this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023
265 points (97.8% liked)

Antiwork

8253 readers
2 users here now

  1. We're trying to improving working conditions and pay.

  2. We're trying to reduce the numbers of hours a person has to work.

  3. We talk about the end of paid work being mandatory for survival.

Partnerships:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

During exit interview:

  • Why are you leaving?
  • Can't pay the rent, the salary is shit.
  • Ping-pong table it is!

A ping-pong table

Fucking… what. Lmao.

[–] weeahnn@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

During the exit interview: HR: So why did you decide to leave our company?

Normal person: It's the shit pay the delusional management.

HR: Ookay. We'll mark that as a lack of a ping-pong table.

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can you imagine if HR actually addressed the reasons for leaving? It's often the money, sometimes the management but usually the money.

Take my wife's example, she changed jobs twice in a year and each jump was a 10k raise (she isn't very good at negotiating, too). My brother changed jobs like 10 times in 5 years (programmer, several were start ups that ended) and he ended up going from 80k to 180k. Most of the jumps had anything to do with work environment, and in tech most of these companies have crazy good work environments.

So do they counter offer? Do they do competitive raises? Actually yes, but our worth is usually so high that doing those just raises the competing offer. If we ever were paid our worth, we'd stay. That hasn't been the case since the 50s-- or so I'm told, anyway.

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It wasn't even the case in the 50s. Giving workers what they are responsible for producing would require changing the structure of property relations. An employer cannot do it without abolishing their own role

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, it was closer I guess? I mean, compared to the income disparity we are today.

Of course whenever there is anyone who makes money simply by owning a company, I'd agree they aren't really worth anything except maybe the effort to found said company (which isn't really the case with investors, share holders, corporations, etc). There is some value in taking the initiative and risk, just not like... hundreds times more than the employee.

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Workers should be able to realize the value of what they produce in basically getting the pure profits of the firm.

Value doesn't get to the heart of the matter. Property rights to positive and negative fruits of labor do. When you consider what taking on the risk and initiative means in this context, it is really taking on the negative fruits of labor (liabilities for used-up inputs). Workers should get both the positive and negative fruits of their labor, and take the initiative

[–] HappyMeatbag@beehaw.org 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Before long, one of the paddles will be broken, the net will be missing, and/or all of the balls will have been lost. Management will never address any of these issues. The table will be useless, except to serve as an excuse for management not to even try to address morale problems.

“We even gave them a ping pong table and it didn’t help. I’m all out of ideas.”

[–] Koof_on_the_Roof@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Management dicked around and ruined my job, is my most common reason for leaving, job security was next, pay and conditions, many companies will pay more to attract new employees than retain existing ones.

[–] Alparu@feddit.de 7 points 1 year ago

I want a ping-pong table in every office!!

[–] dartos@reddthat.com 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There comes a point where you, as an employee, are making enough money that how the work makes you feel starts to matter more than a 1-4% pay bump.

You’d need to be making pretty good money already though…

[–] persolb@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

Even a 20% pay bump doesn’t get an employee that likes their current job if they’re already near $100k (and not in NYC or similar cost).

Under no circumstances though is the problem a ping pong table.

[–] JoeKrogan@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Fucking bullshit. Fuck HR

[–] HummingBee@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Me when I’m stopping doing the labor I do in exchange for money because they don’t have a ping pong table at the labor factory

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'm always curious who things like the ping pong table are for. I've never been in a situation at work where a couple people got up from their desks and said hey let's go play some ping pong! And management was like Yeah you guys go play, have fun, that's what it's there for!

[–] WordenPond@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

@WarmSoda Had a foosball table at one place. Lots of use, so much that people came in on Saturdays to finish their work. Never used it, had my work done by early Friday morning every week. Manager didn't give me a good review because I didn't come in on Saturdays. I took it right to HR, and he had to go to managers training. I left shortly afterward.

@BrooklynMan

we've got a foosball table in my office, and while it obviously wouldn't make the difference between staying and not if the pay wasn't already good and the job wasn't something I liked I do enjoy getting to play foosball.

I'm at a pretty flat company though with a very laid back leadership. I've even had managers pull me out of a call in order to play foosball lol.

whenever I decide to be in the office, I think I get in one to three games during the day? something like that.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub -1 points 1 year ago

There's one in our office that gets semi regular use, but personally I'd rather not have it.

[–] nan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is an interesting one, because I think it applies pretty well to many well paid, salaried corporate jobs, but not at all to lower paying job or positions where people don’t have many other options available. Not to say they need a ping pong table, but that many aren’t leaving because of pay but rather bad managers or better perks/benefits elsewhere.

[–] adj16@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is so outrageous that it feels like satire.

Please tell me it’s satire.

[–] ScrivenerX@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Think of the last job you quit. Would a 5% raise change anything?

A ping pong table is an asinine thing to give, but the point of "more money doesn't make you stay" has been proven by many studies.

When you quit a job because it doesn't pay enough it's not a matter of a small raise, it's a normally a big jump in pay. Until you get to substantial raises, like 10-20k a year, you aren't really worried about the pay as much as your direct supervisor and the work load. A bump from 60k a year to 61k a year won't make you stay in a job you hate. 60k to 100k might, but that's not just a raise, that's a different class of pay.

[–] adj16@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

First, there’s no mention of size of pay adjustment here. Second, sure, your point is valid, but in the context of this post, let’s not be ridiculous. This is a multiple-choice question, so sometimes you need to rank options and choose the best. No same person is more likely to stay at a company because of a ping-pong table in lieu of a better salary. Now if they’d said

An employee appreciation program, which includes such things as free meals and a recreation room with a ping pong table

that would be a different story. But as-is, it’s ridiculous.

[–] loaf@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

My previous job didn’t have a ping pong table.

Needless to say, I am no longer employed there.

[–] buwho@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

i LiKe PiZza

[–] Tarcion@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You know, the ping pong table being the correct answer is absolutely moronic but the explanation of the pay option is not inaccurate. I work with this data all the time and while pay is big, it's not the biggest reason, or even the reason for a majority. But again, it is certainly not behind "lack of ping pong table" as a reason people leave...

[–] Pokadots@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

I can see other factors being important too. The ridiculous thing here is saying that it’s often not about money when it’s literally never about a ping pong table