26th August 2010, 02:07 PM
Go ahead Dmama. I was told it in the late 70s by a pal who heard it from someone else, who probably heard it etc etc.
Although I am of the 'older' generation and can just about remember a lot of 70s and 80s (even the late 60s - but I was very very young at the time, of course) and the way things were done, I have to agree with Jack. Discretionary effort should be just that, discretionary, and no one should be held to account if they do not wish or are unable to work beyond their contracted hours. A place I once worked in took serious advantage of the conscientiousness of some of their staff who would put in many extra hours to do their work justice (much of it in post-ex, where funds are often limited as we all know) - to the extent that their managers knew that so-and-so would always work an extra hour a day and perhaps a Saturday and secretly build this into their calculations - so a task that should normally take, say, 4 person months was costed at 3.5 for that individual - the 12.5% saving being presented to the client as the cost effectiveness of the unit concerned. The discretionary effort of that person, then, did not result in 'extra' work but simply ensured that the job was done to a standard that suited their manager, not their own professional opinion.
This discretionary effort is also expected in the bleatings of the current government who are expecting Departments etc to 'do more with less' and are pushing the 'Big Society' idea. It will cause problems for those who simply cannot step up to the plate to do the extra discretionary work - single parents etc. Over time, their lack of 'input' (interpeted as lack of commitment) sadly gets noticed. I also know of someone, back in the very early 90s, whose on-site record was exemplary, but because he had family commitments (collecting a young child from after school club at a specific hour every week day during term time) always had to leave on time, the same time each day. Believe it or not, this counted against him when his case was discussed when his name came up for redundancy. Fortunately he wasn't, in the end, made redundant but it still irks him to this day that his good time keeping and on site effort seem to count for nothing simply because he always left site at the same time. He has worked to rule ever since, incredibly efficiently and conscientiously, even though his daughter is now long grown up. It is the only 'protest' he has had over the years. To make a fuss might have cost him his job a long time ago.
Although I am of the 'older' generation and can just about remember a lot of 70s and 80s (even the late 60s - but I was very very young at the time, of course) and the way things were done, I have to agree with Jack. Discretionary effort should be just that, discretionary, and no one should be held to account if they do not wish or are unable to work beyond their contracted hours. A place I once worked in took serious advantage of the conscientiousness of some of their staff who would put in many extra hours to do their work justice (much of it in post-ex, where funds are often limited as we all know) - to the extent that their managers knew that so-and-so would always work an extra hour a day and perhaps a Saturday and secretly build this into their calculations - so a task that should normally take, say, 4 person months was costed at 3.5 for that individual - the 12.5% saving being presented to the client as the cost effectiveness of the unit concerned. The discretionary effort of that person, then, did not result in 'extra' work but simply ensured that the job was done to a standard that suited their manager, not their own professional opinion.
This discretionary effort is also expected in the bleatings of the current government who are expecting Departments etc to 'do more with less' and are pushing the 'Big Society' idea. It will cause problems for those who simply cannot step up to the plate to do the extra discretionary work - single parents etc. Over time, their lack of 'input' (interpeted as lack of commitment) sadly gets noticed. I also know of someone, back in the very early 90s, whose on-site record was exemplary, but because he had family commitments (collecting a young child from after school club at a specific hour every week day during term time) always had to leave on time, the same time each day. Believe it or not, this counted against him when his case was discussed when his name came up for redundancy. Fortunately he wasn't, in the end, made redundant but it still irks him to this day that his good time keeping and on site effort seem to count for nothing simply because he always left site at the same time. He has worked to rule ever since, incredibly efficiently and conscientiously, even though his daughter is now long grown up. It is the only 'protest' he has had over the years. To make a fuss might have cost him his job a long time ago.