zugmann Euclid To the employees who want to get out of the boss's view and work at home, I am sure that those empolyees believe that keeping track of worker productivity is old school management. But most management is not going to see it that way. Of course not. Becuase a lot of those managers are completely unnecessary and are featherbedding their positions.
Euclid To the employees who want to get out of the boss's view and work at home, I am sure that those empolyees believe that keeping track of worker productivity is old school management. But most management is not going to see it that way.
Of course not. Becuase a lot of those managers are completely unnecessary and are featherbedding their positions.
That may very well be, but my point is that the managers are the last people who want to see employees work from home. Therefore I disagree with the notion that this is one big happy movement that will liberate employees from going to the central office hub every day. There is definitely a movement, but it is only on the employee side.
They are rationalizing all the details to make their case to management. This is no different than movements making other demands on business such as minimum wage. I would not be surprised if laws are passed requiring companies to allow "work from home" under some condtions. It is really part of the green movment to reduce CO2 from commuting. It is part of the New Urbanism political movement that says you must either walk to work, or take transit. Soon it will include a third option: work from home.
My larger point, though, is that this virus has highlighted this "work from home" movement in a way that we have never seen before. So if it really proves viable, there should be an overnight transformation.
EuclidTo the employees who want to get out of the boss's view and work at home, I am sure that those empolyees believe that keeping track of worker productivity is old school management. But most management is not going to see it that way.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
GERALD L MCFARLANE JRdoesn't matter how long an office worker takes to do it, keeping track of your office workers time is old school management practices not valid in todays world.
To the contrary, being able to determine how effectively an employee handles their workload, enables management to decide if they can "load up" more work on the employee, or extend them additional "opportunities".
Plus, if I have two employees performing roughly the same jobs, and both are completing their duties in half a day......guess what?
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR Euclid charlie hebdo I think you are mostly wrong. I think the need for a physical structure for offices will be much less, as in many fields the work is on computers and/or online anyway. Business travel will also be less needed. You subscribe to out-of-date notions of management. ~SNIP~ You may think management notions are out of date, but I can assure you that management does not see a day's work for a day's pay as an outdated notion. But they don't want to take the time to micromanage this in the workplace. So they just figure if they can see your face at your work station, they are getting some productivity. I have read articles saying that companies have found that letting people work from home gives the company about one hour per day of work for 8 hours pay. People rationalize that they are allowed to be home, they are on the clock from starting time to quitting time, and because they are allowed to be at home, they are allowed to do all the home things on the clock. These are things like cleaning the house and running errands. ~SNIP~ What's happening is people are getting their 8 hours of work done in 1 hour now because there are no bosses hanging over their shoulder or distractions from meetings, e-mails, etc., etc.,. That can also happen in an office if people just bother to take the time to find ways to do your job more efficiently...did it when I worked in logisitics, I was getting 8 hours of work done in 4 and had to come up with things to do just to keep busy. Management only objective is to make sure the work gets done correctly and on time, doesn't matter how long an office worker takes to do it, keeping track of your office workers time is old school management practices not valid in todays world.
Euclid charlie hebdo I think you are mostly wrong. I think the need for a physical structure for offices will be much less, as in many fields the work is on computers and/or online anyway. Business travel will also be less needed. You subscribe to out-of-date notions of management. ~SNIP~ You may think management notions are out of date, but I can assure you that management does not see a day's work for a day's pay as an outdated notion. But they don't want to take the time to micromanage this in the workplace. So they just figure if they can see your face at your work station, they are getting some productivity. I have read articles saying that companies have found that letting people work from home gives the company about one hour per day of work for 8 hours pay. People rationalize that they are allowed to be home, they are on the clock from starting time to quitting time, and because they are allowed to be at home, they are allowed to do all the home things on the clock. These are things like cleaning the house and running errands. ~SNIP~
charlie hebdo I think you are mostly wrong. I think the need for a physical structure for offices will be much less, as in many fields the work is on computers and/or online anyway. Business travel will also be less needed. You subscribe to out-of-date notions of management. ~SNIP~
I think you are mostly wrong. I think the need for a physical structure for offices will be much less, as in many fields the work is on computers and/or online anyway. Business travel will also be less needed. You subscribe to out-of-date notions of management.
~SNIP~
You may think management notions are out of date, but I can assure you that management does not see a day's work for a day's pay as an outdated notion. But they don't want to take the time to micromanage this in the workplace. So they just figure if they can see your face at your work station, they are getting some productivity. I have read articles saying that companies have found that letting people work from home gives the company about one hour per day of work for 8 hours pay.
People rationalize that they are allowed to be home, they are on the clock from starting time to quitting time, and because they are allowed to be at home, they are allowed to do all the home things on the clock. These are things like cleaning the house and running errands.
What's happening is people are getting their 8 hours of work done in 1 hour now because there are no bosses hanging over their shoulder or distractions from meetings, e-mails, etc., etc.,. That can also happen in an office if people just bother to take the time to find ways to do your job more efficiently...did it when I worked in logisitics, I was getting 8 hours of work done in 4 and had to come up with things to do just to keep busy.
Management only objective is to make sure the work gets done correctly and on time, doesn't matter how long an office worker takes to do it, keeping track of your office workers time is old school management practices not valid in todays world.
Erik_Mag GERALD L MCFARLANE JR May not matter now that the virus has mutated into a more virilent form that makes it easier to transmit the infection between people. I've seen more articles downplaying this story than supporting it. It's more common for viruses to mutate into milder forms as there are more chances for the virus to spread if it has a mild effect on the host.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR May not matter now that the virus has mutated into a more virilent form that makes it easier to transmit the infection between people.
May not matter now that the virus has mutated into a more virilent form that makes it easier to transmit the infection between people.
I've seen more articles downplaying this story than supporting it. It's more common for viruses to mutate into milder forms as there are more chances for the virus to spread if it has a mild effect on the host.
Apparently you didn't read very well, more virilent form that makes transmission easier; i.e. the transmission mechanism is more virile in the mututed version if that makes it easier for you to understand.
Euclid charlie hebdo There are some good features to being a so-called independent contractor, but mostly for the *employer* in my experience. I think that is mostly in the eyes of the beholder. Actual conditions vary widely between the two approaches. An employee works for a business. An independent contractor is a business. Contracting is not for everybody. Probably most people prefer the security of direct employment. Contractors usually get paid more because they assume greater responsibility for their outcomes. Companies sometimes see an advantage in hiring contractors for temporary, one-time tasks that need to get done when there are not enough regular employees available to take on the task. It is sometimes said to be an advantage to be an employee because the employer pays half of the Social Security tax, and with contractors, they must pay all of that tax. Of course the fact is that employees pay all of that tax just as contractors do.
charlie hebdo There are some good features to being a so-called independent contractor, but mostly for the *employer* in my experience.
There are some good features to being a so-called independent contractor, but mostly for the *employer* in my experience.
I think that is mostly in the eyes of the beholder. Actual conditions vary widely between the two approaches. An employee works for a business. An independent contractor is a business.
Contracting is not for everybody. Probably most people prefer the security of direct employment. Contractors usually get paid more because they assume greater responsibility for their outcomes. Companies sometimes see an advantage in hiring contractors for temporary, one-time tasks that need to get done when there are not enough regular employees available to take on the task.
It is sometimes said to be an advantage to be an employee because the employer pays half of the Social Security tax, and with contractors, they must pay all of that tax. Of course the fact is that employees pay all of that tax just as contractors do.
In dealing with contractors, company wash their hands of any responsibility for anything beyond paying the amount due for services rendered.
In the railroad industry, every effort is made to pay contrctors less that employees get paid.
From the vantage point I have had - the contractors 'hired' were retired former employees that were trading on their skills while dodging the requirement that under RRB rules they can't be EMPLOYED by a railroad. Thus as a contractor they could supplement their RRB and Company pension payments.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Electroliner 1935 When people are offered a job and don't have many choices and need income, they will grab any thing that sounds good. I suspect that you have not been underemployed in your lifetime and have had a decent income. Does an employer have any responsibility (morally) to offer a "living wage" income or is it just for for them to try to find the person so desperate that they will take a below cost of living job?
When people are offered a job and don't have many choices and need income, they will grab any thing that sounds good. I suspect that you have not been underemployed in your lifetime and have had a decent income. Does an employer have any responsibility (morally) to offer a "living wage" income or is it just for for them to try to find the person so desperate that they will take a below cost of living job?
The cost of living has nothing to do with an employer's decision to hire an employee. They make that decision only based on what they have to pay an employee who is competent enough to get the job done, and then they look for such an employee who is willing to take the job at that wage. Whether the employee regards the wage to be a "living wage" is irrelevant. It is totally up to the employee to make themselves worth the wage they need.
.
243129He or she is qualified to be an Amtrak supervisor.
Isn't it interesting that, semantically, "qualifies" may have nothing whatsoever to do with actually being 'qualified'?
SD70DudeThe Trainmaster, having been recently hired with no previous railroad experience,
He or she is qualified to be an Amtrak supervisor.
deleted
Electroliner 1935When I was doing taxes for AARP for retired and low income people, one of my clients was paid as an independent contractor. She was doing interviews over an area that required her to drive up to 100 miles to do an interview. When she got her 1099 Misc, she had to pay the SS taxes, she could take her driving expenses as a deduction, she still had to pay taxes. But she got NO benefits. It turned out she was making a lot less than minimum wage when it was all done. I really felt she was being taken advantage of by the "EMPLOYER".
How could she have been taken advantage of ? Contractors name their price. The customer can either take it or leave it. It is up to the contractor to price their services adequately. If they don't, it is nobody else's fault.
As a retired worker with health insurance and a good pension, I feel very fortunate, but I have hired contractors, consultants*, and I have been a consultant. One has to determine what amount of take home pay they need, add on 16% for social security, determine how much they want to put aside for their retirement, how much their medical insurance will cost and how many holidays and vacation days they expect. Put that all together to determine what you will bill for your proposal for the job you bid on. And the big employer will try to find someone to do it for less. What do you give up to get the job? The GIG workplace is a cruel place in my estimation.
When I was doing taxes for AARP for retired and low income people, one of my clients was paid as an independent contractor. She was doing interviews over an area that required her to drive up to 100 miles to do an interview. When she got her 1099 Misc, she had to pay the SS taxes, she could take her driving expenses as a deduction, she still had to pay taxes. But she got NO benefits. It turned out she was making a lot less than minimum wage when it was all done. I really felt she was being taken advantage of by the "EMPLOYER".
*One consultant I had presented a result that just was not doable and I had to negotiate a termination of the contract. And I have had many excellent consultants that performed exceeding well. When I say I hired them, I was providing the company's purchasing department with the specifications and evaluating the proposal's. And all this with my supervisors concurrence.
SD70Dude Deggesty Dude, did a Trainmaster actually ask you or someone you know why boxcars have steering wheels? If so, I trust that the Trainmaster was told, gently, in words of one syllable if possible, why that wheel is on the cars. The Trainmaster, having been recently hired with no previous railroad experience, asked a co-worker of mine, who I consider to be a reliable source. And yes, the actual purpose of the wheels was explained.
Deggesty Dude, did a Trainmaster actually ask you or someone you know why boxcars have steering wheels? If so, I trust that the Trainmaster was told, gently, in words of one syllable if possible, why that wheel is on the cars.
Dude, did a Trainmaster actually ask you or someone you know why boxcars have steering wheels? If so, I trust that the Trainmaster was told, gently, in words of one syllable if possible, why that wheel is on the cars.
The Trainmaster, having been recently hired with no previous railroad experience, asked a co-worker of mine, who I consider to be a reliable source.
And yes, the actual purpose of the wheels was explained.
https://youtu.be/BqpayZ2JqlU?t=947
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Johnny
Overmod Euclid But the biggest obstacle will be that regular employees will not want to become contractors. Very few 'employees' wouldn't want to become nominal independent contractors --
Euclid But the biggest obstacle will be that regular employees will not want to become contractors.
Very few 'employees' wouldn't want to become nominal independent contractors --
Sure they would prefer to be independent contractors if it looked like regular employment with a stream of work coming at them every day and nobody holding their feet to the fire to price it low and get it done yesterday. I am talking about real contract work with reviewing and bidding every job against several competitors and with go guarantee of getting the job.
Overmod Euclid But the biggest obstacle will be that regular employees will not want to become contractors. Very few 'employees' wouldn't want to become nominal independent contractors -- the tax advantages alone would be compelling; the freedom from mandatory attendance policies (not necessarily 'regular suggested hours') significant.
Very few 'employees' wouldn't want to become nominal independent contractors -- the tax advantages alone would be compelling; the freedom from mandatory attendance policies (not necessarily 'regular suggested hours') significant.
Let the bankruptcies begin.
Employees want to work, get paid, get their W-2's, file their taxes and get their refunds.
As contractors they would have to estimate and pay taxes quarterly, find their own medical insurance and pay for it, get their 1099's and hope they estimated their tax liability so as to not have to pay large sums when Tax Day comes. A whole lot more work on the 'contractors' side of employment than on the employee side of employment. Besides companies will want to pay 'contractors' less than they paid employees.
Contractors is the sucker play.
EuclidBut the biggest obstacle will be that regular employees will not want to become contractors.
The "biggest obstacle" has been, and will almost certainly continue to be, the IRS busily closing loopholes and discouraging use of 'independent contractors' in an increasing range of potential employment. If you are not familiar with the current 'tests' for employee status (they change a little every year; we used to run a subsidized seminar every year to review the changes) you really ought to do so. Much of what you've been asserting would be different, and much better informed, afterward.
Much of 'working at home' involves some form of networked access to 'distributed' resources and inter/intranets. These can be tracked with more or less exactly the same scheduling, change-management, and supervisory tools used for similar activities in an office setting. Likewise a range of collaborative apps -- recently something of a 'growth sector' on investor radar -- can handle many of the task-allocation and review functions handled both through 'management by walking around' or periodic status meetings and review sessions. More to the point, many historical 'salary-making' careers can be adapted to 'distance learning' tools and techniques ... by firms that have some idea what they expect from people they pay.
Note that one of the critical 'employee tests' is almost always broken quickly in any organization that values team-building as part of its employment. As soon as you dictate in any way that an employee needs to be somewhere or do something at a particular time -- they are no longer scheduled by a client's convenience; they are scheduled by an employer. So unless you have a pure 'bazaar' development model, where everybody works on what interests them, and only the priorities and feedback are matters of communication (not that something gets done on a particular day or by a particular week) as soon as you have a need for scheduled meetings with required attendance you're in employer territory -- expect to pay the taxes, file the forms, withhold out the wazoo, all that jazz.
Gramp There's a nice pile of tax law regarding being deemed an employee or an independent contractor.
There's a nice pile of tax law regarding being deemed an employee or an independent contractor.
The only way around this problem will be to make the home work station as immediately accountable (or more accountable) for work progress as is the company office work station. This would include tracking all tasks and the time they required. The same technology that makes working at home possible can also be used to track that work and the time it takes.
SD70Dude Euclid SD70Dude Euclid I think working at home can be very effective for business. It should save money for the company. But there needs to be discipline and accountability for the performance of work. That is why I think the solution to take advantage of this efficiency is to pay people working at home as independent contractors getting paid by the task accomplished. That should not be hard to keep track of in this age of information. Then you will have accountablity and discipline. This scenario would also make it a lot easier for employers to fire workers and cut benefits etc. You want to get rid of a contractor for any reason? Simply stop giving them work. Well that is the whole point. The work contractor commits to doing the job at the price promised. They are constantly compared to other work contractors as the company always looks for the best bargain. There are no benefits and no strings attached in the form of employer obligations other than to pay the agreed price for the work done. If you perform well, they continue giving you work. I you perform poorly, they don’t give you any more work. I have worked as an independent contractor for most of the time, and also worked as a direct employee on some jobs when I started out. Most of my contractor work was at a home office. But I do not regard that as even remotely similar to direct employees being given the privilege/favor of being allowed to work from home. The difference is night and day. As a contractor, you are expected to take it seriously and do what you committed to do in the time agreed on. As a direct employee, you are like a child under the day to day supervision of your parents. The benefit for the contractor is that you are usually paid more for the same work being done by employees precisely because of meeting the requirements for the company. With direct employees, employers often find that their expectations are not being met by the employees. This is so messed up. I don't know where to start picking it apart. I take it you also believe that employers never harass employees/contractors or fire them for not good reason. The next time I go run a train full of dangerous goods I will remember that I am nothing but a silly irresponsible child, and that the Trainmaster who asked why boxcars have steering wheels is my parent.....
Euclid SD70Dude Euclid I think working at home can be very effective for business. It should save money for the company. But there needs to be discipline and accountability for the performance of work. That is why I think the solution to take advantage of this efficiency is to pay people working at home as independent contractors getting paid by the task accomplished. That should not be hard to keep track of in this age of information. Then you will have accountablity and discipline. This scenario would also make it a lot easier for employers to fire workers and cut benefits etc. You want to get rid of a contractor for any reason? Simply stop giving them work. Well that is the whole point. The work contractor commits to doing the job at the price promised. They are constantly compared to other work contractors as the company always looks for the best bargain. There are no benefits and no strings attached in the form of employer obligations other than to pay the agreed price for the work done. If you perform well, they continue giving you work. I you perform poorly, they don’t give you any more work. I have worked as an independent contractor for most of the time, and also worked as a direct employee on some jobs when I started out. Most of my contractor work was at a home office. But I do not regard that as even remotely similar to direct employees being given the privilege/favor of being allowed to work from home. The difference is night and day. As a contractor, you are expected to take it seriously and do what you committed to do in the time agreed on. As a direct employee, you are like a child under the day to day supervision of your parents. The benefit for the contractor is that you are usually paid more for the same work being done by employees precisely because of meeting the requirements for the company. With direct employees, employers often find that their expectations are not being met by the employees.
SD70Dude Euclid I think working at home can be very effective for business. It should save money for the company. But there needs to be discipline and accountability for the performance of work. That is why I think the solution to take advantage of this efficiency is to pay people working at home as independent contractors getting paid by the task accomplished. That should not be hard to keep track of in this age of information. Then you will have accountablity and discipline. This scenario would also make it a lot easier for employers to fire workers and cut benefits etc. You want to get rid of a contractor for any reason? Simply stop giving them work.
Euclid I think working at home can be very effective for business. It should save money for the company. But there needs to be discipline and accountability for the performance of work. That is why I think the solution to take advantage of this efficiency is to pay people working at home as independent contractors getting paid by the task accomplished. That should not be hard to keep track of in this age of information. Then you will have accountablity and discipline.
I think working at home can be very effective for business. It should save money for the company. But there needs to be discipline and accountability for the performance of work. That is why I think the solution to take advantage of this efficiency is to pay people working at home as independent contractors getting paid by the task accomplished. That should not be hard to keep track of in this age of information. Then you will have accountablity and discipline.
This scenario would also make it a lot easier for employers to fire workers and cut benefits etc.
You want to get rid of a contractor for any reason? Simply stop giving them work.
Well that is the whole point. The work contractor commits to doing the job at the price promised. They are constantly compared to other work contractors as the company always looks for the best bargain. There are no benefits and no strings attached in the form of employer obligations other than to pay the agreed price for the work done. If you perform well, they continue giving you work. I you perform poorly, they don’t give you any more work.
I have worked as an independent contractor for most of the time, and also worked as a direct employee on some jobs when I started out. Most of my contractor work was at a home office. But I do not regard that as even remotely similar to direct employees being given the privilege/favor of being allowed to work from home. The difference is night and day. As a contractor, you are expected to take it seriously and do what you committed to do in the time agreed on. As a direct employee, you are like a child under the day to day supervision of your parents.
The benefit for the contractor is that you are usually paid more for the same work being done by employees precisely because of meeting the requirements for the company. With direct employees, employers often find that their expectations are not being met by the employees.
This is so messed up. I don't know where to start picking it apart.
I take it you also believe that employers never harass employees/contractors or fire them for not good reason.
The next time I go run a train full of dangerous goods I will remember that I am nothing but a silly irresponsible child, and that the Trainmaster who asked why boxcars have steering wheels is my parent.....
Don't take it personally. I don't regard train service or any railroad labor job as having much relationship to what I am talking about. Certainly with railroad train serivice there is typically an aversarial relationship between labor and management. And managment certainly does not regard labor as its children. Railroad managment is extremely demanding of labor.
However, that is not the case with most non-unionized office envrionments. And they are the ones who will be letting empolyees work from home.
And sure there are bad contractors and bad customers. Many of the customers are impossible to work for, mainly because they don't see your face in their office every day. They don't see you actually doing the work, and everybody under estimates the task. So they are liable to think you charged them too much. They have unreasonable expectations. Independent contracting is also fraught with problems getting paid. There are also bad contractors who do lousy work. There many of them that take advantage of customers such as home owners.
My only point is that this pandemic has brought the issue of working at home into sharp focus for the first time. There is a movement behind this, and they have been trying to get a foot hold. There is also a growing sense that the work can be done remotely because it is just data that can be piped back and forth. The movement would like to use this pandemic to really move the ball in their favor. But this will also be the biggest demonstration of the work at home concept, and it remains to be seen whether management will see value in it or not.
EuclidThe benefit for the contractor is that you are usually paid more for the same work being done by employees precisely because of meeting the requirements for the company. With direct employees, employers often find that their expectations are not being met by the employees.
I've seen plenty of contractors that do piss poor jobs.
And I've seen managers on both sides that were horrible. But "blame the employees" was always their excuse for their own incompetence until it became painfully obvious and they were fired.
EuclidThe difference is night and day. As a contractor, you are expected to take it seriously and do what you committed to do in the time agreed on. As a direct employee, you are like a child under the day to day supervision of your parents.
Soudns like there is something deeper going on here.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.