Norma worked for a company as a telecommuter. Her job involved developing training materials. For a few years, she enjoyed the arrangement.
Then one day Norma’s company began sending notices of new requirements. Each course had to include a minimum of five objectives. The objectives had to be worded a certain way. They had to be placed in three different places on the course format.
Soon afterward the company began asking for new types of course evaluation. Then there were new reports to prepare after each training course feedback forms came in. And more….and more.
Norma was paid a flat fee, not an hourly rate. “If this keeps up,” she said, “‘I will be earning minimum wage! I might as well be working at Starbuck’s.”
Norma confided one day in her colleague, Frank.”Oh, I just don’t do those things,” Frank said.
“What?!” Norma exclaimed. “You’ll get fired.”
“Maybe,” Frank shrugged. “But I’ve been here awhile. Nobody’s ever said anything. Surely they’d say something before they’d take action. Anyway,” Frank continued, “I’ve been ignoring things for two years now. I still get my raises and my contract gets renewed.”
Should Norma follow Frank’s example? It’s hard to say. If she asked, Frank would add that his personal situation allows him to take big risks with his career. He knows he may face consequences.
Frank also has made a decision. He doesn’t want to stay with this company if the workkload increases. So he’s got several irons in the fire. He’s starting a side business. He has applications with several of his current firm’s competitors, since he doesn’t have a non-compete clause in his contract. He feels confident that he can weather a storm.
Frank believes hjs solution may be better than quitting outright. If he gets confronted, he can choose whether to comply or risk being fired.The odds are in Frank’s favor, as coworkers will either fall behind, stop doing the work or start leaving.
Norma isn’t so sure. She thinks she should try to reason with the company. She wants to show them how many hours have been added to her job with the addition of all the new requirements.
What do you think? Comment below. I reply to all comments.
This is really thought provoking. Those Google interview questions were clever but did not pique my reasoning abilities, but this story really gets me thinking.
Is it intentional or coincidental that the man is confident and a risk taker while the woman is a classic people pleaser?
I wonder about his “personal situation.” Is he sitting on a large inheritance or does the favorable situation consist merely of his other irons in the fire, which are described in this story?
I confess to having some Norma-like tendencies in my history but Norma is exceptionally passive! As the requirements piled on, she should have asked for a rate adjustment immediately when each new requirement was assigned and certainly when the contract came up for renewal. At the time the client may have paid more, or more likely, simplified the assignment to maintain the current pay rate.
Norma should talk to the company but the task isn’t to “educate” them about how long the work takes. As long as Norma is willing to do more work for the same pay, they don’t care how long it takes.
The point is that she wants more pay. (Anyhow, doesn’t longevity and the quality benefits of longevity merit higher pay in themselves?)
Norma should not threaten to walk unless she is willing to walk if put to the test. Still, a client who would drop her merely for bringing up the subject of rates is not worth holding on to.
I look forward to seeing how other people look at this issue.
Wow – awesome comment! I added a new post today – November 28th.