Extreme prejudice: Difference between revisions

Extreme prejudice (view source)

Revision as of 19:38, 6 December 2022

31 bytes added , 6 December 2022

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,261

edits

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 They are also, as a class, grossly overpaid.
-These are in no sense sweatshop workers. They are neither treated, nor paid, like itinerant fruit pickers. They need the oversight of benign unions nor the usual labour regulations, formulated to defend optionless pit workers from Victorin kings of industry.
+Spare your violins. For all their complaints of their working conditions, these people are hardly itinerant fruit pickers. They need neither the matronly eye of a benign union nor the kindly blanket of labour regulations originally formulated to defend optionless pit workers from rapacious robber barrons. ''Good'' staff shouldn’t want them. ''Bad'' staff shouldn’t be entitled to them.
-They are big enough to look after themselves.
+It would be for everyone's good — except grifters and shitty employers, were the usual rules relaxed to encourage greater mobility, that night persuade firms more often to crowbar the many fat birds off the thin branches at the top of the tree.
-This would be for everyone's good — except the grifters and shitty employers.
+So, financial colleagues: we need to get over the stigma of dismissal. Here, our American friends have the right idea: ''employment at will''. Well-meant formalistic barriers to removing staff  have the unintended consequence of increasing barriers to ''hiring'' staff, since it is that much harder to reverse a duff hiring decision.
-We need to get over the stigma of dismissal. Here, our American friends have the right idea: ''employment at will''. Well-meant formalistic barriers to removing staff  have the unintended consequence of increasing barriers to ''hiring'' staff, since it is that much harder to reverse a duff hiring decision.
-It is mad really: finance professionals are not pit-workers. They have market power and a liberal education: they don’t need the unionised protections. ''Good'' staff shouldn’t want them. ''Bad'' staff shouldn’t be entitled to them.
 Good staff erect personal defences against mistreatment termination as they go: their contributions, their expertise, their institutional knowledge and their rich, informal networks name then to good to mistreat. But, irony: if workplace regulation makes it harder to hire, this gives shitty employers licence to treat good staff worse, as they have fewer options to leave.
@@ Line 48: / Line 44: @@
 No firm in its right mind — okay, okay, that leaves out many of them — will fire an outperformer: those in their wrong minds self-harm when they do. This applies, too, to functional [[diversity]]. Smart firms will ensure they have cultural and cognitive diversity because the universe of business is culturally diverse. Firms that don’t will go out of business. Q.E.D.
-End of day, professional services employers should not have to be a privatised welfare system for their staff. The defence against [[mediocrity drift]] is to quickly deal with laggers.
+End of day, professional services employers should not be a privatised welfare system for their staff. The defence against [[mediocrity drift]] is to quickly deal with laggers.
 The first tool here is discretionary bonus. With this you can bring down cost and push the laggard into the safe zone. If you are flatlining on doughnuts, and you can’t figure out a way of redeploying said laggard, then have the conversation. Be clear, have it early.