Fear that I might have been fired from work due to reporting pain in leg

Morgans

jackboy wrote: »

The company did not behave well. However, the op needs a job, the company does not need the op, he can be quickly replaced. When you start a job the balance of power is with the company. After a year the employee has a lot more power. This is just the reality that employees should base their actions on.

Also, having a masters degree stopped being special a long time ago.

Yes, if you are one of those who do not value yourself and expect your employer to exploit you and your need for a wage. It is why so many people are unhappy in their jobs and expect to be unhappy in their jobs. "Bosses and the job is sh1te but what are you going to do about it". Shrug. If you are desperate for money, then allow yourself to be taken advantage of in that way. (Not sure thats the case here, but its the attitude of many blaming the OP)

Having a masters degree still shows that the person can research, write and study. Not essential for all jobs, but at least shows that the person has some ability in that area. That it is in science rather than arts or business suggests thats the field he is interested in. However, how much it counts when moving pallettes, Im not sure.

In general, hiring someone with those interests and putting him in a role with no obvious connection to those interests means that you will be hiring again for the position soon. Either you or the employee will find out the mismatch. Why waste everyones time?

Morgans

Morgans wrote: »

Yes, if you are one of those who do not value yourself and expect your employer to exploit you and your need for a wage. It is why so many people are unhappy in their jobs and expect to be unhappy in their jobs. "Bosses and the job is sh1te but what are you going to do about it". Shrug. If you are desperate for money, then allow yourself to be taken advantage of in that way. (Not sure thats the case here, but its the attitude of many blaming the OP)

Having a masters degree still shows that the person can research, write and study. Not essential for all jobs, but at least shows that the person has some ability in that area. That it is in science rather than arts or business suggests thats the field he is interested in. However, how much it counts when moving pallettes, Im not sure.

In general, hiring someone with those interests and putting him in a role with no obvious connection to those interests means that you will be hiring again for the position soon. Either you or the employee will find out the mismatch. Why waste everyones time?

Your employer pays your wages, you do the work. Guaranteed the work the OP did was covered in his contact. Not happy with the job. That sucks, but after approx 20 years of education, get on with your first year of graduate work, then look to move. Best not to channel James Connolly in your first week of your GRADUATE role.

As for a masters. That screams, couldn't get a job with my degree, had to go back to full-time education. Fine, if you're in work and do a part time masters, otherwise no big whoop. Possibly the contrary.

Dav010

Morgans wrote: »

Yes, if you are one of those who do not value yourself and expect your employer to exploit you and your need for a wage. It is why so many people are unhappy in their jobs and expect to be unhappy in their jobs. "Bosses and the job is sh1te but what are you going to do about it". Shrug. If you are desperate for money, then allow yourself to be taken advantage of in that way. (Not sure thats the case here, but its the attitude of many blaming the OP)

Having a masters degree still shows that the person can research, write and study. Not essential for all jobs, but at least shows that the person has some ability in that area. That it is in science rather than arts or business suggests thats the field he is interested in. However, how much it counts when moving pallettes, Im not sure.

In general, hiring someone with those interests and putting him in a role with no obvious connection to those interests means that you will be hiring again for the position soon. Either you or the employee will find out the mismatch. Why waste everyones time?

The op was desperate for a job, by his own admission it has been a struggle to find one. I think you and the militant one are blowing this out of proportion. The op had three days of lifting palates while lab was being set up. I don’t know how much people who lift palates are paid, but I suspect scientists are paid more. It’s his first week on the job, I suspect most would go along with it for a little longer before wanting to talk to management.

Anyways, in the end this seems to have worked out for everyone, the op can look for a new job and on Strumms advice, insist at interview that there will be no tasks undertaken outside of job description ( no doubt that will be a good selling point for you to get a job), and the employer can now hire someone else.

Morgans

Deleted User wrote: »

Your employer pays your wages, you do the work. Guaranteed the work the OP did was covered in his contact. Not happy with the job. That sucks, but after approx 20 years of education, get on with your first year of graduate work, then look to move. Best not to channel James Connolly in your first week of your GRADUATE role.

As for a masters. That screams, couldn't get a job with my degree, had to go back to full-time education. Fine, if you're in work and do a part time masters, otherwise no big whoop. Possibly the contrary.

Employers who take your approach "I pay your wages, you do what I tell you" are never worth working for. Also, the attitude of masters students is gas. One poster says everyone has one, now its only for people who cant get jobs with their undergraduate degree. Clearly not knowing the different discipline of Masters education and undergrad. What are these students coming up with their ideas and not having done a proper days work. Anyway, continue with the subservient worshipping of employers. Its why most people hate their jobs.

Morgans

Morgans wrote: »

Employers who take your approach "I pay your wages, you do what I tell you" are never worth working for. Also, the attitude of masters students is gas. One poster says everyone has one, now its only for people who cant get jobs with their undergraduate degree. Clearly not knowing the different discipline of Masters education and undergrad. What are these students coming up with their ideas and not having done a proper days work. Anyway, continue with the subservient worshipping of employers. Its why most people hate their jobs.

Stop projecting.

As for masters. You/the government pay a university thousands of Euro, you get a slip of paper and a few extra letters after your name, possibly a small amount of extra knowledge towards your actual work.

We've been to uni, we've seen those carried by group work, you'd not employ yourself in a million years, but they still graduate.

Back to the OP, it's a years time, he gets another chance would you recommend he brings to his manager's attention an issue the has with the job in his first week? What should be the OP's takeaway?

jackboy

Morgans wrote: »

Employers who take your approach "I pay your wages, you do what I tell you" are never worth working for. Also, the attitude of masters students is gas. One poster says everyone has one, now its only for people who cant get jobs with their undergraduate degree. Clearly not knowing the different discipline of Masters education and undergrad. What are these students coming up with their ideas and not having done a proper days work. Anyway, continue with the subservient worshipping of employers. Its why most people hate their jobs.

It’s not about worshiping employers. It’s about recognizing the reality and acting accordingly. An employee is free to leave a job at any time.

Morgans

Dav010 wrote: »

The op was desperate for a job, by his own admission it has been a struggle to find one. I think you and the militant one are blowing this out of proportion. The op had three days of lifting palates while lab was being set up. I don’t know how much people who lift palates are paid, but I suspect scientists are paid more. It’s his first week on the job, I suspect most would go along with it for a little longer before wanting to talk to management.

Anyways, in the end this seems to have worked out for everyone, the op can look for a new job and on Strumms advice, insist at interview that there will be no tasks undertaken outside of job description ( no doubt that will be a good selling point for you to get a job), and the employer can now hire someone else.

So, but he didnt refuse to do the manual work like you said earlier but didnt answer? He suffered an injury moving palettes (again, I repeat, it sounds precious) and said to his supervisor. They sent him home for a week, and didnt ask him back.

As I said, the OP should have had more cop on and sussed things out a bit more. Ideally, he could have made a decision on his own terms in a few weeks time and sought another role.

However, the blowing out of proportion is the more general subservient attitude that many have on here towards employers. And are suggesting that that is the best attitude to have as an employee. Those employers who have that attitude are the worst to work for, and you can very easily waste your career hoping that they will be better. Its horrible advise.

Morgans

Deleted User wrote: »

Stop projecting.

As for masters. You/the government pay a university thousands of Euro, you get a slip of paper and a few extra letters after your name, possibly a small amount of extra knowledge towards your actual work.

We've been to uni, we've seen those carried by group work, you'd not employ yourself in a million years, but they still graduate.

Back to the OP, it's a years time, he gets another chance would you recommend he brings to his manager's attention an issue the has with the job in his first week? What should be the OP's takeaway?

Nonsense. Doubling down on the Masters nonsense. You either understand an
educations value or you dont. Not all masters are the same, but you need to have the skill to recognise the qualifications that matter.

The anti-intellectuals, those you are happy to say "why are you wasting your time in college, go out and get a job", miss the point completely.

Generally (and only generally) they focus only on the bottom line, view every employee as someone who is a drain on the profit line, complaining why arent people happy cos sure aren't they earning a wage. And struggle to wonder why they find it hard to get good people to work for them.

Only doing a a masters cos their undergraduate didnt get them a job. jaysus.

Morgans

Deleted User wrote: »

Back to the OP, it's a years time, he gets another chance would you recommend he brings to his manager's attention an issue the has with the job in his first week? What should be the OP's takeaway?

As i recommended earlier, I would have some more cop on, but it by week 3 of the same work, I would be asking for clarity on what the plans are.

If someone in your company was injured in the first week of their job would you recommend them to tell their manager? If the manager sends them home unpaid for a week? Would that seem fair to you?

Dav010

Morgans wrote: »

So, but he didnt refuse to do the manual work like you said earlier but didnt answer? He suffered an injury moving palettes (again, I repeat, it sounds precious) and said to his supervisor. They sent him home for a week, and didnt ask him back.

As I said, the OP should have had more cop on and sussed things out a bit more. Ideally, he could have made a decision on his own terms in a few weeks time and sought another role.

However, the blowing out of proportion is the more general subservient attitude that many have on here towards employers. And are suggesting that that is the best attitude to have as an employee. Those employers who have that attitude are the worst to work for, and you can very easily waste your career hoping that they will be better. Its horrible advise.

Businesses are not rigid, compartmentalised workplaces. You cannot define every job within narrow parameters, job descriptions are not exhaustive, hence why most contracts have a clause about flexibility, nor can you employ someone for every individual task. It is not unheard of, nor a big issue for many to do tasks they are not specifically employed to do, for short periods to help out.

You are quite right, he didn’t post that he refused. He was unhappy having to do it and brought it to the attention of his supervisor when he got a bit of muscle strain. Now his muscle is better and he is unemployed again.

jackboy

Morgans wrote: »

Generally (and only generally) they focus only on the bottom line, view every employee as someone who is a drain on the profit line, complaining why arent people happy cos sure aren't they earning a wage. And struggle to wonder why they find it hard to get good people to work for them.

This is literally how some of the top multinational companies in Ireland view their employees. It’s not good but if someone wants a career in one of these companies they need to be able to play the game. You have to get through the first year, then you have some power to push back.

Morgans

Morgans wrote: »

The anti-intellectuals, those you are happy to say "why are you wasting your time in college, go out and get a job", miss the point completely.

Hah! I'm educated up the wazoo, but I was the first person in my family to get a degree, and didn't take it for granted. But, I also have cop on.

I'm also senior within my profession. If I move, my next role will either be through professional connections, or something like advertised in the Irish Times. And yes, I value education, that is to say I don't over value it either. On the job experience will tell a lot more.

A degree will help you get in the door, but how you act on the job is how you get a career.

Morgans

Dav010 wrote: »

Businesses are not rigid, compartmentalised workplaces. You cannot define every job within narrow parameters, job descriptions are not exhaustive, hence why most contracts have a clause about flexibility, nor can you employ someone for every individual task. It is not unheard of, nor a big issue for many to do tasks they are not specifically employed to do, for short periods to help out.

You are quite right, he didn’t post that he refused. He was unhappy having to do it and brought it to the attention of his supervisor when he got a bit of muscle strain. Now his muscle is better and he is unemployed again.

I had a couple of sentences on the Psychological contract written previously. It is the idea that there is some fairness in the relationships between the employer and employee, beyond what is specified in the job contract/specification. It is a breakdown in the psychological contract that causes most people to leave their job.

Employers generally don't mind people browsing the internet (in roles that allow it) if when needed, they work through lunch or work late when needed. I would never recommend any employee to have their job spec pinned somewhere to refer to when asked to do a task. They view of what their contract of employment is. Those to me are the last people you want working with/for you.

However, the attitude that several posters on here, is that the job spec is irrelevant and employers have carte blanche to ask employees to do what they want. That attitude without clearly explaining that it is temporary or a one off, will lead to unhappy employees, unwilling to do any work beyond their job spec, high turnovers and the costs that that brings.

Morgans

Deleted User wrote: »

Hah! I'm educated up the wazoo, but I was the first person in my family to get a degree, and didn't take it for granted. But, I also have cop on.

I'm also senior within my profession. If I move, my next role will either be through professional connections, or something like advertised in the Irish Times. And yes, I value education, that is to say I don't over value it either. On the job experience will tell a lot more.

A degree will help you get in the door, but how you act on the job is how you get a career.

That's fair. Going off point. There are academics who have no idea of what makes business work, and there are students that get instutionalised, but its certainly wrong to paint everyone with that brush. Most get masters because it will help him get better employment, and be of more value to a reasonable employer.

Holly13

It sounds to me like the OP, having no work experience, has unrealistic expectations of graduate entry level roles.
He has not explained what the title of his role was. What manufacturing/pharmaceutical company advertises for a “scientist”?
The word scientist is old-fashioned and means nothing. Having a degree in Science does not make you a “scientist” in the same way having a degree in Business does not make you a “Businessman”

Morgans

Morgans wrote: »

However, the attitude that several posters on here, is that the job spec is irrelevant and employers have carte blanche to ask employees to do what they want. That attitude without clearly explaining that it is temporary or a one off, will lead to unhappy employees, unwilling to do any work beyond their job spec, high turnovers and the costs that that brings.

Companies are made up of employees - none are run by AI... yet.


In the current environment it's vital companies keep onto their best employees, and to be flexible in doing so. But, you need to prove you're worth it first.



If you are a good employee and not being appreciated (happens for sure) then another company will accommodate you (if you're not afflicted with inertia).

Morgans

jackboy wrote: »

This is literally how some of the top multinational companies in Ireland view their employees. It’s not good but if someone wants a career in one of these companies they need to be able to play the game. You have to get through the first year, then you have some power to push back.

Its not uncommon, not just in multinationals (I would have found it more with successful self-starters), and what I typed above is shorthand. Its not just that employees are a drain, its that the employees do not add anything other than completing the task they are assigned. They aren't seen a source of power/innovation for the organisation. All successes and future successes in companies with this attitude is down to the genius of those at the top, and very little value placed on those at the coal-face. If things go wrong, its those at the bottom that are the problem. Generally, not a great culture for employees. If you dont like it you can leave is their approach.

beauf

Dav010 wrote: »

Businesses are not rigid, compartmentalised workplaces. You cannot define every job within narrow parameters, job descriptions are not exhaustive, hence why most contracts have a clause about flexibility, nor can you employ someone for every individual task. It is not unheard of, nor a big issue for many to do tasks they are not specifically employed to do, for short periods to help out.

You are quite right, he didn’t post that he refused. He was unhappy having to do it and brought it to the attention of his supervisor when he got a bit of muscle strain. Now his muscle is better and he is unemployed again.

.. Maybe he should have kept lifting and got a hernia. Would that have been a better outcome. Maybe he didn't get injured how long should a scientist spend working in a warehouse waiting to do the job he applied for?...

beauf

beauf wrote: »

... how long should a scientist spend working in a warehouse waiting to do the job he applied for?...

At least until they had the lab opened :pac:

Holly13

Morgans wrote: »

Nonsense. Doubling down on the Masters nonsense. You either understand an
educations value or you dont. Not all masters are the same, but you need to have the skill to recognise the qualifications that matter.

The anti-intellectuals, those you are happy to say "why are you wasting your time in college, go out and get a job", miss the point completely.

Generally (and only generally) they focus only on the bottom line, view every employee as someone who is a drain on the profit line, complaining why arent people happy cos sure aren't they earning a wage. And struggle to wonder why they find it hard to get good people to work for them.

Only doing a a masters cos their undergraduate didnt get them a job. jaysus.

Actually a lot of Science graduates do a Masters because they either can’t get a job or the jobs available are crap (similar to the one the OP is describing)
Masters aren’t really valued for “scientists” especially taught one year programs.
If the OP wants to be respected as a qualified “scientist”, he needs a PhD

beauf

[Deleted User] wrote: »

At least until they had the lab opened :pac:

He worked until he got injured. Considering they rewrote the job spec there's good odds it would never have opened....;)

There good odds the manual labour job paid more than the graduate scientist job. They employ you then change the spec ... probably just coincidence...

beauf

beauf wrote: »

He worked until he got injured.

Considering they rewrote the job spec there's good odds it would never have opened....;)

He got an owwie.


The rewriting of the job spec has already been covered.

beauf

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He got an owwie.


The rewriting of the job spec has already been covered.

They must have re-written your spec to include doctor must be interesting medical certs...owwie...

beauf

Holly13 wrote: »

Actually a lot of Science graduates do a Masters because they either can’t get a job or the jobs available are crap (similar to the one the OP is describing)
Masters aren’t really valued for “scientists” especially taught one year programs.
If the OP wants to be respected as a qualified “scientist”, he needs a PhD

... Many here seem to think you need a couple of years manual labour as experience in your CV.

beauf

beauf wrote: »

They must have re-written your spec to include doctor must be interesting medical certs...owwie...

Exactly, what doctor did he go to?



What the company saw, was this lad coming to them thinking he was being clever saying he got a slight injury doing work he didn't want to do so he'd get moved... Well, he was moved. Out the door.

beauf

beauf wrote: »

... Many here seem to think you need a couple of years manual labour as experience in your CV.

Nothing wrong with manual labour, and where was it mentioned it was going to be a couple of years. You're doing the OP no favours reinforcing what he did as being clever.

beauf

Morgans wrote: »

So, but he didnt refuse to do the manual work like you said earlier but didnt answer? He suffered an injury moving palettes (again, I repeat, it sounds precious) and said to his supervisor. They sent him home for a week, and didnt ask him back. ....

Which suggests the manual labour was always going to part of the job. Perhaps even the majority of the job.

beauf

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nothing wrong with manual labour, and where was it mentioned it was going to be a couple of years. You're doing the OP no favours reinforcing what he did as being clever.

They changed the spec. Why do that unless it was required part of the job.

beauf

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Exactly, what doctor did he go to?



What the company saw, was this lad coming to them thinking he was being clever saying he got a slight injury doing work he didn't want to do so he'd get moved... Well, he was moved. Out the door.

Probably some randomer who got asked to fill in as Doctor on the first day...

He wasn't able for the lifting so leaving was inevitable....

beauf

beauf wrote: »

Probably some randomer who got asked to fill in as Doctor on the first day...

He wasn't able for the lifting so leaving was inevitable....

He didn't meet a doctor before or after the lifting, one's not required by the company.



The lifting doesn't seem particularly onerous and he had manual lifting training if I recall.