zlacker

[return to "The Who Cares Era"]
1. 0_____+U5[view] [source] 2025-05-28 13:44:58
>>NotInO+(OP)
I was just kvetching about this to my partner over breakfast. Not exactly, but a parallel observation, that a lot of people are just kind of shit at their jobs.

The utility tech who turned my tiny gas leak into a larger gas leak and left.

The buildings around me that take the better part of a decade to build (really? A parking garage takes six years?)

Cops who have decided it's their job to do as little as possible.

Where I live, it seems like half the streets don't have street signs (this isn't a backwater where you'd expect this, it's Boston).

I made acquaintance to a city worker who, to her non-professional friends, is very proud that she takes home a salary for about two hours of work per day following up with contractors, then heading to the gym and making social plans.

There's a culture of indifference, an embrace of mediocrity. I don't think it's new, but I do think perhaps AI has given the lazy and prideless an even lower energy route to... I'm not sure. What is the goal?

◧◩
2. sp0rk+ic[view] [source] 2025-05-28 14:28:05
>>0_____+U5
> There's a culture of indifference, an embrace of mediocrity. I don't think it's new, but I do think perhaps AI has given the lazy and prideless an even lower energy route to... I'm not sure. What is the goal?

I think pride in work has declined a lot (at least in the US) because so many large employers have shown that they aren't even willing to pretend to care about their employees. It's difficult to take pride in work done for an employee that you aren't proud of, or actively dislike.

◧◩◪
3. II2II+Tm[view] [source] 2025-05-28 15:25:52
>>sp0rk+ic
I'm not trying to absolve employers here, since they are almost certainly the ones who initiated this trend, but there are very few incentives to care about employees when employees take advantage of it. The end result is they make life more difficult not just for the employer, but for their fellow employees.
◧◩◪◨
4. theweb+to[view] [source] 2025-05-28 15:34:29
>>II2II+Tm
It's kind of a self-fulfilling cycle in that way. Employers have taken away any and all incentives to do anything but the absolute bare minimum to not get fired, so now that's what they get.

Because that's now employees behave, now employers won't offer anything else - but without offering anything else, employee attitudes aren't going to change.

I think strong unions are the only way forward

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. aerost+ct[view] [source] 2025-05-28 15:57:45
>>theweb+to
> without offering anything else, employee attitudes aren't going to change.

In my lived experience, unions permanently cement the anti-employer (and often anti-customer) attitude present in some employees. Once in place, they don't produce a massive change of heart where employees are willing to rise above and beyond the exact terms of their collective bargaining agreements, but instead result in a rejection of the traditional work ethic and the embrace of minimal output and often malicious compliance across the board.

It's one reason many of us have had such bad experience working with unions in the past. The customer suffers along with the employer, and worse the customer often pays a higher price for this privilege.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. ryandr+Dx[view] [source] 2025-05-28 16:20:56
>>aerost+ct
Employers behave as adversaries to their workers anyway, comparatively wealthy and powerful adversaries. So either you union-up and present yourselves as a united and somewhat formidable adversary, or you don't and remain a (relatively poor and powerless) individual, no match against your (already existing) adversary.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. Throwa+bj1[view] [source] 2025-05-28 21:06:08
>>ryandr+Dx
A good chunk of the readership here is in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_aristocracy and have their incentives firmly aligned with their employers thanks to superb pay and equity grants. Poor? Powerless? Certainly not them.
[go to top]