It is sad this is the defacto situation now, but it shouldn’t be that way. Managers should be there in interest of employees, to keep them on board, happy, and able to do their job efficiently… The company can’t run without workers. Too many companies have forgotten that. A manager should be a buffer between the employees and the “corporate machine” (or better yet get rid of the corporate machine, but ya know…).
They’re saying that just because you claim something ought to be a certain way it has no bearing in how it is, or ever was.
This is a common thing done by libs to support capitalism. They talk about how it “ought” to work, as if there is any way for capitalism to exist that is not inherently anti-social. Its a defense used by the cynical and well meaning alike, a deflection to ignore the reality of how these hierarchical relationships were always designed to be. Its similar to how libs say its not capitalism its “crony capitalism”
What you’re saying ought to be not only isn’t, but never was. And talking about how it “ought to be” isn’t a defense of reality
Ah, thanks for the explanation. I wasn’t trying to defend anything, but I suppose I see how including the “now” in my original comment might be construed in a “things used to be better” way. Wasn’t my intention, I have no idea how it used to be anyway.
Not going to edit the original though, for preservation of the context for this conversation.
Of course. Yeah i didn’t think you meant it as a hard defense of anything. Your comment seemed totally well intentioned. And if capitalism was capable of good and not an inherently anti-social system then it ought to be like you’re describing.
I think a lot of well intentioned people can get caught in that place of talking about how it ought to be instead of realizing why its not.
Maybe MY experience is limited, but what manager these days isn’t pulling double duty? They do 3/4 of the job time with duties no different than the people under them, and also have to do all the managing part when possible. This is how it’s been in the public service, retail, and customer service jobs I’ve worked.
Basically my experience. 90% of my job is unchanged, but I have to deal with extra emails and making sure there’s toilet paper. Granted, I’d never bring up 2 week notices. Companies will not ensure that for workers, so workers should make fun of those companies for suggesting that. Hell, my mom’s work asked if she’d give them 6 months noticed because they were understaffed and the other staff couldn’t do their jobs and she laughed at her boss and told them they wouldn’t do that for her.
The manager is an agent of the company, the default assumption is that they have the company’s interests ahead of the workers.
Individually, your experience may vary.
It is sad this is the defacto situation now, but it shouldn’t be that way. Managers should be there in interest of employees, to keep them on board, happy, and able to do their job efficiently… The company can’t run without workers. Too many companies have forgotten that. A manager should be a buffer between the employees and the “corporate machine” (or better yet get rid of the corporate machine, but ya know…).
Can’t derive an is from an ought, idiot
Wat?
They’re saying that just because you claim something ought to be a certain way it has no bearing in how it is, or ever was.
This is a common thing done by libs to support capitalism. They talk about how it “ought” to work, as if there is any way for capitalism to exist that is not inherently anti-social. Its a defense used by the cynical and well meaning alike, a deflection to ignore the reality of how these hierarchical relationships were always designed to be. Its similar to how libs say its not capitalism its “crony capitalism”
What you’re saying ought to be not only isn’t, but never was. And talking about how it “ought to be” isn’t a defense of reality
Ah, thanks for the explanation. I wasn’t trying to defend anything, but I suppose I see how including the “now” in my original comment might be construed in a “things used to be better” way. Wasn’t my intention, I have no idea how it used to be anyway.
Not going to edit the original though, for preservation of the context for this conversation.
Of course. Yeah i didn’t think you meant it as a hard defense of anything. Your comment seemed totally well intentioned. And if capitalism was capable of good and not an inherently anti-social system then it ought to be like you’re describing.
I think a lot of well intentioned people can get caught in that place of talking about how it ought to be instead of realizing why its not.
Maybe MY experience is limited, but what manager these days isn’t pulling double duty? They do 3/4 of the job time with duties no different than the people under them, and also have to do all the managing part when possible. This is how it’s been in the public service, retail, and customer service jobs I’ve worked.
calling retail workers “managers” was a ploy to get around giving them union benefits.
Basically my experience. 90% of my job is unchanged, but I have to deal with extra emails and making sure there’s toilet paper. Granted, I’d never bring up 2 week notices. Companies will not ensure that for workers, so workers should make fun of those companies for suggesting that. Hell, my mom’s work asked if she’d give them 6 months noticed because they were understaffed and the other staff couldn’t do their jobs and she laughed at her boss and told them they wouldn’t do that for her.
There is a line somewhere up the chain in basically every company where they shift to being corporate boot heels.