I HATE Lunch Time Meetings 20

[casseopeia]

I guess this isn't really a question but more of a rant.

Lunch meetings should be rare, only if completely necessary and at most once a month. I now have several per WEEK, sometimes every day. They think they are being nice by bringing in sandwiches or pizza. Sometimes it's just cookies.

But I just want to eat my chicken salad with celery and have my Mandarin orange while watching YouTube cat videos.

And sometimes I’d like to go to the bank or drug store during lunch, or make a private phone call to my broker or tax accountant which requires leaving the office to truly be private.

My lunch hour should be mine to do as I please. I am really tired of noontime meetings.

OK I feel a little better now. Thanks


If you are offended by the things I say, imagine the stuff I hold back.

 

[moltenmetal]

Yep, got to admit that I'm not really happy with meetings that could have been e-mails- meetings where we are being told something that has already been decided, under the guise of being consulted about something as if there was any likelihood of another outcome. That's not only wasteful, it's dishonest, or at least assumes that the audience are numbskulls.

 

[IRstuff]

Life is too short for that; it happens at all levels and across normal life. We had a nursery down the hill from us close down, and there was a proposal to build houses, and the town had meetings to gather concerns, etc., but it was all for show because the town had already decided to let the project move forward.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[moltenmetal]

IRStuff: the problem here in Toronto isn't the local council or planning department- they always say no to things that don't fit their official plan. Unfortunately, the province has given the developers a convenient out, in the form of the right to appeal to an appointed "municipal board" which decides for or against developments solely on the basis of provincial planning policy which says "development next to transit is always good". The public consultation meetings are held of course, but they're pointless. The system allows all the politicians at the local and provincial level to say, "It wasn't me- I was against it!" and yet allows them benefit from all the new tax revenue once the developments are built. They don't spend a cent on new infrastructure to support all those new residents, so the new tax revenue is gravy... What has resulted is a 10-fold increase in population density in my neighbourhood, even worse south of me, and a subway so packed that the Japanese guys with the white gloves to shove people into the trains cannot be far behind. The other day I took the subway home during rush hour and there was no need to hold onto anything- you couldn't fall down if you tried.

 

[jari001]

casseopeia -

My colleague doesn't seem to be suffering from not attending these meetings, so maybe you'll be OK as well. To paraphrase Amos Tversky, "Don't worry about the excuse, just get up and start leaving and your mind will have an excuse ready by the time you reach the door knob".

 

[CWB1]

Meetings are quite often all about perception and like anything else in life, quite often you need others' "buy-in" to get anything done. I've never viewed being one of many optional sets of eyes reviewing a colleague's work in design reviews, DFMEAs, etc as wasteful but a matter of good ethics and process. I'll skip those occasionally when I know others at my level who are competent are attending and I have a conflict, but otherwise try to attend. The first few years of my career however I did sit in quite a few of those where they might as well have been emails bc the meeting host was hostile toward others' review or the audience simply didnt want to provide input. I've also sat in meetings where management was explaining new policies that I thought should've been simply emails, but after becoming a manager I saw the difference in employee acceptance and compliance meetings vs emails provide. Email about a simple change to an engineering process and often you'll spend the next month or more with many upset, many confused, and many others simply ignoring the process. Have a meeting to discuss it where everyone can hear you explain the logic behind the change and the common Q&A/FAQ and there's far fewer issues, people just get it done.

 

[TheTick]

Maybe a transparently lame excuse will send the message that they are wasting your time. "I have to go prune the driveway."

 

[Terratek]

I almost never hold meetings for my staff. But since I seem to compulsively repeat myself all day long, to the point of annoying myself and my staff, I guess group meetings are just not necessary. I do take them out to lunch fairly often but skew the conversations off of work and onto other, more interesting stuff.

 

[Careful34]

And if you have special dietary requirements, you often can't even eat what's served and have to bring your own food anyways.

yeah, they suck.

 

[SwinnyGG]

I quite frequently need to meet with people who are already booked from 9:00-12:00 and 1:00-4:00, or whatever.

Lunch meetings are a fact of life. I don't see the need to get in a tiff about it.

 

[JedClampett]

jgKRI, how about after 4:00? How about before 9:00? If you had a 7:00 PM meeting, would you get in a tiff about that? Or midnight?
Lunch is your time to relax and unwind. I'm (and probably you) not getting paid for it. To me it's a way to have people work an extra hour for free.

 

[SwinnyGG]

I typically work from 6:00 or so until 3:30-4:00. Much of the rest of the office starts between 8:00 and 9:00.

I do this because a) I have a lot of non-work stuff going on and thus afternoons are highly valuable to me and b) this typically gives me between 2 and 3 hours per day in the office alone, where I can burn away undisturbed by questions and meetings.

Meetings after 4:00 are rare for me because by then I'm out the door, and everyone is aware of that. But if someone schedules a meeting at 7:00 PM and I actually need to be there, I'll either call in or I'll be there. Meetings at midnight? I deal with and oversee personnel in Japan and China.. I have meetings in the late and wee hours frequently- multiple times per month. I charge the time.

I don't know where every poster in this thread is at in their career; if you're high up or in the twilight, you can certainly afford to dictate a lot of things. I am moving up but wouldn't say I'm 'high up' and I'm definitely in the dawn. I can dictate little.

Flexibility is the cost of doing business, and in my opinion its the price we (as in engineers as a whole) pay for the lucrative salaries and interesting work our trade affords us.

 

[casseopeia]

JedClampett, you bring up an interesting point. We used to have early meetings (7:30 am) which were no problem. I routinely get into the office around 6:30-7:00 am) The lunch time came about to accommodate someone else who can't get to the office before 9:30 am.

Like I said, occasionally it is OK. Four times a week is too much no matter how you slice it.

If you are offended by the things I say, imagine the stuff I hold back.

 

[Maui]

I learned early in my current job that the people who arrive at work at 7:00 a.m. like to hold meetings at 7:30 a.m. I arrive at 8:00 a.m. and after being invited to these early meetings I decided to block off my calendar every single day of the year so that the person organizing the meeting realizes that I am not available before 8:00 a.m. It worked.

 

[casseopeia]

I just got notified that my previous 11:00 am meeting, which often strayed into the noon hour is moved to 'lunch.' I really don't know why others do not complain about it. So I checked to see if I was wrong about Labor Law. Turns out I'm not wrong. Here is a snippet straight from the book;

"Employees are owed premium pay when they miss a meal break or a rest break in one day. Labor Code section 226.7 provides that if an employer fails to provide a meal, rest or recovery period, the employer must pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation, for each work day that the meal or rest break is not provide"

"Further, one hour of pay is a wage, not a penalty. Wages are benefits that an employee is entitled to as part of compensation…
The hour of additional pay is not only an incentive for employers to comply with the law but, foremost, a premium wage that compensates employees – not a penalty."

"An employer cannot employ someone for a work period of more than 5 hours without providing an unpaid, off-duty meal period of at least 30 minutes."

I'm not planning to make waves at the moment. I just do not understand why engineers sitting around discussing contractual issues and liability exposure for an hour don't see the irony. SMDH


If you are offended by the things I say, imagine the stuff I hold back.

 

[IRstuff]

Almost everything there, I think, applies to at most, salaried non-exempt, and hourly employees.

Salaried employees, like myself, are "exempt" from such laws, which means they can abuse us to their hearts' content, assuming they have hearts...

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[casseopeia]

IRStuff. I reviewed the exempt and non-exempt definitions according to our brand new shiny Labor Law Manual and California employees have to meet "all" requirements. I know they would like to consider anyone who is salaries to be exempt, however in my own case, I do not have the power to hire and fire.

If you are offended by the things I say, imagine the stuff I hold back.

 

[MacGyverS2000]

Yeah, everything I've ever read has said that stuff doesn't apply to non-exempt employees... haven't been one of those for well over 20 years. CA could very well be different (aren't they always?), but I would have strong doubts about it until I read it in black and white myself.

But if I find myself in a position where my lunch's are continually co-opted for purposes other than feeding my face, I'll find other ways to do so on "company time", and I won't be working while munching on my sandwich.

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[CWB1]

If lunchtime is sacred, what do you do to accommodate the regular "after-hours" international meetings, weeks of travel, or other efforts outside the standard 8.5 hour day?

Agreed with the above, salaried employees are exempt from hourly labor laws in all but a few cases. Having started my career on hourly wages in the trades I appreciate being allowed to negotiate my salary as commensurate based upon effort output. I want to be paid a top tier salary so I put out top tier results which require top tier effort. In most organizations as you move up in position the expectation is that you also move up in hours committed.

 

[JedClampett]

Well, CWB1, if I have a 5:30 AM meeting, I come in at 5:25 AM and shift my working time to match. I still don't get out until 4:00 PM. And I don't think lunch is sacred, but I'd like it to be considered that it is my time, not the company's.
Sure, there's early meetings, international meetings, late meetings, travel, unpaid training, pretty soon, you're there 12 hours a day and you're nodding off during the meetings. I'm sure you have a limit. If you don't, your body does.

 

[TheTick]

CWB1 is wrong about salaried workers being exempt. Most are not, but are led to believe they are. The IRS has very strict definitions as to who is exempt. Most salaried employees are not.

Honesty may be the best policy, but insanity is a better defense.

http://www.EsoxRepublic.com

-SolidWorks API VB programming help