top 58 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 92 points 4 months ago (23 children)

Once per year, every CEO should do the lowest paid job in the company for a week.

  • source
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    Loads of CEOs are well aware of how shit the jobs theyre providing are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Aware of and doing are two different things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    Yeah, but you cant make a ceo truly experience what a minimum wage job is like, because they wont endure the hopelessness.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Even an average paying job, just to remember what the company really does and what people stand for, other than making money.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (9 children)

    Let's just get rid of the CEO part, and make the workers own and make decisions

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    Yeah that'll work. 500 people making joint decisions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago*

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Isn't that already how it happens when the shareholders are involved?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    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...)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    Management should be elected by the workers.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 9 points 4 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 19 points 4 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 32 points 4 months ago* (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago

    They should try to live 6 months with the lowest salary they pay at their company.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 4 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 14 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah I agree. Additionally in my experience, management level doesn't have the authority or ability to fire an entire department like HR

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago

    Better yet, make the HR dipshits do it.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    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.

  • source