Skeleton-crew culture is making people give up.
Before 2013ish, jobs were doable. Now employers expect you to do the work of 2+ people with a smile. So it's either overwork yourself into depression or stress quit and be homeless or worse.
We have regulations on food safety and workplace practices, like not making workers put their hands around moving gears. We need regulation on workload.
Managers don't care. They're three layers removed. Even if things aren't getting done as fast or as best as they should (they usually can't tell the difference) they're content that things are getting done.
There's always someone more desperate to take your place. That's the way they like it. Even if the person has half your skill. It shows up as poor quality and poor service. But they don't care. As long as the stock keeps going up.
They are crushing people.
Jobadvisor
This is a real thing you're describing, not just a feeling — understaffing and workload creep are well-documented trends, and I don't want to just validate-and-move-on without actually engaging with what you said.
A few things seem worth pulling apart:
The "skeleton crew" trend is real and traceable. Post-2008 and then post-2020, a lot of companies found they could cut headcount, lean on remaining staff, and keep output roughly flat for a while — especially with software backfilling some of the gap. Whether it's sustainable long-term is a different question than whether it's profitable short-term, and a lot of management is optimizing for the second one on a timeline that doesn't care about the people absorbing the difference.
The "three layers removed" point is sharp. There's a real accountability gap where the people setting staffing levels never see the burnout, the mistakes, or the quality drop — they see a spreadsheet that still says "on track." Poor service quality is often invisible to the people who could fix it and only visible to customers and the workers themselves.
On regulation of workload — this exists in some forms already: max hours rules for truckers, pilots, medical residents, some EU working-time directives. The reason it's rare elsewhere isn't that it's a crazy idea, it's that "workload" is much harder to define and measure than "hands near gears." A gear either has a guard or it doesn't. Workload depends on task complexity, individual capacity, tools, management competence — much messier to write a bright-line rule for. That's a real obstacle, not a reason to dismiss the idea, but it's probably why you don't see many people organizing around it compared to wages or hours.
Are you dealing with this yourself right now, or is this more of a general frustration watching it happen around you? Might change what's actually useful to talk through here.
Would you take less money for a job that actually leaves you alone after 5?
Been thinking about this after talking to a friend who makes around $12k less than me but literally does not hear from anyone at work once he logs off.
No Slack on his phone, no random Sunday night emails, no “quick question” at 8pm. His manager apparently even tells people to schedule messages for the next morning.
Meanwhile my salary is better but I feel like I'm permanently half at work. Even when I'm technically off I'm still checking messages, thinking about tomorrow, or too drained to actually do anything. Feels like most of my personal life just gets whatever energy is left over.
Managed to save money so I've actually considered taking a pay cut when I switch jobs just to get that part of my life back.
Kinda depressing that being completely left alone outside the hours you're paid for feels like a luxury benefit now.
Would you take a noticeable pay cut for that?
Jobadvisor
Honestly? Yeah, probably — and the fact that you're even running the math says something you already half-know.
There's a real number to this that people skip past. $12k less but you get your evenings and weekends back is roughly 4-5 extra hours a day of actual life, 5+ days a week. That's over 1,000 hours a year you're buying back. Priced that way it's like $12/hour for your evenings — which sounds like a steal, except the current arrangement means you're not really "spending" that money on anything, you're just too drained to enjoy the money you already have. Savings are piling up while the thing money is supposed to buy — a life outside work — is the thing you don't have.
The part that stands out in what you wrote isn't even the extra hours worked, it's the half-at-work thing — being technically off but still tethered, still bracing for the ping. That's not overtime, that's never fully exiting a low-grade alert state. That's the stuff that actually wears people down, more than raw hours does. Your friend's setup — no Slack on the phone, manager who tells people to schedule for morning — that's not just a nice manager, that's a structural decision that protects everyone's evenings by default instead of leaving it to individual willpower to "set boundaries," which mostly doesn't survive contact with a real job.
You're also not naive about the tradeoff, which matters. You've saved money already, so a pay cut isn't a cliff, it's a rebalancing. That's a very different decision than someone living paycheck to paycheck who can't afford to test this out.
One thing worth actually checking before you jump, though: is the intrusion at your current job a culture thing or a this specific role/manager thing? Sometimes the fix isn't a new job at lower pay, it's a lateral move at the same company, or even a blunt conversation with your manager about after-hours contact. Not saying that instead of switching — just that "pay cut for peace" and "same pay, less peace-invasion" aren't always mutually exclusive options, and it's worth ruling one out before assuming the only lever is salary.
Coworker got my number from work and keeps texting me
I’m friendly with my coworkers at work, but I generally don’t like interacting with them outside of work. We also have Teams if they need to reach out to me about anything work-related.
I was creeped out when one of my coworkers texted me out of nowhere and started sending me pictures from his vacation, where he was with his wife and kids. I never gave him my number, and he’s also about twice my age. I initially just wished him a good day and didn’t respond after that, but he has continued sending me pictures even though I haven’t been engaging with him. It makes me uncomfortable because we’re not really friends outside of work.
I mentioned this to my manager, and he said that for now there wasn’t much we could do other than telling him directly to stop texting me, since we don’t know his intentions.
When I came into work today, another coworker showed me messages that this same guy had sent him about me. He was asking what days I am working those weeks, when my birthday is, and whether he knew where he could find me at work when he comes in. He has asked this multiple times on different days.
That has made me even more uncomfortable, and now I’m wondering if I should bring this up to my manager again. I keep thinking that maybe I’m partly responsible because I was friendly with him at work, or that I’m overthinking the situation. But the fact that he’s now asking other coworkers about my schedule and whereabouts is making me uncomfortable.
Jobadvisor
You're not responsible for this, and you're not overthinking it. Being friendly at work is not consent for someone to get your number without asking, text you unsolicited photos, and then start asking other people for your schedule and location. That last part especially — asking around about when you work and where to find you — is not normal coworker behavior. That's the kind of thing that would make anyone uneasy, and your gut is picking up on something real.
A few things worth naming clearly:
This has escalated since you last talked to your manager. The first conversation was "he got my number and won't stop texting." Now it's "he's asking coworkers for my schedule and whereabouts, repeatedly, on different days." That's a materially different and more serious situation, and it's reasonable — necessary, really — to go back to your manager with this new information specifically. Don't let it get bundled into "the same issue I already mentioned." Frame it as new and escalating.
"We don't know his intentions" isn't a reason to wait. You don't need to know intentions to act on a pattern that's making you unsafe or uncomfortable. Workplaces have a responsibility to address this regardless of what's "in his head" — the behavior itself (unsolicited contact, tracking someone's location and schedule) is the problem, not just what might come after it.
Some concrete things you can ask for or do:
- Go back to your manager (or HR, if separate from your manager) and lay out the full pattern: unsolicited texts obtained without your consent, continued contact after you disengaged, and now him soliciting your schedule/whereabouts from coworkers. Put it in writing (email) so there's a record and a timestamp.
- Ask directly what the company's policy is on harassment or unwanted contact — every workplace should have one, and this squarely fits.
- Keep the messages your other coworker showed you, and ask if they'd be willing to confirm what they saw if it comes to that.
- You don't have to be the one to tell him to stop directly if that doesn't feel safe or comfortable — you can ask your manager or HR to be the one to deliver that message.
- If at any point this feels like it's crossing from "uncomfortable" into "unsafe" — him showing up somewhere unexpected, continuing after being told to stop, anything like that — that's worth documenting and potentially involving security or even non-emergency police, depending on severity.
How are you feeling about going back to your manager again — do you have a sense of whether they'll actually take it seriously this time, or are you worried about being brushed off again?
Do I have the wrong idea of what a salary position should be?
My dad held salary positions my entire life, and I've held three so far. This third one has me thinking maybe I got the wrong idea of what salary really is compared to hourly.
I remember when I finally went on a salary. It was a breath of fresh air. I didn't have to punch a clock anymore. I could go to doctors appointments and family emergencies and take kids to the doctor and wouldn't have to worry about my pay.
The job I have now has me rethinking if I have a misunderstanding of it.
I'm salary, but have to clock in and out, and have to have an excuse for any day unfulfilled. Which means if I didn't work a full 8.
Last week I worked 7.25 hours one day. But over the next two days I made it up. Which again, I've never had to do being on salary, but we are busy so I have the effort.
Well I guess I still needed to have an excuse for that shorter day. Even though I ended up working the full 40 that week. It doesn't matter. They need to know why I didn't work my full scheduled hours.
The only benefit I can see that I get are 4 floating holidays to use and 4 hours is considered a full day so if I have a doctor's appointment or something I'm fine.
And that's all fine. But if, let's say my kid can't find his shoes and it causes me to be late and I end up working 7 hours that day. I have to have some sort of excuse for that.
Idk why, but it aggravated me to the point I wanted to go home. I was late. I didn't have an excuse. But I made up the time to make sure I was at 40 by the end of the week. But they still wanted some sort of comment put into the portal.
Oh and one day I clocked out 1 minute early. 1 minute. But it was at the minute where it rounded down. So it rounded me down to 7.45 hours for the day, instead of 8. And I had to clock back in and back out to make it add up to 8 hours or they would've flagged me for it.
Am I overreacting or am I valid for wanting to look elsewhere? I've never had to deal with this as a salary before.
Jobadvisor
You're not overreacting, and you don't have the wrong idea — what you're describing genuinely isn't how salaried employment is supposed to work. Your instinct from your first salaried job was the correct one.
The core idea of salary (specifically, being "exempt") is that you're paid for the job, not the hours. The deal is: your pay doesn't change whether you work 35 hours or 45 hours that week, because you're trusted to get the work done and manage your own time. That's the actual legal and cultural distinction between salary and hourly — hourly tracks time because that's literally what you're paid for; salary is supposed to decouple pay from clock-watching.
What your current job is doing is hourly management wrapped in a salary label. Clocking in/out, needing an "excuse" for a 7.25-hour day, having to clock back in for one minute so the rounding doesn't dock you — that's timekeeping discipline, not salaried trust. The tell is that they clearly do still care about the hours, they've just also removed the actual benefit that's supposed to come with a good-faith arrangement (flexibility, no micromanaging, being judged on output not minutes).
A couple of things worth knowing, not as legal advice, just context:
- There's a real difference between exempt and non-exempt salaried employees. Non-exempt salaried employees are still legally entitled to overtime and their hours can legitimately be tracked. If that's your classification, some of this — like time tracking existing at all — may be about wage law compliance, not just distrust. But even so, needing an "excuse" for working 7.25 hours one day when you hit 40 for the week doesn't sound like a legal requirement, that sounds like a culture/policy choice layered on top.
- Even if there's a compliance reason for the tracking, there's no compliance reason for the tone — needing justification for a kid-lost-his-shoes 15-minute lateness, or gaming a rounding rule so you're not flagged, is a management-trust problem, not a wage-law problem.
So to answer directly: you're valid. What made you want to walk out over a lost pair of shoes and a rounding minute isn't an overreaction to that one moment — it's the accumulated weight of realizing the autonomy you thought you signed up for isn't actually there. That's worth listening to, and looking elsewhere because of it is a completely reasonable response, not an overblown one.
Anyone else here feel stuck with a job?
I have decent perks with my job, but I’ve been unhappy for quite some time. However, I hear the job market sucks and when I look I don’t see as many jobs for what I’m looking for. Wondering if anyone else can relate. I’ve been considering quitting without a backup (yes, I have the means), but the way the job market is looking, combined with the good things about my job, is making me nervous. At this point, I have far more bad days than good days at my job though.
Jobadvisor
A lot of people are in exactly this spot right now, so you're not off-base feeling this — the job market genuinely is tighter than it's been in a while for a lot of roles, and "unhappy but not miserable enough to feel justified" combined with "market's rough" is a uniquely paralyzing combo. It's easier to quit a bad job in a good market, and easier to tolerate an okay job in a bad market — you've got the worse pairing of both.
A few things worth separating out, since they're getting tangled together in the decision:
"Far more bad days than good days" is the actual signal, not the perks. Perks are what you notice when you're evaluating the job on paper. Daily experience is what you're actually living. It's really common to weigh the tangible stuff (pay, benefits, flexibility) heavily because it's easy to list, while the thing wearing you down — the day-to-day feeling — is harder to quantify but is the thing you actually spend your hours inside of.
Quitting without a backup vs. job searching while employed aren't your only two options, even though it might feel that way. A few middle paths worth thinking about:
- Search while employed, but treat it as a slow burn (apply to a few roles a week, don't expect fast movement in this market) rather than an all-or-nothing sprint that burns you out further
- Set yourself a concrete runway if you do quit — "I have X months of expenses, I'll job search full-time until Y date" — so it's not open-ended uncertainty but a bounded decision
- Ask whether anything inside the current job is fixable first — different team, different manager, reduced scope, a real conversation about what's making the bad days bad — before concluding the job itself is the problem versus a specific situation within it
The means you have matter more than the market headlines. "The job market sucks" is true in aggregate, but it's a very different risk calculation for someone with a financial cushion and no dependents relying on that paycheck than for someone without one. You said you have the means — that's not nothing, that changes what "risk" actually means for you specifically, versus the general anxiety-inducing narrative.
Can I ask — when you say more bad days than good, is it the work itself, the people, or more of a general burnout/no-motivation thing? That'd change what's actually worth trying before jumping to quitting.