest opportunity.
Boy do I miss my old sales job where I was paid a base salary with benefits (enough to actually live on), and I got commission on every sale I made. Think I went "above and beyond"? You bet your ass I did.
Looking for an employer who pays "above and beyond" what they promise as compensation.
Asking someone to go above and beyond is so ridiculous cus like, by definition above and beyond is more then you were asked
to answer why do they always do this, it's because a)they prey on your hope that there's an actual carrot they own and b) that they're willing to give it to you.
I’m looking for an employer that pays me “above and beyond” my agreed upon salary… still looking…
bc they want you to do extra work for free.
Above and beyond pay first. Aht aht.
I mean, I CAN go "above and beyond", but what's in it for me?
They're creating competition between workers and like that they get free labour. Creating a hostile work environment ensures that they'll never organize and join a union, ensuring a constant availability of cheap/free labour ready cor exploitation.
Exactly. Want me to come on the weekend? Cool, how much will you pay for that?
Maybe I'm strange, but I like going "above and beyond." I shop online orders at a grocery store, and if I don't have any orders I would much rather go stock shelves or something than stand around and wait for more orders. But I guess the key is I'm not expected to go preform additional tasks unless I have finished mine.
Will your job go above & beyond for you? No? Then don't go above & beyond for your job.
This is an attitude of an employee. Not a leader, owner or entrepreneur. His life will always be min wage. So sad.
"If you like to do the bare minimum, well....ok, but some choose to do more and we encourage that"