#FunAtSchool #fun #learning #work #reading
Some educators say children will learn better if you make school more fun.
Others say that learning the basics, like math, isn’t always fun. Even math experts say that.
Maureen Downey, education columnist for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, tackled this debate in her January 30, 2024, column.
Think about your days at school. Were they fun? Were they work? Were they a combination of both?
Excluding recess and volunteer extracurricular activities, did you have fun at school?
Chances are, if you went to a Catholic school, it was all work. Rigor is the best friend of most Catholic educators. Not that kids had NO fun at Catholic schools, but work, and the feeling of work, were the main motivators.
Many students, and people in general, read for pleasure. Some educators want to make reading seem like work. It’s doubtful that would encourage young students to read more.
There are those who wish to separate work from pleasure. But, wouldn’t you want young students to grow up learning to love, or, at least, like their work?
In today’s world, work is often as much a social activity as a job. Creating pleasant work environments helps attract and keep good, productive people.
Part of the purpose of schools is to train children to be good employees as adults. If learning in school were more fun, wouldn’t you likely be teaching children to be happier employees?
Of course, students must master the basics. They must also learn history, art, music and other creative pursuits. After all, encouraging creativity is the goal of many of today’s workplaces. Creative students ask more questions, and you really want students, and adults, to ask more questions. Then, as a result, find more correct answers.
Realistically, school can’t be all play and no work. But, just as employers strive to make their workplaces more enjoyable, thereby more productive, teachers try to find that perfect mix of work, fun and learning in school.
Getting students to want to learn is, or should be, as much of a goal for teachers as learning itself.
Curiosity is as commendable a characteristic in a student as ambition. What good employer would not want curious and ambitious employees?
In addition to curiosity and ambition, we all want students to have good humor – not necessarily be funny, but more to be able to take setbacks with a smile and humility.
No employer wants a bunch of angry and disgruntled employees.
In past decades, these characteristics were thought to come naturally to kids and, later, adults.
But curiosity, creativity, ambition, good humor and many other desirable personal traits can be learned – and taught.
Often, to do so, teachers must possess, or have learned those same traits and apply them appropriately to their lesson plans.
Sometimes, that involves making school more fun. Like putting medicine on a sugar cube, it may involve disguising work amid that fun.
It’s up to teachers, and their administrators, to encourage students not only to learn, but also to want to learn.
Peter
Tag Archives: employers
MULTIGENERATIONAL WORKERS OFFER CHALLENGES TO MANAGERS
#MultigenerationalWorkers #employers #employees #jobs
In decades past, people in workplaces had similar views of how to work.
Basically, you were given a job, and you did it based on how you were trained and what the boss expects of you.
Also back then, workers ranged in age from teens to the 60s in most cases, and they grew to adulthood in similar ways.
Today’s workplaces have multigenerational workers. There might be someone in his or her 80s, or even older, mixing with younger generations and middle-agers.
As technology advanced, each generation grew up differently. Not only is each generation different in technological knowledge and comfort, each generation has formed different attitudes about work in general.
The nose-to-the-grindstone middle-aged and older workers are mixing with generations that look for something else from their jobs.
It’s not laziness, in most cases. It’s that some may think work and the rest of their lives need more balance. Some may also believe they can find easier ways to complete tasks that differ from the usual training. Some may even think that some assignments are downright unnecessary.
These differing attitudes about work can confound managers. Managers thrive on conformity. They thrive on control. They thrive on workers meeting them where THEY are, not the other way around.
Worker X may not necessarily be wrong to think the way he or she does. But because his or her thinking may not be in line with the manager’s, problems can arise.
Add to that the difficulty in finding enough workers in many occupations, managers seem to be the ones who have to adapt more than the workers.
For the record, workers have to realize that jobs have expectations. You can’t just take a job and do what you want. There are some workplace rules that must be followed, to comply with laws, ethical and professional standards.
And, more importantly, the work must get done. Therefore, there must be SOME order in the workplace.
Most jobs are hard, in one form or another. They will take a toll on your life to varying degrees. If they did not, they wouldn’t pay you.
Employers in decades past had hard and fast rules about telephone use. One could not take personal calls at work unless it was urgent. With many generations today, taking one’s eyes off one’s phone is, well, difficult.
Yes, personal devices can be useful to communicate necessary workplace matter. But, spending one’s entire work shift on one’s phone doing non-workplace tasks is not advised.
The managers’ positions are dicey. How do you get the most from your workers, without interfering with their privacy? Work rules have to be carefully constructed, and obvious violations have to be dealt with.
But, some managerial flexibility may be in order in a diverse, multi-generational workforce.
Having a job is not easy. Keeping a job may be even more difficult. But, keeping good workers, no matter their age, may be the biggest challenge in today’s world.
Peter
In decades past, people in workplaces had similar views of how to work.
Basically, you were given a job, and you did it based on how you were trained and what the boss expects of you.
Also back then, workers ranged in age from teens to the 60s in most cases, and they grew to adulthood in similar ways.
Today’s workplaces have multigenerational workers. There might be someone in his or her 80s, or even older, mixing with younger generations and middle-agers.
As technology advanced, each generation grew up differently. Not only is each generation different in technological knowledge and comfort, each generation has formed different attitudes about work in general.
The nose-to-the-grindstone middle-aged and older workers are mixing with generations that look for something else from their jobs.
It’s not laziness, in most cases. It’s that some may think work and the rest of their lives need more balance. Some may also believe they can find easier ways to complete tasks that differ from the usual training. Some may even think that some assignments are downright unnecessary.
These differing attitudes about work can confound managers. Managers thrive on conformity. They thrive on control. They thrive on workers meeting them where THEY are, not the other way around.
Worker X may not necessarily be wrong to think the way he or she does. But because his or her thinking may not be in line with the manager’s, problems can arise.
Add to that the difficulty in finding enough workers in many occupations, managers seem to be the ones who have to adapt more than the workers.
For the record, workers have to realize that jobs have expectations. You can’t just take a job and do what you want. There are some workplace rules that must be followed, to comply with laws, ethical and professional standards.
And, more importantly, the work must get done. Therefore, there must be SOME order in the workplace.
Most jobs are hard, in one form or another. They will take a toll on your life to varying degrees. If they did not, they wouldn’t pay you.
Employers in decades past had hard and fast rules about telephone use. One could not take personal calls at work unless it was urgent. With many generations today, taking one’s eyes off one’s phone is, well, difficult.
Yes, personal devices can be useful to communicate necessary workplace matter. But, spending one’s entire work shift on one’s phone doing non-workplace tasks is not advised.
The managers’ positions are dicey. How do you get the most from your workers, without interfering with their privacy? Work rules have to be carefully constructed, and obvious violations have to be dealt with.
But, some managerial flexibility may be in order in a diverse, multi-generational workforce.
Having a job is not easy. Keeping a job may be even more difficult. But, keeping good workers, no matter their age, may be the biggest challenge in today’s world.
Peter
IT CAN COST YOU TO GO TO WORK
#employers #employees #jobs #work #wages #salaries
You have a full-time job making, to use a number, $7 per hour.
Multiply that by 40 hours, and your weekly pay is $280.
If you live, to use a number, five miles from your job, you will travel 10 miles per day, back and forth to work.
If gasoline, to use a round number, costs $3 a gallon, you will spend $150 a week in gasoline to get back and forth to work. Subtracting that from your $280 salary, that leaves you with $130.
Multiply $130 by four weeks (a month), you’ll have $520 left for food, rent etc.
If your rent is $1,000 a month, you won’t make it.
We’ve not even figured in wear and tear on your car from commuting, any medical needs you may have – much less discretionary spending. If you have children who must be cared for while you work, you can’t afford that.
Politicians of many stripes make a big deal about people sitting home collecting government benefits while not working. Most everyone who is able would like to work – if not merely for the money, but to get out and about, meet people etc. But, most workers do not want to be taken advantage of by an employer.
The good news in today’s labor market is that hourly wages are going up because people are “choosing” – that’s the term many politicians use – not to work, and companies are trying to entice them back, or keep the workers they have.
The point of this discussion is that people, by and large, are not lazy. They want to work. But they also want that job to cover their necessities. When that doesn’t happen, people are less likely to want to work.
Chances are, if your job pays $7 an hour, you do not have the option to work from home. You have to go someplace to work.
Even in professions like teaching, salaries in some places make it difficult to work and otherwise take care of yourself and your family.
Regarding teaching, we won’t even discuss the harassment, political hassles etc., that add stress to an already undercompensated job.
In short, the economics of going to work are not cut and dried. Everything depends on what you make, where you live and whether you can meet your expenses with what you make.
Employers who long for the days when workers were plentiful, and would work for whatever they would pay them, keep dreaming. Those days are gone, particularly as the U.S. cracks down on immigrants.
Work is desirable for most people, and most employers like to have hiring options. But the math has to work not only for the employer, but also the employee.
It’s difficult to find the sweet spot, in which employees are paid appropriately to live, employers are making money and all is well with the world.
Today’s world is not that simple. For those who believe it is (some politicians believe that people will come back to work those menial jobs when their savings run out), you are living in a fantasy world.
Remember, if you are working at a $7 an hour job, you probably don’t have savings to rely on anyway.
Again, the good news is the job market is getting wise to the situation. More employers are offering more enticements to get workers back. Some assurance that paychecks won’t dry up if another pandemic, or some other disaster, hits, would also be helpful.
People want to work. Employers want workers. The numbers have to jibe on both ends to keep everyone happy.
Peter
You have a full-time job making, to use a number, $7 per hour.
Multiply that by 40 hours, and your weekly pay is $280.
If you live, to use a number, five miles from your job, you will travel 10 miles per day, back and forth to work.
If gasoline, to use a round number, costs $3 a gallon, you will spend $150 a week in gasoline to get back and forth to work. Subtracting that from your $280 salary, that leaves you with $130.
Multiply $130 by four weeks (a month), you’ll have $520 left for food, rent etc.
If your rent is $1,000 a month, you won’t make it.
We’ve not even figured in wear and tear on your car from commuting, any medical needs you may have – much less discretionary spending. If you have children who must be cared for while you work, you can’t afford that.
Politicians of many stripes make a big deal about people sitting home collecting government benefits while not working. Most everyone who is able would like to work – if not merely for the money, but to get out and about, meet people etc. But, most workers do not want to be taken advantage of by an employer.
The good news in today’s labor market is that hourly wages are going up because people are “choosing” – that’s the term many politicians use – not to work, and companies are trying to entice them back, or keep the workers they have.
The point of this discussion is that people, by and large, are not lazy. They want to work. But they also want that job to cover their necessities. When that doesn’t happen, people are less likely to want to work.
Chances are, if your job pays $7 an hour, you do not have the option to work from home. You have to go someplace to work.
Even in professions like teaching, salaries in some places make it difficult to work and otherwise take care of yourself and your family.
Regarding teaching, we won’t even discuss the harassment, political hassles etc., that add stress to an already undercompensated job.
In short, the economics of going to work are not cut and dried. Everything depends on what you make, where you live and whether you can meet your expenses with what you make.
Employers who long for the days when workers were plentiful, and would work for whatever they would pay them, keep dreaming. Those days are gone, particularly as the U.S. cracks down on immigrants.
Work is desirable for most people, and most employers like to have hiring options. But the math has to work not only for the employer, but also the employee.
It’s difficult to find the sweet spot, in which employees are paid appropriately to live, employers are making money and all is well with the world.
Today’s world is not that simple. For those who believe it is (some politicians believe that people will come back to work those menial jobs when their savings run out), you are living in a fantasy world.
Remember, if you are working at a $7 an hour job, you probably don’t have savings to rely on anyway.
Again, the good news is the job market is getting wise to the situation. More employers are offering more enticements to get workers back. Some assurance that paychecks won’t dry up if another pandemic, or some other disaster, hits, would also be helpful.
People want to work. Employers want workers. The numbers have to jibe on both ends to keep everyone happy.
Peter
WHO IS ALLOWED TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX?
#ThinkOutsideTheBox #JobParameters #jobs #employers #employees
Think outside the box.
Have you ever been encouraged to do that at, say, your work?
Did you then ask yourself: do they really want me to think outside the box?
Most employees are in a box called their job. Certain duties are prescribed within that box.
Your boss(es), in most cases, want you to stay within that box. If you go rogue, and do something outside that box, you may get punished.
As an employee, your goal may be to do the best job you can within your box, with the hope that you may be elevated to a different position that may allow more flexibility to think outside the box.
Of course, upper management wants managers to think outside the box and look for efficiencies or better ways to accomplish tasks that could add to the bottom line.
But as a low-level employee, in most companies, you are given a box (parameters) and not allowed in most cases to stray from it (them).
As employers, what do you think your company could be if everyone at every level were allowed to think outside the box?
Might you find a hidden gem of an employee deep in your organization? Does your business model allow for everyone to think outside the box? Do you and your managers have a monopoly on finding better ways to do the necessary tasks?
Some organizations certainly have a culture that allows creative thinking at all levels. Technology companies HAVE to have that to find the best ideas.
But those companies that make widgets, or simple things, might feel the need to put everyone who works there in a box for greater efficiency and attention to detail. If the employees are unionized, the contract may prescribe the box for each employee.
As an employee, you are astute to think about it when someone, say, your boss, encourages you to think outside the box.
Does he (she) really want me to do that? Does he (she) really want me to suggest better ways he (she) can better do his (her) job? Will those different ways be better for him (her) or me?
Certainly, if unsure about what the boss meant, it’s best to go about doing your job, within your box, to the best of your ability.
But, if you see a safe opportunity to offer a new idea, or to try something new that could be better, by all means go for it.
You may be surprised indeed at the reception you get, particularly if you feel your company’s culture would allow for it.
In summary, be wary when someone tells you to think outside the box at work. It could be a setup or ambush. Most companies have a competitive culture, in which managers are always looking over their shoulders. The words may sound encouraging, but try not to be fooled.
But, if employers really want their staffs to think outside the box, make sure the culture is clear and well established so that employees can feel safe doing so.
You may be surprised at the results you, and your employees, can achieve.
Peter
Think outside the box.
Have you ever been encouraged to do that at, say, your work?
Did you then ask yourself: do they really want me to think outside the box?
Most employees are in a box called their job. Certain duties are prescribed within that box.
Your boss(es), in most cases, want you to stay within that box. If you go rogue, and do something outside that box, you may get punished.
As an employee, your goal may be to do the best job you can within your box, with the hope that you may be elevated to a different position that may allow more flexibility to think outside the box.
Of course, upper management wants managers to think outside the box and look for efficiencies or better ways to accomplish tasks that could add to the bottom line.
But as a low-level employee, in most companies, you are given a box (parameters) and not allowed in most cases to stray from it (them).
As employers, what do you think your company could be if everyone at every level were allowed to think outside the box?
Might you find a hidden gem of an employee deep in your organization? Does your business model allow for everyone to think outside the box? Do you and your managers have a monopoly on finding better ways to do the necessary tasks?
Some organizations certainly have a culture that allows creative thinking at all levels. Technology companies HAVE to have that to find the best ideas.
But those companies that make widgets, or simple things, might feel the need to put everyone who works there in a box for greater efficiency and attention to detail. If the employees are unionized, the contract may prescribe the box for each employee.
As an employee, you are astute to think about it when someone, say, your boss, encourages you to think outside the box.
Does he (she) really want me to do that? Does he (she) really want me to suggest better ways he (she) can better do his (her) job? Will those different ways be better for him (her) or me?
Certainly, if unsure about what the boss meant, it’s best to go about doing your job, within your box, to the best of your ability.
But, if you see a safe opportunity to offer a new idea, or to try something new that could be better, by all means go for it.
You may be surprised indeed at the reception you get, particularly if you feel your company’s culture would allow for it.
In summary, be wary when someone tells you to think outside the box at work. It could be a setup or ambush. Most companies have a competitive culture, in which managers are always looking over their shoulders. The words may sound encouraging, but try not to be fooled.
But, if employers really want their staffs to think outside the box, make sure the culture is clear and well established so that employees can feel safe doing so.
You may be surprised at the results you, and your employees, can achieve.
Peter
WILL OFFICE SPACE UPGRADES BRING WORKERS BACK?
#WorkFromHome #OfficeSpace #PersonalInteractions #jobs #employers #employees
Companies that require office workers face a dilemma.
Since COVID-19 forced many workers to toil from home, some workers don’t want to come back to the office.
Their employers who pay for the office space want more workers to come back, at least once in a while.
Some, like Cisco in its Midtown Atlanta offices, are resorting to upgrading their office space by focusing on improving indoor environmental factors, according to an article by Zachary Hansen in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The article was published April 14, 2023.
In fact, as a new Portman Midtown Atlanta office tower goes up, it may be the last of its kind for a while, Hansen writes in an article published May 13, 2024.
But, will those things entice workers back into the office? Many have gotten used to working from home, or somewhere else. The advantages – no commute, no buying lunch at work and other money savings, for example – outweigh the disadvantages – no office worker interaction, distractions at home etc.
That puts companies in somewhat of a bind. How much office space do they really need? Does having an office building, or office space in general, give a company an identity that makes it worth having? Is upgrading office space to entice workers back going to be worth the investment? Will workers respond by coming back into the office?
These are the decisions of the future, both for companies and their employees. If a company forces workers to come back into the office, will they quit?
If a worker has a great job he or she doesn’t want to lose, will he or she give up the freedom that working from home gives them?
Will being home, with young children, be too much of a distraction for workers? Will they then bear the expenses of commuting, day care etc.?
Of course, many workers dream of having these alternatives. Many workers HAVE to go to work at a specific location. They cannot possibly do their jobs from home. They must interact with bosses, customers, coworkers etc.
But, if there are choices available, is there a way a worker can have it all with some sort of hybrid work schedule?
As discussed here before, if workers can do their jobs remotely, they can essentially live anywhere. They don’t have to be in a high-cost, high-tax locale, even if their employer is.
They can live where they want and still have the job they want.
But, as a society, do we want to encourage such a solitary lifestyle? Of course, essentially working alone cuts down on arguments. You don’t have to sit at a lunch table with someone you don’t like, or with whom you disagree on just about everything.
Still, we all benefit from having personal interactions with people. Some service organizations who meet regularly, even if they don’t require regular attendance, encourage it because club members are deprived of the presence of those who are absent. They see that as a loss.
So, most people will make decisions about where and how they work based on personal preference, unless companies impose requirements.
We will all miss something if too many people do not interact with one another. The workplace is the easiest, and often the best, place to do that.
Peter
Companies that require office workers face a dilemma.
Since COVID-19 forced many workers to toil from home, some workers don’t want to come back to the office.
Their employers who pay for the office space want more workers to come back, at least once in a while.
Some, like Cisco in its Midtown Atlanta offices, are resorting to upgrading their office space by focusing on improving indoor environmental factors, according to an article by Zachary Hansen in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The article was published April 14, 2023.
In fact, as a new Portman Midtown Atlanta office tower goes up, it may be the last of its kind for a while, Hansen writes in an article published May 13, 2024.
But, will those things entice workers back into the office? Many have gotten used to working from home, or somewhere else. The advantages – no commute, no buying lunch at work and other money savings, for example – outweigh the disadvantages – no office worker interaction, distractions at home etc.
That puts companies in somewhat of a bind. How much office space do they really need? Does having an office building, or office space in general, give a company an identity that makes it worth having? Is upgrading office space to entice workers back going to be worth the investment? Will workers respond by coming back into the office?
These are the decisions of the future, both for companies and their employees. If a company forces workers to come back into the office, will they quit?
If a worker has a great job he or she doesn’t want to lose, will he or she give up the freedom that working from home gives them?
Will being home, with young children, be too much of a distraction for workers? Will they then bear the expenses of commuting, day care etc.?
Of course, many workers dream of having these alternatives. Many workers HAVE to go to work at a specific location. They cannot possibly do their jobs from home. They must interact with bosses, customers, coworkers etc.
But, if there are choices available, is there a way a worker can have it all with some sort of hybrid work schedule?
As discussed here before, if workers can do their jobs remotely, they can essentially live anywhere. They don’t have to be in a high-cost, high-tax locale, even if their employer is.
They can live where they want and still have the job they want.
But, as a society, do we want to encourage such a solitary lifestyle? Of course, essentially working alone cuts down on arguments. You don’t have to sit at a lunch table with someone you don’t like, or with whom you disagree on just about everything.
Still, we all benefit from having personal interactions with people. Some service organizations who meet regularly, even if they don’t require regular attendance, encourage it because club members are deprived of the presence of those who are absent. They see that as a loss.
So, most people will make decisions about where and how they work based on personal preference, unless companies impose requirements.
We will all miss something if too many people do not interact with one another. The workplace is the easiest, and often the best, place to do that.
Peter
DO OR PERFORM?
#do #perform #recognition #jobs
Are you a doer, or a performer?
A doer takes action because he or she wants to get something done, wants to do it well and doesn’t care who, if anyone, is watching.
A performer does something because he or she wants the recognition, or is required to take certain action by whoever is overseeing him or her.
Obviously, those in entertainment are performers, but successful entertainers are also doers, because, mostly in private, they practice to hone their craft.
Workers often find themselves in jobs in which they can perform. They do what is required, but don’t necessarily have a vested interest in the results. They simply do what makes the boss happy.
Other employees deliberately invest themselves in their jobs. Doing great work becomes a matter of pride. They go the extra mile regardless of whether they get credit, or paid extra, for it.
It’s not that doers are necessarily better people than performers. As with entertainers, performance can be necessary. But in ordinary work situations, performance can be a facade.
In other words, what “looks” good may not necessarily “be” good. If something “is” good, the person who did it knows it. And, to that person, it’s all that matters. If some credit comes with it, so be it. If some blame comes with it, so be it.
Whatever job you have, or whatever work you do, try to be personally invested in it. Sometimes, that can be difficult. Sometimes, that can even be impossible. In the latter case, you would be wise to find something else. But, in the former case, you should find something about the job that makes you want to do it, regardless of your orders.
Many employers, though they profess to want doers working for them, are content with performers. They just do what they are told, whether the employees like it or not. If they don’t like it, they know where the door is, and someone else can come in and perform.
These employers usually get what they expect – unhappy workers, high turnover etc.
In decades past, employers valued continuity. They had systems in which longevity and loyalty were rewarded. They hired well and retained well, and didn’t have to retrain frequently.
That mindset disappeared as companies figured that employee longevity was too costly for them. In fact, they came up with theories about how long a person should be employed before the costs of that employee were greater than the employee’s value to the company.
Then, they offered no incentive to stay in one company for a long time. The company saw no future for that employee. That increased “job-hopping,” making it difficult for a worker to plan for his or her future when work was over.
From there came frequent reorganizations and more bad managers. That made even doers – good employees – vulnerable to unforeseen departures.
That converted doers to performers.
The message here is that if you are an employer, and really want doers working for you, do your level best to give them reason to be doers. Better yet, give them reason to be long-term doers.
If you are an employee and a doer, look for a situation that makes it easy for you to be a doer. Yes, you have to have a good amount of self-motivation, but a combination of internal and external motivators is ideal.
So, do your best to be a doer. If you have to perform certain tasks, know the real reason you have to perform them and don’t lose sight of the reason you are a doer.
Peter
RIGHT TOOLS CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN A JOB
#tools #jobs #employers #employees #WorkingRelationships
To paraphrase a PayCom TV ad: Are you using the right tools for your job? Why would any company not want you to have the right tools?
To illustrate, the ad shows a ditch digger using only a spoon and a high-rise window washer using only a toothbrush, for example.
The questions posed by the ad, however, are on point.
So many employers throughout the years have skimped on giving their employees the right tools for the job.
Perhaps they were hesitant to make the investment. Such thinking is shortsighted. The employer will either pay now, or pay later for that mistake.
Such thinking also forces employees to “make do” with what they have. That can have varying effects. It can bring out creativity and innovation among employees. It can also create frustration among employees, even to the point that they leave.
Though it may be difficult to have ideal situations in the workplace, it would be wise for employers to see employees simply “making do,” and wonder how much better their operations would work if the employees had the right tools.
In the modern workplace, the “right tools” can change quickly. Technology can become obsolete as soon as it is first integrated into an operation.
It’s a tough ask for employers to constantly update the technology. An employer can be constantly chasing shiny new objects. But the onus is on both employers and employees to find the sweet spot among jobs and tools.
Here’s a good rule: if employers and employees have good communication among each other, and everyone knows where everyone is coming from, that’s a great beginning.
Employees who need better tools need to sell the employer on the advantages of investing in such tools. Employers have to make it clear to employees how much money is available to invest in tools, and what the best bang for that buck is.
Some employers have surveyed employees on what they would like to have to do their jobs better. Answers can vary by the job, of course. But, in all cases, good communication and good working relationships among all concerned are required.
Some unions have resorted to destroying their tools in disputes with employers. Why would any worker destroy the things that THEY work with?
Do they think, by destroying their tools that they are never going to need them again?
In short, good tools make good work and good workers. Even with limited company budgets, employers have to know what tools will give their workers the best productivity.
Sometimes, that requires investment beyond a company’s perceived limit. Sometimes, employees have to innovate and create to compensate for the unavailability of certain tools.
No one wants ditch diggers to only have a spoon, or a window washer to only have a toothbrush. But finding the appropriate tools for various jobs can be a fluid process. Good communication and relationships among all concerned can facilitate that process.
Peter
GREAT RESIGNATION ENDING?
#GreatResignation #jobs #workers #employees #employers
Recent reports have said the so-called “Great Resignation” is ending.
Presumably, that would give employers more leverage, since people aren’t quitting their jobs in droves anymore.
Part of the reason The Great Resignation is ending may be that employers are taking better care of their employees, so they are staying put.
A warning to employers: Don’t get to confident in the leverage you may think you are getting back.
There are still labor shortages in lots of areas. New jobs, particularly in clean energy, electric vehicles and other new technology, are being created in good numbers.
Still, people staying with their employers can be a good sign for employees. Job hopping, though sometimes necessary, is not fun. A good stable work environment makes life better for most workers.
A warning for employees: Don’t presume your good, stable work environment will last as long as you want it to. In fact, other reports are showing employers going back to converting full-time positions to part time.
Today’s companies have to be flexible, and change with technology. They will be looking to shift costs and find efficiencies daily. Therefore, today’s stability can be tomorrow’s uncertainty. And, you won’t know when that change occurs, until it does.
The pandemic taught everyone that good jobs, and good employees, are both desirable. Employers constantly are working constantly to find the sweet spot of happy workers, happy customers and good profits.
Many employers have stepped up – most out of necessity – to take care of their workers as best as they can.
If you are happy with your work situation, keep it for as long as you can. But, have an eye out for changes that you can anticipate. Remember, if you see waste and redundancy in your workplace, it won’t be long before your boss sees it, too.
If you find yourself becoming no longer necessary, look for something else.
Remember, too, that there will be changes you cannot anticipate. Therefore, have a plan for the day you walk into work, only to find you are being laid off.
One such plan may start as a so-called side hustle. Income diversity eases unanticipated change. And, some side hustles can turn into full-time endeavors, or better.
While you are in your current job, try to be as useful as you can be. Show your employer – not necessarily in a flashy sense – how much you can do and how well you can do it.
In the past, workers were often advised to keep their heads down, lest they be chopped off.
That does not work today. As an employee, visibility is essential. Remember, too, that just being seen is not enough. Be seen and be useful to the maximum extent possible.
By most accounts, today’s workplaces are better than they were a few years ago. Still, that doesn’t mean anyone – employers or employees – should be complacent.
In today’s world, good situations seldom last for as long as the people experiencing them want them to.
Therefore, be visible, be diligent and be wary.
Peter
WORKERS, PAY AND JOBS
#workers #pay #jobs #employers #employees
A local company was looking for “medical professionals” for $12 to $15 per hour, according to an electronic billboard.
Just down the street, at Buc-ees, they are paying non-professional labor up to $16 per hour.
And, Buc-ees has 401(k) matches, paid time off and other benefits.
It’s unclear what else you would get at the local company looking for “medical professionals.”
This contrast illustrates today’s labor market. In fairness to the local company, it’s unclear what type of “medical professionals” they are looking for. If they are looking for nurses, for example, it’s doubtful in this market that any nurse would work for so little, unless there was some other, overriding benefit to working there.
Buc-ees, a chain of highway rest stops that tout clean restrooms, loads of gas pumps, electric charging stations and an array of food and other items, is more like a Wal-Mart, in size and variety, than your basic convenience store/gas station.
Buc-ees makes no bones about wanting to take care of its work force as best it can.
More employers are encouraged – perhaps being forced – to be more rewarding to its workers, given the staffing shortages in nearly every industry.
It’s worth noting that some of the higher paid professional classifications, as in technology and media, are laying off people these days. These folks are likely to land on their feet in this labor market.
The COVID-19 pandemic changed the labor landscape perhaps forever. As businesses closed to prevent disease spread, workers lost their jobs in large numbers, or had to work from home. As they are now gradually coming back into the workforce and workplaces, they are re-evaluating what’s important in life.
It’s dangerous, particularly for employers, to give workers a lot of time to think.
The workers who are re-evaluating their situations are not, for the most part, lazy and just want to stay home. Their safety, their children’s education — kids had to go to school from home, too – and other factors are causing them to calculate whether what they were doing before Is worth going back to. As day-care options dried up during the pandemic, parents are now left looking hard for affordable child care, so they can go back to work.
Couple that with new, post-pandemic demand for goods and services unavailable for a long time, and they add up to more choices for workers.
More choices for workers mean more competition by employers.
This is good for all concerned. Certainly, we are all paying higher prices for things largely because employers have to give workers more. But, in the long term, both employers and employees will benefit.
Employers will have to try to find the sweet spot between not alienating customers with higher prices, and attracting and keeping workers.
This effort should create better places to work, and, ultimately, better products and services.
The employees will be compensated better on the job, although they may lose some that benefit through higher prices for things they need. Still, they will, as a whole, be better off in the long run than they were.
If you are a worker, evaluate your options with care, now that you have more of them. If you are an employer, find that sweet spot quickly, hire good people and your business should thrive in the long term.
Peter
ARE YOU ‘QUIET QUITTING’ AT YOUR JOB?
#QuietQuitting #jobs, #employers #employees #GiveItYourAll
The phenomenon is called “quiet quitting.”
Workers do the minimum at their jobs so they can pursue other things outside of work.
Michael Smerconish featured at segment on this on his CNN show Aug. 20, 2022.
He interviewed a young engineer who was doing this at her job, so she could pursue an entrepreneurial side hustle outside of work.
Smerconish asked her the obvious question, to paraphrase: if your side hustle doesn’t work out, how do you think your current, or future, employer will feel about you?
Though it’s advertised as something relatively new in the workplace, it’s very likely that others have done this in the past.
It’s been said that if a job were not work, they wouldn’t pay you. It’s also been said that a worker, particularly a young worker, should not expend the entirety of his or her energy at a job. Instead, he or she should do what he or she needs to do at work, and save energy for activities at home, hobbies or, yes, even side hustles.
To be fair, some jobs pile more stress on workers than the compensation covers. Some employees resent that, but stay in the job anyway, for whatever reason.
On the other hand, as an employee, you should feel enough dedication to your work, and, yes, to your employer, that you give that employer your all – within reason.
Some jobs with narrow descriptions often expand into other duties, and an employee might resent that. “It’s not my job, man.”
Still, employees should feel enough dedication – not obligation – to their employers to do what needs to be done, if they have the ability, even if the duties are not spelled out in a job description.
Make no mistake: some employers will sense such dedication and take advantage of it.
The solution seems to be an employer-employee relationship in which both parties are not just satisfied, but enthusiastic. The employee will do what is asked, expected and more, while the employer happily compensates them well. That compensation may not be entirely financial. It can include creating a work environment in which the employees feel not just appreciated, but cherished. The employer-employee relationship should be less transactional, and more of a bond.
Such environments don’t exist everywhere. In fact, some may say such environments are rare.
Today’s tight labor market makes it incumbent on employers to make their workplaces such that people want to come and stay. And, while they are there, the employees WANT to give it all they have.
But, employees have a part to play. They have to create their own happiness at work. In some places, that is not possible. But, if the employer is making the effort to create a good culture, the employee has to make the effort to embrace it.
There is nothing wrong with side hustles, or having cherished activities outside of work. But, if you have a job, give it your all – again, within reason.
Another lesson here may be that if you are a “quiet quitter,” don’t advertise it to the world.
Peter