I would refer the Chicago-based employee to the concept of "quiet quitting." You're doing the polar opposite — noisy clinging.
२८ जुलै, २०२२
"Mark Zuckerberg failed to conceal his annoyance with an employee who asked about vacation days during a meeting in which the Meta CEO revealed plans to cut underperforming workers..."
"During a companywide Q&A meeting on June 30... Zuckerberg reportedly 'appeared visibly frustrated' after one Chicago-based employee asked whether 'Meta Days,' or extra time off introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic, would continue in 2023.
'Um … all right,' Zuckerberg said after hearing the pre-recorded question.... 'Given my tone in the rest of the Q&A, you can probably imagine what my reaction to this is.'"
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५२ टिप्पण्या:
At a dept meeting at the insurance company where gilbar worked, our IT vice president asked about "Comp Time", because his group was being asked to work 10hr days (while the rest of us worked 7.75 hr days).
And the VP, replied;
"Well, you're all on Salary; so None of you can be forced to work More than 24 hours a day: ha ha!"
He thought that was Super Witty.
He was surprised when most of that group left the company.
He was surprised that NO ONE in IT gave a sh*t about the company any more.
He was surprised that few projects were being completed. He was surprised when HE was let go.
If your company thinks you're disposable, your company should be surprised when it's disposed
I've always hated the employees who's sole focus was on their vacation days. I don't know why, but I always felt like they needed to be somewhere else. Not working with me.
When jobs are scarce, and there are 5 applicants for each position, it's EASY to be Demanding.
(Maybe that's what we're heading back into)
The problem is: When workers are scarce, and there are more jobs than workers, Workers can question Why they should have any loyalty. Treat workers like sh*t, and the good ones will leave. The sh*tty ones will stay
That Post article leaves out the best part! The employee didn't just refer to "Meta Days" but also use the "self-care" and "wellness" buzzwords in the feed during the conference.
"Self-Care"
"Wellness"
"Quiet Quitting"
"Microaggression"
"Polycule"
"Birthing persons"
"Impregnator"
These NPCs are not people. They are a conglomeration of buzzwords masquerading as genuine thoughts and feelings. Whatever personalities they have are derived from and handed to them by higher-level creators that outrank them in the hive-mind.
"Who hired them?" asks one employee in the chat (from the article). Zuckerberg, the Lizardian in chief, hired them. They fit right in.
I worked for a software firm that was being acquired. One of my colleagues hi-jacked the entire all-hands meeting to ask....."Will the health insurance continue to pay for my wife's coffee enemas?"
It was always painful to attend sessions like this when I was working. Most of the questions/ideas from the employees were just fucking stupid nonsensical trivia. Most were probably asked/spoken just to be seen engaging, and the sessions themselves were designed to make it look like management was really looking for input.
Honestly, unless the company had made it clear that Meta Days were no longer a thing, it is a perfectly legitimate question. And considering that the question was vetted and allowed through the filter to be asked at this event, that indicates a significant disconnect between Zuckerberg and his meeting organizers. If he did want to address the question, HR could have simply sent out an email that Meta Days would be expiring in 2022 with instructions on what the employee needs to do with any existing Meta Days, and that would have been the end of it.
That said, Zuckerberg did not handle the response well. That's the sort of question you answer with humor, or you table and say it will be addressed at a later date. Looks like Zuck is under quite a bit of stress and getting testy.
I had a great boss once back in the pioneering days of tech. She was tough but fair, and very smart.
Our department worked our regular jobs and then all went out to the assembly line to pack boxes to make a shipping deadline. It was an all-hands-on-deck emergency; a very stressful time at the company.
At the end of a very long day, one doofus said, 'So we did our regular work and all this extra work, what do we get? A bonus? Extra time off?
My boss said, very cooly, 'You get to keep your job.'
She and I are good friends to this day...
It was a prerecorded question and given that this was a meeting in front of the whole company, and time is always a constraint in these situation, I find it highly likely that this question was picked for a reason and that reason was for Zuckerberg to show his irritation at that question.
They raised their children and now they dont like them.
Joe Smith:
My boss said, very cooly, 'You get to keep your job.'
Well, exactly.
If employment is a form of exchange -- in exchange for x hours of labor from me I will receive y dollars plus z days of vacation and ... (health insurance, paid parking, opera tickets etc) -- it is not unreasonable that any changes to the exchange be clearly communicated. Anything less looks like employees being treated as cattle.
I'll bet if Mark asked, "Does that Porsche 911 I'm buying have an automatic transmission or a manual?" he got an answer.
My department leadership held a meeting for winter storm preparedness for an expected blizzard later in the week. One employee asked "Do non-essential employees have to report to work in the event of a storm?" Without missing a beat, my manager replied "Come see me in my office after the meeting Brian, and you can tell me more about how non-essential your job is."
They told him he was a genius, and he's so stupid he believed them.
Zuck has just bet the ranch on the "Metaverse". He says that it will cost tens of billions of dollars and cannot possibly become profitable until the end of the decade. Meta stock is in the toilet, and he is starting to realize that he has committed himself to failing very slowly and publicly for the foreseeable future. He hears the chuckles, and can only await the guffaws.
I’ve been self-employed for thirty five years and am unfamiliar with the concept of a vacation day. And my boss is a smartass.
My boss said, very cooly, 'You get to keep your job.'
AGAIN, that works GREAT, when there are 5 (qualified!) applicants for every new job.
That works great, when there is no place else for people to work.
HELL! that works great, when people LOVE their jobs, and you explain that the company is probably going to fail, if this IMMEDIATE deadline problem isn't surmounted.
However, i don't think y'all are the types that think that would work on a regular basis.
"Welcome to Datatech! You'll be working on the database admin team, until 5pm, then you'll be working 2nd (and 3rd) shifts on the shipping line. This saves the company money, which we pass on to the owners"
If there are two companies hiring, similar jobs, similar pay, similar hopes of advancement..
And one, offers benefits like vacation, etc; and the other doesn't.. where you YOU work? be honest
At our firm there is conflict over work ethic, pitting the youngest versus the more senior staff. Recently we had two new hires quit over having to come to the office on Fridays. Just this week a number of the most junior staff approached an older staff member to ask if she would present their objections to Fridays in the office.
The senior staff member basically told them to suck it up...
...so far a walkout hasn't materialized. Perhaps two quarters of negative growth has something to do with it...
I realized personally the value of management at the newspaper. When copy desk people or reporters took time off, we had to work harder to get the newspaper out.
When management took time off, nobody noticed.
That said, Zuckerberg did not handle the response well.
Understatement!
That's the sort of question you answer with humor, or you table and say it will be addressed at a later date.
Yes. When there’s a major in policy someone is supposed to think through the repercussions and be ready with answers.
It is tacky to ask about vacation time during a meeting like that.
but our dinsey soft culture invites it.
I'm no fan of zucker-B, but I would be annoyed too.
It is a fair question. The employer provided an additional benefit during the early days of the pandemic, COVID is still an issue, is the employer going to continue providing that benefit? I don't think it means that the questioner isn't wanting to work hard, he or she just wants to know what the benefits are.
I think billionaires should be careful about acting all p*ssy like this. We get that Zuckerberg doesn't have to worry about how much paid time off he's accruing, he takes off whenever he feels like it. So he doesn't have to turn all Simon Legree.
Should this be put under the category "no-one wants to work anymore"?
This is also what you get when you promote the 'idea' that "there are no stupid questions".
I think the pandemic has reminded people that jobs are transactional. You get money, you do work. It's a good thing to remember.
Also maybe Zuck should focus less on Meta Days causing his problems and more on his business model depending on free access to personal data.
My division was in a major time crunch on a project that was critical to the company's long term success. Everyone was being worked hard but everyone was also well compensated and with the promise of a significant bonus if the project was successful and completed on time. At an all hands progress meeting one of the consistent whiners complained about Saturday work. The division head cut off what was about to turn into a bitch session by stating that anyone who could not come in on Saturday should not bother to come in on Sunday. It was effective in curtailing the pity party because everyone knew he meant it.
Visibly frustrated? That's the angle?
I guess Mark Zuckerberg cuts back on company-approved vacation time as part of staff cuts was too dark on its own.
Paired with today's non-recession recession people might draw the wrong conclusions.
Many employees do not understand that the employer needs to make a profit.
Specifically with respect to the labor an employee performs for the company the company needs to make a profit on that labor.
If there is no profit there is no company and there is no job.
I think J Scott's theory that the question and answer were intentional is potentially true. It is quite possible this was staged. I am not sure why they thought this would be a good bit of theater; it does not come across well. Zuck's ability to imitate a human being is somewhat limited.
"The division head cut off what was about to turn into a bitch session by stating that anyone who could not come in on Saturday should not bother to come in on Sunday."
I was told something similar by my former employer. It took me six months to find a better job. Times are tough.
'AGAIN, that works GREAT, when there are 5 (qualified!) applicants for every new job.'
My pushback would be, this guy just identified himself as dead wood.
Not every position needs to be refilled.
Don't fire people like this (too much $ in benefits to be payed).
Just assign them do-nothing work and let them self-deport...
"When management took time off, nobody noticed."
Well, there is the idea, that as you move up in an organization, the time frame you plan for becomes longer.
Mark Zuckerberg failed to conceal his annoyance with an employee who asked about vacation days during a meeting...
"When do we eat?"
"You eat when we say you eat! You got that you maggot-dick motherfucker?"
Questions and demands from the disney-soft woke gen with green hair:
-Will I get a free baby pacifier to calm my nerves? what if it falls to the floor- will someone pick it up for me?
-The is my first day - but I want to know when I can have some time off? Is it paid? Do I get 40 sick days? paid?
- Please use my correct pronouns - or I will call the ACLU.
-Is there a safe space where I can go and cry? If anyone not a democrat wins an election somewhere I cannot possibly concentrate.
- are there donuts?
-Lunch is 2 hours, right?
-
"If employment is a form of exchange -- in exchange for x hours of labor from me I will receive y dollars plus z days of vacation and ... (health insurance, paid parking, opera tickets etc) -- it is not unreasonable that any changes to the exchange be clearly communicated."
You folks don't know enough about how and why people are hired at these companies to understand what's going on here.
The entire hiring process is designed from the ground up for the sole purpose of weeding out ANYONE who might see employment as a form of exchange. To weed out individual thinkers.
Companies are actively avoiding such people and designing ever new and better ways to identify you in the hiring process so that they don't accidentally hire someone like this. They care more about this than they do your training or experience.
They want "go-getters" and "team players" ... you know "suckers." A sucker is born every day and will work their ass off for you never even considering that you're spending their life to earn money for yourself. They'll toss these people a 3% wage increase in an 10% inflation economy like it's a chicken bone they're tossing to a hungry dog. And those people will jump right in Mark Zuckerberg's lap at the end of the day.
That's why Zuckerberg was pissed. An actual thinking person got through their carefully deployed shields. They spent a LOT of money ensuring that would never happen. And yet somehow, someone got in.
Achilles said...
Many employees do not understand that the employer needs to make a profit.
Specifically with respect to the labor an employee performs for the company the company needs to make a profit on that labor.
If there is no profit there is no company and there is no job.
super True! No argument!!
NOW let's look at.. The Rest of the Story. I had to change profit to earning to make it clearer
Many employers do not understand that the employee needs to make a earning (on his labor).
Specifically with respect to the labor an employee performs for the company the company needs to PAY earnings on that labor.
If there is no earnings there is no employee and there is no job.
Suppose an employee asked “Can you confirm that I will be paid 100% of my salary next pay period “?
Could you imagine an executive expressing irritation at such a question?
Or how about:” I’m on salary, so you understand that if you furlough me one day each week, that won’t reduce my salary “?
What worked for me was creating an environment that motivated enough (certainly not all) employees to push themselves when needed.
When the economy contracts, we have a recession. Both those keywords mean less, like less workforce and less days off. Good news for Meta employees, the companies censors will prevent them from learning this key information, so they’ll be blissfully ignorant until it is too late.
I would refer the Chicago-based employee to the concept of "quiet quitting." You're doing the polar opposite — noisy clinging.
No, he's doing "noisy quitting". because asking that kind of question is a great way to get fired
Can anyone explain the appeal of Facebook?
Yes, I am on it and, technically, I am in charge of the Facebook page for my department at work (but I've essentially quietly quitted the page). But frankly it sucks. Both to use (not user friendly) and to read and to find things on.
Even if it was a valid question, there's something to be said for not embarrassing the big boss in a public setting.
Achilles, in this country everyone knows companies need to make a profit (except venture capitalists, they've forgotten). No one knows that workers need to make a profit too. They need to get more from their labor than they give, because they need to live. No profit no workers, no workers no company.
Between those two needs is capitalism, even if some want to make it about loyalty and feelings of devotion to cause and giving up vacation for the good of the company and just being lucky to have a job.
(1) Once an employee decides to quit, that person’s productivity goes waaay down as they put their effort into polishing the resume and investigating new job leads in preference to meeting deadlines.
She would have been thrilled had he quit...would save the company expenses.
(2) Replacing a technical person is expensive.
We were all in marketing, making the tech product sexy and easier to sell. I don't think any of us (in the '90s) were making more than $45k or so...
Is is like that time that General Patton slapped a soldier?
Sally327 said...
It is a fair question
No, it isn't
The employer provided an additional benefit during the early days of the pandemic, COVID is still an issue
1: It's not still "the early days of covid"
2: It's only an "issue" if you're a neurotic loser.
It's the flu now, get over it and get on with your life
Can anyone explain the appeal of Facebook?
It lets you find people you might actually have liked back in highschool, and lost contact with
It lets you coordinate group events relatively easily.
It makes it easy to keep in contact with foreign friends
“Um … all right,” Zuckerberg said after hearing the pre-recorded question
Pre-recorded?? This is stage craft, and political theater.
I would have been upset too, if I thought I had an employee so disconnected from the reason why they were all gathered together.
Remember this story?
Who hired Craig Livingstone? the former bar bouncer who became President Clinton's head of White House Security.
Question that may have crossed Zuckerberg's mind.
Zuckerberg thinks he is god and the political left agree, as long as he sends them $400 million every few years.
emujin said...
I've always hated the employees who's sole focus was on their vacation days. I don't know why, but I always felt like they needed to be somewhere else. Not working with me.
I learned what had changed in the world when we tried to recruit a new surgeon for our group and his first question was about vacation days.
i promise, this will be my final post on this (if i post again, feel FREE to fire my ass)
IF you're an employer, and you hire people "at will", you can fire them For ANY Reason.
They don't want to work 80 hr weeks on salary with no compensation? You can Fire them
They don't want to NOT have vacations? You can Fire them
They don't want to do a job you didn't hire them for? You can Fire them
They ask 'stupid questions' during team meetings? You can Fire them
Of course, NONE of those are 'for cause', so; you'll be paying unemployment + new hire costs
Hell of a way to run a railroad?
So, Mister? why don't your company make a profit?
Well, you see; we recruit, hire, train, FIRE, pay unemployment, then repeat. That's expensive
He's vexed and he just can't hide it.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा