Starting a career has increasingly felt like a right of passage for Gen Z and Millennial workers struggling to adapt to the working week and stand out to their new bosses.

But it looks like those bosses aren’t doing much in return to help their young staffers adjust to corporate life, and it could be having major effects on their company’s output.

Research by the London School of Economics and Protiviti found that friction in the workplace was causing a worrying productivity chasm between bosses and their employees, and it was by far the worst for Gen Z and Millennial workers.

The survey of nearly 1,500 U.K. and U.S. office workers found that a quarter of employees self-reported low productivity in the workplace. More than a third of Gen Z employees reported low productivity, while 30% of Millennials described themselves as unproductive.

    • maynarkh
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s not a privilege. It’s a contract with two parties. If either one of those doesn’t like it, they can go elsewhere.

        • maynarkh
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          10 months ago

          I meant in the colloquial meaning of contract meaning “an agreement between parties to exchange money, goods and services”, not the legal meaning of an employment contract.

          That said, it’s unbelievably shitty that most jobs in the US don’t have written documentation about the actual contract that parties engage in and are only word-of-mouth or non-binding bullshit. The US should join the rest of the world in having actual enforceable rights around employment and should quit overregulating unions.

    • OhmsLawn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      10 months ago

      I don’t know if you’re trolling or just don’t get the argument.

      If a company needs employees, they have to make the positions that they offer attractive, otherwise their workers will find different jobs. If an employer cannot or will not adjust to a changing labor market, they fail.

      Call it Dutch Disease if you want, but that doesn’t change the equation.

      Employees aren’t a right either.

      • Narauko@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        That’s a two way street: if a company is fine with getting bottom of the barrel quality of work for bottom of the barrel pay, or with just not filling the positions, it’s their right to shoot themselves in the foot. Outside of legal minimums, no one owes anyone anything.

        To quote the great boxer Ivan Drago, “if ‘company’ dies, it dies”. It might be stupid to ignore labor markets, and chasing quarterly profits at the expense of the company’s future is ultimately sociopathic and self-defeating in the long run, but that doesn’t change the basis.

        If you are forced to provide a job to anyone that wants one because having any job entirely on your own terms is a right, then you have found yourself in a State planned economy and it won’t be you making the decision on where you work; please report to the Bureau of Labor to be assigned your labor role.

        • BakerBagel@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          10 months ago

          “No society is more than three meals away from a revolution”

          A society that cant take care if it’s own people will collapse into bloody revolution

            • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              It most definitely is the responsibility of an employer to keep a revolution from happening inside their company.

              Which they won’t be able to if they keep treating their employees as trash.

        • ray@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          10 months ago

          Having productive workers isn’t a right. If your company needs productive workers to remain profitable, then pay your employees more so they’ll be motivated to work harder. Simple. Don’t expect workers to lower their standard of living just for your benefit. That is entitlement of the worst kind.

    • PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      Capitalism requires people have jobs for commerse to work. The whole system falls apart if people dont have jobs. For the sake of its own preservation, it seems like jobs should be a right.

      • Narauko@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Everyone has a right to work, but your right to work doesn’t supercede your other rights as an employer to set the terms you are willing to hire under. If your plumbing or electrical breaks or needs upgrading, you get to set the terms you are willing to hire to do the work. If that means no one takes your job or you get shitty and unprofessional results, that’s on you. Bob the janky handyman doesn’t get to say he has a right to work so you are required to hire him at whatever rates he demands. It’s a two-way compact.

        If you can demand employment as a right, it eventually won’t be eirher the employer or the employee making the decision where you work or for how much, it’ll be the authority enforcing that right to work. The needle swinging too far in either direction between late stage capitalism and State planned economies is bad, and strong regulation and strong worker’s protections is needed to keep the gauge in the green zone.

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      A company is not a right, it is a privilege.

      If they do not contribute positively towards society, then we should be obliged to burn them to the ground.