Re: talking to boss

"Straydog" <asdf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.63.0507261849480.8924@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Well, mostly temporary. There are some govt workers (still civil service),
> some tenured professors where the tenure is good (there is some tenure
> where the tenure is worthless [eg. where the tenure terminates or is up
> for review, or the appointment is tenured but the paycheck is not
> tenured], and, of course, the rich people who, since they are rich, don't
> need tenure because they already have tons of money and don't need a job
> (of course, they can also essentially _be_ their own job since they can
> pay themselves anything they want). So, pardon me for making a little
> adjustment on your term *all*.

Your pardoned. And I concede the situations you just mentioned.
Unfortunately, I live in a different space/time contimuum than these and
have difficulty comprehending the existence of jobs like you mention :-)

> Then there are guys like *** Grasso that
> got a $180 mill retirement/severance package. Think you could live OK from
> age ~50 for the rest of your life on that?

Now now! What I *suspect* you are trying to say here is that we enjoy a
system in which a lack of ethics can be highly profitable :-) Fair enough
but Grasso currently doesn't (as far as I know) have a job. That he may not
need one is another discussion.

> > Well of course. But then, the Sched C or S Corp with one (single)
client is
> > a common enough phenomena for the self employed. I'm pleading guilty
here
> > myself. If you are a one man army, it's difficult to juggle more than 1
or
> > 2 clients, especially if you have one client who throws multiple
profitible
> > projects your way. The trick is to know and plan for the temporary
nature
> > of it all. And it's *always* temporary in nature. You can lose that one
> > client and still do okay.
>
> Well, yes. But, you have to "juggle" your "beating the bushes" for more
> clients, too.

My point is - you need to be doing this while working as an employee also.
Being an employee no longer has the advantage of job security. The need to
be constantly on the lookout for that next gig now exists equally for the
salaried as it does for the self employed.

> >> With a company, your boss,
> >> his boss, etc., end up being guys in a shooting gallery with the guns
and
> >> you are the duck on the conveyor belt.
> >
> > And what are the shackles that pin you to that conveyor belt?
>
> I only need to worry about kicking up enough dust to get new clients if I
> lose some old ones.

And if you are any good - you don't really lose the old ones do you?

Even here I have to admit that times are changing. Some companies I have
done work for in the past experience >100% turnover from top to bottom in
less than 5 years time. The client I *had* and knew my work no longer
exists, even though the company name is the same.

> > You can refuse that game. I think the expression is "at will employee".
It
> > means you can be legally dismissed at any time for any reason. But it
does
> > cut two ways. You are free to dump your employer with the same aplomb.
>
> But the employer has lots of money; usually the employee does not.

There you go again!
If you want to have a discussion about social justice, I will probably agree
with you 99+%. I'm just trying to be pragmatic here. If I'm trying to earn
a living (I am!), as an employee or as self employed (no difference!) then I
am going to try to sell a client/employer something that will help that
client/employer make (or save!) *more* money. In return I expect that
client/employer to pay me some of that fun $.

<snip>
> WPR= Work Performance Review (where THEY can retroactively assign
> performance standards so its impossible to meet them simply because its
> like raising the bar AFTER you start to jump). I've been there.
>
> PIP = Performance Improvement Plan. Where THEY can assign in the future
> performance standards much much higher than you can meet OR, if you do
> meet them, they can simply judge that you didn't meet them. I have not had
> this happen to me, but I've heard lots of stories. But the lawyer
> consultants tell managers how to do this so the fired employee will have a
> much more difficult time sueing for "wrongful discharge" which is less
> common today than 1-2 decades ago.
<snip>

>
> Yeah, its simple; they got the money. Its like the golden rule: thems that
> gots the gold, makes the rules.
>
> But, the moral/ethical paradigm like some decades ago where "you do your
> work, you'll have your job as long as you wanted" is gone. In the good old
> days you retired and they gave you a gold watch. Today, its "*** you" and
> a pink slip.

Agree 100% that the old employer/employee relationship has died and gone to
hell. But there is a plus in that everyone is freelancing whether they know
it or not. And better to *know* it than not. Realizing that ones mployment
offers no particular advantage past the $ you get up front can be
liberating. A "what's in it for me" attitude does cut 2 ways. If a company
puts zero value on loyalty then you certainly owe no more than zero loyalty
as an employee.

> Funnier still the way employees are still intimidated by
> > it when the employer has no hold on them except a too meager paycheck.
>
> Yeah, I've wondered why union membership has fallen off. What is it with
> people? Or, are they affraid the company will close and just subcontract
> the factory to China, Asian, etc.? But, some companies do this anyway
> today. I read this book: "Confessions of a Union Buster" by Martin Jay
> Levitt (not sure on the spelling of the last name) but its just that. A
> management consultant blabs all about all the dirty tricks employers pull
> off to block union formation. And, the author also talked about how docile
> and passive the majority of people are. They are actually _affraid_ to
> tell the boss: hey this deal is good for you and crappy for me, how about
> an adjustment.

Whoa! I always hated labor unions myself and think I have a fair handle on
why they are currently going nowhere.

If you want to get into a fun discussion captialism/unions/social equity et
al -
I'll would open it this way.

The only thing uglier than a government that sucks up to labor unions
would be
A government that sucks up to big business (corporations).
and the corollary -
Our government is looking damn ugly right now!

If you want to bite on that -

I'm game :-)
Thomas Bartkus


.