Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Generation X and work place loyalty
Topic Started: Dec 13 2007, 02:52 PM (405 Views)
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
A freind of mine wrote:


Quote:
 
There are issues in the workplace concerning attendance that are over looked by most companies. I work in law enforcement where time and attendance are necessary. I find that Generation X usually burn sick time on non critical matters. The idea of coming to work everyday is unheard of. As a result, there is an increase in discipline for work absents.

There is a lack of loyalty to the organization. X’ers seek the privilege before responsibility.

One major argument is seniority, X’ers believes they should get the days off they want over senior officers.

Many see their time off more valuable than work and call in sick instead of working.







Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
I told him

Quote:
 
That’s because there is an even bigger lack of loyalty to the employee. Why would anyone of any generation want to be loyal to an entity that is not looking out form them? With the extinction of benefits like pensions and companies increasingly uninterested in your life out side of work, these organizations demonstrate that the employ means nothing to them but a cog in the machine. Gone are the days that the company cares about the work force and so to gone are the days where the work force care about the company. It has become a simple and easy to understand relationship. I work for you today, you compensate me for today, and may each worry about their own tomorrows.

In that environment seniority means nothing because it is increasingly unlikely that one will stay in a job long enough to gain seniority.

Days off will be taken for trivial matters, because days off are part of the compensation for work. They, like money, are to be used at the discretion of those who have been compensated.

“Time off” or more precisely “Time away from work” is more important then work, because work is just a means to an even more important end, and not something of worth on its own.


Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
My first comment is find a good employer that treats you well and is concerned about you. They do exist, and they realize that this gives them an advantage over other companies.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
 
Gone are the days that the company cares about the work force and so to gone are the days where the work force care about the company.

I am not sure what days you are talking about here. I assume that we aren't talking about the child labor sweat shop days of the late 19th century. Smart companies do care about their work force, now more than ever in my industry. Take a look at what companies like Google, et. al. are doing to recruit and retain employees. It is previously unheard of. And why would you want to work for a company that you don't care about?



Quote:
 
With the extinction of benefits like pensions....

Pensions were just a raw deal for the company and often mismanaged, and of less value to the employee than a good IRA or 401k. That is why companies have dumped them in recent times and began encouraging individual retirement plans and providing incentives.



Quote:
 
I work for you today, you compensate me for today, and may each worry about their own tomorrows.

This is why companies who want to retain employees provide them with bonuses that vest with time. Like stock options or bonuses, etc.


Perhaps things are quite a bit different in a government bureaucracy.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
8247
Member Avatar
Apparently we look like this now
I don't call in sick, unless I am physically unable to get out of bed.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
38957
Dec 13 2007, 04:02 PM
Pensions were just a raw deal for the company and often mismanaged, and of less value to the employee than a good IRA or 401k. That is why companies have dumped them in recent times and began encouraging individual retirement plans and providing incentives.

I’m sorry I don’t agree companies switched to IRAs and 401ks because it was better for everyone. They did so because it was better for them. Which is fine, they decided it was no longer in their interest to worry about their employees in that manner and in turn their employs stopped being loyal. 401k’s might be better then pensions if you know what you are doing, but ask any CEO of any company if they would feel comfortable letting the lower level employees manage their (the CEO’s) retirement fund and they’ll laugh at you.
A generation ago it was common place that two or three generations worked for the same company, Because the company took care of their own, this is pretty much unheard of now days. The relationship between employer and employee has defiantly changed and companies like Google are the exception rather then the rule.

Even in most situations where employers offer outstanding benefits, they only do so because it affects their bottom line. They would cut them tomorrow if that instead boosted their productivity. Its no longer a personal situation for them, it is a transaction and that is why employees treat it as such.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
My experience has been that many employers expect loyalty from their employees , but it is only one way , and they show zero loyalty to their employees.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Dandandat
Dec 13 2007, 07:20 PM
38957
Dec 13 2007, 04:02 PM
Pensions were just a raw deal for the company and often mismanaged, and of less value to the employee than a good IRA or 401k.  That is why companies have dumped them in recent times and began encouraging individual retirement plans and providing incentives.

I’m sorry I don’t agree companies switched to IRAs and 401ks because it was better for everyone. They did so because it was better for them. Which is fine, they decided it was no longer in their interest to worry about their employees in that manner and in turn their employs stopped being loyal. 401k’s might be better then pensions if you know what you are doing, but ask any CEO of any company if they would feel comfortable letting the lower level employees manage their (the CEO’s) retirement fund and they’ll laugh at you.
A generation ago it was common place that two or three generations worked for the same company, Because the company took care of their own, this is pretty much unheard of now days. The relationship between employer and employee has defiantly changed and companies like Google are the exception rather then the rule.

Even in most situations where employers offer outstanding benefits, they only do so because it affects their bottom line. They would cut them tomorrow if that instead boosted their productivity. Its no longer a personal situation for them, it is a transaction and that is why employees treat it as such.

I can't have such a cynical viewpoint. Or perhaps, I don't personalize a company or my relationship with one.

Why should a company take care of someone so thoroughly in this manner? People should take care of themselves and be encouraged to do so. I guess that I don't want my company to be my sugar-daddy or nanny. When it comes to my career, my company and I have goals that line up and we have a nice agreement, I do what I agreed to do and they do what they agreed to do. I don't want a personal relationship, I want a good business relationship. Would you go into business with your brother-in-law? I wouldn't want a business relationship with my family.

I can manage the rest of my life and my company probably doesn't want to be my mommy.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
38957
Dec 14 2007, 08:31 AM
I can't have such a cynical viewpoint. Or perhaps, I don't personalize a company or my relationship with one.

Why should a company take care of someone so thoroughly in this manner? People should take care of themselves and be encouraged to do so. I guess that I don't want my company to be my sugar-daddy or nanny. When it comes to my career, my company and I have goals that line up and we have a nice agreement, I do what I agreed to do and they do what they agreed to do. I don't want a personal relationship, I want a good business relationship. Would you go into business with your brother-in-law? I wouldn't want a business relationship with my family.

I can manage the rest of my life and my company probably doesn't want to be my mommy.

I would agree, and I think that is exactly the point I am making. Employment is no longer a personal relationship between the employee and the employer.

It uses to be.

My argument is not to imply that I think there is something wrong with this less personal relationship, just that my friend was wrong to criticize the devaluation of that relationship on the part of the employee when that devaluation is mutual.


You see my friend was complaining that the younger work for has no loyalty or little to their companies; which is true, but warranted since they are not given loyalty in return.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
I have seen that more with what is known as Generation Y, as opposed to X.

Gen Y seems to be the least prepared to enter the workforce as well. Little work experience, tend to internalize things too much... on a visit to my chief client's I saw one guy cry. Why? Because his raise wasn't as much as he expected.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
So you're basing your assessment of an entire generation based on this one man's behavior?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Dr. Noah
Jan 3 2008, 01:12 AM
So you're basing your assessment of an entire generation based on this one man's behavior?

I dont understand your question, I haven't made an assessment of an entire generation. I have made an assesment of what this one person has to say about the issue.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Sorry Dan, I was addressing AB.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Dr. Noah
Jan 3 2008, 08:22 AM
Sorry Dan, I was addressing AB.

Oh, ok :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Dr. Noah
Jan 3 2008, 01:12 AM
So you're basing your assessment of an entire generation based on this one man's behavior?



Funny that I didn't assess "an entire generation" like you accuse. You might wish to re-read what I wrote.

But, being the fun guy that I am I did a search using "gen y+crying at work" and got a lot of interesting responses. It appears that I'm not the only one who has noted this behavior.

In addition, I've also commanded boatloads of 18 and 19 year olds who are now today's Gen Y. Talk about smothered by their mommies. :rotfl:

:wave2:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
I don't know about it being boatloads. I'm thinking, two or three pantloads. But we can discuss if you wish. :wave2:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus