re: Elon Musk says WFH is morally wrong

quote:

---

. It was a conflict of interest issue hence why they got fired.

---

Ive seen it myself a few times.



If they have spare time, they probably have too low a workload.

quote:

---

Overselling it by providing facts and examples? If this was a troll job I would have quit after page 10. This is serious business, WFH fraudsters have to be stopped

---

Being so overdramatic about something that has no effect on you gives it away.

quote:

---

Being so overdramatic about something that has no effect on you gives it away.

---

JB went from serious to looking like a retard, so he's trying to pretend like he's just trolling.

quote:

---

I knew someone that was working two jobs like this before covid. It was a conflict of interest issue hence why they got fired

---

Alot of folks in this thread would tell you if they are getting the job done, what's the problem

quote:

---

C'mon.

If you are obsessed with hours, you should be paying hourly.

---

I haven't been back to this thread since I left to watch the game last night and went straight to the last page since there's been 10 pages added since then (which I'm not reading).

People are still listening to you peddle this "hourly mindset" BS even after you've admitted that the number of hours the expected workload takes you is just as much a part of your decision making as an employee as it is for an employer?

Why haven't they told you to STFU and stopped listening to you yet?

This isn't hard, Wile E. Coyote, SuperGenius.

Time is a resource. It's a resource for you and it's a resource for your employer. And it's actually the only resource that no one can create or make more of, so it's a pretty important one.

Just because someone is paid a salary doesn't mean that time automatically disappears from everyone's consideration. What an idiotic notion.

Of course it's a consideration for an employer regardless of whether someone is paid hourly or a salary. Just like it's a consideration for an employee whether they are paid hourly or as a salary.

If I offer someone a $120,000 salary and they discover that they can keep up with their expected workload/caseload fooling around for half the day and do it in around 20 hours a week, they're 'effing thrilled. They are on TigerDroppings trying to convince everyone who works full time that WFH is awesome.

If the same salary is applied to an expected workload/caseload that takes them on average 40 hours a week, they're still willing to do it. They're probably not on TigerDroppings large scale picketing for WHF, maybe a couple posts on a thread like this...after all, they have work to do.

If the same salary is applied to an expected workload/caseload that takes on average 100 hours a week, they're quitting. In fact, it probably wouldn't take 100 hours a week to make them quit. Given people's work ethic today, probably anything north of 60 would do it for the vast majority of them.

You know that's true, I know that's true, and everyone reading this knows that's true.

So just like the old joke about the man who asked the woman to sleep with him for a million dollars and she agreed, then he asked her to sleep with him for $100 and she replied, "What do you think I am?" to which HE replied, "We've already established that Madam, now we're just negotiating price," you and everybody else here "has an hourly mindset."

As if there's anything wrong with that, btw. You say that because you hope to belittle the person upon whom you level that (baseless) charge because you hope that it carries the connotation of low-level employment. Working at McDonald's sort of thing.

But you're a lawyer, right? Y'all don't bill by the hour? Haven't met a law firm yet who doesn't, with the exception of one local guy who is the DUI expert in town (that's all he does is defend people on DUI charges) and who charges a flat rate per case.

My business used to be employing medical doctors. They very often work hourly, almost exclusively so for locum tenans work.

But that doesn't matter. As much as any employer who considers time in the equation, you also "have an hourly mindset," because you consider it in your employee equation too. You've already admitted this, like ten pages ago.

And it's obvious, because everyone does this. Salaried or not. Time is considered in almost every employer-employee relationship on the planet—on both sides of the table—whether the employee is salaried or hourly. The notable exceptions I can think of off the top of my head are in the entertainment industry or in pure figurehead positions, like CEOs.

That you are still here arguing the same BS when you've already admitted it's not true is nothing short of asinine.

quote:

---

Alot of folks in this thread would tell you if they are getting the job done

---

They might be, which means they probably are underworked.

If you have time to work two jobs, you probably should be part time or contract.

quote:

---

That you are still here arguing the same BS when you've already admitted it's not true is nothing short of asinine.

---

That sums up SFP in one paragraph

quote:

---

It should. Productivity/results should be the primary variable relied upon, not how long it takes them to achieve that goal.

---

Then pay by result.

Problem solved. WFH on contract.

quote:

---

He’s wrong here. Not everyone can afford childcare for the 7 or w/e kids he has.

---

but this only started in 2020 though

quote:

---

but this only started in 2020 though

---

WFH existed long before 2020