Job Discussion Forums

[Glenski]

The OP has posted here once. Suspicious to me.
He did NOT say he asked for any raise, let alone "pleaded". He only wrote a quasi-headline to his diatribe which read,

Sorry!! We Don`t Have The Money To Increase Your Salary.

You can infer what you want from that, but he was the one who stuck it out there for 3 years. Pretty diligent, don't you think, for someone who seems so all-fired hepped up on saving electricity and the environment.

The OP's underlying point may have been that he didn't get a raise, but that didn't seem to me to be the focus of his lengthy (and only) speech.

Would be nice if he'd come back to explain, but I don't think he will.

[J.]

I don't know anything about this person, but what makes his post so suspicious? More so than any other person with a complaint against his employer? Is it only that he's so "all-fired hepped up" about saving electricity and therefore giving the environment a break?

I happen to agree with what he said. There are some inconsistencies and lot of inefficiencies in some businesses here (everywhere). As he points out, it makes no sense to keep the air conditioner turned way down/off if you leave the lights burning all the time.

Or to constantly blast music in retail and public spaces so a place seems "lively". Every culture/ business has their own preference for things that they consider "good for business". Few seem to consider one of the basics: keep your staff happy by treating them in a fair and reasonable way.

There's nothing wrong with saving the environment. Japan needs that more than most, with the storms and flooding and high temperatures that are growing worse each year.

And there's nothing wrong with pointing out inconsistencies in businesses who are trying to justify not paying you a fair wage. I think his comments were moderate and well-thought out.

[shuize]

[Firestarter]

[Glenski]

I have never worked for ECC. Probably never will. They make no mention on the web site about pay raises, even for performance-based reviews.

Here is what they say on their web site about "advancement opportunities".

[callmesim]

The OP posted here before in an arguement with me about ECC. Back in Nov/Dec he explicitly stated he wouldn't be signing back to ECC because he felt he was being taken advantage of with work hours. Now he posts back with a self-righteous rant about being outraged by their treatment of the environment and pay rises. Sounds like a case of trying to find a more profound reason for resigning.

From the December post:

[J.]

About the comment that it's better to leave fluorescent lights on, and for those of you who may be employers and therefore sensitive about the "fair wage" issue, it seems that the lights should be turned off of they won't be used for 15 minutes or longer. I found a link if you're interested.

http://lightingdesignlab.com/articles/switching/switching_fluorescent.htm


I do wonder, though, why people are jumping to the defense of employers that, for the most part, they probably know as little about as the OP.

I, personally, have experieced a lot of inconsistencies in management at workplaces here, which I think are indicative of a basic lack of respect and unwillingness to consider employees ideas, which may be the underlying cause of the OPs complaints. Many businesses here are wasting the talents of their employees by not giving them an ear. And it's just foolish to not offer raises to longer term employees, who will leave you with ill will, so that you can keep the lights on in empty spaces.

[Glenski]

Thanks, J., for that link. Will pass it on to my engineer friend.

Don't know about anyone else, but Table 3 says it all to me. Yes, you can save if you don't use the lights, but the annual savings will be pretty minimal and (in my opinion) not worthy of complaining that a company doesn't have enough money to give a raise.

J.,
People here don't seem to be defending the schools as much as they are picking apart the inefficient way that the OP has set forth his own points.

[JPrufrock]

Yes.

[J.]

Just a few more points about energy savings:

(Aside from what wasting energy adds to the heating up of our environment, and the extra fuel burning (not Nuclear) does to the air. That's factoring in the environmental cost, rather than just the cost in yen.)

I don't know about your office but where I work there are many overhead fluorescent lights, I would say a minimum of 20-30 in my building alone, and it's a smallish one. My company has a number of branch offices, and it's not really a big company. I guess the savings per year, in watching the lights alone, and considering the higher cost of energy here, would be at least 40, 000 yen a year ( 80 lights burning an extra 3 hours at $5.00 cost per light for a year, to use the figures from my last post). That's a minimum, I would guess, and doesn't factor in the air conditioning which would be a lot more significant in cost.

These may individually be small savings, but over the years they can mount up.

Here's another link that details the possible energy savings for NO-COST measures as percentages of the energy costs.

http://www.pge.com/rebates/123_reduction_plans/nonprofit_offices/index.html

[pondwalden66]

As I type this, the room is light by sunshine. If I was still at ECC, this would be impossible. Because the business geniuses there have decreed that lights must always be on. That will increase the profitability of the company they reckon.

If some of you can`t grasp the unlikelihood of money spent to light unused rooms increasing profit, it`s not my problem. But the cost is "pretty marginal" as one of you responded. Yes, yes. Please take a few yen out of your pocket and flush them down the toilet. Then multiply it by thousands and thousands hours of wasted money and see if it`s still "marginal".

Others can`t get their minds around the certainty that electricity is not produced out of thin air. It has reprecussions in its production and its use.
But the people at ECC (and many other businesses) act as if it`s unlimited and free like the air we breathe.

No, I didn`t quit ECC because I didn`t receive a raise. I got my 30-40 yen an hour. It`s just that I got weary of being forced to be an idiot each and every working day.

[Eva Pilot]

I can imagine this guy going through every room of his ECC office turning off all the lights and laughing before he leaves.

[Firestarter]

I'm not sure about the effectiveness of leaving lights on to attract customers, but I wouldn't rule it out either. In Japanese cities especially, walk down any major street and look at how bright every sign and shop is. It has to be to get attention. In Umeda School they specifically ask you to keep lights on in the classrooms that face the Hankyu Line so that the school is clearly visible to passersby on the train. That's millions of passengers a week. It probably does make a big difference.

In ECC's defense, I was at the head office for training this week and there are signs everywhere saying to turn lights off, keep the AC off and not to waste paper when photocopying.

[DNK]

I may be new to all this, but I'll weigh in. I'd assume someone at some point probably researched this whole light thing attracting customers, and honestly I can understand how it's fairly logical. There's a lot of small, barely noticeable aspects of a physical space that can affect customer satisfaction and general "feel." Although I wouldn't personally stop going somewhere if they kept lights off in unused rooms, I can understand how it could affect other people, albeit subconsciously. Maybe they waste $100-400 per year per location on excessive lighting, but if that manages to just keep or gain a few customers it's paid itself off.

For instance, I'm sitting at a coffee shop right now (free internet is nice), and the reason I'm paying a small amount to sit here instead of in the mall for free is a lot of minor environmental variables. A primary variable being the lighting - I can't stand fluorescent lights, and these are all traditional tungsten lighting. Wasteful, but effective at attracting and keeping customers. At some point the management decided that the added cost of staying non-fluorescent was worth the increase in business they expected from the altered environment. In my case, it has worked.

Is it bad for the environment? Of course, and no energy doesn't come out of thin air (well, it does, but we don't use it regularly). But you can't possibly expect companies in a cutthroat business environment to sacrifice profits for the sake of the environment. That's what the government is for. So I suggest instead you direct your attacks at the Japanese government for not taxing electricity in a proper enough manner to make it no longer economically beneficial for companies to waste lighting, but that comes with its own issues and is a whole other argument in itself.



And, seriously, how much money is being wasted for any individual concerned (even assuming that it's of no use)? $400/yr, which is a cost probably spread out to both customers and employees... divide by however much that number is for your location, and it probably comes out to less than $5/yr. So eat in one more time per year and you're in the black again. Problem solved.

And if you're talking more in the aggregate, then realize that this is the market equilibrium, and in order to change it energy rates would have to be increased, which would result in higher prices, which would increase inflation, which is effectively throwing money down the toilet. And I'd bet you'd be losing a lot more via that route than if everyone just kept wasting a little electricity. And what about these marginal psychological gains? They're not worthless, and they'd be paid for in other ways: increased eating, partying, etc. This would also be effectively wasting money to reach a personal emotional equilibrium that was already attained before with inefficient electricity usage. It's silly, but such is human nature.

[canuck]