Yeah, they will come back to a fully furnished home and plenty of food etc... they will have no idea what it feels like to juggle bill payment and need a vacation but not being able to take one.
I haven't had a true vacation in like 5 years. I'm not counting the trips with my ex to buy weed across state lines, but Michigan was kinda cute to see (and thats sad).
Also, it's hard for them to have a realistic experience because their cow-orkers will know that it's the CEO and if you want to keep your job you won't make the CEO have a miserable time.
That's kinda included in the malaise of a minimum wage job I tried to capture with "hopelessness". I'm sure most of us have been there. You're on the bottom rung.
Right, but there's an additional protection because it's the CEO.
For example, if you're a successful author writing a book on what it's like to work at McDonalds, maybe you'll get a job there. You'll be working with other people who are in a shitty job that they need to keep, but if you get fired, it's more material for your book. So, you avoid the worst of working a minimum wage, entry level job. But, you're not going to get special treatment. You'll have to do the really dirty jobs. If you screw up, the shift manager will chew you out for it.
But, if you're the McDonalds CEO going into that job, it's probably even easier than it is for the author. You get all the protection of not having to worry about your future if you get fired. But, in addition, you might be recognized by some of the other employees or the manager or franchise operator or something. And, because of that, you might get to avoid a truly awful part of the job like cleaning the grease trap in the deep fryer. If you screw up, the shift manager might say "don't worry about it, everyone has problems on their first day" because they don't want to risk pissing off the CEO.
Yes, but then it becomes weighted by how much financial stake you have in the company, rather than the worker's contribution to their success (I'd argue that employees have just as much at stake as most investors, as working for a living is their primary means of earning income, and losing thay income due to a business failing can be just as ruinous). If an individual holds 51% of the public shares, the voting process is performative at best. That person will always have the power to change the board of directors who will then set policy that aligns with whatever their desires are.
Well, by my knowledge they sometimes vote and the amount of votes one has correlates to your share%. A CEO is appointed precisely to make decisions for them.
Assuming every employee has equal voting power I don't see it being particularly effective. But it might, i guess.
Have you heard of democracy? Why is society so allergic to bringing it to the workplace? You damn well should get to vote on positions that are necessarily hierarchical.
The CEO should be appointed/fired either by a board that's voted on by the workers (and recallable), or the workers should get to vote for a CEO directly (who should also be recallable).
Some may call this socialism, which yes, it's a part of it.
I suggest we replace every CEO with a cat and a business buzzword soundboard.
It will result in increased revenue, profit, employee satisfaction, willingness to return to office work, work environment health, employee retention, and most importantly, amount of cats in the office. (After all, a CatEO needs a VPurr and a mewsistant...)
Actually working fine for Mondragon. A federation of worker coops in Spain, it's 70 thousand people or so and seems to have worked for the past 70 years, even outlasting Francoism. Wage ratios (between minimum and the highest wage in the coop) are fixed and must be voted on to be changed, and I believe management positions can be voted out by their subordinates.
I think that, before every manager interviews a potential employee - every single time - they should go through the ENTIRE application and hiring process themselves. For each and every employee they interview.
I own a small business, so I have the advantage of being able to actually do this - and I do. Every time we hire someone. I personally have no tolerance for a fucked up recruitment process, and do not expect good candidates to tolerate it either.
If you are out there looking for a job, remember you are interviewing them as much as they are in interviewing you. How they treat candidates is a good indication of how they will treat their employees.
Workday is the absolute fucking worst thing. One job I had I was hired as a programmer and they shifted us to all learning Workday and converting our systems to it. Basic shit like adding two numbers in a dataset could take 10 minutes of work for every fucking number. Absolute cancer of a system. I don't even put that year of work on my resume I never want anyone ever again to think I can be useful working in that system I'd rather be jobless
If you think that this is a broken system and not working exactly as intended, you are delusional. The system serves many purposes including: making it harder to leave your job, thus suppressing wage growth, making candidates less likely to negotiate or leverage multiple offers, thus suppressing wage growth, and making it easier to argue that they "just can't fill" their ghost jobs and must outsource or import labor, thus suppressing wage growth.
Any conservative CEO would argue passionately about how difficult job applications build character and show grit and select for the only type of people he wants in that company.
It’s barely tolerable now in most places, even as a worker.
I get the sentiment though. There’s a definite bias towards hiring unfit leaders into leadership roles. I just imagine a Democratic system might foster more of the worker populace rising to the task, but might also cause other, inexperience in leadership issues.
In Germany you will often find an employee council in companies, which gets elected by the workers.
They don't fill in the leadership, but they have a decision in hiring and firing processes, and general things that matter to the workers. It's like "a seat on the table", which is better than nothing.
Aversion to politics is a symptom of alienation. We should want more politics and more meaningful work rather than the 'I'm forced to work in order to pay rent' system we're currently living.
Not sure what bastion of knowledge and responsibility you work in, but in every company I've worked for, my average co-worker has been an idiot. Letting them decide who management is would be a disaster.
Employees have better information than investors, especially now. Most markets today are more feudal than free.
If we voted on management, then our workplaces would become even more meritocratic than they are today. The board member's son would have to impress us first.
I think most of them will be amused by how frustrating it is.
They believe they became CEO because of their innate ability and hard work. And that every other worker should have a harder time than them.
And if they ever experienced the hiring process, they would make it more frustrating on purpose, for the same reason.
How can I be sure? This post proves that even the victims want to impose their same suffering on someone else. Now imagine if someone as entitled as a CEO were to experience that.
The point still stands. The victim thinks it's empathy building, and wants to impose it, the CEO will think it's "work ethic building" or some fake buzzword like that.
It seems like an AI written article about a Reddit post that they did not link. The site loads wonky for me so maybe the link was stripped, but I don't know if I believe any of that.
Following the manager's report to upper management about the flaws in the ATS, significant action was taken. "Half of the HR department was fired in the following weeks," he stated. The situation serves as a cautionary tale about the potential pitfalls of relying solely on technology in the hiring process.
Uuuhh so nasty! I say once a year there should be an open season for CEOs and every employee can participate in the hunt. You can bring family and friends, it’s fun for all. We can live stream it.
I've only found a single company that really passed me off. There were a few annoying ones with bad forms but for the most part everyone was very respectful of time.
60 Comments
freebee@sh.itjust.works · 96 pts · 34d
Once per year, every CEO should do the lowest paid job in the company for a week.
fizzle@quokk.au · 27 pts · 34d
Loads of CEOs are well aware of how shit the jobs theyre providing are.
snooggums@piefed.world · 12 pts · 34d
Aware of and doing are two different things.
fizzle@quokk.au · 10 pts · 34d
Yeah, but you cant make a ceo truly experience what a minimum wage job is like, because they wont endure the hopelessness.
VieuxQueb@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 34d
Yeah, they will come back to a fully furnished home and plenty of food etc... they will have no idea what it feels like to juggle bill payment and need a vacation but not being able to take one.
Aneb@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 34d
I haven't had a true vacation in like 5 years. I'm not counting the trips with my ex to buy weed across state lines, but Michigan was kinda cute to see (and thats sad).
merc@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 34d
Also, it's hard for them to have a realistic experience because their cow-orkers will know that it's the CEO and if you want to keep your job you won't make the CEO have a miserable time.
fizzle@quokk.au · 1 pts · 34d
That's kinda included in the malaise of a minimum wage job I tried to capture with "hopelessness". I'm sure most of us have been there. You're on the bottom rung.
merc@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 34d
Right, but there's an additional protection because it's the CEO.
For example, if you're a successful author writing a book on what it's like to work at McDonalds, maybe you'll get a job there. You'll be working with other people who are in a shitty job that they need to keep, but if you get fired, it's more material for your book. So, you avoid the worst of working a minimum wage, entry level job. But, you're not going to get special treatment. You'll have to do the really dirty jobs. If you screw up, the shift manager will chew you out for it.
But, if you're the McDonalds CEO going into that job, it's probably even easier than it is for the author. You get all the protection of not having to worry about your future if you get fired. But, in addition, you might be recognized by some of the other employees or the manager or franchise operator or something. And, because of that, you might get to avoid a truly awful part of the job like cleaning the grease trap in the deep fryer. If you screw up, the shift manager might say "don't worry about it, everyone has problems on their first day" because they don't want to risk pissing off the CEO.
TheFrogThatFlies@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 34d
Even an average paying job, just to remember what the company really does and what people stand for, other than making money.
reluctant_squidd@lemmy.ca · 9 pts · 34d
From what I’ve seen so far. Making money is what most companies stand for. At least once they reach a certain revenue level.
lostme@piefed.social · 4 pts · 34d
From where CEOs stand, an average paying job is no different from the lowest paying job
snooggums@piefed.world · 1 pts · 34d
Then why aren't they paid the same?
SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social · 5 pts · 34d
And they should live exclusively of that wage.
Brownie@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 34d
Let's just get rid of the CEO part, and make the workers own and make decisions
BewareOfIdiot@nord.pub · -2 pts · 34d
Yeah that'll work. 500 people making joint decisions.
Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de · 5 pts · 34d
Isn't that already how it happens when the shareholders are involved?
Furbag@pawb.social · 3 pts · 34d
Yes, but then it becomes weighted by how much financial stake you have in the company, rather than the worker's contribution to their success (I'd argue that employees have just as much at stake as most investors, as working for a living is their primary means of earning income, and losing thay income due to a business failing can be just as ruinous). If an individual holds 51% of the public shares, the voting process is performative at best. That person will always have the power to change the board of directors who will then set policy that aligns with whatever their desires are.
BewareOfIdiot@nord.pub · 2 pts · 34d
Well, by my knowledge they sometimes vote and the amount of votes one has correlates to your share%. A CEO is appointed precisely to make decisions for them.
Assuming every employee has equal voting power I don't see it being particularly effective. But it might, i guess.
general_kitten@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 34d
i guess for a company something like elections for the ceo might work
MisterFrog@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 34d
Have you heard of democracy? Why is society so allergic to bringing it to the workplace? You damn well should get to vote on positions that are necessarily hierarchical.
The CEO should be appointed/fired either by a board that's voted on by the workers (and recallable), or the workers should get to vote for a CEO directly (who should also be recallable).
Some may call this socialism, which yes, it's a part of it.
MousePotatoDoesStuff@piefed.social · 4 pts · 34d
I suggest we replace every CEO with a cat and a business buzzword soundboard.
It will result in increased revenue, profit, employee satisfaction, willingness to return to office work, work environment health, employee retention, and most importantly, amount of cats in the office. (After all, a CatEO needs a VPurr and a mewsistant...)
BewareOfIdiot@nord.pub · 2 pts · 34d
"Where are you going?" "oh I'm just going to pet the CEO and give her treats, brb"
Mirshe@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 34d
Actually working fine for Mondragon. A federation of worker coops in Spain, it's 70 thousand people or so and seems to have worked for the past 70 years, even outlasting Francoism. Wage ratios (between minimum and the highest wage in the coop) are fixed and must be voted on to be changed, and I believe management positions can be voted out by their subordinates.
homes@piefed.world · 32 pts · 34d
I think that, before every manager interviews a potential employee - every single time - they should go through the ENTIRE application and hiring process themselves. For each and every employee they interview.
EVERY SINGLE TIME.
sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world · 36 pts · 34d
I own a small business, so I have the advantage of being able to actually do this - and I do. Every time we hire someone. I personally have no tolerance for a fucked up recruitment process, and do not expect good candidates to tolerate it either.
If you are out there looking for a job, remember you are interviewing them as much as they are in interviewing you. How they treat candidates is a good indication of how they will treat their employees.
homes@piefed.world · 8 pts · 34d
Thank you for keeping it real
jtrek@startrek.website · 17 pts · 34d
I hate .. I think it's called Workday? It's the worst. You can't have quotation marks in your resume or it blocks it.
homes@piefed.world · 8 pts · 34d
You somehow made me more angry
ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 34d
Workday is the absolute fucking worst thing. One job I had I was hired as a programmer and they shifted us to all learning Workday and converting our systems to it. Basic shit like adding two numbers in a dataset could take 10 minutes of work for every fucking number. Absolute cancer of a system. I don't even put that year of work on my resume I never want anyone ever again to think I can be useful working in that system I'd rather be jobless
Enekk@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 34d
If you think that this is a broken system and not working exactly as intended, you are delusional. The system serves many purposes including: making it harder to leave your job, thus suppressing wage growth, making candidates less likely to negotiate or leverage multiple offers, thus suppressing wage growth, and making it easier to argue that they "just can't fill" their ghost jobs and must outsource or import labor, thus suppressing wage growth.
jpablo68@infosec.pub · 6 pts · 34d
I heard something like that once, it went something like this: "if you see poor people under capitalism it's not a bug it's a feature"
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 34d
Something working as intended can still be broken.
Donkter@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 34d
Any conservative CEO would argue passionately about how difficult job applications build character and show grit and select for the only type of people he wants in that company.
rumba@lemmy.zip · 21 pts · 34d
If they only cared.
starchylemming@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 34d
that would honestly solve all the problems
Hazel@piefed.blahaj.zone · 21 pts · 34d
Management should be elected by the workers.
reluctant_squidd@lemmy.ca · 9 pts · 34d
Can you imagine? More politics in the workplace?
It’s barely tolerable now in most places, even as a worker.
I get the sentiment though. There’s a definite bias towards hiring unfit leaders into leadership roles. I just imagine a Democratic system might foster more of the worker populace rising to the task, but might also cause other, inexperience in leadership issues.
It would be interesting to see experimented.
pulsey@feddit.org · 16 pts · 34d
In Germany you will often find an employee council in companies, which gets elected by the workers.
They don't fill in the leadership, but they have a decision in hiring and firing processes, and general things that matter to the workers. It's like "a seat on the table", which is better than nothing.
Hazel@piefed.blahaj.zone · 8 pts · 34d
Aversion to politics is a symptom of alienation. We should want more politics and more meaningful work rather than the 'I'm forced to work in order to pay rent' system we're currently living.
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 34d
Would the total amount of politics in our lives change? I mean, right now we're talking about politics for free, like suckers.
I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 34d
Not sure what bastion of knowledge and responsibility you work in, but in every company I've worked for, my average co-worker has been an idiot. Letting them decide who management is would be a disaster.
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 34d
Employees have better information than investors, especially now. Most markets today are more feudal than free.
If we voted on management, then our workplaces would become even more meritocratic than they are today. The board member's son would have to impress us first.
edinbruh@feddit.it · 14 pts · 34d
I think most of them will be amused by how frustrating it is.
They believe they became CEO because of their innate ability and hard work. And that every other worker should have a harder time than them. And if they ever experienced the hiring process, they would make it more frustrating on purpose, for the same reason.
How can I be sure? This post proves that even the victims want to impose their same suffering on someone else. Now imagine if someone as entitled as a CEO were to experience that.
Robust_Mirror@aussie.zone · 10 pts · 34d
The victims don't want to impose suffering for the sake of suffering though. It's supposed to be an empathy building exercise.
The mistake is thinking CEOs have access to any empathy in the first place.
edinbruh@feddit.it · 1 pts · 34d
The point still stands. The victim thinks it's empathy building, and wants to impose it, the CEO will think it's "work ethic building" or some fake buzzword like that.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 34d
An entire HR team was terminated after a manager discovered that their automated system had mistakenly rejected all job applications, including his own
MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com · 15 pts · 34d
It seems like an AI written article about a Reddit post that they did not link. The site loads wonky for me so maybe the link was stripped, but I don't know if I believe any of that.
groats_survivor@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 34d
Yeah I agree. Additionally in my experience, management level doesn't have the authority or ability to fire an entire department like HR
beernutz@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 34d
It looks like it is right in the piece linked:
Following the manager's report to upper management about the flaws in the ATS, significant action was taken. "Half of the HR department was fired in the following weeks," he stated. The situation serves as a cautionary tale about the potential pitfalls of relying solely on technology in the hiring process.
chiliedogg@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 34d
Were they replaced by a different automated system?
Rooster326@programming.dev · 0 pts · 34d
And nothing of value was lost...
jpablo68@infosec.pub · 10 pts · 34d
They should try to live 6 months with the lowest salary they pay at their company.
ArtVandelay@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 34d
I'm sure they know. I'm also sure they don't care. I'm 1,000% sure they have never even cared to think about it.
wewbull@feddit.uk · 0 pts · 34d
Why would they know? They're never anything to do with building the team.
Daxter101@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 33d
Because it's intentional.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 8 pts · 34d
Better yet, make the HR dipshits do it.
Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 34d
Oh they can use their actual name. That's how broken everything is.
They'll get an AI video interview request, if they are lucky.
Hell_nah_brother@thelemmy.club · 4 pts · 34d
Uuuhh so nasty! I say once a year there should be an open season for CEOs and every employee can participate in the hunt. You can bring family and friends, it’s fun for all. We can live stream it.
makeshift0546@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 34d
I've only found a single company that really passed me off. There were a few annoying ones with bad forms but for the most part everyone was very respectful of time.