I am shocked that the COO of Churchill Downs was actually able to find Americans on the backside. I worked at the track most of my life and had to struggle with money because of all the illegal immigrants I had to compete with. I was completely outnumbered. They work for very little and also live in the free dorm rooms at the track. (a 10x10 cement room) Most of them send their money home to their own country, where they have huge farms. The only people making money in this game are the trainers.

I got sucked in. I loved the show. It will be interesting to see if other CEOs respond like Larry did and make positive changes.

The thought struck me that you couldn't buy advertising like that for your company. The PR value of a COO acting like Larry must be awesome. This is all like that movie "Heaven Can Wait."

Yes, I love it, but I am all for hopey changey :)

I enjoyed the show a lot and found it to be compelling. I think they chose wisely for the first show as I liked Larry O from the very start - he struck me as an all round pretty good guy in or out of the thousand-dollar suit. My favorite segment was about the man doing the portable toilets. Not only was he pretty self-motivated with pride in his work but he was tremendously supportive and motivating to the new guy, really cheering him on. I am so glad that this was recognized as he is truly a hidden talent.

We keep hearing 'CEO' but in fact Larry and perhaps others down the line wil be lower in the food chain thus minimizing the likelihood of them being outed. Larry was COO.

once was enough for me
I will stick with Survivor, the Amazing Race, Big Brother which are also on CBS-Tv

First off, Applause to Larry O'Donnell.

This show is worth watching, and I'm glad they addressed the reason why the camera crew was following the new guy around, though I agree with that there may be segments that get edited out because the boss may be recognized or some of the employees are suspicious of having a camera around.


I wish that more corporate types and administrators would put themselves in the shoes of the workers that actually make the company function to see how the policies are affecting morale and productivity. Speaking from the experience of many jobs I've had: the best ones with the happiest employees are invariably the ones where the boss is working beside you....the worst ones are always the ones where the boss is somewhere in an office issuing policy without seeing the effects.

A lot of employees may have some excellent ideas about how to improve a company, but their ideas may never get heard by the upper management due to being quashed by politics & ambitions lower in the chain of command when those ideas make it into the suggestion box.

Also, there could be existing conditions that negatively affect productivity that never get passed upwards (those politics and ambitions again) the corporate type could address after witnessing it firsthand. (As was portrayed in this Waste Management episode.)

It would be beneficial to companies and business in general if all CEO, COO, and Board of Director types would step down from their lofty perches once in a while and see how the working conditions A) are being a detriment to productivity and B) can be improved to increase productivity and worker morale which would in turn increase profits.

I believe a key reason that Southwest Airlines has continued to be profitable while the other airlines are struggling with finances...founder and former CEO Herb Kelleher would frequently get out and perform the jobs along side of his employees including such tasks such as baggage handling, so he "gets it" and there is not as much of a disconnect between management and labor.

Of course, this all depends on those in upper management having an open mind to see how all the different aspects of the company fit together and can be improved for the overall benefit of the company instead of short term profit.


My thoughts on the reality/documentary debate:

Reality- CHOOSING a cast member based on interesting personalities (that will frequently be likely to clash with other CHOSEN cast members) and filming them in unscripted situations, then editing the footage to maximize drama or reinforce a theme. Primary focus is entertainment value for ratings & advertising $.

Documentary-Filming people (or animals) as they are , then edit the footage to document some aspects of the subject (environment, behavior, lifestyle, etc...) as they go about activities they would be doing even if there was no camera around. Primary focus is educating the audience about the subject.

I liked the show. Cheesy, a bit. Predictable, yes. But I think it is good that bosses (especially those at the top of the company) get a feel for what their employees go through daily, and even perhaps what the customers have to deal with. I read recently that less than 2% of our public transportation group's employees (in our metropolitan area) actually ride public transportation - so there's no way they could ever understand what problems regular citizens have to face when they depend on public transportation every day.

I don't remember exactly what the "back story" was for the camera crew - I think they said something about following a worker (I think they said "Randy" was in construction) trying out different jobs. And though some people may be on their "best" behavior for the cameras, I don't think it's possible to cover up all negative behavior, even if the employees wanted to. Like the issue of getting docked 2 minutes pay for every 1 minute tardy - that manager (Kevin?) clearly didn't think anything was wrong with that policy which you could see in his body language. And in the promos for next week's episode, there's some issues to be dealt with there.

Not to mention the fact that some people don't care about looking bad on tv - look at all the people on reality shows!

Brett: Sure I agree there is such a thing as "documentary TV" ... news shows like 20/20, Dateline, and the like are "documentary TV" when they are more than mere interviews and more than mere recitals of the day's events. When they have a topic and investigate it, interview several people about it, study it from all sides... that's "documentary." But like you said, creating a situation, filming it, and editing out the most boring parts is reality tv, if anything. It's not "documentary TV."

Martin: So the CEOs are not wearing thousand dollar suits. Big deal - they don't show the CEOs firing all the "regular" employees who gave them shit, wasted the company's time, stole office supplies, told dirty jokes, etc. Lots of employees are going to get fired as a result of this show.

It's refered to as a "documentary" and not a reality TV show so they don't have to pay the workers scale. The "Boss" gets paid (like he needs it). But the workers get nothing. It's a loophole in the labor law. I for one will not watch the show.

I really enjoyed this show. It casts ceo's in a better light - something that is needed - given all the bad publicity they get. Recognition of CEO's is context based. Clean shaven, thousand dollar suits, paneled offices - take away that context and you can easily fool people. The reason companies are not hiring more is they are asking their regular employees to do more, i.e., be more productive. This saves on insurance costs, training costs, and is a protective hedge against uncertain markets. The result is overworked employees - a bad thing. Here was one CEO that got it, at least in a small way, and tried to do something about it, again, at least in a small way. My hats off to the show.

I didn't watch the show but I'm wondering...

If the show becomes popular, and CBS is betting on it with a post Super Bowl slot, how will they continue tricking people in following seasons without them getting suspicious?