Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Workplace Wellbeing Is a Scam?

tribunemag.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 232 posts

Re: Workplace Wellbeing Is a Scam?

#151

Post by chasd00 »

discordance wrote: post #120
kumarvvr wrote: post #23

Workplace wellbeing Wholesome workplace Workplace is a family and a myriad of other touchy-feely terms are just plain bullshit. Whole industries have cropped up to support the efforts of managements to keep workforces in control and deflect resentment (people don't leave companies, they leave managers ! and other crap) The ground reality is when the company feels you are not needed, all that touch-feely stuff goes do…

I guess it’s nice that they are trying to care and all but I’m so sick of it at my work. People encouraged to bring their ‘whole self’ to work has made my workplace miserable. I miss the days when work was just work, devoid of world politics, beliefs, and all the “let’s all exercise and be happy together” activities.

man bring "whole self" just sounds like bring your baggage and unload it on your coworkers. what a terrible thing to encourage.

Re: Workplace Wellbeing Is a Scam?

#152

Post by duckfang »

fernandotakai wrote: post #107
kayodelycaon wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 30 days Where can I find a job with 30 days of leave? A lot of places seem to think 15 days is beyond generous because they treat all PTO as vacation time and ignore that sick time used to exist. Meanwhile, my health issues make it extremely difficult to bank any amount of PTO.

or even worse: "infinite PTO" aka you never take time off because you are scared of overusing the perk.

And the trick behind that is when you leave a company, they have to normally pay for unused PTO.... Unless the PTO is "unlimited" aka not accruing.

And much research done academically and in business magazines shows that people use LESS PTO when it's "unlimited".

Tl;Dr. It's another scam companies use to bilk workers.

Re: Workplace Wellbeing Is a Scam?

#153

Post by ganzuul »

shoto_io wrote: post #150
ganzuul wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless they lose more it's not liability. Ed: I can't take the first question seriously... Is it really a serious question?

Yes it is! I wouldn't even know how to measure the responsibility of a shareholder. What if I own just 1 stock of Apple? Am I then liable? I don't get it

Sure you are liable because you can sell at any time. You voted with your money to approve all that Apple has done. You don't approve a measure of it; that would be absurd. If you missed a shareholder meeting where they discussed doing something terrible, you are liable. As a shareholder you have the ultimate responsibility for the company because no one is there to tell you otherwise. You don't abolish yourself of your wrongdoing be remaining ignorant of what is being done in your name. This results from the very basic ethics of how society works so... I really don't like having to explain this to one of its members. ED: and once again the courageous mice of HN arrive to mindlessly downvote... you people sure are an endless source of disappointment

Re: Workplace Wellbeing Is a Scam?

#154

Post by chasd00 »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #73
b0rsuk wrote: post #14

> The real problem with workplace wellness initiatives, according to Katie—beyond being inconvenient and vapid—is their obvious attempt to make up for the company’s poor employee benefits. ‘ The real problem is, wellness seminars are an attempt to push the issue on the employees. Just like "plastic recycling" initiatives push the guilt and the effort onto the consumer. It's a redirection strategy.

Same with "Self-care" - are you burning out at your job? Do you need a break? Clearly it's because you are failing at "self-care", not because your job is stressful or unreasonable. It pushes the onus back on the worker to put up with whatever the job demands and frames the worker as the one failing.

i disagree, are you expecting someone else to take care of you? Are you expecting someone to cook you a healthy meal as well? Are you suggesting handing over the welfare of your mind and body to someone else? Health ( physical and mental ) is on you to maintain.

Re: Workplace Wellbeing Is a Scam?

#155

Post by atty »

heisenbit wrote: post #80

I thought not much about this corporate wellbeing stuff until Corona. Then decisions my employer made started directly affecting my chances for survival. My employer was surprisingly proactive and protective very unlike the one of my wife. This wellness spam is virtue signaling. Whether it is truly based on values becomes only visible when the boundaries are tested.

I would agree. I was pleasantly surprised with how my company handled the pandemic. I knew going into the job that they had a reputation for treating their employees well, but I saw it first-hand with how they handled work from home, letting employees be flexible with time, letting employees take home equipment, and a million other little things. (We have a huge manufacturing footprint and quite a few place-dependent workers in other areas. I’m unsure if they are as happy as most of the work-from-home crowd, to be fair. I just don’t interact with that part of the org)

Because of how well they have treated us, I see the occasional advertisement for yoga classes or meditation sessions as a perk I’m not interested in, instead of as a symptom of a poor workplace environment. However, if I felt constantly overworked, under appreciated, and under-equipped, each one of those emails would definitely feel like a slap in the face.

Re: Workplace Wellbeing Is a Scam?

#156

Post by lazide »

mtberatwork wrote: post #78
wiz21c wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally agree. I mean, nobody cares that I agree. But I have been hurt so much by all that bullshit that readin your comment makes me better. Now I have this question for all the HR departments who engage in spreading those "touchy feely" terms : either you do realize that there's a problem with that, then why do you go on spreading it OR you don't realize there's a problem, then why do you feel those terms are acc…

I believe from the company's perspective it's viewed as a mechanism for reducing insurances costs.

The reality is that you can be arbitrarily harsh and negative , or arbitrarily positive to the point of delusion about basically any situation or set of circumstances. This isn’t theoretical, get a decent set of people (100?), put them in a specific circumstance and it’s quite apparent.

What is also apparent is that there are clearly objective differences in the ability of collections of people to thrive (or even barely cope) with the same set of circumstances based on the mindsets from the people composing the team. A good read to bring these into sharp focus is the book written on Shackleton’s voyage with the ‘Endurance’. ‘These mindsets are also clearly ‘contagious’ once they hit a certain point.

If a team hits a certain tipping point and is able to look at their circumstances and smile, it is self reinforcing. They’ll be able to face hardship productively, work together despite differences, and everyone will be better off. If no matter how good it is, they’re going to be miserable - that is also self reinforcing. It will be miserable for everyone, and the only people who stay will be those who feel at home in misery.

Being miserable is also associated with worse health, personal relationship issues, higher insurance costs, absenteeism, turnover, difficulty retaining key talent, etc.

The company wants (and often needs) people that work hard regardless of the circumstances, that will find a way to make a situation positive and productive, etc. This can be abused. Even when not abused, the company needs people who can tackle problems to solve customer needs to survive (quite plainly).

If a company is well managed, they are able to make this a mutually beneficial situation without it lapsing into co-dependence or abuse on either side. Not very many companies are well managed. Partially because it is really hard, partially because American culture doesn’t seem to value or recognize proper management skills and the importance they have.

Covid has turned the screws and also pushed a lot of people into negative territory. This means a lot of companies that were near a tipping point before are now clearly over it - as are a whole lot of people.

Re: Workplace Wellbeing Is a Scam?

#158

Post by ghaff »

hallway_monitor wrote: post #122
fernandotakai wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or even worse: "infinite PTO" aka you never take time off because you are scared of overusing the perk.

Untracked time off is a double-edged sword for sure. I just make sure to take more time off than I would have gotten at my last job, and I tell my employees to do the same.

There need to be cultural norms set from the top around its use for sure. Though I'm not sure, in general, it's worse than pooled vacation/sick time.

I would hope that coming out of the pandemic there would be some rethink of a system that basically provides a strong incentive to come into the office sick. (OTOH, there may be more flexibility in terms of WFH so that may do the job at least partway on its own.)

Re: Workplace Wellbeing Is a Scam?

#159

Post by mathattack »

SyzygistSix wrote: post #86
mathattack wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s amazing how many people don’t realize that the Beyoncé concert in the office comes from the same pool of money as compensation. (The company only does it because it’s cheaper than bonuses) And everyone showers Instagram with photos of the show.

Was that a real thing or was the Beyonce concert hyperbole?

Real thing. Banks hire politicians for meetings, tech companies hire celebs.

Re: Workplace Wellbeing Is a Scam?

#160

Post by chasd00 »

NoblePublius wrote: post #31

The only time your boss will give you a raise is when not giving you the raise would cost more money than the raise.

You could flip it around and say you will get a raise when there's a positive ROI on that raise. However, the point is the same. How could or why would you expect otherwise?
Post reply on HN