Epic FU money stories

[NumberJohnny5]

I'll throw a couple in here for the heck of it.

Wife is an RN. I'm a stay at home dad. For a while she was a travel nurse. Anyone who's done that knows that finding and negotiating a contract is a full-time job in and of itself. Just the paperwork alone whenever you sign up with a new agency takes up the better part of the day, and that's if you already have everything ready (licenses, certifications, immunizations, competencies, etc.). I took care of the majority of that. Anyway...

Had her signed up with a few agencies, used the same one for two different contracts one year. Take a break. The next year, get a contract lined up and we're ready to go. Basically, I tell them that as long as we get the all-clear (including signed contract) by Wednesday, we can be there by the following Monday. We get the contract, but then get last minute word that she can't start until she gets positive titers (vs previous two contracts where we just needed to prove she had her immunizations). That's an added expense and hassle, but ok, we'll go get those. But before we sign (technically she's the only one signing, but I consider it a team effort) we need to either get the test results back showing a positive result, OR word from the agency that if she no longer had immunity for something, she could still start the contract as long as she got a booster shot and had titers redrawn until she showed immunity for everything they needed. Well, no word Wednesday. I said ok, fine, one more day, but we absolutely MUST know by end of day Thursday. Well, we got the lab results back, but they screwed up (if I remember correctly, instead of checking for HepC immunity, they checked to see if she had HepC). They did a rush, but no way we'd get it back that day. Agency still refused to say "yes, she can still start the contract even with a negative test result". Friday morning, they call and say she's a go. We say "great, we can be there the NEXT Monday, but not this Monday." That apparently wasn't good enough so they rescinded the offer and found someone else I suppose. No big deal, she ends up getting a MUCH more lucrative contract with a different agency. In fact it was a decent pay bump just in the hourly/stipends, but they actually supplied housing on top of that (and we later learned, a car rental). Extended that contract then went back the next year.

Next one was also a travel assignment. It would have been close to where we were moving to, foot in the door of somewhere she wanted to work full-time, etc. We worked everything out, and then got the contract. Basically, everywhere showed the tax-free stipend being $X/wk, but the contract stated it as a monthly amount. No big deal right? Well, the weekly amount that had been quoted was based on a 30 day month, even though there are seven months out of the year with 31 days (so the stipend that is paid weekly would be a tiny bit less in a month with 31 days). The recruiter pointed out that February would get the same monthly pay but spread over 28 days, so really it wasn't a big deal. I pointed out that it only worked in the traveler's favor if they only worked Feb-March-April (28 days plus 31 days plus 30 days) in a non-leap year (I should note that the standard travel nurse contract is 13 weeks). The recruiter pointed out that it was only $XXX (I want to say it was a bit under $200) over the entire contract period. I said, ok then, since it's not much, put it in the contract that she gets $XXX as a bonus. They said no, we walked.

No idea what the moral of the story is. I just like not being in a situation where we have to do whatever "they" say we have to. We live up to our end of the bargain, but if they want to change the rules and we don't want to dance for them...we'll just walk away from it. In fact we've done that when buying houses too. It's actually why we have no mortgage on our current home.

[Dicey]

No idea what the moral of the story is. I just like not being in a situation where we have to do whatever "they" say we have to. We live up to our end of the bargain, but if they want to change the rules and we don't want to dance for them...we'll just walk away from it. In fact we've done that when buying houses too. It's actually why we have no mortgage on our current home.

Oh, come on, don't leave us hanging! Tell us the house story, please!

[NumberJohnny5]

Oh, come on, don't leave us hanging! Tell us the house story, please!

It's not really that exciting of a story. Though I guess the others weren't exciting either.

I'll start with a different house. Mobile home actually. It was a foreclosure in a rural area. Waited for a price drop then offered something like $18,750 (each time we made an offer, had to bother the bank to get a new letter saying we had that exact amount available...didn't want to let on that we had more, they were nice to accommodate us like that). Well it's a done deal, lady says I can go ahead and switch utilities over, I drop some flooring off at the place so we can get started on it as soon as the contract is actually signed. Well there's a problem with the title (literally, they suddenly realized that they didn't have a title for the mobile home), the real estate agent basically turns on us saying she'll have to report that we've put our stuff on the property (I go back and get the flooring moved, no big deal, but she was being a total b*tch). Bit confused, I mean she said we could even turn the utilities on in our name (we had scheduled the turn-on for a later date, easy enough to cancel, but still). She made it very clear that the house was no longer under contract

Well, that issue was fixed in about a week. She expected us to honor the contract. I said "no, you made it very clear that the prior contract was null and void, I wish to make a new offer." She refused, so I had to contact HER boss and make her do her job. Got the place for ~$17,750 (maybe it was $17.5, I forget the exact number without looking through old paperwork). She was there for the closing and was NOT happy.

Current house. We go with one of those "we'll work with you if you have special circumstances" companies. I check them out, they're not half bad. And we do have special circumstances; we've been living in Australia the past seven years and have virtually zero recent US income (wife just started a travel job so we'd have some paystubs, they paid weekly so we quickly got the number of paystubs they needed). Basic stuff at first, provide tons of documentation (and fix the mistakes they made on paperwork they sent to us), show where every cent in the bank account came from (we had transferred our AUD to USD, so I had to show the AUS account it came from, the transferwise transaction converting it, then the resulting deposit in the current US bank account), etc. Few hiccups but from what I'd read about other people's experiences buying a house and the whole mortgage process, it seemed fairly smooth (we are EXTREMELY on top of things). Fast forward a bit, we're a couple weeks from closing. Mortgage didn't pass underwriting, they don't know why (that's your JOB), but quickly determine that they had submitted an extremely old survey (it's allowed to be 2-3 years old I think, but this was well over a decade old). Someone there dropped the ball big time. They say they'll get it done ASAP. Some back and forth, it drags on, Thursday becomes Friday becomes no later than Monday (the Monday of the week we want to close by). I forget the exact timing, but when it became apparent it was coming down to the wire, I liquidated both our IRAs straight into our checking account. Once it cleared I sent updated documents to the mortgage company showing the new bank balance and where the funds came from (I doubt it was actually needed, but I did it under the guise of "since you want detailed info of where every cent has come from, here you go"). Told them the funds were moved so we could purchase the house in cash in case they didn't get their stuff together in time. Lady freaked out a bit (mortgage company got $0 if we didn't actually get a mortgage with them). Checked prior emails, she wrote this verbatim:

"I know that you were wanting to just pay cash for the home if the deal could not close this week, but I’m not sure if it is a good idea to take all of your money to purchase a home outright.  You then put yourself in a position to where if any emergency comes up, you may not be able to help yourself.  You might also have to put off making changes/upgrades to the home."

Should note that we had more than was required to purchase the house, so we still had some funds for an emergency (plus, with no mortgage, the amount needed is lower, right?). And of COURSE we needed to immediately upgrade a new (to us) house (admittedly I did cut out a hole to utilize the space under the staircase).

Held firm. They told us about the process they had to follow, that we couldn't rush things, if they got X and Y done by Z then there was a mandatory three day period then we could close the following week. Held firm, said we were closing this Friday regardless. Then we got an email with this exact subject (minus personal info redacted): "FW: Encompass Loan #123456789, 'Name' is ready for Clear to Close by Underwriter". I could tell what was up right away, but played dumb and asked what is the difference between "clear to close" which we require no later than Wednesday, and this "ready to clear to close by underwriter" that you're telling me about? It was obviously a way for them to tell us the magic phrase "clear to close" without actually meaning it.

Wednesday rolls around, we wire the funds to the escrow after making a thousand percent sure that if the mortgage company gave us the actual clear to close by end of business that day, they'd refund all but the deposit. Was pretty nervous until I got confirmation they got the wire (didn't take long). Didn't help that our bank tried to get the account number wrong (maybe almost $200k isn't much for you, but lady, it's nearly all we have!). Don't worry, I always double-check everything (after the near mix-up on their part, I quadruple-checked both what was on their computer and the paperwork that was signed). Well, no clear to close by end of day Wednesday, so we tell the realtor this will be a cash sale (the title company needed one full business day to change everything over, so they had to know by end of Wednesday to have everything ready by Friday).

Of course Thursday morning-ish (late morning, but before lunch) we got the clear to close. Bank didn't bother notifying us (they were correct to not contact us, as we told them this was now a cash sale and they could stop working on the paperwork; the realtor is the one who let us know). Signed the paperwork Friday and started moving in ASAP.

Should probably note that kids and I had been staying at my brother's house with his wife and my mom for nearly three months. My wife had been there about two months longer with the idea to get a job and settled in by the time the rest of us showed up. Nerves were frazzled, and at one point in August I promised that "I'll do whatever I can to get us moved into our own house by the end of the month." The Friday we closed was August 30, waiting until the next week was completely off the table if we had any other option.

Having to start over with our retirement accounts was a big blow, but I'll admit it was nice to give the bank the shaft when they were trying to jerk us around. And don't worry, we dumped a large amount back into the IRAs before our 60 day rollover window closed (we did have to carry a balance on credit cards for a number of months, but eh...they're all paid off now and we're back on track).

[grantmeaname]

Oh my god, that's a GIANT middle finger.

Badass.

[bigblock440]

Every day at my new employer brings a smile to me....

Attended the "Benefits" meeting last week. OH BOY, it's going to be nice going to the doctor whenever I want, for a $10 co-pay!  Instead of doing the mental gymnastics of whether or not I think it is worth paying $250 to get something checked out!

My former employer had a HDHP plan, where the deductible is LARGER than the OUT-OF-POCKET-MAXIMUM is at my new employer! Holy Shit!

that's great!

Depends on what the premium is

[bigblock440]

Oh, come on, don't leave us hanging! Tell us the house story, please!

It's not really that exciting of a story. Though I guess the others weren't exciting either.

I'll start with a different house. Mobile home actually. It was a foreclosure in a rural area. Waited for a price drop then offered something like $18,750 (each time we made an offer, had to bother the bank to get a new letter saying we had that exact amount available...didn't want to let on that we had more, they were nice to accommodate us like that). Well it's a done deal, lady says I can go ahead and switch utilities over, I drop some flooring off at the place so we can get started on it as soon as the contract is actually signed. Well there's a problem with the title (literally, they suddenly realized that they didn't have a title for the mobile home), the real estate agent basically turns on us saying she'll have to report that we've put our stuff on the property (I go back and get the flooring moved, no big deal, but she was being a total b*tch). Bit confused, I mean she said we could even turn the utilities on in our name (we had scheduled the turn-on for a later date, easy enough to cancel, but still). She made it very clear that the house was no longer under contract

Well, that issue was fixed in about a week. She expected us to honor the contract. I said "no, you made it very clear that the prior contract was null and void, I wish to make a new offer." She refused, so I had to contact HER boss and make her do her job. Got the place for ~$17,750 (maybe it was $17.5, I forget the exact number without looking through old paperwork). She was there for the closing and was NOT happy.

Current house. We go with one of those "we'll work with you if you have special circumstances" companies. I check them out, they're not half bad. And we do have special circumstances; we've been living in Australia the past seven years and have virtually zero recent US income (wife just started a travel job so we'd have some paystubs, they paid weekly so we quickly got the number of paystubs they needed). Basic stuff at first, provide tons of documentation (and fix the mistakes they made on paperwork they sent to us), show where every cent in the bank account came from (we had transferred our AUD to USD, so I had to show the AUS account it came from, the transferwise transaction converting it, then the resulting deposit in the current US bank account), etc. Few hiccups but from what I'd read about other people's experiences buying a house and the whole mortgage process, it seemed fairly smooth (we are EXTREMELY on top of things). Fast forward a bit, we're a couple weeks from closing. Mortgage didn't pass underwriting, they don't know why (that's your JOB), but quickly determine that they had submitted an extremely old survey (it's allowed to be 2-3 years old I think, but this was well over a decade old). Someone there dropped the ball big time. They say they'll get it done ASAP. Some back and forth, it drags on, Thursday becomes Friday becomes no later than Monday (the Monday of the week we want to close by). I forget the exact timing, but when it became apparent it was coming down to the wire, I liquidated both our IRAs straight into our checking account. Once it cleared I sent updated documents to the mortgage company showing the new bank balance and where the funds came from (I doubt it was actually needed, but I did it under the guise of "since you want detailed info of where every cent has come from, here you go"). Told them the funds were moved so we could purchase the house in cash in case they didn't get their stuff together in time. Lady freaked out a bit (mortgage company got $0 if we didn't actually get a mortgage with them). Checked prior emails, she wrote this verbatim:

"I know that you were wanting to just pay cash for the home if the deal could not close this week, but I’m not sure if it is a good idea to take all of your money to purchase a home outright.  You then put yourself in a position to where if any emergency comes up, you may not be able to help yourself.  You might also have to put off making changes/upgrades to the home."

Should note that we had more than was required to purchase the house, so we still had some funds for an emergency (plus, with no mortgage, the amount needed is lower, right?). And of COURSE we needed to immediately upgrade a new (to us) house (admittedly I did cut out a hole to utilize the space under the staircase).

Held firm. They told us about the process they had to follow, that we couldn't rush things, if they got X and Y done by Z then there was a mandatory three day period then we could close the following week. Held firm, said we were closing this Friday regardless. Then we got an email with this exact subject (minus personal info redacted): "FW: Encompass Loan #123456789, 'Name' is ready for Clear to Close by Underwriter". I could tell what was up right away, but played dumb and asked what is the difference between "clear to close" which we require no later than Wednesday, and this "ready to clear to close by underwriter" that you're telling me about? It was obviously a way for them to tell us the magic phrase "clear to close" without actually meaning it.

Wednesday rolls around, we wire the funds to the escrow after making a thousand percent sure that if the mortgage company gave us the actual clear to close by end of business that day, they'd refund all but the deposit. Was pretty nervous until I got confirmation they got the wire (didn't take long). Didn't help that our bank tried to get the account number wrong (maybe almost $200k isn't much for you, but lady, it's nearly all we have!). Don't worry, I always double-check everything (after the near mix-up on their part, I quadruple-checked both what was on their computer and the paperwork that was signed). Well, no clear to close by end of day Wednesday, so we tell the realtor this will be a cash sale (the title company needed one full business day to change everything over, so they had to know by end of Wednesday to have everything ready by Friday).

Of course Thursday morning-ish (late morning, but before lunch) we got the clear to close. Bank didn't bother notifying us (they were correct to not contact us, as we told them this was now a cash sale and they could stop working on the paperwork; the realtor is the one who let us know). Signed the paperwork Friday and started moving in ASAP.

Should probably note that kids and I had been staying at my brother's house with his wife and my mom for nearly three months. My wife had been there about two months longer with the idea to get a job and settled in by the time the rest of us showed up. Nerves were frazzled, and at one point in August I promised that "I'll do whatever I can to get us moved into our own house by the end of the month." The Friday we closed was August 30, waiting until the next week was completely off the table if we had any other option.

Having to start over with our retirement accounts was a big blow, but I'll admit it was nice to give the bank the shaft when they were trying to jerk us around. And don't worry, we dumped a large amount back into the IRAs before our 60 day rollover window closed (we did have to carry a balance on credit cards for a number of months, but eh...they're all paid off now and we're back on track).

The second one is definitely an epic FU

[Just Joe]

I want to say thank you for this concept of FU money. Never thought I'd need it. Have a job I can live with for now. I need to unload just a little.

Applied for a job at my current employer. Its a step up in responsibilities and salary. Expecting an interview b/c the advertisement reads like it was written with me in mind skills-wise.

Excited about the potential new challenges. I've been invited to attend meetings at that level recently so I'm getting a peek at how things work.

More time I spend in the presence of my boss's boss - the more disappointed I am with that person. I am realizing likely unhappy I would be working in close collaboration with that person and how much my boss shields us from that person. It also explains why my boss seems defeated at times.

Oh how petty and small this upper level person is. I had worked with them on a few topics and was initially impressed but as time goes on it looks like they can't handle it and are bullying the people that answer to them for reasons unknown. Now I find out that my boss may be looking for another job.

So I'm sitting back and looking the situation over. DW and I are comfortable. Not sure if the money is worth the extra wear and tear. Right now, sitting here reviewing last week's events - it isn't.

I think for entertainment sake I'll attend an interview if offered but decline the offer if extended. Just mostly doing recon for myself.

Am still surprised at how petty this person has turned out to be. We have so many big engineering topics to work on and they have time to pick on people? No thanks... 

Have several years of expenses saved up as long as DW is employed.

[SwordGuy]

More time I spend in the presence of my boss's boss - the more disappointed I am with that person. I am realizing likely unhappy I would be working in close collaboration with that person and how much my boss shields us from that person. It also explains why my boss seems defeated at times.

Oh how petty and small this upper level person is. I had worked with them on a few topics and was initially impressed but as time goes on it looks like they can't handle it and are bullying the people that answer to them for reasons unknown. Now I find out that my boss may be looking for another job.

Take the time to truly THANK your boss for what he does for you and your team.   They deserve it.

Plus, you might have a ready-made job waiting for you wherever they end up. :)

I try to explain to younger folks that they are only one sociopath away from being sick to death of their job and burnt out their career, so get that FU money lined up asap.

[Dicey]

@NumberJohnny5 , thanks for responding to my question! I don't know how I missed it until now. You have a great writing style and memory for detail. That was a great story.

[Loren Ver]

@NumberJohnny5 - great name! You and your wife sound like a good team :).  Good stories too.  Poor mortgage company, they should have had their act together, you know, like it was their job.

No disassemble!

[Dicey]

More time I spend in the presence of my boss's boss - the more disappointed I am with that person. I am realizing likely unhappy I would be working in close collaboration with that person and how much my boss shields us from that person. It also explains why my boss seems defeated at times.

Oh how petty and small this upper level person is. I had worked with them on a few topics and was initially impressed but as time goes on it looks like they can't handle it and are bullying the people that answer to them for reasons unknown. Now I find out that my boss may be looking for another job.

Take the time to truly THANK your boss for what he does for you and your team.   They deserve it.

Plus, you might have a ready-made job waiting for you wherever they end up. :)

I try to explain to younger folks that they are only one sociopath away from being sick to death of their job and burnt out their career, so get that FU money lined up asap.

Completely agree.

Murphy's Law says since you don't really want the job now, it's even more likely you'll get the offer. Might be good to discuss what you've learned with your boss (while you're thanking them profusely). Something good still might come out of this, but it's great that your FU money means there's no pressure on you to accept any changes you don't want.

[Just Joe]

More time I spend in the presence of my boss's boss - the more disappointed I am with that person. I am realizing likely unhappy I would be working in close collaboration with that person and how much my boss shields us from that person. It also explains why my boss seems defeated at times.

Oh how petty and small this upper level person is. I had worked with them on a few topics and was initially impressed but as time goes on it looks like they can't handle it and are bullying the people that answer to them for reasons unknown. Now I find out that my boss may be looking for another job.

Take the time to truly THANK your boss for what he does for you and your team.   They deserve it.

Plus, you might have a ready-made job waiting for you wherever they end up. :)

I try to explain to younger folks that they are only one sociopath away from being sick to death of their job and burnt out their career, so get that FU money lined up asap.

Will do! Good idea.

[Just Joe]

Meanwhile looks like we're entering a period of keeping one's head down. Self-limiting water cooler time and web use. I have a job where I typically get done what needs done ahead of schedule due to efficiency and proficiency with the technology available to me. Might also be time to move from a PAYGO phone to more something with a data plan so I can get my music, podcasts and forums without a network log trail. Have already been living by the clock unlike some of my coworkers. Would not be surprised if the big boss suddenly start looking at people's web histories. Traditionally this has been an outfit that has been very flexible about web use, hours, etc as long as everything got done - which it has in our team.

Not sure what has changed b/c business has been similar to last year despite COVID. Budgets are similar. No layoffs. Actually hired a couple engineers.

Frustrating b/c my (our) team has long moved heaven and earth to get whatever needs to get done. Now the big boss has turned into a bully to some. Not a good sign. Not a good situation when going the extra mile isn't enough.   

Not eager to look for another employer. DW and I have a good location/routine/budget/future as we approach retirement. Maybe ten years. Lower income than some here (LCOL) and we had a later start than some. 

Okay done unloading. Feel better now.

[gaja]

A relatively weird story in running in Norwegian news now, and I'm not sure whether I agree with all decisions being made, but it feels like it might fit here:

We need a new leader for the oil fund (1 000 000 000 000 USD and counting https://www.nbim.no/). Nikolai Tangen, a Norwegian investor who has been living in UK was offered the job, but there was worry about conflicts of interest and (potential for) corruption. Part of the worry was that he owned large parts of an investment fund  and loads of other stuff, total value in the billions range. After a lot of public unrest, and the parliament voting on whether to force the central bank to stop the process, it looked like Tangen had a FU moment. Sunday he declared that he was giving away the fund to a public trust (where he won't be part of the board), and the rest of his money, between 500 and 700 million USD, he will put in a savings account in a bank at ~0 % interest.

I still don't like him, I don't think he is the type of person we need for that job and I don't trust there will be no corruption, but I have to admire the attitude. And he will basically paying to do the job; the salary is ~300 000 USD, and he will be paying ~1.5 million USD in wealth tax.
https://www.newsinenglish.no/2020/08/24/tangen-cleared-to-take-over-oil-fund/

[scottish]

Tangen seems to have some character:

“I think we can all say that Nicolai has stretched himself very far with this agreement,” Řystein Olsen, governor of Norges Bank, said at a press conference Monday evening after his bank board’s crisis meeting Monday afternoon.

“I think it’s fair to say that Řystein owes me a beer,” Tangen told reporters when it was all over. “I asked Řystein if I could put the money in Norges Bank, but I’m not allowed to do that.”

What is it that you dislike about him?

[gaja]

Tangen seems to have some character:

“I think we can all say that Nicolai has stretched himself very far with this agreement,” Řystein Olsen, governor of Norges Bank, said at a press conference Monday evening after his bank board’s crisis meeting Monday afternoon.

“I think it’s fair to say that Řystein owes me a beer,” Tangen told reporters when it was all over. “I asked Řystein if I could put the money in Norges Bank, but I’m not allowed to do that.”

What is it that you dislike about him?

Objectively:
a) He has messed up earlier and come very close to (or maybe over the limit of) corruption by inviting a lot of the most powerful people in Norway on a luxurious conference/holiday just a short time before he got the job. Whether that was really corruption or not: the head of the oil fund has to behave perfectly because we invest in companies all over the world. Today, "everyone" knows that there is no point in bribes. Rumors spreading, even if they are not true, will be costly and time consuming. The employees of the oil fund have the strictest anti corruption regulations imaginable, they can barely accept flowers if they hold a speech somewhere. So far, Tangen has not shown that he understands the role.

b) The reason we have so much money in the fund is that the population trusts that it is kept safe for them. If the oil fund manager is perceived as untrustworthy, the political will to save money might dwindle. And the Norwegian people in general have a very low trust of "rich people" (the amount of money is not very important; you can be rich, but you can't behave like a "rich person" ("riking")).


Subjectively: I like that the oil fund is boring and index based, mixed with equally boring property investments. I'm afraid Tangen will do more active investments. He has a very good track record, we might make more money, but I don't like it.

[BicycleB]

This Norwegian oil fund story is interesting. @gaja, thanks for posting your thoughts.

[Plina]

Tangen seems to have some character:

“I think we can all say that Nicolai has stretched himself very far with this agreement,” Řystein Olsen, governor of Norges Bank, said at a press conference Monday evening after his bank board’s crisis meeting Monday afternoon.

“I think it’s fair to say that Řystein owes me a beer,” Tangen told reporters when it was all over. “I asked Řystein if I could put the money in Norges Bank, but I’m not allowed to do that.”

What is it that you dislike about him?

Objectively:
a) He has messed up earlier and come very close to (or maybe over the limit of) corruption by inviting a lot of the most powerful people in Norway on a luxurious conference/holiday just a short time before he got the job. Whether that was really corruption or not: the head of the oil fund has to behave perfectly because we invest in companies all over the world. Today, "everyone" knows that there is no point in bribes. Rumors spreading, even if they are not true, will be costly and time consuming. The employees of the oil fund have the strictest anti corruption regulations imaginable, they can barely accept flowers if they hold a speech somewhere. So far, Tangen has not shown that he understands the role.

b) The reason we have so much money in the fund is that the population trusts that it is kept safe for them. If the oil fund manager is perceived as untrustworthy, the political will to save money might dwindle. And the Norwegian people in general have a very low trust of "rich people" (the amount of money is not very important; you can be rich, but you can't behave like a "rich person" ("riking")).


Subjectively: I like that the oil fund is boring and index based, mixed with equally boring property investments. I'm afraid Tangen will do more active investments. He has a very good track record, we might make more money, but I don't like it.

If he is worth billions would not the cost of the conference/holiday equal what it cost for an ordinary person to invite their friends for a party or dinner if you compare incomes and costs?

[Playing with Fire UK]

If he is worth billions would not the cost of the conference/holiday equal what it cost for an ordinary person to invite their friends for a party or dinner if you compare incomes and costs?

But that isn't the measure of the potential to bribe. Even if a gift is insignificant to give, if it is significant for the recipient then it might be enough to influence a decision. Looking like a bribe, or close to a bribe, or possibly a bribe is a problem in itself.

[gaja]

Tangen seems to have some character:

“I think we can all say that Nicolai has stretched himself very far with this agreement,” Řystein Olsen, governor of Norges Bank, said at a press conference Monday evening after his bank board’s crisis meeting Monday afternoon.

“I think it’s fair to say that Řystein owes me a beer,” Tangen told reporters when it was all over. “I asked Řystein if I could put the money in Norges Bank, but I’m not allowed to do that.”

What is it that you dislike about him?

Objectively:
a) He has messed up earlier and come very close to (or maybe over the limit of) corruption by inviting a lot of the most powerful people in Norway on a luxurious conference/holiday just a short time before he got the job. Whether that was really corruption or not: the head of the oil fund has to behave perfectly because we invest in companies all over the world. Today, "everyone" knows that there is no point in bribes. Rumors spreading, even if they are not true, will be costly and time consuming. The employees of the oil fund have the strictest anti corruption regulations imaginable, they can barely accept flowers if they hold a speech somewhere. So far, Tangen has not shown that he understands the role.

b) The reason we have so much money in the fund is that the population trusts that it is kept safe for them. If the oil fund manager is perceived as untrustworthy, the political will to save money might dwindle. And the Norwegian people in general have a very low trust of "rich people" (the amount of money is not very important; you can be rich, but you can't behave like a "rich person" ("riking")).


Subjectively: I like that the oil fund is boring and index based, mixed with equally boring property investments. I'm afraid Tangen will do more active investments. He has a very good track record, we might make more money, but I don't like it.

If he is worth billions would not the cost of the conference/holiday equal what it cost for an ordinary person to invite their friends for a party or dinner if you compare incomes and costs?

There are to ways to interpret it, and neither is good:

a) Tangen is an incredibly naive rich man who doesn't understand that inviting leading politicians, the current head of the oil fund, and loads of other powerful people, to an all expense paid luxury weekend is highly problematic. If he really is that naive, how can he be the leader of the oil fund, handling a trillion USD, and interacting with people who will buy him beers and then mention "we would like you to do us a favor, though"? Several of the attendees have had to make public apologies after the event - I doubt they are very happy about that.

b) Tangen knew very well what he did. He wanted more influence and power, and he invited just the right people to a weekend of luxury to get the right connections, and be able to contact them later for favors. That is corruption, and unacceptable. The argument for this interpretation, is emails surfacing where he has contacted people who were at the event to get information and advice about the available job as oil fund manager.

The third aspect of this: The reason we have a high level of trust in the Norwegian society is that we try to keep everyone on a level playing field. If I call the mayor of my city, I believe he will give me just as much attention as if a person with a lot of money in the bank calls him. Tangen showed that this belief is not right, since I highly doubt those on his guest list would attend if I threw together a barbecue in the garden and invited them to hang out. But hey, maybe I should try?

[Plina]

If he is worth billions would not the cost of the conference/holiday equal what it cost for an ordinary person to invite their friends for a party or dinner if you compare incomes and costs?

But that isn't the measure of the potential to bribe. Even if a gift is insignificant to give, if it is significant for the recipient then it might be enough to influence a decision. Looking like a bribe, or close to a bribe, or possibly a bribe is a problem in itself.

I would say it depended on the invitation list. If they are his "friends" it would make it difficult to make it a bribe. If they on the other hand are to him unknown politicians, government workers etc then it would not look good.

Tangen seems to have some character:

“I think we can all say that Nicolai has stretched himself very far with this agreement,” Řystein Olsen, governor of Norges Bank, said at a press conference Monday evening after his bank board’s crisis meeting Monday afternoon.

“I think it’s fair to say that Řystein owes me a beer,” Tangen told reporters when it was all over. “I asked Řystein if I could put the money in Norges Bank, but I’m not allowed to do that.”

What is it that you dislike about him?

Objectively:
a) He has messed up earlier and come very close to (or maybe over the limit of) corruption by inviting a lot of the most powerful people in Norway on a luxurious conference/holiday just a short time before he got the job. Whether that was really corruption or not: the head of the oil fund has to behave perfectly because we invest in companies all over the world. Today, "everyone" knows that there is no point in bribes. Rumors spreading, even if they are not true, will be costly and time consuming. The employees of the oil fund have the strictest anti corruption regulations imaginable, they can barely accept flowers if they hold a speech somewhere. So far, Tangen has not shown that he understands the role.

b) The reason we have so much money in the fund is that the population trusts that it is kept safe for them. If the oil fund manager is perceived as untrustworthy, the political will to save money might dwindle. And the Norwegian people in general have a very low trust of "rich people" (the amount of money is not very important; you can be rich, but you can't behave like a "rich person" ("riking")).


Subjectively: I like that the oil fund is boring and index based, mixed with equally boring property investments. I'm afraid Tangen will do more active investments. He has a very good track record, we might make more money, but I don't like it.

If he is worth billions would not the cost of the conference/holiday equal what it cost for an ordinary person to invite their friends for a party or dinner if you compare incomes and costs?

There are to ways to interpret it, and neither is good:

a) Tangen is an incredibly naive rich man who doesn't understand that inviting leading politicians, the current head of the oil fund, and loads of other powerful people, to an all expense paid luxury weekend is highly problematic. If he really is that naive, how can he be the leader of the oil fund, handling a trillion USD, and interacting with people who will buy him beers and then mention "we would like you to do us a favor, though"? Several of the attendees have had to make public apologies after the event - I doubt they are very happy about that.

b) Tangen knew very well what he did. He wanted more influence and power, and he invited just the right people to a weekend of luxury to get the right connections, and be able to contact them later for favors. That is corruption, and unacceptable. The argument for this interpretation, is emails surfacing where he has contacted people who were at the event to get information and advice about the available job as oil fund manager.

The third aspect of this: The reason we have a high level of trust in the Norwegian society is that we try to keep everyone on a level playing field. If I call the mayor of my city, I believe he will give me just as much attention as if a person with a lot of money in the bank calls him. Tangen showed that this belief is not right, since I highly doubt those on his guest list would attend if I threw together a barbecue in the garden and invited them to hang out. But hey, maybe I should try?

I would say it is more problematic that the leading politicians and the head of the fund participated in the conference/weekend. Even if Tangen was naive or knew what he did, they should have never accepted the invitation. That is for me even worse as they should have been aware of the rules. I have worked for government for years before going private and I think it is troublesome to see how certain people in the government accept lunches from companies. That was not ok, where I worked. When it comes to other influential people, it would depend on their relationship or their companies relationship if it should be seen as problematic.

I live in Sweden I can say that I have no illusions that I will get the same treatment from the person in the highest political office in my city that the CEO of Volvo would get or an otherwise more known person. Money talks in to many cases.

[gaja]

He was "friends" with some of them, but not all. And if he just was another rich financial guy, I would say the blame was completely on the people attending. But now he wants to be on the bureaucratic side of the table, and therefore it reflects badly on him that he created that mess.

As to the CEO of Volvo vs me: what Volvo says is important for a lot of people and the economy of the municipality. So it makes sense that he would get more time with the mayor than me. But the spouse of the Volvo CEO and I should be treated the same, although he or she probably has a lot more money in the bank. The money in itself should not matter.

On the issue of equality, there is a big difference between Norway and Sweden in mentality. You still have nobility and a long tradition of powerful families. When we were under Sweden and Denmark they tried introducing nobility to Norway, and we hated it. So as soon as we were free enough to make a constitution, we banned it. The king was chosen to avoid war (with a Danish prince on the throne, Sweden was less likely to attack). We expect the royal family to behave just like the rest of us. There was for instance a big shift in public opinion about dismantling the monarchy when the we learned that the princess had transferred from a public to a private school.

This doesn't mean Norway has less of this type of corruption than Sweden, just that the public reacts more negatively when something comes out in the media, and it is even more important that the leaders are perceived as part of "us common folks", not "those rich snobs".

[Plina]

He was "friends" with some of them, but not all. And if he just was another rich financial guy, I would say the blame was completely on the people attending. But now he wants to be on the bureaucratic side of the table, and therefore it reflects badly on him that he created that mess.

As to the CEO of Volvo vs me: what Volvo says is important for a lot of people and the economy of the municipality. So it makes sense that he would get more time with the mayor than me. But the spouse of the Volvo CEO and I should be treated the same, although he or she probably has a lot more money in the bank. The money in itself should not matter.

On the issue of equality, there is a big difference between Norway and Sweden in mentality. You still have nobility and a long tradition of powerful families. When we were under Sweden and Denmark they tried introducing nobility to Norway, and we hated it. So as soon as we were free enough to make a constitution, we banned it. The king was chosen to avoid war (with a Danish prince on the throne, Sweden was less likely to attack). We expect the royal family to behave just like the rest of us. There was for instance a big shift in public opinion about dismantling the monarchy when the we learned that the princess had transferred from a public to a private school.

This doesn't mean Norway has less of this type of corruption than Sweden, just that the public reacts more negatively when something comes out in the media, and it is even more important that the leaders are perceived as part of "us common folks", not "those rich snobs".

I agree that you should be treated the same but I would guess that she probably still would get preferential treatment because the mayor would not want to risk get on the bad side of the CEO. But hey, I am bit cynical when it comes to stuff like that. And I am not saying that he has not any blame in it.

I would say that the nobility in itself doesn't matter but the money and land that comes with it. We have some powerful enterprising families. Although, they seem to be pretty toned down and not flashy. It is interesting to hear about the differences. Our royal family is expected to behave more "royally" although Victoria is seen as a pretty sympathetic and ordinary person. I believe the acceptance for the royal family would be pretty low IF Victoria was not the next in line. I don't give much her siblings and their spouses. Most of the people like her even if they don't care about the monarchy.

[talltexan]

A relatively weird story in running in Norwegian news now, and I'm not sure whether I agree with all decisions being made, but it feels like it might fit here:

We need a new leader for the oil fund (1 000 000 000 000 USD and counting https://www.nbim.no/). Nikolai Tangen, a Norwegian investor who has been living in UK was offered the job, but there was worry about conflicts of interest and (potential for) corruption. Part of the worry was that he owned large parts of an investment fund  and loads of other stuff, total value in the billions range. After a lot of public unrest, and the parliament voting on whether to force the central bank to stop the process, it looked like Tangen had a FU moment. Sunday he declared that he was giving away the fund to a public trust (where he won't be part of the board), and the rest of his money, between 500 and 700 million USD, he will put in a savings account in a bank at ~0 % interest.

I still don't like him, I don't think he is the type of person we need for that job and I don't trust there will be no corruption, but I have to admire the attitude. And he will basically paying to do the job; the salary is ~300 000 USD, and he will be paying ~1.5 million USD in wealth tax.
https://www.newsinenglish.no/2020/08/24/tangen-cleared-to-take-over-oil-fund/

I care about ethics and all, but wouldn't it be fine for him to take the $700 million and at least buy government bonds?

[gaja]

A relatively weird story in running in Norwegian news now, and I'm not sure whether I agree with all decisions being made, but it feels like it might fit here:

We need a new leader for the oil fund (1 000 000 000 000 USD and counting https://www.nbim.no/). Nikolai Tangen, a Norwegian investor who has been living in UK was offered the job, but there was worry about conflicts of interest and (potential for) corruption. Part of the worry was that he owned large parts of an investment fund  and loads of other stuff, total value in the billions range. After a lot of public unrest, and the parliament voting on whether to force the central bank to stop the process, it looked like Tangen had a FU moment. Sunday he declared that he was giving away the fund to a public trust (where he won't be part of the board), and the rest of his money, between 500 and 700 million USD, he will put in a savings account in a bank at ~0 % interest.

I still don't like him, I don't think he is the type of person we need for that job and I don't trust there will be no corruption, but I have to admire the attitude. And he will basically paying to do the job; the salary is ~300 000 USD, and he will be paying ~1.5 million USD in wealth tax.
https://www.newsinenglish.no/2020/08/24/tangen-cleared-to-take-over-oil-fund/

I care about ethics and all, but wouldn't it be fine for him to take the $700 million and at least buy government bonds?

Sure, and he will probably find some properties or similar to invest in, but in the heat of the moment I can imagine he didn't want to discuss any more details. Just fuck the nagging about investments; look, everything is in cash now.

[Montecarlo]

I really enjoyed reading @Plina  ‘s story!

I saw the references to 40.0ers earlier in the thread.  Admittedly I’ve only worked for one company coming out of the military, but I don’t keep a time sheet at all.  How common is it for salaried employees to keep time sheets?

[SwordGuy]

I really enjoyed reading @Plina  ‘s story!

I saw the references to 40.0ers earlier in the thread.  Admittedly I’ve only worked for one company coming out of the military, but I don’t keep a time sheet at all.  How common is it for salaried employees to keep time sheets?

All the defense contractors I worked for pretended I had a salaried job but I was an hourly worker.   If I didn't account for 40 hours I didn't get my full salary.    Scummy but true.

Now, the timesheet had to be kept because the company billed by the hour, so they had to have the the documentation on the hours worked.   Same when I worked as a salaried consultant for private industry (where I actually was salaried).

[Alternatepriorities]

I really enjoyed reading @Plina  ‘s story!

I saw the references to 40.0ers earlier in the thread.  Admittedly I’ve only worked for one company coming out of the military, but I don’t keep a time sheet at all.  How common is it for salaried employees to keep time sheets?

All the defense contractors I worked for pretended I had a salaried job but I was an hourly worker.   If I didn't account for 40 hours I didn't get my full salary.    Scummy but true.

Now, the timesheet had to be kept because the company billed by the hour, so they had to have the the documentation on the hours worked.   Same when I worked as a salaried consultant for private industry (where I actually was salaried).

Same here. And it’s important to note that billing more than 40 hours never meant getting paid more than my standard salary. At least until I became a self employed contractor and billed myself out hourly.

[SwordGuy]

I really enjoyed reading @Plina  ‘s story!

I saw the references to 40.0ers earlier in the thread.  Admittedly I’ve only worked for one company coming out of the military, but I don’t keep a time sheet at all.  How common is it for salaried employees to keep time sheets?

All the defense contractors I worked for pretended I had a salaried job but I was an hourly worker.   If I didn't account for 40 hours I didn't get my full salary.    Scummy but true.

Now, the timesheet had to be kept because the company billed by the hour, so they had to have the the documentation on the hours worked.   Same when I worked as a salaried consultant for private industry (where I actually was salaried).

Same here. And it’s important to note that billing more than 40 hours never meant getting paid more than my standard salary. At least until I became a self employed contractor and billed myself out hourly.

Yes!!   The worst of both worlds!

[LightTripper]

I'm a consultant and get billed out by the hour.  I do however get a bonus which pretty much reflects what I billed out, how much of it (and others' revenues) I brought in, and how much of others' time/revenues I managed. I think that's pretty standard for consulting, so the time sheet is really important!

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

[Sibley]

I really enjoyed reading @Plina  ‘s story!

I saw the references to 40.0ers earlier in the thread.  Admittedly I’ve only worked for one company coming out of the military, but I don’t keep a time sheet at all.  How common is it for salaried employees to keep time sheets?

All the defense contractors I worked for pretended I had a salaried job but I was an hourly worker.   If I didn't account for 40 hours I didn't get my full salary.    Scummy but true.

Now, the timesheet had to be kept because the company billed by the hour, so they had to have the the documentation on the hours worked.   Same when I worked as a salaried consultant for private industry (where I actually was salaried).

Same here. And it’s important to note that billing more than 40 hours never meant getting paid more than my standard salary. At least until I became a self employed contractor and billed myself out hourly.

Yes!!   The worst of both worlds!

Are these companies subject to State labor laws? Because if so, that's illegal.

[Alternatepriorities]

I really enjoyed reading @Plina  ‘s story!

I saw the references to 40.0ers earlier in the thread.  Admittedly I’ve only worked for one company coming out of the military, but I don’t keep a time sheet at all.  How common is it for salaried employees to keep time sheets?

All the defense contractors I worked for pretended I had a salaried job but I was an hourly worker.   If I didn't account for 40 hours I didn't get my full salary.    Scummy but true.

Now, the timesheet had to be kept because the company billed by the hour, so they had to have the the documentation on the hours worked.   Same when I worked as a salaried consultant for private industry (where I actually was salaried).

Same here. And it’s important to note that billing more than 40 hours never meant getting paid more than my standard salary. At least until I became a self employed contractor and billed myself out hourly.

Yes!!   The worst of both worlds!

Are these companies subject to State labor laws? Because if so, that's illegal.

In my examples at least it was not "required" that I work more than 40 hours a week. The experience sticks with me because I grew up very blue collar and have never fully shifted away from the hourly rate mind set. To me working unpaid overtime meant my hourly rate was decreasing. I asked other salaried people about that and they all said "salaried means I'm paid to do this job and how many hours it takes doesn't matter". That answer bothered me because finishing the job in 30 hours wasn't allowed. I was able to flex my time all over the place at the first company so I'd have 6 hours one day and 9 two other days and no one cared. That was the company from the previous epic FU money story...

Over the years I've come to the conclusion that the different ways people relate time and money explains much of difference in how we relate to money. It's a lot harder to spend wildly or be super generous when it feels like I've literally trades "X" hours of my life for the money I'm spending/giving.

[Sibley]

I really enjoyed reading @Plina  ‘s story!

I saw the references to 40.0ers earlier in the thread.  Admittedly I’ve only worked for one company coming out of the military, but I don’t keep a time sheet at all.  How common is it for salaried employees to keep time sheets?

All the defense contractors I worked for pretended I had a salaried job but I was an hourly worker.   If I didn't account for 40 hours I didn't get my full salary.    Scummy but true.

Now, the timesheet had to be kept because the company billed by the hour, so they had to have the the documentation on the hours worked.   Same when I worked as a salaried consultant for private industry (where I actually was salaried).

Same here. And it’s important to note that billing more than 40 hours never meant getting paid more than my standard salary. At least until I became a self employed contractor and billed myself out hourly.

Yes!!   The worst of both worlds!

Are these companies subject to State labor laws? Because if so, that's illegal.

In my examples at least it was not "required" that I work more than 40 hours a week. The experience sticks with me because I grew up very blue collar and have never fully shifted away from the hourly rate mind set. To me working unpaid overtime meant my hourly rate was decreasing. I asked other salaried people about that and they all said "salaried means I'm paid to do this job and how many hours it takes doesn't matter". That answer bothered me because finishing the job in 30 hours wasn't allowed. I was able to flex my time all over the place at the first company so I'd have 6 hours one day and 9 two other days and no one cared. That was the company from the previous epic FU money story...

Over the years I've come to the conclusion that the different ways people relate time and money explains much of difference in how we relate to money. It's a lot harder to spend wildly or be super generous when it feels like I've literally trades "X" hours of my life for the money I'm spending/giving.

You're not wrong, but if you're classified as salary, and you work less than 40 hours, then it's generally illegal to dock your pay if someone works less. That's part of the justification for not requiring overtime pay for working more than 40 hours.

[markbike528CBX]

I really enjoyed reading @Plina  ‘s story!

I saw the references to 40.0ers earlier in the thread.  Admittedly I’ve only worked for one company coming out of the military, but I don’t keep a time sheet at all.  How common is it for salaried employees to keep time sheets?

All the defense contractors I worked for pretended I had a salaried job but I was an hourly worker.   If I didn't account for 40 hours I didn't get my full salary.    Scummy but true.

Now, the timesheet had to be kept because the company billed by the hour, so they had to have the the documentation on the hours worked.   Same when I worked as a salaried consultant for private industry (where I actually was salaried).

Same here. And it’s important to note that billing more than 40 hours never meant getting paid more than my standard salary. At least until I became a self employed contractor and billed myself out hourly.

Yes!!   The worst of both worlds!

Are these companies subject to State labor laws? Because if so, that's illegal.

In my examples at least it was not "required" that I work more than 40 hours a week. The experience sticks with me because I grew up very blue collar and have never fully shifted away from the hourly rate mind set. To me working unpaid overtime meant my hourly rate was decreasing. I asked other salaried people about that and they all said "salaried means I'm paid to do this job and how many hours it takes doesn't matter". That answer bothered me because finishing the job in 30 hours wasn't allowed. I was able to flex my time all over the place at the first company so I'd have 6 hours one day and 9 two other days and no one cared. That was the company from the previous epic FU money story...

Over the years I've come to the conclusion that the different ways people relate time and money explains much of difference in how we relate to money. It's a lot harder to spend wildly or be super generous when it feels like I've literally trades "X" hours of my life for the money I'm spending/giving.

You're not wrong, but if you're classified as salary, and you work less than 40 hours, then it's generally illegal to dock your pay if someone works less. That's part of the justification for not requiring overtime pay for working more than 40 hours.

Yep, illegal to dock pay, but if you have a "butts in seats" sort of boss, you'll get short-shrifted on pay raises, promotions, and an extra dose of hassle.

At SemiBigCorp, we had to jump through lots of hoops if we wanted to get paid overtime when working at the home or other office.  Even out in the field, it had to be special circumstances (SemiBigCorp was in bankruptcy at the time though).

My understanding of US federal government is timesheets are _required_ for billing the government, but not related to salaried pay. 

[Alternatepriorities]

I really enjoyed reading @Plina  ‘s story!

I saw the references to 40.0ers earlier in the thread.  Admittedly I’ve only worked for one company coming out of the military, but I don’t keep a time sheet at all.  How common is it for salaried employees to keep time sheets?

All the defense contractors I worked for pretended I had a salaried job but I was an hourly worker.   If I didn't account for 40 hours I didn't get my full salary.    Scummy but true.

Now, the timesheet had to be kept because the company billed by the hour, so they had to have the the documentation on the hours worked.   Same when I worked as a salaried consultant for private industry (where I actually was salaried).

Same here. And it’s important to note that billing more than 40 hours never meant getting paid more than my standard salary. At least until I became a self employed contractor and billed myself out hourly.

Yes!!   The worst of both worlds!

Are these companies subject to State labor laws? Because if so, that's illegal.

In my examples at least it was not "required" that I work more than 40 hours a week. The experience sticks with me because I grew up very blue collar and have never fully shifted away from the hourly rate mind set. To me working unpaid overtime meant my hourly rate was decreasing. I asked other salaried people about that and they all said "salaried means I'm paid to do this job and how many hours it takes doesn't matter". That answer bothered me because finishing the job in 30 hours wasn't allowed. I was able to flex my time all over the place at the first company so I'd have 6 hours one day and 9 two other days and no one cared. That was the company from the previous epic FU money story...

Over the years I've come to the conclusion that the different ways people relate time and money explains much of difference in how we relate to money. It's a lot harder to spend wildly or be super generous when it feels like I've literally trades "X" hours of my life for the money I'm spending/giving.

You're not wrong, but if you're classified as salary, and you work less than 40 hours, then it's generally illegal to dock your pay if someone works less. That's part of the justification for not requiring overtime pay for working more than 40 hours.

I'd be a lot more likely to contest the issue today. Another reason to have FU money... Or at least a polite "no thank you" money.

[slipslop]

Perhaps more in the “polite ‘no thank you’” than the “epic FU”, but still feeling pretty Epic right now.


Business Clients: We need X, built in this way.
Yours truly: This is pretty expensive. You could consider alternative A, which gets you 80% of what you need in about 20% of the time, or alternative B, which gets you 95% of what you need in 40% of the time.
Business Client Director: No. We need X, built in this way.
Yours truly to my managers: Thats fine. Based on historical time and the best numbers and research we have, we can have this ready for you between August and November of 2021.
My managers: Yikes! They’ll never go for that. We will present that we can have it between March and April of 2021.
Yours truly: Based on history and everything that we know, that is unlikely to be true. Remember that there are alternatives that are realistic though less complete, in that timeline.
My managers to my director: We can have it done between March and April of 2021.
My managers and director to Business Client Director: We can have it done between March and April of 2021.
Business Client Director: We need it done by December 2020.
My managers to Business Client Director: We can revisit alternative A, which is feasible in that time frame, or alternative B, which can be done in just a few additional months.
Business Client Director: No. We need X, built in this way. By December 2020.
My Director: You will have it.
My Managers: Okay, we understand. You will have it.
My Managers to me: We will have to have it done by December 2020 in this way. Here is a plan that, if we execute perfectly an a way that we have never done before, we hope will get us done by December 2020.
Yours truly: With this plan, the delivery date calculates out to June of 2021? That’s an improvement, but…
My Managers: Well, you will work something out.

Yours truly, a day later: I have just applied for these other internal positions. I hope you will support my transfer.

[okits]

Perhaps more in the “polite ‘no thank you’” than the “epic FU”, but still feeling pretty Epic right now.

Face-palm for everyone involved except you!  🤦🏻‍♀️  Good for you for consistently offering realistic timelines.

Yours truly, a day later: I have just applied for these other internal positions. I hope you will support my transfer.

If there's any danger whatsoever that your current bosses would try to block an internal move, you'd do well to look externally, too.

[slipslop]

Yours truly, a day later: I have just applied for these other internal positions. I hope you will support my transfer.

If there's any danger whatsoever that your current bosses would try to block an internal move, you'd do well to look externally, too.

I have applied to more external positions than internal. But, unlike the internal positions, I don't have to tell my bosses about the external positions until my departure is imminent.

[okits]

Yours truly, a day later: I have just applied for these other internal positions. I hope you will support my transfer.

If there's any danger whatsoever that your current bosses would try to block an internal move, you'd do well to look externally, too.

I have applied to more external positions than internal. But, unlike the internal positions, I don't have to tell my bosses about the external positions until my departure is imminent.

Good job!  👍 I hope you land someplace good before current place squeezes you too hard for this unrealistic project.

[scottish]

I know you're planning on leaving but...

All these managers.    Do they actually help manage the project, or do they just give you objectives and tell you to figure it out?

If you can get them involved in running the project it may help with delivery.   Presumably their ass is on the line as well as yours.   

[BicycleB]

Perhaps more in the “polite ‘no thank you’” than the “epic FU”, but still feeling pretty Epic right now...

Yours truly, a day later: I have just applied for these other internal positions. I hope you will support my transfer.

(claps) Well done, @slipslop!

[NorthernMonkey]

I really enjoyed reading @Plina  ‘s story!

I saw the references to 40.0ers earlier in the thread.  Admittedly I’ve only worked for one company coming out of the military, but I don’t keep a time sheet at all.  How common is it for salaried employees to keep time sheets?

Where I work, all the guys that report into me are salaried, and we keep time sheets. They are used to work out cost allocation of engineering time to projects (each hour of engineer time worked on a project gets billed $x to that project).

They arent used to keep track of how much work people are doing since theyre the most hopeless way of measuring productivity. Its easy to record 12 hours working in one day, but spend the whole day watching netflix, and equally to work your ass off for 4 hours and get loads done.

[engineerjourney]

I really enjoyed reading @Plina  ‘s story!

I saw the references to 40.0ers earlier in the thread.  Admittedly I’ve only worked for one company coming out of the military, but I don’t keep a time sheet at all.  How common is it for salaried employees to keep time sheets?

All the defense contractors I worked for pretended I had a salaried job but I was an hourly worker.   If I didn't account for 40 hours I didn't get my full salary.    Scummy but true.

Now, the timesheet had to be kept because the company billed by the hour, so they had to have the the documentation on the hours worked.   Same when I worked as a salaried consultant for private industry (where I actually was salaried).

Same here. And it’s important to note that billing more than 40 hours never meant getting paid more than my standard salary. At least until I became a self employed contractor and billed myself out hourly.

Yes!!   The worst of both worlds!

Are these companies subject to State labor laws? Because if so, that's illegal.

In my examples at least it was not "required" that I work more than 40 hours a week. The experience sticks with me because I grew up very blue collar and have never fully shifted away from the hourly rate mind set. To me working unpaid overtime meant my hourly rate was decreasing. I asked other salaried people about that and they all said "salaried means I'm paid to do this job and how many hours it takes doesn't matter". That answer bothered me because finishing the job in 30 hours wasn't allowed. I was able to flex my time all over the place at the first company so I'd have 6 hours one day and 9 two other days and no one cared. That was the company from the previous epic FU money story...

Over the years I've come to the conclusion that the different ways people relate time and money explains much of difference in how we relate to money. It's a lot harder to spend wildly or be super generous when it feels like I've literally trades "X" hours of my life for the money I'm spending/giving.

You're not wrong, but if you're classified as salary, and you work less than 40 hours, then it's generally illegal to dock your pay if someone works less. That's part of the justification for not requiring overtime pay for working more than 40 hours.

They don't dock your pay, they just make you use your PTO or vacation or sick time if you go under 40 which is legal from my reading.  And being salary exempt (most white collar salary) means they don't have to pay you for overtime. 

[rockstache]

Actually...I don't think that's legal. ^^^ It might be stricter in my state (most things are), but generally if they treat you as an hourly employee, then they have to classify you as one. The guidance we were given by the AGs office is that salaried employees should always take their PTO in 4 or 8 hour increments. If they're being required to put in 1-2 hour vacation or sick time increments, then they're hourly employees and need to be classified that way. It's one of the things that falls in favor of the employee, not the employer, so to keep from running afoul of the law, they should not be topping off people's under 40 with vacation or sick. JMHO

[Sugaree]

Actually...I don't think that's legal. ^^^ It might be stricter in my state (most things are), but generally if they treat you as an hourly employee, then they have to classify you as one. The guidance we were given by the AGs office is that salaried employees should always take their PTO in 4 or 8 hour increments. If they're being required to put in 1-2 hour vacation or sick time increments, then they're hourly employees and need to be classified that way. It's one of the things that falls in favor of the employee, not the employer, so to keep from running afoul of the law, they should not be topping off people's under 40 with vacation or sick. JMHO

This has been something that I've been going through at work.  I've been (probably rightly) classified as exempt for the last 11 years.  The new HR specialist came in and audited my status and decided that I should be non-exempt.  I got a nice chunk of backpay for 300-400 hours of backpay over the last 2 years, but I'm not convinced that the next HR specialist won't reverse that and ask for it back. 

[dcheesi]

Actually...I don't think that's legal. ^^^ It might be stricter in my state (most things are), but generally if they treat you as an hourly employee, then they have to classify you as one. The guidance we were given by the AGs office is that salaried employees should always take their PTO in 4 or 8 hour increments. If they're being required to put in 1-2 hour vacation or sick time increments, then they're hourly employees and need to be classified that way. It's one of the things that falls in favor of the employee, not the employer, so to keep from running afoul of the law, they should not be topping off people's under 40 with vacation or sick. JMHO

This has been something that I've been going through at work.  I've been (probably rightly) classified as exempt for the last 11 years.  The new HR specialist came in and audited my status and decided that I should be non-exempt.  I got a nice chunk of backpay for 300-400 hours of backpay over the last 2 years, but I'm not convinced that the next HR specialist won't reverse that and ask for it back.

Same thing happened to a friend of mine; someone made a labor complaint, and next thing you know he and bunch of other people in professional positions were reclassified as hourly. There's a big difference between what companies get away with (most of the time), and what's actually legal. And sometimes it's a case by case thing.

[Plina]

I really enjoyed reading @Plina  ‘s story!

Thanks @Montecarlo!

I had my first real workday at the new job today. Looking good so far. :) I started it last week with a conference at a spa.

I visited my former job last Monday to return my computer etc. We had an akward 45 minutes coffee and cake farewell, were I told the happy news about my new workplace. My former boss concluded twice that she thought the job would fit me well and I got a outdoor plant, that weighs about 5 kilos as a farewell gift. Considering that it was a pain in the ass to get home when you don't use public transport I was pretty close to dumping it in the closest trash can but used the bike service to get it home. I will consider the 5 months pay that they paid as a nice farewell gift! My guess is that 1-2 of my colleagues will also be leaving within 1-2 years. I happened to arrive at the end of a meeting and one of my colleagues were clearly frustrated with the lack of progress and she saw the results of opposing the boss.

[mm1970]

Perhaps more in the “polite ‘no thank you’” than the “epic FU”, but still feeling pretty Epic right now.


Business Clients: We need X, built in this way.
Yours truly: This is pretty expensive. You could consider alternative A, which gets you 80% of what you need in about 20% of the time, or alternative B, which gets you 95% of what you need in 40% of the time.
Business Client Director: No. We need X, built in this way.
Yours truly to my managers: Thats fine. Based on historical time and the best numbers and research we have, we can have this ready for you between August and November of 2021.
My managers: Yikes! They’ll never go for that. We will present that we can have it between March and April of 2021.
Yours truly: Based on history and everything that we know, that is unlikely to be true. Remember that there are alternatives that are realistic though less complete, in that timeline.
My managers to my director: We can have it done between March and April of 2021.
My managers and director to Business Client Director: We can have it done between March and April of 2021.
Business Client Director: We need it done by December 2020.
My managers to Business Client Director: We can revisit alternative A, which is feasible in that time frame, or alternative B, which can be done in just a few additional months.
Business Client Director: No. We need X, built in this way. By December 2020.
My Director: You will have it.
My Managers: Okay, we understand. You will have it.
My Managers to me: We will have to have it done by December 2020 in this way. Here is a plan that, if we execute perfectly an a way that we have never done before, we hope will get us done by December 2020.
Yours truly: With this plan, the delivery date calculates out to June of 2021? That’s an improvement, but…
My Managers: Well, you will work something out.

Yours truly, a day later: I have just applied for these other internal positions. I hope you will support my transfer.

I don't know how I missed this.

This is my life.  Our company got into an agreement with another company with milestones for four projects built into the calendar for 2-3 years.

Not a single milestone is/was achievable based on how long it takes to actually build things.  Not a one.  OH, and 3 of the projects had the same damn due date, and are competing for all the same equipment.  Really.

I'm the program manager, who is always telling... everyone...here's the schedule but we won't meet it... lather, rinse, repeat for 4 projects for 3 years...

[Sugaree]

Actually...I don't think that's legal. ^^^ It might be stricter in my state (most things are), but generally if they treat you as an hourly employee, then they have to classify you as one. The guidance we were given by the AGs office is that salaried employees should always take their PTO in 4 or 8 hour increments. If they're being required to put in 1-2 hour vacation or sick time increments, then they're hourly employees and need to be classified that way. It's one of the things that falls in favor of the employee, not the employer, so to keep from running afoul of the law, they should not be topping off people's under 40 with vacation or sick. JMHO

This has been something that I've been going through at work.  I've been (probably rightly) classified as exempt for the last 11 years.  The new HR specialist came in and audited my status and decided that I should be non-exempt.  I got a nice chunk of backpay for 300-400 hours of backpay over the last 2 years, but I'm not convinced that the next HR specialist won't reverse that and ask for it back.

Same thing happened to a friend of mine; someone made a labor complaint, and next thing you know he and bunch of other people in professional positions were reclassified as hourly. There's a big difference between what companies get away with (most of the time), and what's actually legal. And sometimes it's a case by case thing.

I'll be honest and say that I'm pretty sure the original HR specialist had it right and I should have been exempt as a computer worker.  I fall into that really narrow definition of computer worker that existed when the FLSA was written.  My co-workers who are system admins and network admins have always been coded non-exempt because they didn't write code.   

[Alternatepriorities]

Perhaps more in the “polite ‘no thank you’” than the “epic FU”, but still feeling pretty Epic right now.


Business Clients: We need X, built in this way.
Yours truly: This is pretty expensive. You could consider alternative A, which gets you 80% of what you need in about 20% of the time, or alternative B, which gets you 95% of what you need in 40% of the time.
Business Client Director: No. We need X, built in this way.
Yours truly to my managers: Thats fine. Based on historical time and the best numbers and research we have, we can have this ready for you between August and November of 2021.
My managers: Yikes! They’ll never go for that. We will present that we can have it between March and April of 2021.
Yours truly: Based on history and everything that we know, that is unlikely to be true. Remember that there are alternatives that are realistic though less complete, in that timeline.
My managers to my director: We can have it done between March and April of 2021.
My managers and director to Business Client Director: We can have it done between March and April of 2021.
Business Client Director: We need it done by December 2020.
My managers to Business Client Director: We can revisit alternative A, which is feasible in that time frame, or alternative B, which can be done in just a few additional months.
Business Client Director: No. We need X, built in this way. By December 2020.
My Director: You will have it.
My Managers: Okay, we understand. You will have it.
My Managers to me: We will have to have it done by December 2020 in this way. Here is a plan that, if we execute perfectly an a way that we have never done before, we hope will get us done by December 2020.
Yours truly: With this plan, the delivery date calculates out to June of 2021? That’s an improvement, but…
My Managers: Well, you will work something out.

Yours truly, a day later: I have just applied for these other internal positions. I hope you will support my transfer.

I don't know how I missed this.

This is my life.  Our company got into an agreement with another company with milestones for four projects built into the calendar for 2-3 years.

Not a single milestone is/was achievable based on how long it takes to actually build things.  Not a one.  OH, and 3 of the projects had the same damn due date, and are competing for all the same equipment.  Really.

I'm the program manager, who is always telling... everyone...here's the schedule but we won't meet it... lather, rinse, repeat for 4 projects for 3 years...

It was trying to meet those impossible deadlines as the lead engineer that drove me towards FIRE before I found MMM and had a word for it. There is nothing like sitting in a meeting listening to the supper optimistic promises being made and knowing it would fall to me to make it happen if it were possible. Oddly enough after I left that job I had a conversation with the ridiculously optimistic VP as friends and found the endless optimism really encouraging... It feels very different when it isn't my job to engineer their dreams into reality.