Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be
-
@Jimmy9008 said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Jimmy9008 said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Dashrender said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Jimmy9008 said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Dashrender said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Jimmy9008 said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Jimmy9008 said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@DustinB3403 I see. And there is no compensation involved? Some countries I worked in, if you are sacked, you get compensation, but if you decide to leave, you get nothing
In the UK it depends. If you are sacked due to gross misconduct you wont get any money. If you are made redundant, you will get a set amount based on length of employment (could be more, but by law its at least that set amount), and if you take voluntary redundancy, you get a package as setup by the former employer... so, it depends.
If you signed a contract for 3 months notice, usually you can negotiate to leave early if you really want. "Im going to give two months". But, if you just walk out you didnt mean your contractual obligations and that could have ramifications.
In the US, one is called being fired and one being laid off. Laid off = made redundant.
Yep, here being laid off will see you get redundancy pay, being fired wont (unless you have a special contract).
In the US, if you are laid off (made redundant) you can apply for unemployment benefits. This is a state level thing, all companies that have employees must pay into the unemployment benefit plan. this pool of money is used to help keep people afloat while they look for new work.
you can even apply to get this if fired or you quit, but it changes how long until you become eligible for those benefits.Here, its all by the company by law, not related to the the government paying anything. Official wording:
"You'll normally be entitled to statutory redundancy pay if you're an employee and you've been working for your current employer for 2 years or more. You'll get: half a week's pay for each full year you were under 22. one week's pay for each full year you were 22 or older, but under 41"
What happens if the company goes under and they aren't around to pay?
oh - well over there - there are probably some protections that magically pull money from somewhere to pay them.
Sort of. If a company goes under and is bankrupt, assets the company owned are sold and the sum is put towards all employee redundancy pay. Say 10,000 people lose their jobs, and assets only add up to half the redundancy cost... That's paid, and tough luck on the rest.
As far as I gather the employee redundancy pay comes first, then if anything is left after that other costs such as company loans or money owed to other companies is paid.
If no assets at all to sell, employee is screwed. Hope they have redundancy insurance.
It's common for US companies to go under with zero assets, though. So people aren't protected in the UK? That's nuts.
Sounds way less socialist than the US
I think of the company has no assets to sell, you are pretty much screwed here. You sign in whilst looking for a new job, which provides something like £50 a week. So not much.
If you have redundancy insurance your better off. But that's down to the individual mostly.
Yeah, we really don't have that insurance here, but everyone is covered by the government because we know being a burden on your local community isn't good for anyone.
-
@IRJ said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Dashrender said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Dashrender said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Carnival-Boy said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@WLS-ITGuy said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Carnival-Boy said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
Do you generally only give 2 weeks notice in the US?
Depends on the state. Wisconsin is a "hire at will" state. Technically no notice is needed but it is ideal to give 2 weeks.
Wow. That must make succession planning a nightmare. I have to give 3 months notice, which is the norm in the UK.
Not really, since you have to have already planned for disasters like getting hit by a bus, there should be no need for a succession plan. How would your company handle you getting sick or something? Same thing, US companies are ready for that. So people quitting isn't a real fear to any functional company. It's not ideal, but not a serious risk.
Most US companies demand that you not even come into work for the last two weeks because you are no longer someone that they want to trust or invest in. In banking, for example, you are generally done (but paid) from the moment you give notice. You give notice and security escorts you to your desk to clean it out and to the door to go home, that's it. You don't get one minute at your computer again.
It's amazing how many times this hasn't been true for me - like everyone of them.
You mean being walked out?
Correct - I've always, just worked those two weeks - normally doing next to nothing, but showing up just the same while having all the same access I had before.
Yeah, that's the thing, it ends up being nearly a vacation. They can't make you do anything, they have no power over you. They can't just fire you without triggering their unemployment insurance claims to get hit or worse. So you end up doing the absolute minimum, having coffee, relaxing with zero stress, talking to other people and making them less productive, having long lunches, leaving early, and getting paid to do it.
Sure you can be less productive, but the main reason the company pays you is to be available to answer questions about your system(s) and create any documentation if needed. It is not like you should be fighting fires anyway. It should mostly be knowledge transfer and paperwork.
Yeah, all super light, relaxed work.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Jimmy9008 said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Dashrender said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Jimmy9008 said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Jimmy9008 said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
Why would you get a car working in IT? When do you need to drive anywhere? I don't even need a car to drive to work, let alone anywhere else.
In Israel, it was a standard benefit for all IT related employees. The idea was that anything in IT is considered a creative job, so if you suddenly have a great idea in the middle of the night, you just drive to the office and get to work on it (no remote jobs back in the 90s). The perk stuck around until it got taxed out of existence in 2007-2010-ish.
I've worked a few MSP jobs in the UK and they usually say you have to use your own car. They do pay for petrol though, so if you have a good efficient car you can make some cash on it.
Why would a car come up? Is it because they were doing bench work? In the US, often you get a company car if you are a bench tech.
No. You had to do regular site visits to see the clients and look at what they wanted you to look at, or do regular face to face 'im doing stuff' type work. All things that could be done remote, but just their business model.
There are many companies that work this way - and those same companies have an incredible amount of waste. There is likely very little actual value in those visits other than glad-handing. Now, if you're charging those clients full rate for all the drive time and glad-handing, more power to ya.
Low cost account managers do this, high cost IT pros would need to be doing IT work. If IT is acting as account managers you likely have major problems. One in that you can't hire effectively, two in that you have to pay really high rates for no work being done, three that you have a skill mismatch as IT people are rarely good account people or vice versa.
This was not account manager work. Don't know why that was their business was model, but it was. For example, you could be sent to a client's office to reconfigure a server, or bring down exchange for maintenance, or to test backups... All things that could be done remote.
Account managers actually worked remotely and never visited the clients. They would have a call about what needs doing g over the next year, their goals etc then the IT projects would be assigned and we would go and visit.
Not my decision. Just was what they wanted.
If "face time matters" that makes it account management, no matter what other tasks are being done there. It's the account management aspects of the MSP that were putting people on site. Don't confuse titles for roles.
I'll have to disagree with you on that. Just because the work is being done on site, rather than in a remote office, that's IT work. It doesn't matter where it's done. The business decision is to do the IT work on site, it doesn't make it not IT.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Dashrender said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Jimmy9008 said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Jimmy9008 said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
Why would you get a car working in IT? When do you need to drive anywhere? I don't even need a car to drive to work, let alone anywhere else.
In Israel, it was a standard benefit for all IT related employees. The idea was that anything in IT is considered a creative job, so if you suddenly have a great idea in the middle of the night, you just drive to the office and get to work on it (no remote jobs back in the 90s). The perk stuck around until it got taxed out of existence in 2007-2010-ish.
I've worked a few MSP jobs in the UK and they usually say you have to use your own car. They do pay for petrol though, so if you have a good efficient car you can make some cash on it.
Why would a car come up? Is it because they were doing bench work? In the US, often you get a company car if you are a bench tech.
No. You had to do regular site visits to see the clients and look at what they wanted you to look at, or do regular face to face 'im doing stuff' type work. All things that could be done remote, but just their business model.
There are many companies that work this way - and those same companies have an incredible amount of waste. There is likely very little actual value in those visits other than glad-handing. Now, if you're charging those clients full rate for all the drive time and glad-handing, more power to ya.
Low cost account managers do this, high cost IT pros would need to be doing IT work. If IT is acting as account managers you likely have major problems. One in that you can't hire effectively, two in that you have to pay really high rates for no work being done, three that you have a skill mismatch as IT people are rarely good account people or vice versa.
Except I do this all of the time.
Granted the account manager hat is rarely worn for more than minutes, but it is one of my hats.
Small ITSP with small solid client based.
-
@Dashrender there's also a value in providing a benefit, employee retention is an important metric which translates to dollars. And a car is so much more than a coffee machine.
-
@IRJ said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
Spending money for the sake of spending money and creating fake jobs because of it, is just smoke and mirrors. No real world problem is solved. It's ok though because we can just print more money. Economic Stimulus is nice and all, but it is really just a temp solution. You cant keep throwing out money to solve issues that dont exists. This is the kind of stuff that builds up over time and creates issues. You need to find a real solution of the long term that provides value.
Nothing fake about creating jobs there. I have friends who worked for those fleet management companies, and the food they put on the table was real enough.
-
@scottalanmiller car resellers made their money, but they also hire people, and there's fleet management, repairs, towing etc etc etc. There was no law in place, in fact it was a law that eventually ended up killing that industry, but while it lasted, it kept thousands of families employed.
Any money that is sent into circulation is better than being put in a pocket. Taxes are quite often yet another pocket (or they get spent on bs like funding foreign interests which doesn't promote anything locally). Money spent in the local market on whatever, generates jobs, because money spent means demand, and demand has to be met by supply. Government encouraging companies to do that by lowering taxes is doing itself a favour, as well as the economy in general.
-
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@IRJ said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
Spending money for the sake of spending money and creating fake jobs because of it, is just smoke and mirrors. No real world problem is solved. It's ok though because we can just print more money. Economic Stimulus is nice and all, but it is really just a temp solution. You cant keep throwing out money to solve issues that dont exists. This is the kind of stuff that builds up over time and creates issues. You need to find a real solution of the long term that provides value.
Nothing fake about creating jobs there. I have friends who worked for those fleet management companies, and the food they put on the table was real enough.
That is totally creating fake jobs. Jobs that exist for no reason. Why should a company pay to lease cars it doesn't need? It could simply pay out mileage or some other small compensation that costs a ton less than leasing vehicles.
The company would make more profit, hopefully invest that back into growing the company more and creating a good cycle of growth.
-
@JaredBusch said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
That is totally creating fake jobs. Jobs that exist for no reason. Why should a company pay to lease cars it doesn't need? It could simply pay out mileage or some other small compensation that costs a ton less than leasing vehicles.
The company would make more profit, hopefully invest that back into growing the company more and creating a good cycle of growth.
No, the company would simply pay more taxes and instead of letting employees have better conditions, only the government benefits.
-
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Dashrender there's also a value in providing a benefit, employee retention is an important metric which translates to dollars. And a car is so much more than a coffee machine.
But the reason for giving the car was to save the company money - not because the employee wanted a car more than they wanted cash.
Cash would normally be the more desirable perk versus a car or other benefit - unless the benefit provided via the company was considerable less than what the employee could get it directly for.
Company A: offers me $100K,
company B offers me $97K + $3k car (lease)I might want the cash more than the car because I can get a cheaper car. the cash can go into savings for my retirement, etc.
Not saying it's bad - just saying each employee might want something different.
But in the old days - it was in the companies benefit to give the car as part because of less taxes paid.
And Scott is talking about doing the same for his non US resident employees.
-
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@IRJ said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
Spending money for the sake of spending money and creating fake jobs because of it, is just smoke and mirrors. No real world problem is solved. It's ok though because we can just print more money. Economic Stimulus is nice and all, but it is really just a temp solution. You cant keep throwing out money to solve issues that dont exists. This is the kind of stuff that builds up over time and creates issues. You need to find a real solution of the long term that provides value.
Nothing fake about creating jobs there. I have friends who worked for those fleet management companies, and the food they put on the table was real enough.
That's not what he means by fake. Those jobs are real enough - but it's a fake economy created by laws that benefit the leasing companies. If the tax laws simply reduced taxes instead, the companies could pay the employees more, then the employees would have more money to spend, and other industries would be created where people want to spend their money. this would be a more natural economy, not a fake one created by tax regulation.
-
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller car resellers made their money, but they also hire people, and there's fleet management, repairs, towing etc etc etc. There was no law in place, in fact it was a law that eventually ended up killing that industry, but while it lasted, it kept thousands of families employed.
Any money that is sent into circulation is better than being put in a pocket. Taxes are quite often yet another pocket (or they get spent on bs like funding foreign interests which doesn't promote anything locally). Money spent in the local market on whatever, generates jobs, because money spent means demand, and demand has to be met by supply. Government encouraging companies to do that by lowering taxes is doing itself a favour, as well as the economy in general.
Sure, but it was fake demand, or if not fake, at least manufactured demand created by a tax law.
-
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@JaredBusch said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
That is totally creating fake jobs. Jobs that exist for no reason. Why should a company pay to lease cars it doesn't need? It could simply pay out mileage or some other small compensation that costs a ton less than leasing vehicles.
The company would make more profit, hopefully invest that back into growing the company more and creating a good cycle of growth.
No, the company would simply pay more taxes and instead of letting employees have better conditions, only the government benefits.
@JaredBusch missed the whole point of why cars were added - it was for salary position, i.e. the company having to pay less payroll taxes while 'paying' the employees more through the benefit of the lease being one of their benefits.
As mentioned above by me - some employees might want and be OK with this, while others would likely want the cash.
Here's another way to look at this.
In the US, larger companies provide healthcare coverage for their employees, this coverage is part of the employee salary package. There are tax benefits for the companies paying this.
But let's say an employee had their own health coverage - so they didn't want/need the company's supplied one - will the company give them the cash they would otherwise pay the insurance company? Some companies will, some won't.
-
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@IRJ said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
Spending money for the sake of spending money and creating fake jobs because of it, is just smoke and mirrors. No real world problem is solved. It's ok though because we can just print more money. Economic Stimulus is nice and all, but it is really just a temp solution. You cant keep throwing out money to solve issues that dont exists. This is the kind of stuff that builds up over time and creates issues. You need to find a real solution of the long term that provides value.
Nothing fake about creating jobs there. I have friends who worked for those fleet management companies, and the food they put on the table was real enough.
Well, there is a decent book about BS jobs on Amazon.
-
@Dashrender said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
But the reason for giving the car was to save the company money - not because the employee wanted a car more than they wanted cash.
There were more reasons than that. Even when the companies stopped making more money than they knew what to do with, company cars were a group benefit. An employee would pay something for the lease, but much less than he would be paying if he bought or leased a car on his own. A large IT company with a park of several thousand leased cars could get really good terms from the leasing company, and paying the initial downpayment, covering the gas, and paying a portion of the lease are all tax deductibles. Everyone wins
Cash would normally be the more desirable perk versus a car or other benefit - unless the benefit provided via the company was considerable less than what the employee could get it directly for.
When you get health benefits from a company, are they usually better than if you got the same conditions on your own? Why should companies provide health and dental if it's not a good business model for them? Same principle, only with car leases (in the latter stage). Imagine those health benefits costing you nothing, company covers 100% (that's how the cars were in the earlier stages), would you prefer not to take them?
Not saying it's bad - just saying each employee might want something different.
It was absolutely optional
-
@Dashrender said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@JaredBusch said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
That is totally creating fake jobs. Jobs that exist for no reason. Why should a company pay to lease cars it doesn't need? It could simply pay out mileage or some other small compensation that costs a ton less than leasing vehicles.
The company would make more profit, hopefully invest that back into growing the company more and creating a good cycle of growth.
No, the company would simply pay more taxes and instead of letting employees have better conditions, only the government benefits.
@JaredBusch missed the whole point of why cars were added - it was for salary position, i.e. the company having to pay less payroll taxes while 'paying' the employees more through the benefit of the lease being one of their benefits.
As mentioned above by me - some employees might want and be OK with this, while others would likely want the cash.
Here's another way to look at this.
In the US, larger companies provide healthcare coverage for their employees, this coverage is part of the employee salary package. There are tax benefits for the companies paying this.
But let's say an employee had their own health coverage - so they didn't want/need the company's supplied one - will the company give them the cash they would otherwise pay the insurance company? Some companies will, some won't.
I have a car. I'd want the cash thanks...
-
@Dashrender reducing taxes is never an option there, unfortunately. I was paying 56% before I left.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
I have a car. I'd want the cash thanks...
Another data point - cars in the UK are dirt cheap. In Israel there is 100% import tax on a car, so anything that costs $50k will be $100k there, and that's before VAT, fees, markups etc
-
@Jimmy9008 said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Jimmy9008 said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Dashrender said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Jimmy9008 said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Jimmy9008 said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
Why would you get a car working in IT? When do you need to drive anywhere? I don't even need a car to drive to work, let alone anywhere else.
In Israel, it was a standard benefit for all IT related employees. The idea was that anything in IT is considered a creative job, so if you suddenly have a great idea in the middle of the night, you just drive to the office and get to work on it (no remote jobs back in the 90s). The perk stuck around until it got taxed out of existence in 2007-2010-ish.
I've worked a few MSP jobs in the UK and they usually say you have to use your own car. They do pay for petrol though, so if you have a good efficient car you can make some cash on it.
Why would a car come up? Is it because they were doing bench work? In the US, often you get a company car if you are a bench tech.
No. You had to do regular site visits to see the clients and look at what they wanted you to look at, or do regular face to face 'im doing stuff' type work. All things that could be done remote, but just their business model.
There are many companies that work this way - and those same companies have an incredible amount of waste. There is likely very little actual value in those visits other than glad-handing. Now, if you're charging those clients full rate for all the drive time and glad-handing, more power to ya.
Low cost account managers do this, high cost IT pros would need to be doing IT work. If IT is acting as account managers you likely have major problems. One in that you can't hire effectively, two in that you have to pay really high rates for no work being done, three that you have a skill mismatch as IT people are rarely good account people or vice versa.
This was not account manager work. Don't know why that was their business was model, but it was. For example, you could be sent to a client's office to reconfigure a server, or bring down exchange for maintenance, or to test backups... All things that could be done remote.
Account managers actually worked remotely and never visited the clients. They would have a call about what needs doing g over the next year, their goals etc then the IT projects would be assigned and we would go and visit.
Not my decision. Just was what they wanted.
If "face time matters" that makes it account management, no matter what other tasks are being done there. It's the account management aspects of the MSP that were putting people on site. Don't confuse titles for roles.
I'll have to disagree with you on that. Just because the work is being done on site, rather than in a remote office, that's IT work. It doesn't matter where it's done. The business decision is to do the IT work on site, it doesn't make it not IT.
You said, I thought, that it was required to have face time. And the fact time drove the need to be on site. That face time is the account management piece. The account management is important enough that they made you not do IT efficiently but go onsite and waste all kinds of time. Why? Because the account management portion of the job is what was driving the decisions.
-
@JaredBusch said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Dashrender said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Jimmy9008 said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Jimmy9008 said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
Why would you get a car working in IT? When do you need to drive anywhere? I don't even need a car to drive to work, let alone anywhere else.
In Israel, it was a standard benefit for all IT related employees. The idea was that anything in IT is considered a creative job, so if you suddenly have a great idea in the middle of the night, you just drive to the office and get to work on it (no remote jobs back in the 90s). The perk stuck around until it got taxed out of existence in 2007-2010-ish.
I've worked a few MSP jobs in the UK and they usually say you have to use your own car. They do pay for petrol though, so if you have a good efficient car you can make some cash on it.
Why would a car come up? Is it because they were doing bench work? In the US, often you get a company car if you are a bench tech.
No. You had to do regular site visits to see the clients and look at what they wanted you to look at, or do regular face to face 'im doing stuff' type work. All things that could be done remote, but just their business model.
There are many companies that work this way - and those same companies have an incredible amount of waste. There is likely very little actual value in those visits other than glad-handing. Now, if you're charging those clients full rate for all the drive time and glad-handing, more power to ya.
Low cost account managers do this, high cost IT pros would need to be doing IT work. If IT is acting as account managers you likely have major problems. One in that you can't hire effectively, two in that you have to pay really high rates for no work being done, three that you have a skill mismatch as IT people are rarely good account people or vice versa.
Except I do this all of the time.
Granted the account manager hat is rarely worn for more than minutes, but it is one of my hats.
Small ITSP with small solid client based.
Right, but it's the hat making you go on site. I do it too, but I know that going onsite is either because I'm the bench tech for the day (not IT, just filling in) or because I'm being the account manager.
