Once per year, every CEO should do the lowest paid job in the company for a week.
Loads of CEOs are well aware of how shit the jobs theyre providing are.
And they should live exclusively of that wage.
Even an average paying job, just to remember what the company really does and what people stand for, other than making money.
From what I’ve seen so far. Making money is what most companies stand for. At least once they reach a certain revenue level.
From where CEOs stand, an average paying job is no different from the lowest paying job
Let's just get rid of the CEO part, and make the workers own and make decisions
Yeah that'll work. 500 people making joint decisions.
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...)
"Where are you going?" "oh I'm just going to pet the CEO and give her treats, brb"
Isn't that already how it happens when the shareholders are involved?
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.
i guess for a company something like elections for the ceo might work
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
Something working as intended can still be broken.
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.
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.
Thank you for keeping it real
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.
You somehow made me more angry
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
Management should be elected by the workers.
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.
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.
Would the total amount of politics in our lives change? I mean, right now we're talking about politics for free, like suckers.
They should try to live 6 months with the lowest salary they pay at their company.
If they only cared.
that would honestly solve all the problems
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.
Why would they know? They're never anything to do with building the team.
Because it's intentional.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
RULES:
RELATED COMMUNITIES:
