Random Thread - Anything Goes
-
-
@DustinB3403 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
Well I'm trying to understand your complaint besides the "I'm being told to do more work and not compensated for it".
At my job, pay is based on responsibilities. If you are going to add more responsibility to my job, then increase my paycheck. If it is a significant responsibility, then add some significant pay raises.
ESPECIALLY if it is a permanent thing.
I don't mind doing it as a temporary thing or to help out if the person is sick, but if it's going to be permanent, the pay check should go up.
-
@dafyre said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@DustinB3403 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
Well I'm trying to understand your complaint besides the "I'm being told to do more work and not compensated for it".
At my job, pay is based on responsibilities. If you are going to add more responsibility to my job, then increase my paycheck. If it is a significant responsibility, then add some significant pay raises.
ESPECIALLY if it is a permanent thing.
I don't mind doing it as a temporary thing or to help out if the person is sick, but if it's going to be permanent, the pay check should go up.
Sure, that makes sense, but what @Dashrender is saying is that his employer thinks that if someone ups and dies that the coworkers around that person should just pick up the work (and seem to actually do this).
Instead of having that conversation of, no more work more pay.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@dafyre said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@DustinB3403 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
Well I'm trying to understand your complaint besides the "I'm being told to do more work and not compensated for it".
At my job, pay is based on responsibilities. If you are going to add more responsibility to my job, then increase my paycheck. If it is a significant responsibility, then add some significant pay raises.
ESPECIALLY if it is a permanent thing.
I don't mind doing it as a temporary thing or to help out if the person is sick, but if it's going to be permanent, the pay check should go up.
Sure, that makes sense, but what @Dashrender is saying is that his employer thinks that if someone ups and dies that the coworkers around that person should just pick up the work (and seem to actually do this).
Instead of having that conversation of, no more work more pay.
Yeah. But I wouldn't agree to the more work if there wasn't mention of the more pay. My comments would follow something like, "So how much of a pay raise am I getting? None? Oh, okay."
My resume would be plastered online by the COB the next day. Because you know the business is saving the yearly salary plus an unknown overhead for health insurance premiums and stuff like that as well. They can afford to give up a few bucks to the folks that step up when needed.
I really liked that one job I worked at (Flexsteel) actually printed out a statement yearly of what your actual pay was (including the cost of benefits that the company paid for you, and a lot of the other hidden costs that most employees don't think about). It was an eye opener, for sure, and that was 16 years ago.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@dafyre said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@DustinB3403 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
Well I'm trying to understand your complaint besides the "I'm being told to do more work and not compensated for it".
At my job, pay is based on responsibilities. If you are going to add more responsibility to my job, then increase my paycheck. If it is a significant responsibility, then add some significant pay raises.
ESPECIALLY if it is a permanent thing.
I don't mind doing it as a temporary thing or to help out if the person is sick, but if it's going to be permanent, the pay check should go up.
Sure, that makes sense, but what @Dashrender is saying is that his employer thinks that if someone ups and dies that the coworkers around that person should just pick up the work (and seem to actually do this).
Instead of having that conversation of, no more work more pay.
My job does expect this - and they simply do it - it's up to the employees to push back... in this case, I didn't think there was a need to push back... but others disagree.
I said nothing like what you said I said. I simply said "They tossed those jobs onto other people with no change in compensation"
I didn't say it was right. -
@dafyre said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@DustinB3403 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@dafyre said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@DustinB3403 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
Well I'm trying to understand your complaint besides the "I'm being told to do more work and not compensated for it".
At my job, pay is based on responsibilities. If you are going to add more responsibility to my job, then increase my paycheck. If it is a significant responsibility, then add some significant pay raises.
ESPECIALLY if it is a permanent thing.
I don't mind doing it as a temporary thing or to help out if the person is sick, but if it's going to be permanent, the pay check should go up.
Sure, that makes sense, but what @Dashrender is saying is that his employer thinks that if someone ups and dies that the coworkers around that person should just pick up the work (and seem to actually do this).
Instead of having that conversation of, no more work more pay.
Yeah. But I wouldn't agree to the more work if there wasn't mention of the more pay. My comments would follow something like, "So how much of a pay raise am I getting? None? Oh, okay."
My resume would be plastered online by the COB the next day. Because you know the business is saving the yearly salary plus an unknown overhead for health insurance premiums and stuff like that as well. They can afford to give up a few bucks to the folks that step up when needed.
I really liked that one job I worked at (Flexsteel) actually printed out a statement yearly of what your actual pay was (including the cost of benefits that the company paid for you, and a lot of the other hidden costs that most employees don't think about). It was an eye opener, for sure, and that was 16 years ago.
I assume they did that individually? that they didn't post a sheet somewhere with all salary information about every employee on it somewhere... lol
But yes, it's amazing how much an employee costs a company (compensation (to include pay, healthcare costs, 401K contribution) + SS matching + unemployment "insurance" + bonus/profit sharing + etc)
-
@Dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@dafyre said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@DustinB3403 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@dafyre said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@DustinB3403 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
Well I'm trying to understand your complaint besides the "I'm being told to do more work and not compensated for it".
At my job, pay is based on responsibilities. If you are going to add more responsibility to my job, then increase my paycheck. If it is a significant responsibility, then add some significant pay raises.
ESPECIALLY if it is a permanent thing.
I don't mind doing it as a temporary thing or to help out if the person is sick, but if it's going to be permanent, the pay check should go up.
Sure, that makes sense, but what @Dashrender is saying is that his employer thinks that if someone ups and dies that the coworkers around that person should just pick up the work (and seem to actually do this).
Instead of having that conversation of, no more work more pay.
Yeah. But I wouldn't agree to the more work if there wasn't mention of the more pay. My comments would follow something like, "So how much of a pay raise am I getting? None? Oh, okay."
My resume would be plastered online by the COB the next day. Because you know the business is saving the yearly salary plus an unknown overhead for health insurance premiums and stuff like that as well. They can afford to give up a few bucks to the folks that step up when needed.
I really liked that one job I worked at (Flexsteel) actually printed out a statement yearly of what your actual pay was (including the cost of benefits that the company paid for you, and a lot of the other hidden costs that most employees don't think about). It was an eye opener, for sure, and that was 16 years ago.
I assume they did that individually? that they didn't post a sheet somewhere with all salary information about every employee on it somewhere... lol
But yes, it's amazing how much an employee costs a company (compensation (to include pay, healthcare costs, 401K contribution) + SS matching + unemployment "insurance" + bonus/profit sharing + etc)
No, they didn't post a list, lol. That would have pissed off a lot of people. Everybody got one mailed to them or handed to them by their super.
-
@Dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
But yes, it's amazing how much an employee costs a company (compensation (to include pay, healthcare costs, 401K contribution) + SS matching + unemployment "insurance" + bonus/profit sharing + etc)
People who've never had to hire someone really don't get how much this is. Even "low cost" labor workers with no special benefits (no bonuses and whatnot) are still crazy expensive. That $10/hr "minimum wage" worker is likely going to cost you more like $16-17/hr to compensate before you pay for any equipment that they need to do their jobs.
-
Microsoft is ridiculously cavalier with "Your device is up to date." It literally says that no matter what the status is. I've never seen it say anything but that, and I've almost never seen a machine that was even kind of up to date.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
Microsoft is ridiculously cavalier with "Your device is up to date." It literally says that no matter what the status is. I've never seen it say anything but that, and I've almost never seen a machine that was even kind of up to date.
When the status never changes it means that there are either some breaks in registry or the target computer is pointing to an update service that has nothing to push out.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@nadnerB I don't get this one.
That'd be a difference of pronounciation of the word bouy for en-us & en-gb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milkshake_(song) -
@hobbit666 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@nadnerB I don't get this one.
At least i'm not the only one
well, if you've not heard the song then that'd probably be it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
Microsoft is ridiculously cavalier with "Your device is up to date." It literally says that no matter what the status is. I've never seen it say anything but that, and I've almost never seen a machine that was even kind of up to date.
The update process isn't continuously running - I would fraking hope that if it found updates at 11;14, it installed them... now any updates released after that time won't show until tomorrow.
So, like Dustin mentioned - short of a broken update mechanism (sadly something that seems to happen a lot, like greater than 5% of the time) if it says it's up to date, it should be - at least for Windows...
-
@Dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
The update process isn't continuously running - I would fraking hope that if it found updates at 11;14, it installed them... now any updates released after that time won't show until tomorrow.
11:14 am, three YEARS ago.
-
@Dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
So, like Dustin mentioned - short of a broken update mechanism (sadly something that seems to happen a lot, like greater than 5% of the time) if it says it's up to date, it should be - at least for Windows...
Even brand new, pristine Windows that is never, ever true. It's always incorrect. I just did 70 Windows boxes ranging from Windows 7 to 10, and Server 2008 R2 to 2019, every single one of them said it was up to date, and not one was. They ranged from missing one patch from a few days before (only one or two were that good) to at least five or six had never had a single update, ever with at least three missing six years of updates!
Every one said it was up to date.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@Dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
So, like Dustin mentioned - short of a broken update mechanism (sadly something that seems to happen a lot, like greater than 5% of the time) if it says it's up to date, it should be - at least for Windows...
Even brand new, pristine Windows that is never, ever true. It's always incorrect. I just did 70 Windows boxes ranging from Windows 7 to 10, and Server 2008 R2 to 2019, every single one of them said it was up to date, and not one was. They ranged from missing one patch from a few days before (only one or two were that good) to at least five or six had never had a single update, ever with at least three missing six years of updates!
Every one said it was up to date.
What are you basing that on? Definitely not saying you're wrong, I'm just wondering what you are using to verify what is and is not installed? Manually running the update? a third party tool? a powershell script?
-
@Dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@Dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
So, like Dustin mentioned - short of a broken update mechanism (sadly something that seems to happen a lot, like greater than 5% of the time) if it says it's up to date, it should be - at least for Windows...
Even brand new, pristine Windows that is never, ever true. It's always incorrect. I just did 70 Windows boxes ranging from Windows 7 to 10, and Server 2008 R2 to 2019, every single one of them said it was up to date, and not one was. They ranged from missing one patch from a few days before (only one or two were that good) to at least five or six had never had a single update, ever with at least three missing six years of updates!
Every one said it was up to date.
What are you basing that on? Definitely not saying you're wrong, I'm just wondering what you are using to verify what is and is not installed? Manually running the update? a third party tool? a powershell script?
Manual. When you say "check now", it changes from "Up to Date" to "Missing 150 patches".
And that's a real number. Machines that had zero updates for six years said that they were up to date, but when you manually forced it to verify that, the OS would instantly switch to "eek, I'm SO out of date!!"
Clearly the OS can know, but there's nothing actually checking and updating that message. It just always says that.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
Clearly the OS can know, but there's nothing actually checking and updating that message. It just always says that.
So your complaint is about software that wasn't designed to go out and update the "Hey I'm due for updates dipshit" alert that has existed for years as a wholly manual operation.
I understand the complaint, but the issue shouldn't be with a known mechanism that requires interaction, but instead the complaint should be that the administrator is upset that they didn't know about this manual requirement.
Only until recently (Windows 10) did update notifications get pushed to the desktop.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@Dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@Dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
So, like Dustin mentioned - short of a broken update mechanism (sadly something that seems to happen a lot, like greater than 5% of the time) if it says it's up to date, it should be - at least for Windows...
Even brand new, pristine Windows that is never, ever true. It's always incorrect. I just did 70 Windows boxes ranging from Windows 7 to 10, and Server 2008 R2 to 2019, every single one of them said it was up to date, and not one was. They ranged from missing one patch from a few days before (only one or two were that good) to at least five or six had never had a single update, ever with at least three missing six years of updates!
Every one said it was up to date.
What are you basing that on? Definitely not saying you're wrong, I'm just wondering what you are using to verify what is and is not installed? Manually running the update? a third party tool? a powershell script?
Manual. When you say "check now", it changes from "Up to Date" to "Missing 150 patches".
And that's a real number. Machines that had zero updates for six years said that they were up to date, but when you manually forced it to verify that, the OS would instantly switch to "eek, I'm SO out of date!!"
Clearly the OS can know, but there's nothing actually checking and updating that message. It just always says that.
OK, but what date/time did it have as last updated? was it today, or even yesterday? if not, well then of course it's not updated... and that's the brokenish that I see frequently... it's not even checking...
-
@DustinB3403 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
Clearly the OS can know, but there's nothing actually checking and updating that message. It just always says that.
So your complaint is about software that wasn't designed to go out and update the "Hey I'm due for updates dipshit" alert that has existed for years as a wholly manual operation.
I understand the complaint, but the issue shouldn't be with a known mechanism that requires interaction, but instead the complaint should be that the administrator is upset that they didn't know about this manual requirement.
Only until recently (Windows 10) did update notifications get pushed to the desktop.
No - he has a legitimate gripe... updates that are supposed to be happening automatically daily simply aren't. His picture showed one example from 2017... Assuming that was one of these recent machines - what is the excuse this machine has for not having "Last Checked" be much more recent? Windows 10 is SUPPOSED TO BE - a freakin' service - lol... but updates are as broken now as they have ever been.
