Why the republican party doesnt appeal to people...

[Jjz1109]

I agree that your example seems more like entitlement than mine.

In my case, I manage a small gov't agency with a break-even budget that uses every penny. I have put off salary increases for me and the other senior staff solely so I would have enough $$ to support increased salaries for lower ranking staff (believe me, I get an earful about that).

The woman is already at the top of the salary scale for her position. In the past two years, I've given her a promotion, added to her job title, allowed her to have wide-ranging responsibilities, allowed her free-reign to make a lot of decisions, increased her salary, and given her more comp time than anyone else.

In return, I have an employee who is absolutely reliable and can be trusted to do a great job without question. I doubt anyone else would be able to do what she does.
If this were Saving Private Ryan, I'd be Tom Hanks and she'd be Tom Sizemore. Almost, because...

She is also ungrateful, has an expectation that I'll do more for her, is borderline insubordinate, and bullies and intimidates other staff.

It's not like we're working on commission, or I can give her profit sharing, or cash bonuses. Can you imagine the headlines if a govt manager handed out cash bonuses or big raises using taxpayer money? I'd lose my job and face jail time.

It's very confusing for me, and a complete hijack of this thread.

Dude, this is what is wrong with government / union employees. Your definition of entitlement seems fine to me. You have a good worker, yet feels she deserves more, is never satisfied, takes it out on her coworkers, and basically believes she is "entitled" to more because she is who she is. A legend in her own mind. And you, and we the people, since she is a government employee, have to put up with her bs. In the private sector, het communication skills, people skills, and job skills are all related to her performance. If she has attitude, is insubordinate to you, and bullies coworkers, dude she should be fired! No question. But thanks to the good old government job, you are stuck with her till retirement so she can get all those lovely pension and post retirement benefits. Sad, but true. Yes, she feels she is ENTITLED.

I say back off the Mr Nice guy, and she will have to suck it up. She ain't going nowhere dude. You need to gain control of the situation, and make for a better work environment.

 

[MisterB]

I agree that your example seems more like entitlement than mine.

In my case, I manage a small gov't agency with a break-even budget that uses every penny. I have put off salary increases for me and the other senior staff solely so I would have enough $$ to support increased salaries for lower ranking staff (believe me, I get an earful about that).

The woman is already at the top of the salary scale for her position. In the past two years, I've given her a promotion, added to her job title, allowed her to have wide-ranging responsibilities, allowed her free-reign to make a lot of decisions, increased her salary, and given her more comp time than anyone else.

In return, I have an employee who is absolutely reliable and can be trusted to do a great job without question. I doubt anyone else would be able to do what she does.
If this were Saving Private Ryan, I'd be Tom Hanks and she'd be Tom Sizemore. Almost, because...

She is also ungrateful, has an expectation that I'll do more for her, is borderline insubordinate, and bullies and intimidates other staff.

It's not like we're working on commission, or I can give her profit sharing, or cash bonuses. Can you imagine the headlines if a govt manager handed out cash bonuses or big raises using taxpayer money? I'd lose my job and face jail time.

It's very confusing for me, and a complete hijack of this thread.

Wow, simply wow. Before I weigh in with any comments, I'd like to know one thing:

Do you manage a Federal, State or Local Government office?

 

[balsary]

I agree that your example seems more like entitlement than mine.

In my case, I manage a small gov't agency with a break-even budget that uses every penny. I have put off salary increases for me and the other senior staff solely so I would have enough $$ to support increased salaries for lower ranking staff (believe me, I get an earful about that).

The woman is already at the top of the salary scale for her position. In the past two years, I've given her a promotion, added to her job title, allowed her to have wide-ranging responsibilities, allowed her free-reign to make a lot of decisions, increased her salary, and given her more comp time than anyone else.

In return, I have an employee who is absolutely reliable and can be trusted to do a great job without question. I doubt anyone else would be able to do what she does.
If this were Saving Private Ryan, I'd be Tom Hanks and she'd be Tom Sizemore. Almost, because...

She is also ungrateful, has an expectation that I'll do more for her, is borderline insubordinate, and bullies and intimidates other staff.

It's not like we're working on commission, or I can give her profit sharing, or cash bonuses. Can you imagine the headlines if a govt manager handed out cash bonuses or big raises using taxpayer money? I'd lose my job and face jail time.

It's very confusing for me, and a complete hijack of this thread.

It's confusing to me as well (don't worry about the thread though, this thread is pointless to begin with). First you say "The woman is already at the top of the salary scale for her position. In the past two years, I've given her a promotion, added to her job title, allowed her to have wide-ranging responsibilities, allowed her free-reign to make a lot of decisions, increased her salary, and given her more comp time than anyone else." Then you follow that by saying "She is also ungrateful, has an expectation that I'll do more for her, is borderline insubordinate, and bullies and intimidates other staff." Why did she get the promotion, the raise, etc? It seems she may be getting mixed signals from you. Does she get disciplined for insubordination or bullying?

Are you familiar with Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory? Herzberg determined that there are two sets of factors that influence an employee's level of job satisfaction. Motivators when present give the employee a sense of satisfaction. A lack of motivators doesn't cause dissatisfaction though. On the other hand, a lack of hygiene factors contribute to job dissatisfaction. The presence of hygiene factors doesn't lead to job satisfaction, but simply a lack of dissatisfaction. It's important to note that not all employees have the same motivators or hygiene factors. It seems to me that there is a reason this woman isn't satisfied with her job (though it's impossible to know based on your side of the story). It's also possible she's just a bitch.

I also find it interesting that you claim to get an "earful" from senior staff regarding pay, yet there is no sense of entitlement associated with them. I'm guessing they make enough to live comfortably (as they likely should). Why are they entitled to more pay, but the lower level staff (that are more likely to need the extra income for basic necessities) aren't?

 

[twoton]

A legend in her own mind....

But thanks to the good old government job, you are stuck with her till retirement ....


I say back off the Mr Nice guy, and she will have to suck it up. She ain't going nowhere dude. You need to gain control of the situation, and make for a better work environment.

Yes, a legend in her own mind.

Govt job, but not unionized. I could let her go at will. But yes, I need to try to get control. I'm the fourth manager she's served under and we've all had troubles. She's very, very proactive, jumps ahead on the job and gets it done. Move, follow, or get out of the way. On the plus side: she's "git-r-done." On the minus side, she alienates people.

Wow, simply wow. Before I weigh in with any comments, I'd like to know one thing:

Do you manage a Federal, State or Local Government office?

State.

Why did she get the promotion, the raise, etc? It seems she may be getting mixed signals from you. Does she get disciplined for insubordination or bullying?

I was new to the position when I did it, and truth be told she's got my back. And she's bailed me out without me having to ask her. BUT....I've got to look out for everyone's best interest, at the same time.

The insubordination is fuzzy--not direct. So it's hard to pin down. As for the bullying, no one was actually come forward and complained directly. I hear hints about it from another staff person once in a while. So I know these things are happening but can't confront them. One thing I've learned is most times when someone is having an issue with a coworker they explicitly DON'T want me to get involved. So they don't tell me.

That being said, this has come to a head over the past week, and I've started taking some steps to bolster my support for the rest of the staff to give them a better sense that I do support them, and I am the boss, despite how it sometimes is presented to them on a day-to-day basis.

Are you familiar with Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory? Herzberg determined that there are two sets of factors that influence an employee's level of job satisfaction. Motivators when present give the employee a sense of satisfaction. A lack of motivators doesn't cause dissatisfaction though. On the other hand, a lack of hygiene factors contribute to job dissatisfaction. The presence of hygiene factors doesn't lead to job satisfaction, but simply a lack of dissatisfaction. It's important to note that not all employees have the same motivators or hygiene factors. It seems to me that there is a reason this woman isn't satisfied with her job (though it's impossible to know based on your side of the story). It's also possible she's just a bitch.

I also find it interesting that you claim to get an "earful" from senior staff regarding pay, yet there is no sense of entitlement associated with them. I'm guessing they make enough to live comfortably (as they likely should). Why are they entitled to more pay, but the lower level staff (that are more likely to need the extra income for basic necessities) aren't?

Not familiar with it. Thanks for bringing it up though, it's worth my learning about.

I don't have a solid answer as to why I don't feel the senior people (actually, it's only one senior person who complains) complain and yet I don't feel like he feels a sense of entitlement. Maybe because he provides a huge amount of content to our mission. Overall, the senior people are paid more because of the content they provide relative to the others. The quality, the depth of "development," of content, the weighty influence they carry outside of our office when dealing with other organizations, the good reputation that they consistently sustain for our organization, etc. The senior staff are the heavy lifters, by position and professionally.

 

[StormfrontFL]

Those millions of job aren't out there thanks to the unions!

And as far as those horrible working conditions and 18 hour work days, it's 2014, not 1955, Norma Rae. People can leave and find a better employer. Companies are afraid of getting their names in the paper if they don't treat their employees right. Lawsuit, lawsuit, lawsuit. The whole world is upside down!!

I have many friends who belong to unions. They don't get the real world. They just recently had to start contributing to their medical benefits. OMG, the whining and crying!! Imagine that! I've been contributing to medical benefits my entire career! And when we talk about the hours I (willingly) work, they chastise me for not complaining to "someone" or for not telling my boss "no." Or the best one, tell my boss "it's not my job." They just don't get it. It's an entitlement mentality. They immediately want to know what's in it for them. They don't understand that I have gotten promotions, and nice bonuses, for my hard work.

And as for working on holidays, they FIGHT for that triple time. These are reasonably smart people. But it's all hand to mouth. No long term thinking or planning.

But tell me this. What about those workers who MUST join the union? They have no choice. Their dues are like taxes, just going to waste. That's the injustice. They don't have options.

You keep saying that there are millions of jobs out there just waiting to be claimed. Where? Tell that to some of the college grads(Masters included) that come in to me on a daily basis to see if their are any openings available. If it were so easy to move from job to job then our unemployment numbers would be below 1%.

Ever hear of strength in numbers? If it were possible for the unions to have some power without having all the employees a part of it then I would call for membership to be optional. As I stated it would serve the non union members right to see themselves exploited while their union co-workers reap the protections.

 

[MisterB]

Twoton: Now that you've weighed in with more info, it sounds like this employee, based on performance, is highly successful in her position, but exhibits some conduct issues that may need to be addressed.

I would suggest you get some advice from your Human Resources department before you take any action. Conduct issues can be very very hinky. How you say what you say can make all the difference. Also, alot of state and local government employees can be "related" to influential folks so I'd quietly check that out too. Just my $.02. Good luck.

 

[twoton]

As for jobs unfilled, I heard an 'industrial' nurse talking today, she works in a manufacturing plant. They have a helluva time finding employees because so many people fail the drug test. They find the right candidate, go through the whole process, then the person either fails to show up or fails the drug test.

Opinions about drug use aside, if you're working in a heavy manufacturing plant, you can't be impaired. And if you know you're going to get drug tested, what the hell kind of judgement are you showing by failing the test?

Anyway, that's one reason a lot of jobs are unfilled. Good paying, skilled positions.

 

[StormfrontFL]

As for jobs unfilled, I heard an 'industrial' nurse talking today, she works in a manufacturing plant. They have a helluva time finding employees because so many people fail the drug test. They find the right candidate, go through the whole process, then the person either fails to show up or fails the drug test.

Opinions about drug use aside, if you're working in a heavy manufacturing plant, you can't be impaired. And if you know you're going to get drug tested, what the hell kind of judgement are you showing by failing the test?

Anyway, that's one reason a lot of jobs are unfilled. Good paying, skilled positions.

One reason, but that doesn't explain all the millions of jobs left unfilled according to Jjz.

I do recall that once a guy came in looking for a job and the hiring manager told him that he could wait a day or two before taking the drug test(against company policy) and the idiot went in immediately to take the test and failed. Some people are idiots. It's a given. The fact is still out there that changing jobs isn't as easy as some wish to think it is.

 

[twoton]

My very liberal/progressive Democrat sister-in-law says "if you want more money, just get another job."

Ergo, progressive Democrats think this way.

 

[Klingsor]

My very liberal/progressive Democrat sister-in-law says "if you want more money, just get another job."

Ergo, progressive Democrats think this way.

A First Course in Logic

 

[twoton]

A First Course in Logic

Hmm....maybe an early Christmas present for her?

 

[Popyuu]

One reason, but that doesn't explain all the millions of jobs left unfilled according to Jjz.

I do recall that once a guy came in looking for a job and the hiring manager told him that he could wait a day or two before taking the drug test(against company policy) and the idiot went in immediately to take the test and failed. Some people are idiots. It's a given. The fact is still out there that changing jobs isn't as easy as some wish to think it is.

I agree, it isn't. And depending on the type of work and the hours...it's downright impossible.

 

[Klingsor]

Hmm....maybe an early Christmas present for her?

For someone.

 

[Jjz1109]

You keep saying that there are millions of jobs out there just waiting to be claimed. Where? Tell that to some of the college grads(Masters included) that come in to me on a daily basis to see if their are any openings available. If it were so easy to move from job to job then our unemployment numbers would be below 1%.

Ever hear of strength in numbers? If it were possible for the unions to have some power without having all the employees a part of it then I would call for membership to be optional. As I stated it would serve the non union members right to see themselves exploited while their union co-workers reap the protections.

Stormy, you initiated the "millions of jobs" reference in post # 430. Presume you were being facetious.

Sounds like we agree again (this is getting scary) and let people decide whether they want to join a union, and not be forced into them. Clearly, many don't have that option in most union shops. No democracy in that.

 

[balsary]

Stormy, you initiated the "millions of jobs" reference in post # 430. Presume you were being facetious.

Sounds like we agree again (this is getting scary) and let people decide whether they want to join a union, and not be forced into them. Clearly, many don't have that option in most union shops. No democracy in that.

People already have the choice of whether they want to be part of a union or not.

 

[StormfrontFL]

Stormy, you initiated the "millions of jobs" reference in post # 430. Presume you were being facetious.

Sounds like we agree again (this is getting scary) and let people decide whether they want to join a union, and not be forced into them. Clearly, many don't have that option in most union shops. No democracy in that.

The problem with union membership being optional is that without the strength in numbers the union would lack any real power. It's also highly doubtful that if the union did manage to accomplish some improvements for workers that the non union members would not also benefit from them.

 

[twoton]

The problem with union membership being optional is that without the strength in numbers the union would lack any real power. It's also highly doubtful that if the union did manage to accomplish some improvements for workers that the non union members would not also benefit from them.

If I'm not mistaken, I think some states have the doctrine of "fair share" wherein non-union members have the equivalent of union dues deducted from their paychecks in places where they would derive union benefits even if they're not members.

 

[StormfrontFL]

If I'm not mistaken, I think some states have the doctrine of "fair share" wherein non-union members have the equivalent of union dues deducted from their paychecks in places where they would derive union benefits even if they're not members.

This seems fair after all why should someone benefit if they too haven't sacrificed.

It seems that some have problems with unions but isn't the problem more with the leadership?

 

[Jjz1109]

The problem with union membership being optional is that without the strength in numbers the union would lack any real power. It's also highly doubtful that if the union did manage to accomplish some improvements for workers that the non union members would not also benefit from them.

Not true. If unions were such a great thing, if the benefits were obvious, then others would join given the chance. Not giving one the option and forcing them to join in a union shop is wrong, undemocratic.

 

[Freddie53]

Let's face it. Some jobs remain open, at least for a while, because those that want the jobs can't pass the drug test.

That sometimes leads to immigrants, legal or not, often taking the jobs. In a complex economic system, rarely can an issue be totally isolated.

Drug tests need to be mandatory for some jobs, such as truck drivers, operators of machinery. Custodial jobs might not require a person testing negative for pot, though perhaps so for the more potent drugs out there.

The Republicans perceived reluctance to even seriously consider what the problems are and what corrections needs to be done that is hurting their long term future. The Tea Party keeps hammering on the need for the government to banish itself, regardless of the negative consequences. The public has the perception that the main line Republicans exist to maximize profits for banks, bankers, very large corporations and their top executives.