6 ms·

Exactly! There is a reason why factories put their punch clock AT THE DOOR. Workers leave their assigned areas, pass through security, proceed to the punch cl

Exactly! There is a reason why factories put their punch clock AT THE DOOR. Workers leave their assigned areas, pass through security, proceed to the punch clock and exit the facility. Apple is one of the wealthiest companies in the world. The cost of adding an additional security guard and letting their employees exit from the rear of each store is negligible.

vertbhrtn 6y ago
Not negligible for the person responsible for that facility. Someone with a VP title is given a budget and freedom to run the shop and optimize expenses. Soon that VP realises that moving the punch clock inside the facility saves 3 millions a year and he gets to pocket half. Unfair, but legal. And if he doesn't pocket the easy money, he will be seen as incompetent by his manager - an SVP.
- blackoil 6y ago
  Last line shows it is a company issue not individual. Think if some VP in Google recommends reducing free beverages inside company to shitty cola only it will not be accepted by higher ups. If your VP/SVP/CFO are reading only number and not the text line attached to it and its implications it is a culture issue.
  - vertbhrtn 6y ago
    In this example with Google, the higher ups might reject this idea, but only because the measure would have a net negative impact on their own bonuses: pulling the cheap drinks would make 0.3% of employees move and the execs won't get bonuses because retention rate is a metric the company owners look at. I see execs as a blind force of nature that does everything possible to enrich itself within the constraints set by higher ups. If the company owner hires an exec and gives him a task "give me more liquid assets by end of year no matter what", the exec will liquidate the company, because the constraints were loose. Same with those sleazy VPs running the facilities: SVPs set very loose constraints (likely intentionally), and got the rather expected result.
- FireBeyond 6y ago
  > Unfair, but legal. Apparently, not.
  - vertbhrtn 6y ago
    OK, not quite legal, but justifiable. Nobody goes to prison for that, and the saved 10 mil get a nice house for that exec.
    - GeneralMayhem 6y ago
      No, not justifiable. Illegal. Rich people blatantly stealing from poor people. Wage theft is more common in the United States than all other types of theft combined, and we shouldn't normalize it. It's criminal, and it's morally despicable.

vertbhrtn 6y ago

Not negligible for the person responsible for that facility. Someone with a VP title is given a budget and freedom to run the shop and optimize expenses. Soon that VP realises that moving the punch clock inside the facility saves 3 millions a year and he gets to pocket half. Unfair, but legal. And if he doesn't pocket the easy money, he will be seen as incompetent by his manager - an SVP.

blackoil 6y ago
Last line shows it is a company issue not individual. Think if some VP in Google recommends reducing free beverages inside company to shitty cola only it will not be accepted by higher ups. If your VP/SVP/CFO are reading only number and not the text line attached to it and its implications it is a culture issue.
- vertbhrtn 6y ago
  In this example with Google, the higher ups might reject this idea, but only because the measure would have a net negative impact on their own bonuses: pulling the cheap drinks would make 0.3% of employees move and the execs won't get bonuses because retention rate is a metric the company owners look at. I see execs as a blind force of nature that does everything possible to enrich itself within the constraints set by higher ups. If the company owner hires an exec and gives him a task "give me more liquid assets by end of year no matter what", the exec will liquidate the company, because the constraints were loose. Same with those sleazy VPs running the facilities: SVPs set very loose constraints (likely intentionally), and got the rather expected result.
FireBeyond 6y ago
> Unfair, but legal. Apparently, not.
- vertbhrtn 6y ago
  OK, not quite legal, but justifiable. Nobody goes to prison for that, and the saved 10 mil get a nice house for that exec.
  - GeneralMayhem 6y ago
    No, not justifiable. Illegal. Rich people blatantly stealing from poor people. Wage theft is more common in the United States than all other types of theft combined, and we shouldn't normalize it. It's criminal, and it's morally despicable.