Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace
-
Ergo, since we are NOT talking about anything illegal, discriminatory or retaliatory, clearly changing your job requirements is legal.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
Ergo, since we are NOT talking about anything illegal, discriminatory or retaliatory, clearly changing your job requirements is legal.
A change in job requirements is completely legal, and in the initial link you posted, requires that the employee know of said changes before being tasked with them.
You can't be hired to perform X for the company and then the next day tasked with picking pineapples out of a tree.
You need legal notice.
Anyways, this is completely out of what the conversation was posted about.
Edit: granted the legal notice could be as simple as a meeting the day before hand stating so. I don't disagree here.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
@scottalanmiller said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
Ergo, since we are NOT talking about anything illegal, discriminatory or retaliatory, clearly changing your job requirements is legal.
A change in job requirements is completely legal, and in the initial link you posted, requires that the employee know of said changes before being tasked with them.
You can't be hired to perform X for the company and then the next day tasked with picking pineapples out of a tree.
You need legal notice.
Anyways, this is completely out of what the conversation was posted about.
Sure, but what is legal notice? You always have to be told of what you are expected to do before you would know to do it. Legal notice might just be a few minutes. Maybe there are details on that somewhere, but I bet you'll find that they are instantaneous and that they do not apply to tasks, only to changes in pay or working hours.
-
@scottalanmiller read my edit.
-
It's not, really. The "not my job" problem is generally one of two things:
- A union mentality whether from union workers (where they are actually not allowed to do tasks as needed) or normal workers where they are.
- Permissions as to who is allowed to do work. This often applies to MSPs.
-
For a lot of MSPs, the issue is that whoever oversees them at the customer curtails their rights to "do what is needed" either by refusing to pay for certain work or by refusing permission for access. This is incredibly common and might cause this kind of impression.
-
For example, we fired a customer who refused to let us fix his switches, then yelled at us for not fixing his switches. We were not allowed to do that task and therefore the switches were his responsibility. There is no "we can just fix it" option, it's literally illegal (and foolish) for us to do so.
-
So lets take a made up job description for an MSP.
The MSP's responsibility is to ensure that the server systems are operating as expected, mail flow works, file shares operate, backups functional.
If said MSP then point's back to "it's not us, its microsoft" then job clearly falls into their lap of getting whatever is wrong, fixed.
Correct?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
So lets take a made up job description for an MSP.
The MSP's responsibility is to ensure that the server systems are operating as expected, mail flow works, file shares operate, backups functional.
If said MSP then point's back to "it's not us, its microsoft" then job clearly falls into their lap of getting whatever is wrong, fixed.
Correct?
Depends, it's not that simple. Did they get to select Microsoft as the vendor? Are they taking responsibility for the vendor's issues? It's far from black and white. An IT MSP is there to implement what is selected, they are not the provider of the product and if the product has an issue, the MSP cannot be the one to fix it. Unless they have the authority to rip it out and replace it, then maybe. But what MSP is given that? It might be the MSP's scope to work with MS on getting a fix. But "make it work" is not a viable description.
-
@scottalanmiller Why would it not be this simple? Or maybe the terms need to be reworked with the MSP in the example to declare their duties and responsibilities to include "getting it working, and maintaining it".
Which is likely not what is in place at most organizations. So I get your point, but I also disagree at the point about the vendor taking responsibility for other vendors involved.
It isn't their responsibility to correct an issue, cause by Microsoft for example, but if the issue is due to a configuration issue with the system that they setup and are responsible to maintain, then they shouldn't play the "it's them not us" game.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
@scottalanmiller Why would it not be this simple? Or maybe the terms need to be reworked with the MSP in the example to declare their duties and responsibilities to include "getting it working, and maintaining it".
Which is likely not what is in place at most organizations. So I get your point, but I also disagree at the point about the vendor taking responsibility for other vendors involved.
It isn't their responsibility to correct an issue, cause by Microsoft for example, but if the issue is due to a configuration issue with the system that they setup and are responsible to maintain, then they shouldn't play the "it's them not us" game.
Look at it this way, if you want to put "unlimited" responsibility onto the MSP, the most you can do is task them at the full level of an internal IT department. And even internal IT has to share responsibility with the vendors.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
It isn't their responsibility to correct an issue, cause by Microsoft for example, but if the issue is due to a configuration issue with the system that they setup and are responsible to maintain, then they shouldn't play the "it's them not us" game.
Sure, if it is configuration. If it is, then the issue is not scope, it's false blame.
-
wow - what a thread!
-
All job descriptions in my office have the final line of
Other duties as assigned.
This line basically tells the employee that they can be asked to do any legal thing, and they must do it, or they are effectively quitting.
-
So it sounds like Dustin is having an issue with his MSP not wanting to work on problems in areas that he thinks they are responsible for.
What does the contract with the MSP say? Who managed the MSP? Dustin? or Dustin's boss? whoever that is should be the one to declare if the MSP is doing their job or not.
-
@Dashrender said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
All job descriptions in my office have the final line of
Other duties as assigned.
This line basically tells the employee that they can be asked to do any legal thing, and they must do it, or they are effectively quitting.
That's normal and expected.
-
@Dashrender said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
So it sounds like Dustin is having an issue with his MSP not wanting to work on problems in areas that he thinks they are responsible for.
What does the contract with the MSP say? Who managed the MSP? Dustin? or Dustin's boss? whoever that is should be the one to declare if the MSP is doing their job or not.
That's a major problem, if you are not the one managing the contract, the limitations put on the MSP by the contract often seem crazy.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
@Dashrender said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
So it sounds like Dustin is having an issue with his MSP not wanting to work on problems in areas that he thinks they are responsible for.
What does the contract with the MSP say? Who managed the MSP? Dustin? or Dustin's boss? whoever that is should be the one to declare if the MSP is doing their job or not.
That's a major problem, if you are not the one managing the contract, the limitations put on the MSP by the contract often seem crazy.
Agreed. It leads those working with MSP think the MSP is worthless in a lot of cases.
-
@Dashrender said in Port - Dealing with the Not My Job attitudes in the workplace:
That's a major problem, if you are not the one managing the contract, the limitations put on the M
Or the MSP may actually be worthless and not want to take on the responsibility. Egg on the face.
Regardless of my issues at current, the scenario is fictitious. Would you expect that the MSP work to fix the issue with any vendors involved, or that they say "not us". Even if the client is billed in the end, the communication chain should then clarify who is taking what onto their plate.
-
Well, as Scott said, MSPs should have a scope, it should already be very clear who's responsible for what, and when it's not, the person at the client of MSP who is the contact person for the MSP makes a decision on the fly and you instantly move forward.
