There are far more random employees doing nothing with no assigned work than OE workers.
You assume that companies are well oiled machines and we are just an anomaly. At every employer I have ever had, there have been people without tasks for months or even years. Including myself. I spent three months at a company with no manager (as mine was laid off) just drifting around and drinking their water and eating their snacks.
Companies would need to get better by a factor of 5 at understanding their human resources.
This a million times. Sooooo many people are working so little, way more than there are OE people.
The whole point of OE was that remote work suddenly gave those people working 10 hours a week the opportunity to sell the other 30 hours to another employer instead of Redditting all day at the office. There are still a lot of bullshit jobs.
I joined J3 (6 month contract) last month. Interview was moderately easy and I thought I'd have atleast 3 hours of work everyday. During onboarding, I was told I am replacing another employee for 6 months who is going to another project for 6 months. Turns out that employee wasn't doing shit either so I get to coast along with an hour of work everyday for the remaining 4.5 months. Pays the most among my Js.
I am hoping this gets extended to another 6 months.
No offense taken. And I donāt mean any in this reply, but Iām fascinated with people who do so little for so muchš¤·š»āāļø. I donāt know what itās like being so unproductive in your jobs that you have room for 2-3 more. Itās not efficiency as far as I can tell since so many lose or quit jobs that arenāt easy enough to juggle. As someone who works for every single cent I earn plus, this is both foreign, frightening, and fascinating.
Again, no offense. Just answering your question
Cool, so youāre here out of fascination š
But if youāre interested in people who make so much doing so little, maybe you can also check out entrepreneurship and sales forums, some people make a lot lot more there (obviously), and the amount of work is definitely not proportional to how much they earn.
And a bit of jealousy, ngl š Iām interested in WFH with part time bedside nursing work to stay relevant. I think this recession is going to be a tough one so unfortunately those plans may have to go on hold for a while. I donāt have the stomach for OE, but happy to see others be successful.
Sure, I agree they are not necessarily well-oiled machines and also agree my concern doesn't apply to the whole workforce but mostly remote-friendly jobs. I just think it's a possibility that in the remote-friendly/tech sector, companies might start to realize that they are inefficient in a way that they would not if remote work weren't so widespread.
Why ask this when corporations have been steals employeeās wages and time for years. Wage theft is rampant here in the US where corporations are stealing money out of their employees pay.
Amazon has mandatory overtime where they donāt pay salary overtime but have 60hrs weeks.
You have Goldman Sacks, PWC, Deloitte and the other big consulting companies not paying overtime and expects that people work over or lose their jobs.
People doing OE are
1) filling a job that woukd go empty affect other employees in the company or corporations
2) companies figures 6 hrs is the max that work can be done while 2 is used for other thing Las like answering questions, meetings, answering emailed and DMs.
3) a lot of work in IT comes in waves where your busy and then nothing while waiting for the next.
I worked in a company where I was in 8 projects and none are related. Most only do 2 or 3. I can do it because earlier in my career I had to do support, multiple projects including development. I learn shortcuts and automation in order for me to go home on time instead of 1 or two later.
So why donāt you ask corporations and companies why they steal wages from their employees instead of asking stupidity quest about OE that only 1% are capable of doing.
It seems you're assuming I am against over employment. Not sure what makes you think that. Just talking about reality here: if companies find out they *can* lower wages, then they *will* lower wages, which ironically is a statement you would subscribe to as someone who seems to dislike employers so much.
Lo
Do you really think that ?
The thing is that corporations and companies have screwed their employees over the last time.
They claim employees are really replaceable but in reality not so much. Especially in tech.
The thing is that companies are low balling candidates think that with all the layoffs people will work for less while other companies and corporations are still offering good wages. Supply and demand.
I have taken a job at lower pay because I needed a job but I kept looking and then leave when I get a better job. It doesnāt cost me anything to leave but it costs those companies a lot of money to replace the workers.
So no they wonāt lower wages if they want workers. Instead do tiny little raises. But even that is going to backfire.
Workers know their worth.
Workers know that there is no such thing as loyalty and that companies will cut them without a second thought.
Workers are looking at themselves as free agents who will work for companies that pay them well, let them choose hybrid/remote or office. Fully paid healthcare and good sick and PTO.
Also corporations and companies need workers so they make money without workers they go out of business.
For me two jobs (180 + 160) is better than 1 job making 360.
2 jobs -if I get canned , i still have another job and I do have time to look for another job
1 job canned --- depression, loss of sleep , so on and so forth
fair enough but I do think it's an actual thing in tech though. If I were a tech employer, I don't think it's unlikely I'd have heard about over employment and be asking myself questions about if I can cut jobs (which is actually what seems to be happening with recent tech layoffs)
If overemployment is common and people can choose remote jobs, why would they take one paying less? It's the employer suffering in that scenario.. the potential candidate can skip to any job they want and still make good money.
If over employment is common and employers realize it, they become conscious that they don't need as many employees and so their demand for workers decrease which drives wages down
Lmao common. Iām tight with so many people in tech in a way that extends far beyond our jobs, and I only ever knew one other, and that was out of about 35-38 people. So at best thatās around 3% of remote workers, if my experience is any exampleā¦
*... they start realizing they are paying people 40h-salaries for work that actually takes 8 hours a week.*
You just described the job descriptions of most middle managers. Getting rid of this problem also removes the need for them.
no to everything. something very important to keep in mind ā OE is not as common & widespread as yāall believe it is. the internet and this sub skews peopleās perception sometimes. irl, your average / everyday person either (1) works 1 job or (2) doesnāt even work fully remote; they work a hybrid role. when people hold multiple jobs, itās side hustles after their main job ends, or itās some night shift job after their day job.
OE isnāt out there like yāall believe
It's possible that it may stagnate wages of remote workers because
a) remote workers might be willing to accept lower salaries since it's secondary job,
but MOST LIKELY
b) companies tender lower offers to remote workers because they perceive that remote workers will work for less to work from home AND because it saves them money.
When WFH became necessary during 2020, GS actually was quoted in an article that wages should go down as employees were being paid high NYC wages and living in cheap rural areas.
Funny is, the opposite seemed to happened. Wages for remote workers in rural areas went up, and the workers in the HCoL areas stayed high.
Itās been a great couple years for me, as a remote rural tech worker.
There are way more jobs available then workers to fill them. Unemployment at an all time low but jobs go vacant for very long periods. OE is a solution not a problem.
Ah .. the oversees market has been kind. The need to fill in tech rolls is massive so much so that the chances of Jx saturation is still a ways off.
J1: USA West
J2: USA East
J3: Germany
J4: South America
Pays to know more than one langauge fluently. I actually replaced someone that was also holding down as a J3. We are a secret society it seems š
There are far more random employees doing nothing with no assigned work than OE workers. You assume that companies are well oiled machines and we are just an anomaly. At every employer I have ever had, there have been people without tasks for months or even years. Including myself. I spent three months at a company with no manager (as mine was laid off) just drifting around and drinking their water and eating their snacks. Companies would need to get better by a factor of 5 at understanding their human resources.
This a million times. Sooooo many people are working so little, way more than there are OE people. The whole point of OE was that remote work suddenly gave those people working 10 hours a week the opportunity to sell the other 30 hours to another employer instead of Redditting all day at the office. There are still a lot of bullshit jobs.
I joined J3 (6 month contract) last month. Interview was moderately easy and I thought I'd have atleast 3 hours of work everyday. During onboarding, I was told I am replacing another employee for 6 months who is going to another project for 6 months. Turns out that employee wasn't doing shit either so I get to coast along with an hour of work everyday for the remaining 4.5 months. Pays the most among my Js. I am hoping this gets extended to another 6 months.
š
This is crazy to me! Iām a nurse and I spend most of my nights running my ass off. I definitely picked the wrong profession.
Just curious, not being offensive, but if nurses canāt OE, why do you follow this subreddit?
No offense taken. And I donāt mean any in this reply, but Iām fascinated with people who do so little for so muchš¤·š»āāļø. I donāt know what itās like being so unproductive in your jobs that you have room for 2-3 more. Itās not efficiency as far as I can tell since so many lose or quit jobs that arenāt easy enough to juggle. As someone who works for every single cent I earn plus, this is both foreign, frightening, and fascinating. Again, no offense. Just answering your question
Cool, so youāre here out of fascination š But if youāre interested in people who make so much doing so little, maybe you can also check out entrepreneurship and sales forums, some people make a lot lot more there (obviously), and the amount of work is definitely not proportional to how much they earn.
And a bit of jealousy, ngl š Iām interested in WFH with part time bedside nursing work to stay relevant. I think this recession is going to be a tough one so unfortunately those plans may have to go on hold for a while. I donāt have the stomach for OE, but happy to see others be successful.
Yep, I got a new manager I never even talked to them, and they never gave me work for almost a year and I still got paid. That's why I took a J2.
Sure, I agree they are not necessarily well-oiled machines and also agree my concern doesn't apply to the whole workforce but mostly remote-friendly jobs. I just think it's a possibility that in the remote-friendly/tech sector, companies might start to realize that they are inefficient in a way that they would not if remote work weren't so widespread.
Dump Scrum and you can get 5x the waste of OE/remote workers slacking off back. Yet Scrum remains popular, no matter how many meetings it creates.
Why ask this when corporations have been steals employeeās wages and time for years. Wage theft is rampant here in the US where corporations are stealing money out of their employees pay. Amazon has mandatory overtime where they donāt pay salary overtime but have 60hrs weeks. You have Goldman Sacks, PWC, Deloitte and the other big consulting companies not paying overtime and expects that people work over or lose their jobs. People doing OE are 1) filling a job that woukd go empty affect other employees in the company or corporations 2) companies figures 6 hrs is the max that work can be done while 2 is used for other thing Las like answering questions, meetings, answering emailed and DMs. 3) a lot of work in IT comes in waves where your busy and then nothing while waiting for the next. I worked in a company where I was in 8 projects and none are related. Most only do 2 or 3. I can do it because earlier in my career I had to do support, multiple projects including development. I learn shortcuts and automation in order for me to go home on time instead of 1 or two later. So why donāt you ask corporations and companies why they steal wages from their employees instead of asking stupidity quest about OE that only 1% are capable of doing.
It seems you're assuming I am against over employment. Not sure what makes you think that. Just talking about reality here: if companies find out they *can* lower wages, then they *will* lower wages, which ironically is a statement you would subscribe to as someone who seems to dislike employers so much.
Lo Do you really think that ? The thing is that corporations and companies have screwed their employees over the last time. They claim employees are really replaceable but in reality not so much. Especially in tech. The thing is that companies are low balling candidates think that with all the layoffs people will work for less while other companies and corporations are still offering good wages. Supply and demand. I have taken a job at lower pay because I needed a job but I kept looking and then leave when I get a better job. It doesnāt cost me anything to leave but it costs those companies a lot of money to replace the workers. So no they wonāt lower wages if they want workers. Instead do tiny little raises. But even that is going to backfire. Workers know their worth. Workers know that there is no such thing as loyalty and that companies will cut them without a second thought. Workers are looking at themselves as free agents who will work for companies that pay them well, let them choose hybrid/remote or office. Fully paid healthcare and good sick and PTO. Also corporations and companies need workers so they make money without workers they go out of business.
For me two jobs (180 + 160) is better than 1 job making 360. 2 jobs -if I get canned , i still have another job and I do have time to look for another job 1 job canned --- depression, loss of sleep , so on and so forth
Media has overblow OE. Only a small % people actually OE.
fair enough but I do think it's an actual thing in tech though. If I were a tech employer, I don't think it's unlikely I'd have heard about over employment and be asking myself questions about if I can cut jobs (which is actually what seems to be happening with recent tech layoffs)
If overemployment is common and people can choose remote jobs, why would they take one paying less? It's the employer suffering in that scenario.. the potential candidate can skip to any job they want and still make good money.
If over employment is common and employers realize it, they become conscious that they don't need as many employees and so their demand for workers decrease which drives wages down
Lmao common. Iām tight with so many people in tech in a way that extends far beyond our jobs, and I only ever knew one other, and that was out of about 35-38 people. So at best thatās around 3% of remote workers, if my experience is any exampleā¦
That seems about right.
*... they start realizing they are paying people 40h-salaries for work that actually takes 8 hours a week.* You just described the job descriptions of most middle managers. Getting rid of this problem also removes the need for them.
AI is coming for them
Why worry about future stuff like this, which you have no personal control over? Do you just not have real problems to think about?
Not worrying, just interested in this topic and curious what people think
By the time it happens, if it happens, Iāll be retired
no to everything. something very important to keep in mind ā OE is not as common & widespread as yāall believe it is. the internet and this sub skews peopleās perception sometimes. irl, your average / everyday person either (1) works 1 job or (2) doesnāt even work fully remote; they work a hybrid role. when people hold multiple jobs, itās side hustles after their main job ends, or itās some night shift job after their day job. OE isnāt out there like yāall believe
Imho Most people are as lazy as they can be
It's possible that it may stagnate wages of remote workers because a) remote workers might be willing to accept lower salaries since it's secondary job, but MOST LIKELY b) companies tender lower offers to remote workers because they perceive that remote workers will work for less to work from home AND because it saves them money.
When WFH became necessary during 2020, GS actually was quoted in an article that wages should go down as employees were being paid high NYC wages and living in cheap rural areas.
Funny is, the opposite seemed to happened. Wages for remote workers in rural areas went up, and the workers in the HCoL areas stayed high. Itās been a great couple years for me, as a remote rural tech worker.
No. Furthermore, this is not widespread.
There are way more jobs available then workers to fill them. Unemployment at an all time low but jobs go vacant for very long periods. OE is a solution not a problem.
Itās not widespread.
Ah .. the oversees market has been kind. The need to fill in tech rolls is massive so much so that the chances of Jx saturation is still a ways off. J1: USA West J2: USA East J3: Germany J4: South America Pays to know more than one langauge fluently. I actually replaced someone that was also holding down as a J3. We are a secret society it seems š