Well that’s more on you and how you chose to read it to be fair. I was making the point of the different levels between those on a grade higher than me, myself and then those on a grade lower. I said they “worked for me” in the context of I feel personally responsible for them and them feeling rewarded as well as enjoying what they do as a personal accountability, however I’m constrained by the same company rules everyone else is.
I consider them all my colleagues and actually primarily friends, neither of which apply as much as to how I feel about those in the director or exec level roles.
Regardless of that, it’s only demeaning and insulting depending on the context. There’s numerous times a week where I have to say “I work for x” or “x works for me”. It’s only baffling when you attempt to project an ulterior motivation for doing it like you’ve done there, which I find even more baffling than attempting to check the motivation before doing so.
Think you're being a bit unfair here on @meltonblue. In all large organisations I have worked in, people have been referred to as working in x's bit of the business or y's team. Or x works for a particular person. It's a turn of phrase as awkward as it may be rather than anything which is derogatory.Absolute bollocks, you've showed your true colours and are trying to hide behind your indefensible POV, I hate that "he/she works for me" change your stance, it's shocking tbh.
I guarantee everyone who reports in to you thinks you’re a **** - one thing they ain’t is your friends. The only reason they’ll post on their social they’ve had a terrible day if you get sacked/die is so someone can reply “you ok hun? x”
Graveyards are full of the indispensable.
I understand the bit about being in a Line Manager's team, no problem with that but over the years I've heard plenty of people say ""he/she works for me", they don't, they work for the same organisation, both hopefully contributing to the company making a profit by doing a good job.Think you're being a bit unfair here on @meltonblue. In all large organisations I have worked in, people have been referred to as working in x's bit of the business or y's team. Or x works for a particular person. It's a turn of phrase as awkward as it may be rather than anything which is derogatory.
If you want derogatory or demeaning , look at most employment contracts where it normally says one of the reason for disciplinary procedures is "insubordination".
Made me laugh anyway.I guarantee everyone who reports in to you thinks you’re a **** - one thing they ain’t is your friends. The only reason they’ll post on their social they’ve had a terrible day if you get sacked/die is so someone can reply “you ok hun? x”
Graveyards are full of the indispensable.
I understand the bit about being in a Line Manager's team, no problem with that but over the years I've heard plenty of people say ""he/she works for me", they don't, they work for the same organisation, both hopefully contributing to the company making a profit by doing a good job.
Around the early 1990's, I worked for a Hiorse Racing Broadcaster (SIS) headed by the best boss I've ever met, a guy called Nigel Payne who part owned Grand National winner Earth Summit. I accompanied him to Haydock Park Races one day, we went into the parade ring and he introduced me to top jockey Pat Eddery, he said "Pat, this is my colleague from SIS, Mark", he was the top dog, I was the Customer Relation's Manager for the North of England, I'll never forget that.
I know @meltonblue is a good lad with sensible opinions, it's just the proprietorial nature of that particular post irked me along with some other ridiculous posts on this thread :-)
I can guarantee they don’t, although they’d all agree with the sentiment no one is indispensable. I’d have thought that’s a given for anyone that’s worked for a company for even a small amount of time.
All of this still has sod all to do with my initial point though so it’s a rabbit hole I’m not that interested in going down!
Honestly, I find this just another example of wokeish bollocks. What on earth is wrong with saying that people work for you.You work for an Organisation but still say "I'm able to pay some people that work for me"? How proprietoral is that?
I've been a Senior Manager in my time and ran my business for 10 years before I retired, I never once described anyone as "worked for me" they were colleagues, simple as, describing someone as working for you is utterly demeaning and insulting, you've got likes off some "Socialists" on here, absolutely baffling.
You can find anything objectionable if you try hard enough…….and plenty do.Honestly, I find this just another example of wokeish bollocks. What on earth is wrong with saying that people work for you.
Describing everyone as colleagues is plain misleading. I am not a colleague of my CEO, I work for him and have zero shame in that. Colleague implies we are equals on the same level and we are not.
I heard on Monday that we should not describe parents as parents in case it offends the delicate souls who have adopted or whatever, so we must call ourselves "care providers". What an absolute load of horseshit. I file not being able to say "Peter works for me" in the same stupid bin.
The sooner woke is got rid of, and we can call a spade a spade, society will be a lot better off.
I think we can all agree on your penultimate paragraph, I was on the receiving end of huge bonus discrepencies on more than one occasion, more than doubled our target, got a 4K bonus whilst the Directors trousered up to half a million, (ours was a small part of the business). The Sales Reps got a small bonus but the three admin girls who worked with me (see what I did there) got Jack.I completely agree with your first paragraph, there’s nothing I said that is contrary to having that as a sentiment. The point I was making was around the disparity in salary between the different grades in the organisation not being reflective of the value to the organisation that those roles provide. Thats made very real to me in both the visibility and constraint I see for those directly in my org, either above or below. I don’t use the terminology of “x works for me” in general parlance at all, it was clearly in making a specific point.
Thats reflective not just in salary but in bonus payments and pension contributions on top. I would much rather see a much flatter structure and less discrepency between the rewards.
I’d be interested to know why you’d think either that or anything else I’ve said is ridiculous as that’s the only real point I’ve made?