r/antiwork 2d ago

Rant 😡💢 My boss today said “I don’t respect anyone doesn’t consider this a career”

I got into an argument with my manager today because I have a teammate who hasn’t done the the “progression presentation” that we have to do to be promoted to the next level.

My manager wants the guy to train others, which is not a responsibility at his level but it is at the next level up. So I said that if you want him to train then you need to be prepared to promote him to compensate him for the extra effort. To which my manager said that if he wants the promotion then he has to be already operating at the next level up(without extra pay).

Then my manager proceeded to tell me that “this job is not about the money” and “I don’t hve any respect for someone who doesn’t consider this a career.”

I replied that that’s not reasonable. Everyone works for money. If they didn’t pay me enough I wouldn’t work for them. You cannot ask someone to do extra work for the promise that they might have a better chance of a promotion, especially since he just admitted that he has no respect for any of my team.

623 Upvotes

91 comments sorted by

368

u/anneofred 2d ago

Also I really hate the idea that everyone should want a promotion. Not everyone wants to be a leader! It’s so weird to me that to be seen to have value as a worker you HAVE to want to be I leadership! Many people don’t want the extra burden.

In your case, one should always leave a job that says it should t be amount money to you. Red flag that they will fully fuck you over pay wise at any chance they get

57

u/Analyzer9 2d ago

the army shot itself in the foot by determining that all enlisted people should only be leaders, and abolished all but the lowest Specialist ranks. about as smart as changing official outfits every year, or outsourcing most of the stability operations that the us army did better than anyone in history.

18

u/Fun-Badger3724 2d ago

"better than anyone in history"

I would love to hear more on this because I have a hard time thinking of the US army being the best at anything within a decade, let alone in history. Didn't they fuck up an assault rifle design so bad that it cost them lives in the field?

I would genuinely love some links to back this up, because i quite enjoy being proven wrong and extending my knowledge.

35

u/RickSt3r 2d ago

Went to war around the world in remote land locked countries for 20 years. The soldiers were fed and armed at all times. An army marches on its stomach isn’t just a euphemism. The problem is the army can only do so much at the tactical level they stand head and shoulders above next guy. But at the strategic level never have I seen more incompetence and oxygen thief’s taking up space than the pentagon.

12

u/Ok-Economist-9466 1d ago

You're probably thinking of the M-16 in Vietnam. The design of the rifle (developed commercially by ArmaLite, not by the U.S. Army) was excellent. U.S. Special Forces assisting South Vietnam used early prototypes before the army bought them on a large scale and praised their effectiveness and reliability. The Air Force also ordered a batch to arm their security forces and had no major complaints.

The main problem was that the Army insisted on loading ammo with a different gunpowder than specified by the engineers who designed the rifle, because the contractors who supplied ammo for the army weren't set up to produce that kind of powder. So the guns ran much dirtier, and cycled faster than they were engineered to do. The Army made it worse by not issuing cleaning kits to each soldier for the new rifle, and not teaching them how to clean it properly since the design was radically different than the rifles it replaced. Many soldiers and officers even thought it didn't need to be cleaned at all! Reports were that 30% or more of the rifles were out of action in any given firefight.

Once the Army learned how to maintain them properly and the gas system was modified for the kind of powder the Army had in its supply chain, they became rugged and reliable rifles with the core design still in use today. On one hand, the initial rollout was a disaster. On the other hand, the speed at which a completely new weapon system was mass produced, issued to soldiers half a world away in a combat zone, and iterated into a reliable weapon is a testament to the kind of logistic operation that the US Army is capable of. Neither the Soviets nor other NATO nations could have done a project on that scale so rapidly.

41

u/Zulkhan 2d ago

Logistics win wars. We have the best logistics system in the world for our military. If you can keep your troops fed and armed, you're doing better than most armies in history.

19

u/Analyzer9 1d ago

"Marines take land. The Army holds it. The Navy gave them both a ride. The Air Force... watches."

But honestly, I think the biggest and most impactful things that puts the US Army above anything that came before are, 1. Medical competence. 2. Logistical capacity. 3. Professional, Volunteer population. 4. Streamlined and comprehensive training system. 5. Absolute warmongering psychopathic capitalists with their finger on the nuclear button. 6. Civil Affairs/Psychological Operations/Special Operations (not necessarily due to effectiveness of the force, but for an entirely unprecedented backdoor into civilian populations and their homes/businesses).

Things we're terrible at. A. Promises. B. The core values. C. Caste/Classist rank structure. D. Corruption. E. Intelligence analysis. F. What the fuck was the ACU? I mean fuck! I was in for four years, looking sharp in my BDUs, and these fucking assholes put everyone in pyjamas colored with some kind of teal. Nothing hid a fat belly like those things, though.

We cheat, every time, as well. The US only honors contracts as long as they suit us. Honor and Integrity for thee, but not for me.

1

u/that_one_wierd_guy 1d ago

I would argue that the training is anything but comprehensive

2

u/Analyzer9 1d ago

you ever tried to keep a million active, two million inactive, and all the other populations of soldiers and various other DoD individuals trained to a base standard of competence? your personal experience may vary but the fact is that the enormous war machine of America is the most competent colonization force since the British Navy.

9

u/ertri 2d ago

Specialist ranks above E4 were only a thing in WW2, but they did let people get promoted due to technical competence instead of leadership. 

Thats basically handled by warrant officers now. 

4

u/Analyzer9 2d ago

officers would argue that the WO system does the same thing. that's dishonest, though. and sure, WW2, the last W.

2

u/HellfireXP 1d ago

Korea (1950-1953) was a win. We reversed the invasion and restored pre-war boundaries.
Grenada (1983) was a win. Dictatorship overthrown; pro-US government installed
Gulf War 1 (1991) was a win. We kicked Saddam out of Kuwait.
Iraq (2002-2021) was a win. Saddam overthrown, friendly Iraq, and we still maintain advisors there.

-2

u/Analyzer9 1d ago

which one of those was a legally declared war?

4

u/HellfireXP 1d ago

Ahh, you want to play that game. In that case, the United States hasn't lost a war in the last century. In fact, we've only been involved in five declared ones. Congrats on playing yourself.

-2

u/Analyzer9 1d ago

not quite sure what you think you're saying that I didn't say with my comment. the W in WW doesn't stand for win.

3

u/HellfireXP 1d ago edited 1d ago

Ok, well then disregard. I assumed you were one of those people that like to say we haven't ever won any wars since WW2. Those people are so irritating and wrong.

With that said, I'd still disagree if you suggested it's not a war unless it's legally declared. When troops are invading your shores, bombing your cities, and sending tanks into your neighborhood, I don't think you'd call that anything BUT a war. Unless you want to go with the Russian version of "special military operation".

→ More replies (0)

7

u/rustyxj 2d ago

Didn't they fuck up an assault rifle design so bad that it cost them lives in the field?

Since when was the army in the business of designing rifles.

The army is all about logistics.

7

u/Ok-Economist-9466 1d ago

Historically the US Army made its own long arms through an arsenal/armory system, from the founding of the country through the early Vietnam era. From the 1795 Springfield up through the M-14, the Army had a direct hand in the design and production of its rifles, with commercial contractors stepping in to ramp up wartime production.

One of the reasons the M-16 rollout was such a spectacular failure in Vietnam was that old army brass were resistant to a commercial design (which they had rejected previously over an Army design that became the M-14) and insisted on using ball powder that Army contracted ammo plants were set up to produce instead of converting to produce the extruded rifle powder that the original AR15/M16s were engineered to operate on. This meant the early ammo issued to soldiers was wildly out of spec for the new rifle, frequently clogging the gas system and raising the cyclic rate above what the system was designed for.

7

u/MinimumBuy1601 2d ago

The Army also has its hands deep in weapons design. He's specifically talking about the M16 rifle, the initial versions were God awful and did get people killed in Vietnam due to its jamming issues.

1

u/ForexGuy93 22h ago

They weren't God awful. The army used the wrong powder (because that's what their powder contractor could deliver), and on top of that didn't issue cleaning kits. As soon as that was fixed, the problem went away.

2

u/Analyzer9 1d ago

I'm not sure why you need a link, if you attended any level of school. this doesn't require much more than, "The US Army Occupies Planet Earth". I am normally one for sourcing arguments, but this one is on you.

2

u/ForexGuy93 23h ago

Someone read the Dorsai books and decided that's what they wanted. 🤷🏻‍♂️

19

u/Gabarne 2d ago

Promotions have dimishing returns. There comes a point where the added stress severely outweighs the salary bump.

2

u/anneofred 1d ago

So many places in the US make it sound like you’ll be making more, but when you’re saddled with more hours and work, often you made more per hour in the lower level position.

2

u/MithrilRat here for the memes 1d ago

Until you get to C-level. Then the massive salary bump, outweighs any responsibilities (if you can even call it responsibility at that level)

12

u/meeeee01 2d ago

I am pretty much at the highest position I can be without having people report to me. I don't want that, I am good where I am.

2

u/anneofred 1d ago

Same! I was in management forever and I just don’t want to oversee people anymore. I’m in a position where I manage systems and technology, not people, and I am happy right where I’m at. Offered advancement often particularly because of my background of managing people…but I do not want that anymore. Always a look of confusion when I turn it down.

6

u/rg4rg 1d ago

Kinda like “everybody wants to extroverted!” Noooooooo, please, go away. 🙏

1

u/anneofred 1d ago

There’s a really good Ted Talk podcast that covers all of these things at once! That leadership and extroversion (often go hand in hand) is the overall praised behavior and goal set when most of our advancements in society were built on the backs of introverts.

This is why I don’t like the practice of personality testing for employment screening (or in general but that’s a separate issue). It’s simply testing your level of extroverted behavior, which is not a hard factor for being a good employee.

7

u/KitLlwynog 1d ago

Not only that, but I really hate the idea that the only way to advance is to manage other people.

Like I am down with mentoring and training. I love teaching and supporting other people's growth. But I do not want to hire or fire people and that doesn't mean I don't want to advance. What if I just want to be an expert in my field?

Not everyone is cut out to be a manager and the corporate world would be way better off if they didn't force management roles on people because they want better pay or more complex work.

2

u/MidnightHeavy3214 1d ago

Agreed many of us don’t have the right chemical balance in our brain for this.

2

u/PoochusMaximus 1d ago

I prefer one step below leadership. Enough pull/power/sway whatever to get shit done with out the burden of stupid nonsense that gets in the way of actual work.

1

u/that_one_wierd_guy 1d ago

Ah yes ,  leading from the shadows

1

u/Slammogram 1d ago

Yes. My job pushes this.

They want to enlist everyone into being yes men.

1

u/g00f 1d ago

I’ve done a fair bit of auto parts work at various dealerships. I don’t mind it largely, some parts I really enjoy, but god damn would I never want my managers job, practically every parts manager I’ve come across has been stressed to the gills and incredibly tightly wound. Completely counter to what I enjoyed about the job

1

u/that_one_wierd_guy 1d ago

and it makes no sense. "jim you're the best damn cake decorator I've ever seen. I wanna put you in charge of the deli counter"

1

u/mightbeathrowawayyo 23h ago

I think I could be a manager if I wanted but the 10% pay bump for 200% more responsibilities and work and having to always be available for any work emergency, no thanks. The return on investment is too low. I think most people who do it under those circumstances only do it because they don't want someone else to do it.

88

u/OkSector7737 2d ago

If my manager ever said something so batshit insane as "this job is not about the money” I would respond, "The company has a Mental Health Hotline that you can call for 24/7 assistance from a psychiatric nurse. I encourage you to speak to HR about getting assistance for this cognitive situation you appear to be experiencing."

40

u/JustmyOpinion444 2d ago

The company ABSOLUTELY is about the money. If it didn't make money, the owners would close it up and start another business that DID make money. 

12

u/IMM_Austin 1d ago

I never thought about it this way before but this is such a solid counter to that whole attitude.

14

u/imthatoneguyyouknew 2d ago

I have a great career. I love what I do. The company i work for is amazing. I would not do this job for free, or for less money. They wouldn't pay me if I didn't add value to the company (thus making them money).

A company is about money in every single aspect. Top to bottom. Full stop.

7

u/OkSector7737 1d ago

Exactly. Nobody works (for an employer) for the satisfaction of the work.

If I wanted to work for zero pay, I would just open up my own firm and provide legal services pro bono.

But if I want to get paid consistently for my work, I know that I have to sell my services to insurance companies (because they are the ones who have all the money with which to pay me).

5

u/Ok-Economist-9466 1d ago

There's a small exception for this in civil service work. Myself and many of my colleagues know we could make more money if we pimped out to corporate life but choose to make less for the satisfaction of helping the public. Still wouldn't do the job for free though.

0

u/OkSector7737 1d ago

Sure, but civil service is just swapping the Government for the Corporation.

A distinction without a difference; everyone still needs and deserves to be paid for the services they provide to the economy, regardless of the public interest involved in the mission itself.

Personally, I've devoted my entire career to helping Workers who were either injured at work, or were mistreated by their employers for some other reason than a work injury. I have always enjoyed litigation, and it has provided me a very stable, rewarding career, but I could not do the work for free.

Some attorneys can, and I applaud them, but I don't know of any lawyers from wealthy families who work as litigators for no compensation.

2

u/Ok-Economist-9466 1d ago

I disagree that it's swapping Government for Corporation. Having worked both sides at times in my career, working for an agency where the work is mission-based is a very different thing from working for a company where all work is ultimately aimed towards increasing profits. Of course the people working these jobs deserve to be compensated, but financial reward is rarely a primary motivation. The attorneys, medical professionals, engineers etc. in my department would all be making a lot more with their credentials if they did something that generated a profit instead of something that benefits the public with no profit motive behind it.

0

u/OkSector7737 1d ago

Oh, I think it's universal that government work pays less because it doesn't generate revenue for the economy, but rather, functions as overhead.

But I don't think that, for example, the government litigators I know do the job because they are so stoked about "making a difference."

They do the work because it's easier than working in private practice, where there are complex questions at stake and litigators are bound to be blamed for every outcome that the client doesn't like, regardless of how well-founded the outcome is in the law and the facts of the case.

The practice of law is MUCH more satisfying and efficient without lay clients questioning the attorneys' every move. THAT is what makes litigation expensive; clients (particularly, Plaintiffs) wanting to question every little thing.

1

u/Allieloopdeloop 1d ago

Bahaha that's brilliant.

38

u/Analyzer9 2d ago

that's funny, I don't respect managers that expect something for nothing. there is no guarantee you get that promotion, even if you jump through all the hoops. because it's a rigged game, and it's rare that you can outperform nepotism or "I've got a guy that's perfect" insiders. if a manager says something so stops you now know that you cannot ever meet that manager's standards without doing shit exactly his way. that's unfortunate. remember the adage, "people don't quit jobs, they quit bosses."

13

u/rmichaeljones at work 2d ago

This boss doesn’t respect the employees that do see it as a career and want promotions either. They’re just easier to manipulate and dangle that carrot in front of.

17

u/Renbarre 2d ago

I discovered a new word for this. Breadcrumbing

3

u/Themodssmelloffarts Profit Is Theft 1d ago

Also: dangling carrot

15

u/BadManTaliban 2d ago

Your boss is full of shit. "This job isn't about the money" is what people say right before they refuse to pay you fairly. If they don't respect you enough to compensate you properly, time to update that resume. Nobody works for free.

18

u/JustmyOpinion444 2d ago

A career has position and wage progression. Any job that does not, is not a career. 

9

u/1290_money 2d ago

Your manager is delusional. Plain and simple.

8

u/virgilreality 2d ago

You cannot ask someone to do extra work for the promise that they might have a better chance of a promotion, especially since he just admitted that he has no respect for any of my team.

Ummm, no...this is pretty much the unethical cost-savings model most businesses depend on. Capitalizing on goodwill and eagerness, then pocketing the results in one form or another, is a common business technique.

6

u/Square-Emergency-531 1d ago

This right here is what all workers need to only look out for #1. If you aren't trying to take advantage of your employer as much as the other way around, you are the fool.

7

u/HalfSoul30 2d ago

Careful. Talk like that is going to have you fired for "performance issues" soon enough.

1

u/SuperFaceTattoo 1d ago

That’s fine. I’m working on becoming a manager myself because I’m tired of working for idiots. One year to go on my degree and then I’m out of here.

5

u/elPocket 2d ago
  • if i want a promotion it is feasible for me to be doing the tasks of the next level to show i can perform said tasks and to give me negotiation leverage
  • if my boss wants me to regularly perform a specific task beyond my current job description, they very well better promote me or have me on track to be promoted for the position entailing that task.

It's all about who wants what from whom.

7

u/Shasty-McNasty 2d ago

Every. Job. Is. About. The. Money.

3

u/Avocado-Basic 2d ago

I would very loudly say “Are you saying I should be working for no money?!! WHY WOULD YOU SAY THAT?! It sounds like you are threatening to withhold my pay!! “Hey Everybody (Bossname) is saying he’s not going to pay us anymore!!! “ I think legally you have to, right? I’m going to call HR and ask if it’s legal for you to threaten me by saying I should not receive my check.”

5

u/MuchDevelopment7084 1d ago

Two things.
First. Not everyone wants a promotion. They may be happy at that level. Or just don't want the added responsibility.
Second. The money may not compensate for the added responsibility and time required for the promotion.

To expect an employee to do the work of a higher level without the promotion. Is basically wage theft.

Just to be clear. If my manager told me something like this. I'd be updating my resume.

3

u/Independent_After 1d ago

bruh, if someone is operating at "the next level up" WITHOUT a pay increase, there is no WAY they will get a pay increase because "HUuuruUUURUUUHH DDUuuuUUuuuRReerr why would I pay them more when they're already performing this way for their current pay?"

5

u/Magnahelix 2d ago

While I do agree with your boss that you have to do the job before you get the job (demonstrate you're capable), I disagree in the strongest of terms that it ain't about the money. It is ONLY about the money.

Also, as a caveat, you only do the job before you get the job when you work for a company, department or manager that's gonna follow through instead of dangling that promotion but never rewarding you. S rew those types of jobs.

2

u/GlummyGloom 1d ago

This idea that every company deserves the loyalty of a worker who goes above and beyond at the detriment to themselves is getting wildly out of hand. He said it himself, you have earn that before you can benefit from it, but in this case, he expects the benefit without the detriment. It's hypocritical.

2

u/woolfchick75 1d ago

“This job is not about money”. So manager should workout pay.

Edited. Fuck autocorrect

1

u/SuperFaceTattoo 1d ago

Its even better because not one month ago he was in here complaining about how first line managers don’t get overtime. At the time I was like halfway feeling bad for him. But now, not at all. Fuck him he gets exactly what he deserves.

1

u/woolfchick75 1d ago

And I should have written, so manager should work WITHOUT pay.

And fuck him.

2

u/that_one_wierd_guy 1d ago

I probably would've shot back with I don't respect anyone who drinks the koolaid. probably would've gone over his head though, people have a short memory

1

u/ludba2002 1d ago

I sometimes wonder if owning a business will turn me into a sociopath.

1

u/Billthebanger 1d ago

Is your boss a part owner or something. I just don’t get it sometimes be an asshole for nothing.

1

u/SuperFaceTattoo 1d ago

Nope, he’s a technician who got promoted to manager and quickly forgot where he came from.

1

u/TacticalSpeed13 1d ago

A presentation to get promoted? Fuck that company. It should be based on your work not some bullshit dog and a pony show for their ego

1

u/RotundFisherman 1d ago

You don’t need to take these types of statements seriously. Your manager doesn’t actually mean this and he wouldn’t say it if someone was putting these expectations on him.

He is self interested. He wants 1. Free labor and 2. A demonstration of capability before giving someone a raise on the basis of them performing such capability.

That’s all. Move on.

1

u/SelfCtrlDelete 1d ago

Operating at the next level is exactly what I did for more than a decade, yet was consistently deprived of the title that came with the responsibility. Eventually I was laid off.

Fuck all these boot-licking middle managers that want something for nothing. 🖕

1

u/reijasunshine 1d ago

I turned down the promotion to my current position, twice. It was a job nobody wanted because it was horrible and everyone burned out. The bosses sweetened the deal, and I immediately started working with the IT department to streamline and automate the most tedious parts. Now it's easier and I have less stress than I did in my previous position.

It's absolutely about the money, and not about doing more work than necessary. It's a job, not a lifestyle.

0

u/ForexGuy93 23h ago

The punch line is you all work at a McDonald's.

-1

u/Aprilmay19 1d ago

Shouldn’t it be up to your coworker to decide? Mind your own business!

1

u/SuperFaceTattoo 1d ago

Sure. And when the boss gets away with making half the team do extra work for free, suddenly it won’t be considered extra, it will become expected of everyone. You should look up scope creep.

-5

u/whateverhk 2d ago edited 2d ago

Well you need to prove somehow that you're worth promoting no? How are you going to find out if someone will do a good job at a higher level if they don't show some hints of wanting to progress and/or that they would perform well at the next level?

Take initiative, show can take some new responsibilities, get extra training necessary for the post you want,... That's how you show you want and can progress. However if after all these efforts you cannot get promoted then it's time to move back to do your job description as well as look for a new place where your ambitions could be realised.

Edit: I'm not saying you need to do whatever they ask, I'm saying you need to show what you're capable of and at the same be capable of stepping back/leave if they take advantage of you.

4

u/bneff08 2d ago

OK I'll bite.. How long should this person keep doing extra stuff if the boss isn't interested in promoting? Your final solution is to quit? Do you think bosses like job hoppers looking for the right salary/boss?

-1

u/whateverhk 2d ago

That really depends of the situation, of the job, the economy,... I mean if you're in retail its not the same than in a bank. So I think they need to find their limit and also be frank with their boss like "I'm willing to do this because I have ambition to move in my career with you". If they do nothing to help or there's no hope of promotion after 6 or 12 months then either step back or find a different place. Is that so crazy? I don't know why people don't understand that promotion is a meritocracy not a seniority thing.

3

u/bneff08 2d ago

You're preaching to the choir here. But I thought the same thing and I've been out of a job since August. Bosses don't like it if you try to leave at all. Then you're blacklisted for job hopping. Promotion is meritocracy but that's not how it works anymore. Businesses have a vested interest in you doing more work for less pay and to string you along as long as they can and then fill you position with another schmuck who they can abuse for another 6 to 12 months before THEY quit and they have to replace them.. What you're saying isn't crazy, just outdated.

3

u/Square-Emergency-531 1d ago

This is the fundamental problem. Very few companies do real promotions internally these days, but every single one will string you along. They will give you more work at every opportunity while saying that instead of paying you in money they are paying you in opportunity. It is exactly the same as people who try to pay photographers with exposure, it is a con.

Under the previous social contract where promotions were real, this kind of thing can at least be argued for. In our neoliberal present, it is only a way to gaslight labor to extract more.

1

u/whateverhk 1d ago

I guess different countries also have different cultures. I try not job hopping too much, 2 years is a minimum of i can make it because it does raise questions(I've had short stints too). Not sure about blacklisted though, that never was an issue for me.

If you're doing very low level job then obviously you can be replaced, but that's also why you want to take more responsibility, make a name for yourself and become the go to person. Less chance to be replaced like that. Worst case scenario you're learning new stuff and sell it in your next interview.

I don't feel that my vision is so outdated, maybe I was lucky to find places where I could climb and make myself hard to replace. It certainly pay to do your homework and know the company culture before signing.

Good luck for your search, I've been there it's not funny at all.

1

u/bneff08 1d ago

I was making $90k as a Systems Admin. I was the only IT at the company.

1

u/whateverhk 1d ago

How did they fired the only system admin? Did they entirely outsourced tour role? That really sucks. I won't deny luck is also a huge factor

1

u/bneff08 1d ago

I live in an work at will state. Boss didn't want me anymore so I was fired. I could go into the specifics, but at will is at will.