Did the link go to the wrong article? It was about "green" companies, not ISO9001...

Really? I prefer to work for companies that are the antithesis of green. But that may be me and my sith training.

meanmutton: Did the link go to the wrong article? It was about "green" companies, not ISO9001...

I like "green" too. The more the better.

H31N0US: meanmutton: Did the link go to the wrong article? It was about "green" companies, not ISO9001...

I like "green" too. The more the better.

Yep, as long as they're walking the walk. Nothing quite as irritating as hearing that a company's gone "green," but hasn't actually done anything but adopt a silly-ass label.

Let me guess how the question was phrased: "If the job description and pay were equal, would you prefer to work for a company that is 'green' or a company that is not?"

Of course you would. Why not? Ask someone if they would take a 10% lower pay to work the same job at a "green" company and then see what the answer is.

FTFA: "According to TheLadders, the job search website that conducted the research..."

FTFLadders: "You may remember us as the leader in the $100K+ job search. In September 2011, we opened up to all career-driven professionals and jobs with salaries ranging from $40K to $250K+."

Ya, if I was trying to find ways to split hairs between multiple employers willing to give me $40k+ as a single person or $100k+ as the head of a family, then how eco-friendly a company is may matter.

//It does not even register on my radar at this point

Oliver Twisted: Let me guess how the question was phrased: "If the job description and pay were equal, would you prefer to work for a company that is 'green' or a company that is not?"

Of course you would. Why not? Ask someone if they would take a 10% lower pay to work the same job at a "green" company and then see what the answer is.

I'd be significantly less likely to deal with them. Most of the time companies "go green", they do stupid shiat that doesn't make any noticeable difference while putting up all sorts of barriers to getting the job done. Also, there's a higher chance of dealing with political bullshiat at work.

The environmental/green one is ISO14001 subby...

meanmutton: Oliver Twisted: Let me guess how the question was phrased: "If the job description and pay were equal, would you prefer to work for a company that is 'green' or a company that is not?"

Of course you would. Why not? Ask someone if they would take a 10% lower pay to work the same job at a "green" company and then see what the answer is.

I'd be significantly less likely to deal with them. Most of the time companies "go green", they do stupid shiat that doesn't make any noticeable difference while putting up all sorts of barriers to getting the job done. Also, there's a higher chance of dealing with political bullshiat at work.

I have seen that but I've also seen it done well. In either case it is usually a good indicator of how the company is run in general.

Oliver Twisted: Let me guess how the question was phrased: "If the job description and pay were equal, would you prefer to work for a company that is 'green' or a company that is not?"

Of course you would. Why not? Ask someone if they would take a 10% lower pay to work the same job at a "green" company and then see what the answer is.

LMFAO, HOW ABOUT NO. Wait, how about fark NO.

Some years ago, one of the mucky mucks in our management chain decided that we must become ISO9000-compliant (I'm guessing he read it in a flashy magazine because it didn't occur to him that industrial certifications don't easily translate to software development).

Almost overnight, existing, proven software development practices had to be tossed out the window, new audit-ready processes were adopted, all processes and procedures had to be documented to ad-nauseum and all projects had to maintain audit-ready status. Once or twice a year, a random handful of projects would undergo audits by outside contractors. Basically an audit involved contractors scrutinizing the project's control books and interrogating the developers to make sure that documented procedures were actually being followed.

Since all this added overhead, naturally our costs went up. Didn't matter. In management's eyes, customers should *want* to pay more to know that their software was being created by an ISO9000-certified shop. Except they didn't. This just didn't compute with middle and upper management who insisted that customers who didn't want to pay for ISO9000 compliance simply weren't properly educated by our customer reps.

It was a clusterfark for about two years until someone further up the management chain finally realized that the whole thing was a bad idea poorly implemented.

Oliver Twisted: meanmutton: Oliver Twisted: Let me guess how the question was phrased: "If the job description and pay were equal, would you prefer to work for a company that is 'green' or a company that is not?"

Of course you would. Why not? Ask someone if they would take a 10% lower pay to work the same job at a "green" company and then see what the answer is.

I'd be significantly less likely to deal with them. Most of the time companies "go green", they do stupid shiat that doesn't make any noticeable difference while putting up all sorts of barriers to getting the job done. Also, there's a higher chance of dealing with political bullshiat at work.

I have seen that but I've also seen it done well. In either case it is usually a good indicator of how the company is run in general.

Good point.

Yes, recycle the paper and collect the soda cans so everyone feels good about themselves, but don't look at the industrial or commercial waste your company produces. Just make sure the ink jet cartridges get back to HP and I can wear my Captain Planet pin proudly.

No, I haven't had my coffee. Shut up.

If you want to work in a "green" space then don't work around insurance. It feels like maybe a third of carriers have gone to any semblence of eliminating or reducing the amount of paper they don't need to utilize and the antiquated databases some of them use (especially on the P&C side) don't help either.

MugzyBrown: Ken VeryBigLiar: If you want to work in a "green" space then don't work around insurance. It feels like maybe a third of carriers have gone to any semblence of eliminating or reducing the amount of paper they don't need to utilize and the antiquated databases some of them use (especially on the P&C side) don't help either.

I get 3 or 4 copies of pretty much every notice the Hartford spits out.

I swear my department goes through an acre of woodland every day with some of our work. It doesn't help that half of them have been here forever and can't view a subrogtion report or a WC audit without printing out the whole thing. Our systems are far from helpful too, but carriers run the spectrum of latest and greatest to Reagan-era software.

uksocal: The environmental/green one is ISO14001 subby...

THIS

Ken VeryBigLiar: If you want to work in a "green" space then don't work around insurance. It feels like maybe a third of carriers have gone to any semblence of eliminating or reducing the amount of paper they don't need to utilize and the antiquated databases some of them use (especially on the P&C side) don't help either.

ImageRight is awesome.

Paper is one of those "feel good" things that I'm not convinced is really as important as so many other topics. After all, trees grow back (and suck a bunch of CO2 out of the atmosphere when they do).

According to TheLadders, the job search website that conducted the research, going green can be as simple as reducing paper usage, recycling and reducing trash, buying greener supplies, encouraging employees to turn off their computers and lights and turning down air conditioning when it is not needed.

And all of these (with the possible exception of keeping the AC set to something a little warmer than "flash freeze") pale in comparison to...

Stop flying people all over the damn place for no good reason. You can buy a pretty sweet videoconferencing setup with the money you'd save by cutting back just two trips each for half a dozen people.

Our government org is supposed to be the "green" leader for this region, and to set an example we've got some hybrids in our fleet vehicles, offer transit discounts and some other token crap.

But the two options that would immediately cut down emissions and energy usage and make a big impact are not even considered by the by-the-book old-school management: Telecommuting and compressed work week.

/Waiting for the current crop to retire so we can get some fresh blood up there.

arcas: Some years ago, one of the mucky mucks in our management chain decided that we must become ISO9000-compliant (I'm guessing he read it in a flashy magazine because it didn't occur to him that industrial certifications don't easily translate to software development).

Almost overnight, existing, proven software development practices had to be tossed out the window, new audit-ready processes were adopted, all processes and procedures had to be documented to ad-nauseum and all projects had to maintain audit-ready status. Once or twice a year, a random handful of projects would undergo audits by outside contractors. Basically an audit involved contractors scrutinizing the project's control books and interrogating the developers to make sure that documented procedures were actually being followed.

Since all this added overhead, naturally our costs went up. Didn't matter. In management's eyes, customers should *want* to pay more to know that their software was being created by an ISO9000-certified shop. Except they didn't. This just didn't compute with middle and upper management who insisted that customers who didn't want to pay for ISO9000 compliance simply weren't properly educated by our customer reps.

It was a clusterfark for about two years until someone further up the management chain finally realized that the whole thing was a bad idea poorly implemented.

I feel your pain brother. I had some loon I work with try to apply ISO9000 to a freaking MS Access "Application". Granted, it's a very valuable tool, but still...

meanmutton: ImageRight is awesome.

Paper is one of those "feel good" things that I'm not convinced is really as important as so many other topics. After all, trees grow back (and suck a bunch of CO2 out of the atmosphere when they do).

Paper is kind of irksome in my line of work; it makes our jobs WAY less efficient. I've had more than a few instances recently with the Minnesota, Wisconsin and North Carolina WC bureaus where prior reports will reject without being corrected then we have to hunt through 500 pages of crap in the hope of finding any allusion to changes that could have triggered the screw up. Not to mention the fun we run into with the California bureau.

Lsherm: I once quit a job because they had low flow toilets. The job sucked, but dealing with a clogged toilet every day was just insult to injury.

You should never even consider living in California.

/Also, why do you call 'no-flow' toilets 'low-flow'?

But are they Six Sigma?

Article has nothing to do with ISO9001, but I just wanted to say that ISO9001 is a complete clusterfark.

Glad I'm retired and don't have to deal with this crap anymore.

Goimir: meanmutton: Ken VeryBigLiar: If you want to work in a "green" space then don't work around insurance. It feels like maybe a third of carriers have gone to any semblence of eliminating or reducing the amount of paper they don't need to utilize and the antiquated databases some of them use (especially on the P&C side) don't help either.

ImageRight is awesome.

Paper is one of those "feel good" things that I'm not convinced is really as important as so many other topics. After all, trees grow back (and suck a bunch of CO2 out of the atmosphere when they do).

Isn't landfilling paper a good way to sequester carbon?

No, landfills are just huge compost pits - they have liners to keep the liquid goo in, and have pipes to vent methane and other gasses out(some places burn the methane to produce power).

And don't get me started on "Lean Manufacturing."

Goimir: Trolljegeren: Goimir: meanmutton: Ken VeryBigLiar: If you want to work in a "green" space then don't work around insurance. It feels like maybe a third of carriers have gone to any semblence of eliminating or reducing the amount of paper they don't need to utilize and the antiquated databases some of them use (especially on the P&C side) don't help either.

ImageRight is awesome.

Paper is one of those "feel good" things that I'm not convinced is really as important as so many other topics. After all, trees grow back (and suck a bunch of CO2 out of the atmosphere when they do).

Isn't landfilling paper a good way to sequester carbon?

No, landfills are just huge compost pits - they have liners to keep the liquid goo in, and have pipes to vent methane and other gasses out(some places burn the methane to produce power).

The C:N ratio of paper is all wrong to rot. Also, newspapers are the standard way of dating trash in landfills.

Most of your methane is going to be localized decomposition of diapers, then food scraps.

Um . . . .yeah . . . .you're thinking of archaic dry landfills, not the newer wet ones (where decomp is encouraged). Paper is gone within five or six months.

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen SmartestFunniest 2012-04-17 12:54:51 PM


According to TheLadders, the job search website that conducted the research, going green can be as simple as reducing paper usage, recycling and reducing trash, buying greener supplies, encouraging employees to turn off their computers and lights and turning down air conditioning when it is not needed.

And all of these (with the possible exception of keeping the AC set to something a little warmer than "flash freeze") pale in comparison to...

Stop flying people all over the damn place for no good reason. You can buy a pretty sweet videoconferencing setup with the money you'd save by cutting back just two trips each for half a dozen people.


I've worked with a number of companies with sophisticated videoccnferencing facilities. They all suck compared with a live face-to-face meeting. You can get more done in a single two hour meeting than you will in any 10 video meetings.

There are a lot of wasted meetings, so don't have them. If you need a meeting, face-to-face is worth the money.

Goimir: Chevello: And don't get me started on "Lean Manufacturing."

That's just them being upfront about saying "we want you to do the work of 5 men".

Here we call it "being lean because we missed lunch to meet the deadline."