Working with idiots...

is difficult...

Edited to protect...myself....

GPS got into my head.

Its scary in there huh?

Oh, God, you're being so judgemental!

But I feel your pain.

Uh, yeah, time to polish up the ol' resume.

Good luck out there.

Head to Detroit? You already live in the climate.

I dont need to put up with this E36 M3

Then why do you?

Be careful that bit of rant does not get in front of them or any future employer. That is the kind of E36 M3 you should not publish to the internet under an easily resolvable name.

Bail before they hit the iceberg.

(Oh, and +1 to the Purple one's bit of wisdom there. Paranoia pays!)

But remember, your wealthy CEO/VP types have earned their keep, and someday they will share all of their wealth with you because they are good natured, ethical, and moral people. In the meantime....I should shut up.

PHeller wrote: But remember, your wealthy CEO/VP types have earned their keep, and someday they will share all of their wealth with you because they are good natured, ethical, and moral people. In the meantime....I should shut up.

A) Maybe they have earned their keep, maybe not. But unless they are actually being unethical or doing illegal things, they deserve whatever they can talk people into paying them.

B) Why are they necessarily required to share their wealth with you?

<~~~~ Also shutting up now.

In reply to PHeller:

Yes, you should.

Entrenched incompetence is not exclusive to private companies. The compensation is at a higher level but the problems exist everywhere.

I think what the OP is saying is that these guys make a lot of money, don't appear to be doing much for the company, and meddle in its otherwise productive ways.

Maybe someone with a better understanding of President/VP management structure can enlighten us on what these guys are doing behind closed doors that makes them so valuable while they obviously have unhappy and resentful employees.

oldsaw:

I'm sorry to say that your completely correct. Our county government recently won a 1.8 million dollar grant from HUD used for PLANNING and hired a guy with no urban/regional planning experience at a better-than-everyone-else-in-the-office salary who's previous experience was developing a performing arts center.

Meanwhile, our principal land use planner has been relegated to grant administration, attends very few meetings with the public, and basically is just a glorified accountant of that 1.8 million. This guy is good, and loves his job, but hates being some well connected guy's bitch.

So, the question remains, what are these people (in my case and the OPs) doing that makes them so valuable?

In reply to PHeller:

There isn't much difference (aside from titles) between managment structures in the private or the public sector. The names are changed to protect the guilty kinda thing?

PHeller wrote: Maybe someone with a better understanding of President/VP management structure can enlighten us on what these guys are doing behind closed doors that makes them so valuable while they obviously have unhappy and resentful employees.

Nobody ever said they were valuable to the company. They could in fact be damaging. But their salary is - and should be - based on whatever they can convince the decision makers to pay them, as long as it's not unethical or illegal. And just "not being worth it" doesn't qualify automatically as "unethical".

<~~~~ Really shutting up now.

Duke, youre right, and I agree with you.

Grass is always greener on the other side of the hill.
You may find similar issues almost where ever. Companies make it because of the workers, not management. I've seen a few companies get run into the ground by management but a lot survive in spite of management. Mainly because they are at least smart enough to have good workers.

Backing out of room very slowly now.

Zomby Woof wrote:

I dont need to put up with this E36 M3

Then why do you?

a bird in the hand?

I once worked at a company where an outside consultant actually recommended that the owner stop meddling with day to day operations. The owner himself was the one who brought in the consultant and had every employees interrogated as to why they couldn't do their job better. The end report: the owner was the problem. No surprise to anyone the consultant was told he didn't know what he was talking about and was summarily ignored.

4cylndrfury wrote: Then why do you?

a bird in the hand?

Try using the other hand.

In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:

I've tried that, but I'm not nearly as coordinated with my other hand. Just don't have the speed, rhythm, or stamina as I do with... wait, what are we talking about?

I know at one of the casinos I work at... when employee moral sunk to new levels... they put keypads on the doors to the management tower

I'd say those are owners/managers being unethical. Kind of like those companies that engage in leveraged buyouts. Good at talking up the company, maybe even good at growing the company, but bad at making it sustainable.

To me, sustainable companies are those with happy employees. Not happy unions, not happy stock holders, but happy employees.

slefain wrote: I once worked at a company where an outside consultant actually recommended that the owner stop meddling with day to day operations. The owner himself was the one who brought in the consultant and had every employees interrogated as to why they couldn't do their job better. The end report: the owner was the problem. No surprise to anyone the consultant was told he didn't know what he was talking about and was summarily ignored.

That sounds eerily like a company for which we both worked, or any number of companies for which we haven't.

It takes an unsually grounded owner/manager to default to a collective wisdom instead of one's ego.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

4cylndrfury wrote: Then why do you?

a bird in the hand?

Try using the other hand.

But it's in the bush.

Trust me, Im searching the bushes with a fine toothed comb...it may be time to go quail huntin...