The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Personal Finances / Living Below Your Means
|Subject: Re: Since you asked...||Date: 3/25/2013 11:59 PM|
|Author: MissEdithKeeler||Number: 872831 of 878533|
My question is, and has been: When did all of this become not only acceptable, but to the point where several people in this thread find it to be defensible on the part of the companies perpetuating it? Where it's assumed that either "You're lucky to have a job" or "Keep your head down" or "Get out of the kitchen" or "You must not be very efficient."
It has not always been like this. Why do we all assume that because it's like that now, it's right, good, or even remotely okay?
I'm with you on this. My last position was 7-7 six days a week, and on call and expected to respond to emails beyond that. I liked my job, but there was just too, too, TOO much of it. The mantra in the office was "everyone who's a professional works long hours," and "you're just lucky you have a job."
My peer quit and was not replaced--I got his direct reports as well as my own. When I got sick, I was hounded to come back to work before I was better, leading to a really tough bout of pneumonia that I couldn't shake.
I think a lot of the financial crisis has allowed companies to make excuses for anti-employee practices. There was no reason not to replace my peer, and after I left that job, they did, in fact, replace me with 2 people (which I think is pretty funny). But you have the media constantly hammering us with how bad the economy is, and employers use that as an excuse. Little things like taking away our free coffee in teh breakroom, and bigger things like not replacing that employee, yet at the same time, we were making profits hand over fist.
|Copyright 1996-2013 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|