Timeline for Coworkers accusing me of "cheating" for working more efficiently
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 19, 2019 at 10:58 | comment | added | Adriano Repetti | Guys, I don't understand answers and comments here. Why on earth OP should suggest changes against his own interest?! Let his coworkers complain about it (and find a way to justify their concerns) | |
| Oct 18, 2019 at 21:51 | comment | added | MPW | OP could also suggest that the employer add the restriction that the same employee can't receive the weekly bonus two weeks in a row, giving somebody else the opportunity to earn it at least every other week. | |
| Oct 18, 2019 at 14:52 | comment | added | Adriano Repetti | Oh I've never been in any union and I'm pretty much the opposite of that. The point is that it is a strategy that works in that way and you blame your coworkers instead of the employer (and you can see it from answers here). It's just a fact. | |
| Oct 18, 2019 at 13:54 | comment | added | Demonblack | @AdrianoRepetti Aaaaah, the good old union mindset. You sound exactly like one of our CGIL meetings. Padroni, compagni, nemici... I work in IT and even here there's plenty of people who don't want to put in the slightest effort to learn new technologies, and then they complain they're "getting singled out" when there's a sudden lack of work for whatever reason and they're put on forced leave (or even CIG). No, you're not getting singled out because "il padrone" has something against you in particular, it's because you can't be arsed to do your job properly and there's other people who can. | |
| Oct 18, 2019 at 8:14 | comment | added | 520 says Reinstate Monica | "A weekly bonus can be a good performance incentive, so long as winning is mostly about luck, and everyone thinks they have a fair chance of winning." But this is a target bonus. Target bonuses are not lotteries; they are explicitly there to incentivize efficient working. "... and that's pretty close to "bribery."" This couldn't be further from the truth. OP did the legwork (it is not just about the money put down) to make their workflow the most efficient. OP played by the rules of the scheme and won because they improved their methodology. I do this in my workplace without a bonus. | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 19:02 | comment | added | WGroleau | +1 — This bonus by department worked quite well where I retired from. The amount of the bonus was determined by department performance. | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 16:44 | comment | added | Darrel Hoffman | @alphazero I worked at one job (an electronics chain retail store) that had a bonus like that on sales - but only if you sold the customer the (basically vaporware) service plan. We had one guy who completely gamed the system by selling every customer the service plan without telling them, and deducting its price from the sale of the item itself so they wouldn't see it. He sold the most plans this way, and thus got the bonus every month, all for basically robbing the company blind. (The guy in charge of oversight was suspected to be in cahoots with him.) Don't know if he was ever caught. | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 16:09 | comment | added | bob | @alephzero I don't see how what OP did is bribery. Bribery is giving something of value to someone to obtain to inappropriately sway an official proceeding (whether legal, civil, or other). Bribery in this case could be giving the boss a 60% share of the weekly bonus to guarantee that OP always "wins". Buying and creating tools to create a competitive advantage and thus winning isn't bribery (who was the bribe paid to?), especially since OP offered the same tools to their colleagues (the software tools I mean). | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 6:24 | comment | added | Adriano Repetti | @shadowzee however it's how it works (and I'm not saying I agree with this practice; we don't even know if it's what management is really aiming to). If you blame your coworker for "too high performance" (ridiculous, right?) then you won't blame your employer for an unreasonable peace. | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 6:16 | comment | added | Adriano Repetti | @accumulation right! | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 5:27 | comment | added | Acccumulation | @AdrianoRepetti BTW, "and et voilà" is redundant. | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 5:27 | comment | added | Acccumulation | @alephzero How is a bonus based on luck an incentive? An incentive has to be directed towards something people can control. And who is bribing whom? If you're describing giving money to people in exchange for them helping a business as "bribery" ... that's the very definition of "employment". | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 3:10 | comment | added | user76284 | @alephzero You're accusing the OP of being "close to bribery"? Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? They found a way to perform better and are being rewarded for it according to pre-existing rules. In what world would that be considered anything remotely close to "bribery"? Do you know what the word "bribery" means? | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 0:46 | comment | added | alephzero | A weekly bonus can be a good performance incentive, so long as winning is mostly about luck, and everyone thinks they have a fair chance of winning. That's how bonuses for sales targets work - somebody gets lucky and serves the customer who wants to splash out $$$ on a once-in-a-lifetime purchase. But most of what the OP did is simply "investing some money up front to buy a weekly pay rise", and that's pretty close to "bribery." | |
| Oct 16, 2019 at 17:26 | comment | added | Adriano Repetti | To me it's EXACTLY one of the desired outcomes if you apply this strategy. You keep moving the bar higher and set new "default expectations". The "enemy"? Your coworker, not your employer. | |
| Oct 16, 2019 at 17:15 | comment | added | Adriano Repetti | "...ask your manager to rework the bonus system..." it's a system already in place and working as intended (back to the assembly lines). Any manager will provide a second monitor and a better keyboard to everyone and et voilà, back to the game with the bar slightly higher. | |
| Oct 16, 2019 at 16:53 | history | answered | Fiora the Ferret | CC BY-SA 4.0 |