Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Really? In an ST main page article? [cjbruin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
cjbruin wrote:
renorider wrote:
Now you're the one with a sense of humor!

To be fair, I don't know anything about you or what type of business you own. In the line of work I'm in, an employer with a policy like what you're hinting at would have a hard time retaining people.

:)


Sadly, that's not far from the truth. It's rare to find employees who give their employers a full-days work. I've seen studies showing that employees spend 10-15 hours per week doing activities that are not related to their jobs.

This standard should be a bit different for hourly versus salaried. For a salaried employee, I'm not sure why it would matter if they spend some of their day on the internet if they're effective at their jobs and delivering what they need to.

My boss wouldn't care if I spent 8 hours a day on the internet and managed to get all my work done in the remaining couple hours of the day, assuming my responsibilities were being taken care of and that the work quality was still high and on-time. Likewise, the folks who work for me are evaluated based on their performance, not on the number of hours they spend at the office. Or how they spend the hours that they are at the office. NSFW content would be a problem though. My internet browsing is done almost exclusively at my desk at work...



-Andrew
Quote Reply
Re: Really? In an ST main page article? [AMT04] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I agree with you to a point. The problem these days is if subpar employees see others doing non-work-related stuff, they assume it's OK for them to do it too. It's a tough line to walk. Overall, my experience is that the best employees who get the most done, do the least amount of non-work activities during their work days.
Quote Reply
Re: Really? In an ST main page article? [cjbruin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So, are you saying that a boss/ owner of a company is not an employee of said company, and therefore, company policies and procedures do not apply?

I guess I look at it as you make money off of the company, regardless of your status. This is evident on your tax forms. Unless there is an exemption clause in the company policy, then the rules apply to you, even if you own the company.






Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Really? In an ST main page article? [Tri-Banter] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tri-Banter wrote:
So, are you saying that a boss/ owner of a company is not an employee of said company, and therefore, company policies and procedures do not apply?

I guess I look at it as you make money off of the company, regardless of your status. This is evident on your tax forms. Unless there is an exemption clause in the company policy, then the rules apply to you, even if you own the company.

Did you get that opinion from your unicorn?
Quote Reply
Re: Really? In an ST main page article? [cjbruin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
cjbruin wrote:
I agree with you to a point. The problem these days is if subpar employees see others doing non-work-related stuff, they assume it's OK for them to do it too. It's a tough line to walk. Overall, my experience is that the best employees who get the most done, do the least amount of non-work activities during their work days.


So you have 2 types of employees, par and subpar. Your choices are

1) Fire the subpar employees, give the par employees freedom.. end up with happy par employees
or
2) Put draconian policies on all employees to target the subpar employees, causing the par employees to quit. End up with only unhappy subpar employees

Are you familiar with the dead sea effect?
Last edited by: TunaBoo: Sep 23, 14 11:45
Quote Reply
Re: Really? In an ST main page article? [Koz] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
There is something sexual and objectifying about the cult of physical fitness to begin with. Triathlon is no exception. But is that all bad?

Watching Mirinda Carrfrae in motion during the Ironman Kona run! One is struck by the awesome symmetry and grace, the power, the external and internal strength. Perfect female physiology in motion. Incredibly emotional strength. Approaching goddess!!

Even more- she is covered in sweat glistening in the tropical sun. Scantily clad in wet body hugging garments.
What could be more sexy than that?
Who would not want to mix their genes with those?

Perhaps the problem is not with the "sexualization" but with the stupidity. Really why would one rather gaze upon some heroin addled stick figure? Or some surgically enhanced bimbo in an unnatural pose?
Why would one expect a nearly perfect female specimen to adopt such a ridiculous pose? Wasn't she just running around half naked and sweat covered?
Quote Reply
Re: Really? In an ST main page article? [Koz] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Koz wrote:
JoeO wrote:
Koz wrote:


Don't presume to know my behaviors away from Slowtwitch. And remember the first rule of thumb for viewing artistic photography is to determine what your reaction will be when it's your daughter in that photo.


My reaction would be exactly the same as if I'd seen my daughter in an Underwear Run shot. They're both shots of people in their underwear.

Given that I've seen ads on this site not much different, if that needs some sort of label for you before you can surf it at work, you should avoid the site when at work.


I'll say it again: there's a fair walk from the Underwear Run coverage (and really nowhere near any of the ST ad content) to the Maxim photo. And you do realize that that is NOT normal day-to-day women's underwear, right? I hope you're doing the laundry the day when that comes through the load with your daughter's underwear.

Yet another issue with your "daughter" stance is this: most people are going to have issues with seeing their daughters (or sons, really) in sexual situations. In our culture especially that's a big taboo. I know fathers of fully-grown, married women who can't stomach the thought that those daughters have sex with their husbands. That certainly doesn't make that wrong. Flip it around: do you think your father-in-law would be comfortable seeing what you do with your wife in the bedroom? Is that a reason you and she should be celibate?

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that speed, for lack of a better word, is good. Speed is right, Speed works. Speed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.
Quote Reply
Re: Really? In an ST main page article? [Tri-Banter] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tri-Banter wrote:
So, are you saying that a boss/ owner of a company is not an employee of said company, and therefore, company policies and procedures do not apply?

I guess I look at it as you make money off of the company, regardless of your status. This is evident on your tax forms. Unless there is an exemption clause in the company policy, then the rules apply to you, even if you own the company.

I think you're missing a big part of why people work for themselves.



As for the 'if I don't want to see my daughter like that...' Stuff.

Um.

I recommend y'all stay away from the Facebook and Instagram of any woman under, say 30.
Quote Reply
Re: Really? In an ST main page article? [Koz] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Maxime pay check = $$$$$$$$$
Triathlon pay check = $
Quote Reply
Re: Really? In an ST main page article? [cjbruin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
It's one way to look at it. Then again employers have agreements with their employees. You do the job I hired you to do and follow the company rules (as long as they are legal) & I will pay you. There is no such agreement the other way so it's pretty tough to defend a claim of hypocrisy.

Wow, I think I found your problem. If you want people to put in a full productive day, the agreement absolutely needs to be bidirectional. It shouldn't just be "do your job, follow the rules and get paid", it should be an agreement based on mutual respect and value knowing that if they help make you successful, you will make them successful. I don't know why, but your condescending and rude tone somehow inspired me to respond here. Go ahead and keep putting other people down for not owning their own company.... owning a company does not make you a leader.

Source: I lead a company and people would jump off a cliff for me. They would do this because I truly value and respect them and I show it.
Quote Reply
Re: Really? In an ST main page article? [Koz] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I agree! We MUST stick to triathlon pictures ONLY around here!!!



Think of the children!!!


float , hammer , and jog

Quote Reply
Re: Really? In an ST main page article? [Murphy'sLaw] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Murphy'sLaw wrote:
I agree! We MUST stick to triathlon pictures ONLY around here!!!

Agreed.








Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Really? In an ST main page article? [gscoobs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
gscoobs wrote:
Quote:

It's one way to look at it. Then again employers have agreements with their employees. You do the job I hired you to do and follow the company rules (as long as they are legal) & I will pay you. There is no such agreement the other way so it's pretty tough to defend a claim of hypocrisy.


Wow, I think I found your problem. If you want people to put in a full productive day, the agreement absolutely needs to be bidirectional. It shouldn't just be "do your job, follow the rules and get paid", it should be an agreement based on mutual respect and value knowing that if they help make you successful, you will make them successful. I don't know why, but your condescending and rude tone somehow inspired me to respond here. Go ahead and keep putting other people down for not owning their own company.... owning a company does not make you a leader.

Source: I lead a company and people would jump off a cliff for me. They would do this because I truly value and respect them and I show it.

You made the assumption that I have a problem. I don't. Our employees say that we have one of the best company cultures of any place they have ever worked. We run a true meritocracy and they get to share in the successes when they achieve their goals. Thanks very much for your concern though.
Quote Reply
Re: Really? In an ST main page article? [cjbruin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
OK, so, totally not being a dick, but now I'm pretty curious to see how you rectify the following:

cjbruin wrote:
It's rare to find employees who give their employers a full-days work. I've seen studies showing that employees spend 10-15 hours per week doing activities that are not related to their jobs.

I spend approximately 60-100 hours a week doing activities that are not related to my job, including sleeping. This 10-15 thing sounds like a Foxconn factory :)

But then these two things seem to directly contradict each other:

cjbruin wrote:
Then again employers have agreements with their employees. You do the job I hired you to do and follow the company rules (as long as they are legal) & I will pay you. There is no such agreement the other way so it's pretty tough to defend a claim of hypocrisy.

and

cjbruin wrote:
The problem these days is if subpar employees see others doing non-work-related stuff, they assume it's OK for them to do it too.

Beyond the contradiction, the agreement "the other way" is an implicit trust that the company isn't striving to leave shriveled-up husks of human beings at the end of the day/week/month/year/career.

cjbruin wrote:
We run a true meritocracy and they get to share in the successes when they achieve their goals.

Just so long as they don't use the internet on company time, right?

----------

I think we're missing a little bit of backstory on the line of work you're in. It doesn't help that your tone is a bit on the side of condescending and rude, either, as pointed out by another poster. Because as it stands, you've raised the hackles of quite a few people who belong neither in the welfare office nor at the unicorn stable.

Full disclosure: I work at (and cultivated) a meritocracy, too. We have crazy goals, challenges, and crunch times. We've recruited a team that represents -ridiculous- talent and cheerfully meets deadlines, whatever it takes, and I can promise you that they'd be gone before the dust settled if we told them they couldn't have a browser open at work.

So that's my context. What's yours? And let me reiterate: genuinely curious.

Eliot
blog thing - strava thing
Quote Reply
Re: Really? In an ST main page article? [cjbruin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It's one way to look at it. Then again employers have agreements with their employees. You do the job I hired you to do and follow the company rules (as long as they are legal) & I will pay you. There is no such agreement the other way so it's pretty tough to defend a claim of hypocrisy.

You expect your employees to abide by stricter rules than you do yourself... sure sounds like hypocrisy.

Quote Reply
Re: Really? In an ST main page article? [Koz] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Koz wrote:
Clearly, your mileage may vary, but those are rare women in my experience.

You obviously have a very limited experience.

And hey slowman, was this German triathlete calendar the guys or the girls? I think we need to see this again.

clm
Nashville, TN
https://twitter.com/ironclm | http://ironclm.typepad.com
Quote Reply
Re: Really? In an ST main page article? [Koz] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm confused why you had an issue with the girl in acceptable beach attire or everyday underwear and didn't make a stink about the more appalling picture that was second in the article.



The exposed nipple is too much and if I didn't work for myself I'd fire myself for looking at that.


Quote Reply
Re: Really? In an ST main page article? [Koz] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
i scrolled through the article quickly ASSuming ST used some bimbo shot for a women and a nice race shot for a guy but was actually pleased to find I was quite wrong. all the photos were very reasonable and "equal" IMO. if you're going to pose for a glam shot in a bikini, you're putting yourself out there in the media to have such photo used. i expected to see an ass shot of a female race leader or something compared to a "normal" shot of a male but that was not the case at all. i consider myself a feminist (hell I even filed an won an EEOC federal suit once back in teh early 80s - might have gotten teh acronym wrong) but article and pictures looked fair (other than the fact that ST always seems to lead the article with a male picture and the foto in the Cozumel recap had NOTHING to do with Cozumel).

so i've now read through the thread and IIUC, your complaint is simply the NSFW aspect and hypersexualization? I can definitely agree with your 2nd point (as evidenced by the idiots who seem to be stuck as 10yo boys gleefully drooling over tiny bits of exposed ass they then NEED to shared with everyone) but i'm not seeing the fault finding wtih ST. there was a "contest" and she won and they reported it - i suspect you're thinking they should not have reported it due to contributing to the hypersexualization of women? i can see that point. not sure i agree, but i see it. WRT NSFW, i will have to bow out as our press is full of gore adn sex adn my views are skewed.

http://harvestmoon6.blogspot.com
https://www.caringbridge.org/visit/katasmit


Last edited by: kathy_caribe: Sep 24, 14 11:14
Quote Reply
Re: Really? In an ST main page article? [Murphy'sLaw] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think you've been called out. As a fellow member of the He-man Woman Haters Club I felt obligated to repost the picture. Now, stand on your left leg, raise your right hand and repeat the oath!

Murphy'sLaw wrote:
I agree! We MUST stick to triathlon pictures ONLY around here!!!



Think of the children!!!
Quote Reply
Re: Really? In an ST main page article? [ironclm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ironclm wrote:
Koz wrote:
Clearly, your mileage may vary, but those are rare women in my experience.


You obviously have a very limited experience...

...ssssuuure...let's say that...now I really need to get my wife to read this thread...
Quote Reply
Re: Really? In an ST main page article? [Koz] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't really think she looks all that hot in the Maxim picture. She looks much hotter in the DSW post.

_________________________________
The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.
Quote Reply

Prev Next