- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: nevermind
Posted on 6/29/17 at 10:30 pm to The Baker
Posted on 6/29/17 at 10:30 pm to The Baker
They pay him to complete a job, if he can complete that job in 2 hours per week, then his job is done. If they aren't satisfied with the amount of work that he is completing, then they should take that up with him.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 10:31 pm to athenslife101
quote:
If I finish an initiative at work early, I don't get to take the next 3 mo the. I get to start working on the next one and then the next one and then the next one till I stop doing that job.
Your job is to work and you are paid to work. If you have freed up your schedule by ingenuity, your company should be giving you more work to compensate.
... in the perfect world, yes.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 10:33 pm to The Baker
Patent the program and shop it around to everybody I could... including the employer
Posted on 6/29/17 at 10:33 pm to Epic Cajun
If I have a guy who creates a program that allows him to do a specific amount of work in a fraction of the time it takes others, I would do what I needed to keep said employee with my company, solely based on his ingenuity.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 10:34 pm to The Baker
The effort to deceive the company makes him an unethical a-hole.
But the best point in the discussion has to do with his production. He was hired to do a job. He does it well. There's nothing unethical about that.
The idea behind the 40 hour work week is definitely changing. Seems like many millennials want to be hired to do a job rather than being a full time worker. The 40-hour worker should be expected to work all 40 hours doing whatever task is given to them. The modern worker wants to know why they can't go home early if their primary task is already finished.
The OP is the modern worker. He's done his job in 1/40th to 1/20th of the time expected of him. Why should he do any more?
But the best point in the discussion has to do with his production. He was hired to do a job. He does it well. There's nothing unethical about that.
The idea behind the 40 hour work week is definitely changing. Seems like many millennials want to be hired to do a job rather than being a full time worker. The 40-hour worker should be expected to work all 40 hours doing whatever task is given to them. The modern worker wants to know why they can't go home early if their primary task is already finished.
The OP is the modern worker. He's done his job in 1/40th to 1/20th of the time expected of him. Why should he do any more?
Posted on 6/29/17 at 10:34 pm to The Baker
No. He altered the program so that it work more efficiently. He should be rewarded for that. If I was in his shoes I'd ride that pony till it was dead. But in the meantime I'd be educating myself for other employment because it won't be long till someone discovers how to eliminate my current "job".
Posted on 6/29/17 at 10:34 pm to athenslife101
quote:
If you have freed up your schedule by ingenuity, your company should be giving you more work to compensate.
Which the company should compensate him for doing the extra work. But what will likely happen is he loses his job because he created a program to do his job he was assigned. That would also be unethical but a business would have no issue doing it.
I see no issues with him keeping it to himself.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 10:34 pm to DoctorTechnical
quote:
OTOH, if the employer doesn't like the new stuff, then f- 'em, sell it to the highest-bidder competitor.
quote:
Patent the program and shop it around to everybody I could... including the employer
ha cute, a little thing called, "intellectual property" will have you broke paying lawyers and in the end, jobless.
This post was edited on 6/29/17 at 10:35 pm
Posted on 6/29/17 at 10:35 pm to The Baker
I wouldn't give a shite as long as I was taking care of my responsibilities. I wouldn't be losing sleep I would be patting myself on the back
Posted on 6/29/17 at 10:35 pm to TheArrogantCorndog
quote:
Patent the program and shop it around to everybody I could... including the employer
You would have no rights to that patent. Done on company time.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 10:36 pm to Pintail
is he salary or hourly? if he is hourly, yeah he should feel bad. if he is salary, frick em. 
Posted on 6/29/17 at 10:37 pm to athenslife101
quote:
Your job is to work
quote:
If you have freed up your schedule by ingenuity, your company should be giving you more money to compensate.
FIFY
Posted on 6/29/17 at 10:37 pm to The Baker
If the guy tells them he is a fricking moron
Like trump level voters moron.
Like trump level voters moron.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 10:37 pm to Pintail
quote:
You would have no rights to that patent. Done on company time.
How would they prove that?
Posted on 6/29/17 at 10:38 pm to The Baker
That's just like, a lot of reading. I made it through a couple of paragraphs but damn.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 10:38 pm to athenslife101
quote:
Your job is to work and you are paid to work. If you have freed up your schedule by ingenuity, your company should be giving you more work to compensate.
It sounds like his job is to complete a task, not to "work". He's not a worker bee, he's paid to specifically perform a task. It sounds like they are okay if it takes him a month to perform that task, if he found out a way to complete it faster, why should more be expected from him, especially if he could possibly lose his job due to the program he wrote?
This post was edited on 6/29/17 at 10:39 pm
Posted on 6/29/17 at 10:38 pm to The Baker
Nothing wrong with what he's doing, work smarter not harder.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 10:41 pm to Pintail
quote:
You would have no rights to that patent. Done on company time.
I will have to read it over again, but I don't think it says if did it on company time.. I agree with you, that if he did, it belongs to the company... if he didnt, it belongs to him
Eta: it never stated he made it on company time... hopefully he was smart enough to make it in his spare time
This post was edited on 6/29/17 at 10:43 pm
Posted on 6/29/17 at 10:42 pm to DoctorTechnical
quote:thats not how it works
OTOH, if the employer doesn't like the new stuff, then f- 'em, sell it to the highest-bidder competitor.
This post was edited on 6/29/17 at 10:43 pm
Posted on 6/29/17 at 10:42 pm to The Baker
I want to agree that the company pays for results and not for time spent. That is how any salaried position should work (though in practice it rarely works like that). If he was just meeting his quotas and not going out of his way to tell them how he was being so efficient then it would be fine. I agree that he is running into a hairy area by actively trying to deceive the company.
I also think that there should be a more advantageous way to leverage his innovation of this massive efficiency. I haven't thought out exactly how it would work, but it seems to me that there should be some way that he should be able to use his ingenuity to advance his position professionally either with the company or otherwise if he played his cards right. He should be able to do it honestly too. Instead he is wasting an opportunity to instead be dishonest.
I also think that there should be a more advantageous way to leverage his innovation of this massive efficiency. I haven't thought out exactly how it would work, but it seems to me that there should be some way that he should be able to use his ingenuity to advance his position professionally either with the company or otherwise if he played his cards right. He should be able to do it honestly too. Instead he is wasting an opportunity to instead be dishonest.
Popular
Back to top


1








