I used to work for a restaurant company that asked corporate staff to work in the restaurants one day per year plus clean the office kitchen once every six months. I’ve never seen so much non Union worker solidarity in opposition to these tiny tiny ass requests.
Honestly this is a good policy that most companies should do. It’s easy to ignore problems that don’t affect oneself, so make it affect them.
Like a bug that seems minor to a software manager may be a huge pain in the ass to a clerk that uses the software all day.
So … There’s finally going to be some employees in there?
man, get the executives to man the garden center during peak Christmas Tree season and i’ll go there with a bucket of popcorn just to watch.
Legit tho, this sounds like a pretty interesting way to hopefully reduce the disconnect between corporate and whatever goes on in the public facing parts of their company.
I like it, but it won’t work. All it will do is put people on edge for the day. Putting execs into a store silently for 2 weeks would be the way. Most of them would probably actually enjoy the breaks from their keyboard day to day. Many executives aren’t the elite we see on the news, they’re office middle management with high titles so negotiators think they’re dealing with higher ups.
Putting execs into a store silently for 2 weeks would be the way.
So, basically that old undercover boss TV show?
I used to work for Publix, a grocery chain in the south east US. They talk a big game to the new hires that no matter how high up you make it in the company, you’re not too high to do the tasks of the entry level employees. You’ll even see the CEO in some of the stores in Lakeland, Florida. I’ve always felt it was for show because all you’ll ever see anyone in a management position do is bag groceries. There could be a dozen other tasks that need doing that would take priority, but don’t worry, you have time to do those things because the guys making 6 figures are on bagger duty.
The CEO of Publix is a piece of shit. Fuck that guy.
Be real, how many jobs do you trust a suit to be able to figure out? Do you really want one of them behind an electric pallet jack?
A couple of night stock shifts would be good for them.
“Oh you wanted a bonus this year CEO person? You’re in luck, you can join the company pizza party!”
No, but cleaning up the disgusting public bathroom is doable
I didn’t mention in my original post but the company only hires within, meaning that every single person within the company started at an entry level position, many of them did operate pallet jacks. Every suit that did come and pretend to look like they were working hard did do that job at one point. I think that’s what made it even more infuriating to me
An outstanding decision.
It’s something, but it’s also temporary. They know it will end in 8hrs, and can just put on a show for that time.
Let’s see them pull a week, one day in each role. Lets see them pull 2 weeks. No special privileges, extra breaks, etc. The same break room and conditions everyone gets.
One day is just a pulp song. 2 weeks? Then things may change.
And even more, it hits different when you know “this is my life” and not “i just have to do this for a while”. The absence of any hope contributes so much to the pain.
100% this is someone’s life that the boss gets to cosplay for a day
This is actually a very good culture and mindset to foster. First hand experience will always be king in helping people making informed decisions.
More companies should be doing this. Far too often is there a disconnect between leadership and the frontline workers.
I might drop this link in my team’s Slack and tag leadership lol
I’m not mad at this. I wonder how it’ll work out in the long run.
“Don’t give the VP any difficult jobs that involve any sort of hard work. Just let him stand over there and tell people thanks for coming to Home Depot.”
It sounds like it’s a long-running practice that they just temporarily suspended, so I imagine that it’ll look basically the way things do today.
The outlet noted that the move is a revival of the practice, which was suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic over safety concerns.
One thing to consider is the difference in volume today compared to during the pandemic. Not too sure if corporate employees can hide in the back for 8 hours. lol
They don’t even hide in the back though, they just congregate in the middle aisles with their crystal clean orange aprons, sleek haircuts and chat about nonsense shit all day.
Good. As an engineer in a factory I’m sometimes called to help meet a shipment (we’re not well run) and I stand by that if it wasn’t necessary it would be good. Leadership needs to understand the base level value add of a company
In addition, I would like to see design engineers spend some time in the repair shop working on the things they atr designing.
Maybe after they’ve burned their forearm a few times, things like putting the oil filter directly above the catalytic converter wouldn’t happen.
I hope they give them retail pay for that 8 hour shift as well. Of course they wouldn’t let a retail worker take an 8 hour shift in the offices, but that would be a little interesting. Either way, more companies should do this type of thing.
That would just be a rounding error to them that they probably wouldn’t notice. People at that level generally don’t pay attention to individual paychecks.
But it would completely fuck over the middle class careers. The store’s it guy probably is doing better than the retail folks, but not “$100 less for a pay period isn’t something they notice” better.
I was only referring to paying the c-suite executives retail level pay for one 8 hour shift per year.
I’ve done shadowing of other roles at a couple jobs. Honestly it’s kinda fun, you learn a lot about other peoples problems so you can do your job better but also it’s pretty fun, like getting a whole new job for a day
i bet they dont drug test those execs like they do those that work those jobs for real
Not to defent the corporate dystopia, but usually to qualify for whatever kind of insurance these companies have, they are required by the insurance company to drug test. At least, that’s how it is at the company I work for. If they don’t drug test, the company is held liable for anything the employee does, and insurance won’t cover it.
no, not at least in my industry/comp. i have not had to take a drug test in oh… 20 years?
I’ve always had to drug test exactly once for my jobs. I feel that it’s probably different for retail workers.
I’ve usually had to drug test exactly once, but some jobs not even that. I’m wondering how it’s gonna be now as pot is legal where I live
When CT legalized, one part of the law makes it illegal to deny employment based on a positive test for cannabis unless you’re in a few specific industries (medical, childcare, any company that has federal contracts). When the testing center called me to discuss my results the woman on the phone was shocked I didn’t care that it was positive lol
That shit should be illegal. Insurance companies should not have that kind of power.
I for one wouldn’t want to shop at a Home Depot with employees operating tow motors and other heavy equipment while high. If a customer gets killed by falling equipment while shopping then the lawsuit would be enormous. It would make the McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit look like chump change.
When insurance companies aren’t allowed to mandate drug tests then they’re going to charge the store premiums commensurate with the assumption that all employees are on drugs. This would make it extremely expensive to run these stores and they’d pass the costs on to employees. This would paradoxically create an incentive for only drug-test-positive (drug using) people to work there! This phenomenon is known as adverse selection.
You realize they have the same policy for everybody from checkout clerks to corporate software developers, right? Even in positions that never get anywhere near any sort of dangerous equipment.
Hell, even pure software companies, that don’t have any employees where the issues you cite would legitimately apply, sometimes have the same bullshit allegedly-insurance-mandated drug testing.
Point is, a lot of this shit is driven by busybodies inventing excuses for their puritan moral crusade, not genuine risk.
(Full disclosure: (a) I have firsthand experience working as a software engineer at places that do drug testing, including Home Depot specifically, and (b) I don’t actually use drugs, so this pisses me off purely as a matter of principle.)
And I’m sure the discount varies based on how much of a risk there is with each work environment. Low risk workplaces like software companies are going to have much less of a difference in risk between drug-using and non.
The thing is, it’s almost never going to be zero. And if employers and insurance companies can save a few bucks by getting everyone to pee in a cup, they will!
Personally, I don’t have an issue with cannabis use. It’s legal here in Canada and I’ve even grown it myself. But I don’t think people should be getting high at work, just as I don’t think people should drink at work (despite how amusing it is on Mad Men).
Having said that, I’ve never had a drug test in my life. Maybe it’s not a thing for most jobs in Canada.
Right but drug testing means they can’t smoke out side of work. Why are you okay with your emplo5telling you what to do in your free time?
I thought drug testing was only done once, during the hiring process. If they’re drug testing on a regular basis that’s something entirely different. I would not support that unless the job actually required operating heavy equipment (including cars) or dangerous tools etc.
My former roommate is a drywall taper contractor and he’s told me many stories of people showing up to a job site high on meth and making a huge mess, causing dangerous accidents with tools, dropping heavy objects off unfinished upper floors etc. They definitely should be drug testing these workers regularly but they aren’t. He himself smokes cannabis but never when he’s at work. I would be fine if they tested for harder drugs but not cannabis. They should be conducting sobriety tests at work too though, as he’s also seen people show up to work drunk (though the foreman often notices this and sends them home if he’s any good).
Well, I think you should be arrested and jailed.
Just because we haven’t caught you, you must be a thief.
That’s how your argument sounds to me.
That is genuinely the argument insurance companies would use, and they’re allowed to charge more for more risk, that’s the basis of insurance.
No one’s guilty, and insurance companies stent courts. If they had to do an innocent before guilty, everyone would get one free car wreck and you wouldn’t pay monthly for insurance until you wrecked someone.
My stance is that insurance companies are for profit. Period.
In my mind, this negates all arguments for or against anything related to insurance.
Insurance is a racket.
Why should they be punished for what they are doing in their office time? Why does no drug tests automatically mean they are high at work?
Insurance companies insure based on risk. If the insurer can reasonably assume fork lift operators or whatever aren’t impaired, there’s less risk and they can charge less for insurance. That’s really all there is to it
How would drug testing prove any of that? I could snort coke Friday night, pass a piss test Monday morning while chowing down on shrooms and jump right on that forklift.
Drug testing only catches people who used weed any time in the last month
It’s not about certain proof, it’s about reduction of risk. If you can’t/won’t even try to find someone who can pass, you probably have a higher risk. If you can, you’re probably lower risk.
Drug testing should be illegal, with very rare, carefully regulated exceptions.
Your body chemistry is none of your employer’s business.
I worked there for a year, and they only tested the forklift and electric ladder operators. Suffice it to say, I never got certification for operating those machines. ;)
