-Removed-"Setting national precedents for reduced working hours is not good management. "
You keep saying that. What do you think it means. We already have reduced working hours, no company is obligated in offering part time if it doesn't want to just because another company does.
"The team I lead where highly motivated, well rewarded, developed, promoted, happy and retained"
Unless you were a recent mother who had to make adjustments. And, of course, if we believed you.
"The team the other person led, missed all their financial numbers, KPIs and the leader eventually left the business."
Yes, and it was all because of those mothers who got half hours and not the additional mismanagement that came with it or despite it.
@zahlanzi saidso when it comes to work you want equal shares, but when it comes to money you want those with more to share theirs?
Sure. And be paid accordingly, with all the benefits (or lack thereof) that come with working 12 hours a week.
I bet you're the kind of manager that assigns extra work if your subordinate is done with his share quicker.
-Removed-Hate to sound like 'trump', but again, if they miss work, they get fired. How can I make money otherwise? And some libs here think that company owners should ;'share profits' with the employees. If that were the case with your blue-chip, I doubt the other employees would let these weenies lay out of work and cause a reduction in profits. Why can libs not see common sense?
@zahlanzi saidDefine 'treat workers fairly.' And while you are at it, define 'living wage' and 'fair share'. Not to get off subject of. course, I am just making. point that you fellers use these phrases like they are emblazoned into our society. They are not.
No, but I work in a corporation that treats its workers fairly and I see the level of productivity that comes with that.
I have also worked in other corporations with inflexible absurd managers like you said you were and they always seem to spend quite a lot on training new employees because the ones they have just quit.
A happy employee is an asset to the company. I ...[text shortened]... okeness" it's about good, pragmatic management. It's about investing in people, not disposable cogs.
@averagejoe1 saidMeh. Free market. Let companies try what they like. Who cares? If it's a bad idea (which it almost certainly is), they'll find out and reverse course soon enough. If by some chance it turns out to be a good idea, then we'll have a data point. I'm always happy to let private companies do sociological research on their own dimes, as long as they're not engaged in discrimination.
Have you fellers gone mad? And monikers of 'Pet Parents'? Weenie at its finest. Time off to care for a new pet? Me, I would fire an employee for even asking for it.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/new-pet-parents-paternity-leave-b1940204.html
Government-enforced "new pet" leave (not under discussion, yet)? That would practically be grounds for armed revolution.
1 edit
-Removed-Funnily enough, the Dutch have a very productive work force, yet work fewer hours than most countries.
As do, I would presume, Sweden, Denmark, etc.
It probably comes down to a healthy work environment, the amount of fun one has and a lot of autonomy on how to create the needed output.
And there’s already a stumbling block with a lot of traditional “bosses”: output targets, instead of presence measurement.
Of course, in factories and the like that may be an issue. But for a lot of work, it’s much better to allow freedoms, than the opposite.
Pawternity sounds very far fetched to me.
But say, working from home, so you can care for your paws (or whatever)… why not? If it doesn’t disrupt output, what’s the problem?