Would you leave a job where you pretty much surf the Internet all day?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the OP raises a good point that I struggle with myself: where are the jobs that actually take up a full work week but don't leave you bored for hours a day or take up evenings/weekends? Because I've found that to be a hard balance too. When I was child-free, it was no biggie to work 10-12 hour days (sometimes without much pay) plus weekends and travel. But now, at 40 and with a masters degree and a 4-year-old, I feel like I've paid my dues to a point and shouldn't have to work crazy long days anymore. I've love to work a solid 8-hour day, get my (not huge) paycheck and go home. OP, I hear ya. Being bored saps your energy, and it's hard to get motivated again when there are busy times. good luck.

I work about 50 hours a week and most of the time, my job is challenging and interesting. Some of that extra time is nights when I'm at home with the family. Personally, I opted for a job that's a bit busier than is totally comfortable with two children because I can't stand to be bored. Of course, my kids are older (elementary school aged) and my husband is a good partner. Couldn't do it without a husband who does his share, and more, as my job requires.

I understand what you're saying but why would you want to 'not be bored' by doing work at home, aren't there so many more interesting things to do? Spend your precious free time reading great books, watch movies you've always wanted to see, time with the children doing activities, trying new recipes, visiting girlfriends, learning new hobbies and activities? Life is short, it seems like there is not enough time to fill all the 'bucket list items' so why would anyone want to do work during this otherwise would be spare time? Even organizing finances, planning fun vacations, getting photo albums organized and stuff like that could be done. So you must find work really fun? Just curious.

I think the PP's point is that she opted for a job that keeps her busy beyond 40 hours because she likes the challenge, even if that means work spilling into home time; I don't think she means that she wouldn't rather be doing fun stuff at home. We would all love a challenging job that stops at exactly 5 pm and does not interfere with life at all, but I think that doesn't exist for most of us. I feel like sometimes the choice is between a 40 (or fewer) hour job that may be boring and unproductive (like the OP) or a job that requires a lot of time and interferes with life to some extent but is challenging and fulfilling. As someone who is currently being positioned out of biglaw, this is certainly an issue for me. I've killed myself for years and would love a boring 40 hr/week job, but then when I interview for those -- I walk out thinking that I know I'll be happy for 3-6 months to not be on all the time and to not have to bring the work and stress home all the time, but then I will start to miss the challenge. Jobs with the appropriate challenge and work-life balance seem not to exist.

[Anonymous]

I did leave a job that let me surf the Internet all day. I couldn't take the boredom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Government lawyer; make about $100k per year; decent benefits; fun co-workers but am bored out of my mind and feel like my life is wasting away. I feel like I am losing my litigation and research and writing skills. Do I have a good thing and don't know it? I have been doing this for a year now. A transfer anywhere else in the agency would be too much work requiring evenings and weekends which I couldn't do because I want to see my toddler. Also there is no flexibility at this job - no flex time or telecommuting.

Ha ha. You are in my office. Read the paper or nap like the one down the hallway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So good to know our federal tax dollars are hard at work. [insert eye roll here]

Not fair ! We are trying but with the hill in this lock down and the political power struggles over who gets what money we all have to lay low for a few more weeks or months if you are waiting for an agency head change then we can go back to fighting for work.

[Anonymous]

I once was at a consulting firm where employees had to travel and the norm was very long hours. Pay was good and work challenging. The downside is the divorce rate. Almost every person was either divorced or about to. I got pregnant and was booted out the company quite soon after baby. There was no way I could leave a 4 month old with my spouse and be home only weekends.

I do not know why, but work places are incredibly not family friendly.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, not buying the 'hopelessly bored' scenario. If you are surfing the internet then do some internet research on a topic that can be useful to your local government, for example, what are the differences in other cities' legislation and what are the results...and so forth. Show your stuff and add value. You will get noticed, and you'll be earning your pay, feeling proud. Heck, you could document the underutilization of staff and send an anonymous tip. Monitor your own ethical framework: do you actually like getting paid more than you're earning? Do you need the time to do things online?

[Anonymous]

I am so hoping part of this sequestration is to take a look at how productive each employee is and get rid of the employees that do nothing all day. This thread makes me sick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am so hoping part of this sequestration is to take a look at how productive each employee is and get rid of the employees that do nothing all day. This thread makes me sick.

First, this person isn't a federal government employee. Second, that isn't how sequestration works, unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

Maybe there will be a 'trickle-down' effect to state and local governments feeling the pinch. However, cuts in funding for government agencies, local state or fed, do not naturally weed out waste: managers tasked with making decisions about where to cut don't every cut themselves out. It is the managers I blame - too much middle management. The managers should set the tone, they monitor the workload, supervise more than 2 people (true story!).

[Anonymous]

I'm not a lawyer but in the same boat. I am soooo bored out of my mind. Don't blame the employee, I blame managers who like to overhire and create unecessary beauracracy. I've worked for three agencies and only one was super busy, but that was a term job that ended.

At the same time, I have two friends in the private sector who sit and facebook surf/chat all day.

[Anonymous]

"I understand what you're saying but why would you want to 'not be bored' by doing work at home, aren't there so many more interesting things to do? Spend your precious free time reading great books, watch movies you've always wanted to see, time with the children doing activities, trying new recipes, visiting girlfriends, learning new hobbies and activities? Life is short, it seems like there is not enough time to fill all the 'bucket list items' so why would anyone want to do work during this otherwise would be spare time? Even organizing finances, planning fun vacations, getting photo albums organized and stuff like that could be done. So you must find work really fun? Just curious. "

I have children. The choices aren't between working at home in the evenings and living the life of a single, childless person. My children have activities three nights or so a week, frequently need homework help. Who gets together with girlfriends on a weeknight (?) I definitely find my professional work more interesting than organizing finances, getting photo albums organized and busy work type stuff like that.

Are you a parent? Do you have a job outside the home? Is it professional or administrative or other?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I did leave a job that let me surf the Internet all day. I couldn't take the boredom.

me too. I want to feel like I am contributing something!

[Anonymous]

I HAD a job like this in the private sector. Except I only "worked" 25hrs a week and made around 50K/yr. I could only tolerate it for a little over a year. It was awful. I jumped into the fire and took on a pretty big role at a start up. I worked start up hours, but was able to bask in the glory of helping a small company grow to a now 250MIL/yr organization. I was able to grow with the company as well. I now am making great money and we now have people and systems in place so that I now get to work a well deserved 35hrs a week (but those hours are truly working hours).

Not being a contributor will really wear away at your self-esteem, self-worth, and skills. It was not for me, I liked the break for probably a month before I started to feel very uneasy and worthless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am so hoping part of this sequestration is to take a look at how productive each employee is and get rid of the employees that do nothing all day. This thread makes me sick.

The government does not exist for efficiency. The government exists to follow the process. There is no process to exterminate lazy from their work force. These uncertain times are making the lazy flee for the cover of your tax dollars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a lawyer but in the same boat. I am soooo bored out of my mind. Don't blame the employee, I blame managers who like to overhire and create unecessary beauracracy. I've worked for three agencies and only one was super busy, but that was a term job that ended.

At the same time, I have two friends in the private sector who sit and facebook surf/chat all day.

This is OP and this is part of the problem. I have actually told my supervisor we don't need to hire more attorneys but supervisor are afraid if they don't use the money in their budget for more hires, they will permanently lose the funding so they hire people we don't need and then exaggerate the work we are doing to the higher ups to make it seem like we are busy.