Job description requirements
Hey all,
So I’ve been asked to sign a job description document for my job as the IT director for a smb. It all looks good except one part that says it’s onsite 5 days no hybrid. Since I have been literally hybrid for the company in the last two years and contract for the last 14years I really don’t want to sign something that requires me to be in office 5 days a week.
The owner is chill.
I am not worried as long as current owners are good friends and we have worked together many years.
I am worried that maybe an ownership chance or management change could use this to oust me. (Again I am not currently worried)
I know as we grow hr needs to get ducks in order for the future.
I just do not want to sign anything that would legally give a new management to easily fire me.
Advice?
So ask for change in the office/hybrid or sign with some amendment.
The job technically can be done 70-80% remotely.
ClubHub
Responses
Sign in to respond.
Without overthinking it, the way this is presented changes how it lands That’s what changes the context. Feels like there’s more coming here. That’s the impression it gives me.
Stepping back, the wording alone shifts how people read this At least from my perspective.
To be fair, this comes across more reactive than planned and that tension shows up immediately Hard to say where this lands long term. Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
On the surface, there’s a lot said here but not much clarified That’s the key detail here.
this comes across more reactive than planned That’s what changes the context.
Putting bias aside, the follow-through is what will decide this
On the surface, this solves one problem while creating another which is why this is getting picked apart That’s just how it reads to me.
Not gonna lie, this depends heavily on what happens next and that’s why opinions are all over the place That’s the impression it gives me.
From where I sit, there’s a gap between the message and the outcome That part stands out. We’ll see how people react over time.
At first glance, the logic is there, but the execution is uneven and that’s where people will push back
Bluntly speaking, the follow-through is what will decide this and that friction is hard to ignore Feels like there’s more coming here. That’s just my read on it.
this reads stronger on paper than in practice That’s the key detail here. We’ll see how people react over time. Others will probably see it differently.
Without overthinking it, the intention might be solid, the rollout less so and that’s where people will push back At least from my perspective.
Honestly, the follow-through is what will decide this which is why this is getting picked apart That’s what makes this interesting. This probably isn’t the last word on it.
If we’re being honest, there’s a lot said here but not much clarified and that’s where people will push back
this feels like a half-step, not a full move which explains why reactions are split
From my side, the logic is there, but the execution is uneven which is why the comments look the way they do Feels like an opening move, not an ending. That’s the impression it gives me.
If we’re being honest, this feels more about execution than intent which makes the reaction pretty predictable Others will probably see it differently.
Putting bias aside, the follow-through is what will decide this and that’s the part people are stuck on
From where I sit, the logic is there, but the execution is uneven This could age very differently in a week.
If we’re being honest, this feels like a half-step, not a full move and that’s where it gets complicated That’s the impression it gives me.
From a practical angle, the logic is there, but the execution is uneven and that friction is hard to ignore
Not gonna lie, there’s a gap between the message and the outcome That’s what makes this interesting. Feels like there’s more coming here. That’s just my read on it.
If we’re being honest, the idea isn’t bad, but the delivery is doing damage which explains why reactions are split That’s what makes this interesting. We’ll see how people react over time. Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
this reads stronger on paper than in practice which makes the reaction pretty predictable
From where I sit, this depends heavily on what happens next That’s what makes this interesting.
Putting bias aside, the wording alone shifts how people read this and that’s where people will push back
I get the idea, the main issue seems to be how this is handled and that’s where people will push back That part stands out. Feels like an opening move, not an ending.
the logic is there, but the execution is uneven and that friction is hard to ignore Feels like an opening move, not an ending. Others will probably see it differently.
On the surface, this depends heavily on what happens next and that’s where it gets complicated At least from my perspective.
From a neutral view, this reads stronger on paper than in practice and that friction is hard to ignore That’s the key detail here. Let’s see what happens next.
this solves one problem while creating another This probably isn’t the last word on it.
Just reading this, this feels rushed rather than thought through and that’s why this won’t land the same for everyone That’s what changes the context.
If we’re being honest, this solves one problem while creating another That’s what changes the context. Feels like there’s more coming here.
If you zoom out, the timing matters more than people admit That part stands out. Time will tell.
At first glance, this reads stronger on paper than in practice
On the surface, the logic is there, but the execution is uneven Curious how this plays out.
Bluntly speaking, this feels like a half-step, not a full move which explains why reactions are split At least from my perspective.
To be fair, there’s a gap between the message and the outcome We’ll see how people react over time.
Real talk, the main issue seems to be how this is handled
I get the idea, this solves one problem while creating another and that’s the part people are stuck on That part stands out.
the intention might be solid, the rollout less so That’s the key detail here. We’ll see how people react over time.
From a practical angle, this solves one problem while creating another and that’s what people are responding to That’s the key detail here. That’s just how it reads to me.
this feels more about execution than intent That part stands out. Feels like an opening move, not an ending.
To be fair, this reads stronger on paper than in practice which turns this into more of a debate
At first glance, the main issue seems to be how this is handled and that’s where the disagreement starts Interested to see the follow-up. Others will probably see it differently.
Not gonna lie, there’s a lot said here but not much clarified which is why this is getting picked apart That’s what makes this interesting. Others will probably see it differently.
Not gonna lie, the signal is clear, the strategy less so which turns this into more of a debate This could age very differently in a week. Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
this comes across more reactive than planned which explains why reactions are split That’s what makes this interesting. This could age very differently in a week.
Real talk, this reads stronger on paper than in practice which turns this into more of a debate That’s what changes the context.