Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 69 70 [71] 72 73 ... 852

Author Topic: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread  (Read 880466 times)

G-Flex

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Vector's Progressive Rage Thread
« Reply #1050 on: June 24, 2011, 02:05:14 am »

1.) Employable people who are temporarily sick:
If you are sick and have a communicable disease that I can catch, even the flu, and you work for me, I will HAPPILY PAY YOU TO STAY HOME SO I DON"T CATCH IT. Please, please, do not come to work hacking and sneezing. You will get both me, my other employees and customers sick. If I'm sick, then I can't work and be productive and stuff in the business will not get done. <----- This is bad for business. Moreover, if you come to work and get my other employees sick, then I am now short handed and again, can't get the business' stuff done and make money. Moreover, health insurance is expensive as hell and if the workplace pays for it, then this becomes incredibly expensive for you NOT to stay home. The insurance company audits how much the company uses in health care every year and if you get 5 people from work sick, then the insurance company will raise the company's health insurance rates because it had to pay for five doctors instead of 1! In the interest of saving myself and my business money, if you work for me and are genuinely sick, please, please, stay home because I don't want what you have. That said, if you work for me and lie about being sick to play hookie, you are not only fired FOR CAUSE but I will blacken your name with a terrible review for your next prospective employer for what you've done: lying, abusing my good sense and compassion, and costing me money for faking sick). This is a pet peeve of mine. If you lie to me about being sick at work then may God have Mercy on you, because I won't.

... And if the illness is non-communicable? Then it's within the employer's interest to goad employers into showing up to work even if they are sick, for the same reasons you said (insurance costs, being shorthanded, etc.). Whoops.


Quote
Summation on this point: I don't care, and a smart boss wouldn't care, how many hours you were at work. I care what you did during those hours.

Plenty of bosses aren't particularly smart about some things, or observant, or perceptive. Even some of the long-term successful ones. I think a lot of us have worked for people like this.
Logged
There are 2 types of people in the world: Those who understand hexadecimal, and those who don't.
Visit the #Bay12Games IRC channel on NewNet
== Human Renovation: My Deus Ex mod/fan patch (v1.30, updated 5/31/2012) ==

Mindmaker

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Vector's Progressive Rage Thread
« Reply #1051 on: June 24, 2011, 03:48:19 am »

Well, it's hardly fair to punish women for their suffering to maintain the major part of our reproductive process.
However, if equal pay would be forced, assuming it is true, that (some) women work less hours, I can imagine employers would shift their preference to men even more.
Some compromise has to be found.

As for monthly problems:
If it's really that bad, that one is unable to attend work, they should get the chance to make up for it in some way (using time offset, working overtime), without suffering finincial drawbacks.

I know this has a bitter aftertaste, but I really have no other ideas for a capitalistic society as we have it...
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 05:11:00 am by Mindmaker »
Logged

Truean

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ok.... [sigh] It froze over....
    • View Profile
Re: Vector's Progressive Rage Thread
« Reply #1052 on: June 24, 2011, 07:53:03 am »

1.) Employable people who are temporarily sick:
If you are sick and have a communicable disease that I can catch, even the flu, and you work for me, I will HAPPILY PAY YOU TO STAY HOME SO I DON"T CATCH IT. Please, please, do not come to work hacking and sneezing. You will get both me, my other employees and customers sick. If I'm sick, then I can't work and be productive and stuff in the business will not get done. <----- This is bad for business. Moreover, if you come to work and get my other employees sick, then I am now short handed and again, can't get the business' stuff done and make money. Moreover, health insurance is expensive as hell and if the workplace pays for it, then this becomes incredibly expensive for you NOT to stay home. The insurance company audits how much the company uses in health care every year and if you get 5 people from work sick, then the insurance company will raise the company's health insurance rates because it had to pay for five doctors instead of 1! In the interest of saving myself and my business money, if you work for me and are genuinely sick, please, please, stay home because I don't want what you have. That said, if you work for me and lie about being sick to play hookie, you are not only fired FOR CAUSE but I will blacken your name with a terrible review for your next prospective employer for what you've done: lying, abusing my good sense and compassion, and costing me money for faking sick). This is a pet peeve of mine. If you lie to me about being sick at work then may God have Mercy on you, because I won't.

... And if the illness is non-communicable? Then it's within the employer's interest to goad employers into showing up to work even if they are sick, for the same reasons you said (insurance costs, being shorthanded, etc.). Whoops.

Reading.... Comprehension....

O there's no whoops...on my part.... If you can come to work, then you should. Your answer nearly fits on a bumper sticker.... read what I wrote again, all of it this time, and see if you can find where non communicable fits in. That would be under part 2. I specifically used Crohns Disease, which requires periodic (you really think the use of that term and specific disease was an accident in these circumstances?) absences. Crohns happens to be something both men and women suffer from if they have it too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crohn%27s_disease

Also no, not for the "same reasons I said," Insurance costs only go up if people go to the doctor/use the coverage/make the insurance company pay out more than it planned to. You know, kinda like how that would happen if say 5 people got sick because one moron wouldn't stay home. The whole god damn point was that those costs are lowered if people with something I can catch stay home.... There's no other application of this principle. As for goading people to come into work, what the hell did you think this was?
Quote
That said, if you work for me and lie about being sick to play hookie, you are not only fired FOR CAUSE but I will blacken your name with a terrible review for your next prospective employer for what you've done: lying, abusing my good sense and compassion, and costing me money for faking sick). This is a pet peeve of mine. If you lie to me about being sick at work then may God have Mercy on you, because I won't.

Let me connect the dots for ya:

Section one (1) was the most agreeable to most people, Section two (2) was less so, and section (3)....

The whole point of section two (2) was that:
Quote
Smart employers care less about WHEN you are there, as WHAT YOU DO WHEN YOU ARE THERE. If it all averages out and you get the damn job done, then kudos.


Did you think that paragraph was all a bunch of bullshit business speak from some crappy self help book. I meant every single solitary syllable. I don't care if you work 40 hours or 36 or 42, why do I care how long you are there? Can you get the job done that you are supposed to do? If you can do it in less time, then why should I punish you for being efficient by making you hang around longer? Please, don't even think about saying the obvious.... "But Truean, then you can squeeze more work out of your employees and get more from them! Herp Derp!" <---- This right here, this is called a disincentive to work. It punishes the productive employees. Anybody want to argue it's a good idea in a capitalist society to punish productivity? No one? Good?
Quote
Quote
Summation on this point: I don't care, and a smart boss wouldn't care, how many hours you were at work. I care what you did during those hours.

Plenty of bosses aren't particularly smart about some things, or observant, or perceptive. Even some of the long-term successful ones. I think a lot of us have worked for people like this.

No duh. That's why I included a disclaimer:
Quote
IMPORTANT NOTE: "DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME"
Unfortunately, most bosses don't think like I do and that's one of the reasons why the world is fucked up. They aren't right because what they're saying makes sense, they're right because if you disagree with them you won't have a job or a paycheck, period. That's pretty powerful. It's the tyrant's argument, "Shut up and do what I say or I'll bash your head in [fire your ass]." It's not right, but it's very convincing....

Do whatever the crap your boss says and don't mention any of my ideas at work or in regards to work. I don't want to be responsible for anyone getting in trouble at work.

You seem to have missed the lion's share of that email.... Please read it next time before you imply a mistake with it instead of glossing over the bold parts and quoting the summation....
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 08:18:17 am by Truean »
Logged
The kinda human wreckage that you love

Current Spare Time Fiction Project: (C) 2010 http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63660.0
Disclaimer: I never take cases online for ethical reasons. If you require an attorney; you need to find one licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Never take anything online as legal advice, because each case is different and one size does not fit all. Wants nothing at all to do with law.

Please don't quote me.

Siquo

  • Bay Watcher
  • Procedurally generated
    • View Profile
Re: Vector's Progressive Rage Thread
« Reply #1053 on: June 24, 2011, 07:59:12 am »

________________________________________________________________________
IMPORTANT NOTE: "DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME"
Oh, no, please do. The more people are confronted with their own BS, the better this world will become. And if your boss is like the aforementioned tyrant, why are you even working there?
Logged

This one thread is mine. MIIIIINE!!! And it will remain a happy, friendly, encouraging place, whether you lot like it or not. 
will rena,eme sique to sique sxds-- siquo if sucessufil
(cant spel siqou a. every speling looks wroing (hate this))

Truean

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ok.... [sigh] It froze over....
    • View Profile
Re: Vector's Progressive Rage Thread
« Reply #1054 on: June 24, 2011, 08:05:16 am »

For a paycheck, which moron will take away if "confronted" with anything. Confronting said moron won't solve anything or make the world better because it won't force him to face jack shit. Rather he'll fire, shrug off the whole thing and hire someone else. End result: he just swaps out people and learns nothing, which again, is why said boss is a moron.

I've had bosses tell me to do incredibly stupid things, things that directly hurt the company for the boss' personal gain, or to cover up the boss' stupidity/mistakes/incompetence, or in some cases boss' outright criminal activity (sometimes against me).

It is very dangerous being right when the established authority is wrong....
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 08:11:40 am by Truean »
Logged
The kinda human wreckage that you love

Current Spare Time Fiction Project: (C) 2010 http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63660.0
Disclaimer: I never take cases online for ethical reasons. If you require an attorney; you need to find one licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Never take anything online as legal advice, because each case is different and one size does not fit all. Wants nothing at all to do with law.

Please don't quote me.

Gantolandon

  • Bay Watcher
  • He has a fertile imagination.
    • View Profile
Re: Vector's Progressive Rage Thread
« Reply #1055 on: June 24, 2011, 09:14:47 am »

Quote
Summation on this point: I don't care, and a smart boss wouldn't care, how many hours you were at work. I care what you did during those hours.

A boss who has his head out of his ass asks:
Are you pulling your weight?
Are you pulling your weight plus some extra to make the company a profit on your labor?

If the answers to those questions aren't both yes, for a good majority of the people in the company at the very least, then it doesn't matter who shows up when, because the place is sinking and not treading water. At some point, if this continues, there won't be a place to show up for work to...

Would you be willing to actually pay your employees a share of the company's profit then? Or are you still going to give them money for the time they had worked and just expect them to do more?

The main problem with this world is that most bosses actually seem to hold your values - in motivational speeches and newsletters. You are expected to give the company as much as you can - but if it turns a great profit, your wage will remain the same and the bonus will be minuscule. You are allowed to second-guess your superior and every opinion you voice will be heard - but, at best, quietly ignored. I prefer companies which just pay people for showing up and just doing something, because at least they don't try to appear as something they are not.
Logged

Truean

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ok.... [sigh] It froze over....
    • View Profile
Re: Vector's Progressive Rage Thread
« Reply #1056 on: June 24, 2011, 09:54:09 am »

Quote
Summation on this point: I don't care, and a smart boss wouldn't care, how many hours you were at work. I care what you did during those hours.

A boss who has his head out of his ass asks:
Are you pulling your weight?
Are you pulling your weight plus some extra to make the company a profit on your labor?

If the answers to those questions aren't both yes, for a good majority of the people in the company at the very least, then it doesn't matter who shows up when, because the place is sinking and not treading water. At some point, if this continues, there won't be a place to show up for work to...

Would you be willing to actually pay your employees a share of the company's profit then? Or are you still going to give them money for the time they had worked and just expect them to do more?

The main problem with this world is that most bosses actually seem to hold your values - in motivational speeches and newsletters. You are expected to give the company as much as you can - but if it turns a great profit, your wage will remain the same and the bonus will be minuscule. You are allowed to second-guess your superior and every opinion you voice will be heard - but, at best, quietly ignored. I prefer companies which just pay people for showing up and just doing something, because at least they don't try to appear as something they are not.

It's about numbers and interactions most people don't get (including bosses):
Proper mechanism
Abuse of said mechanism
Profit sharing = partnership
You don't want that
People who didn't build it

The proper mechanism, in theory, should be that an employee's compensation overall should reflect what they have given the company - some amount for a return on investment of their labor for said company. The problem is that corporations have abused the shit out of this mechanism which is why they are sitting on record profits right now and yet not hiring. This is because of lots of realities from the law of unintended consequences of Capitalism (outsourcing etc).

A "partnership" is a not a legal entity like a corporation with separate existence but rather a partnership is merely a grouping of people, called partners. ALL PARTNERS REMAIN INDIVIDUALLY AND PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR ALL PARTNERSHIP FINANCES AND LIABILITIES. PARTNERSHIPS CAN BE ENTIRELY UNINTENTIONAL. The primary factors in determining who is a partner is sharing of profit and control. Profit sharing is by far the greater of these factors. A person who shares in profits is presumed by American law in most jurisdictions to be a partner. This means until and unless they can prove otherwise, they are held to be a partner, which means they are liable individually for the company debts.

Sure you want that? Everyone focuses on "profit sharing" but guess what? "Loss sharing" goes right along with that. Again, most people are short sighted.... If a company delivery truck runs over some poor bastard do you want to be sued as a de facto partner? It can happen if you share profits.

Furthermore, there is a problem of full appreciation/understanding any business and what created it/makes it run and both bosses and employees have this problem. If I start a business, that means its my ass if things go wrong. O sure, the employees will be out of work, but the bank isn't coming after them for the loan amount: they aren't personally liable. In this instance, the founder of the business, who built it from nothing, knows the most about it and deserves more. Most starting businesses fail and there is no one to catch you if you fall. These risks are legitimate. Go ahead, try it yourself....

Then of course, you have established businesses, whose founders have often moved on. Both the people running the joint and the people working there, do not appreciate what it took to build the place. They aren't really accountable for anything and wouldn't know how to go about doing that if they actually cared. Speaking of caring, they don't. It's a hurray for me and to hell with you, viewpoint which sucks.

Yes, worker compensation needs to go up, but not specifically as profit sharing. The problem is that there are messed up economic factors at work like outsourcing with the primary effect of making your job able to be moved overseas for pennies on the dollar and the secondary effect of making the company's customer's jobs able to be moved overseas for pennies on the dollar (thus making it harder for the business to find people able to pay it).
Logged
The kinda human wreckage that you love

Current Spare Time Fiction Project: (C) 2010 http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63660.0
Disclaimer: I never take cases online for ethical reasons. If you require an attorney; you need to find one licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Never take anything online as legal advice, because each case is different and one size does not fit all. Wants nothing at all to do with law.

Please don't quote me.

Siquo

  • Bay Watcher
  • Procedurally generated
    • View Profile
Re: Vector's Progressive Rage Thread
« Reply #1057 on: June 24, 2011, 09:57:03 am »

It is very dangerous being right when the established authority is wrong....
Well, that depends on the employment climate. Up until now, I've had the luxury (I don't think it is, but apparently it is a luxury) to be able to cope with being fired. Fun thing is: I've never been fired, even though colleagues shut up because they were afraid. Well ok, once, when I was 20, for not showing up at McCrapjob for days because the weather was nice, but never for a big mouth to my manager.

Maybe I just had a lot of rational managers who could actually stand criticism (but it also depends on how you deliver it, of course).

So yes, it can make the world a better place, and if everyone did it, TyrantBoss won't be able to hire anyone and CrapCompany would go bankrupt as it should. Now you can say, cynically, that never will everyone do that, so it's a useless symbol, but you know better than that. The world becomes a better place in babysteps.
Logged

This one thread is mine. MIIIIINE!!! And it will remain a happy, friendly, encouraging place, whether you lot like it or not. 
will rena,eme sique to sique sxds-- siquo if sucessufil
(cant spel siqou a. every speling looks wroing (hate this))

sluissa

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Vector's Progressive Rage Thread
« Reply #1058 on: June 24, 2011, 10:09:20 am »

It is very dangerous being right when the established authority is wrong....
Well, that depends on the employment climate. Up until now, I've had the luxury (I don't think it is, but apparently it is a luxury) to be able to cope with being fired. Fun thing is: I've never been fired, even though colleagues shut up because they were afraid. Well ok, once, when I was 20, for not showing up at McCrapjob for days because the weather was nice, but never for a big mouth to my manager.

Maybe I just had a lot of rational managers who could actually stand criticism (but it also depends on how you deliver it, of course).

So yes, it can make the world a better place, and if everyone did it, TyrantBoss won't be able to hire anyone and CrapCompany would go bankrupt as it should. Now you can say, cynically, that never will everyone do that, so it's a useless symbol, but you know better than that. The world becomes a better place in babysteps.

Employers will ALWAYS have someone more desperate than you wanting your job. Whether it's someone that's been unemployed for a while who is willing to put up with crap for a paycheck, or if it's some employee in a poorer country that they can outsource it to, or even an illegal immigrant who is willing to take crap pay and treatment for the simple benefit of not being deported.
Logged

Siquo

  • Bay Watcher
  • Procedurally generated
    • View Profile
Re: Vector's Progressive Rage Thread
« Reply #1059 on: June 24, 2011, 10:29:04 am »

Employers will ALWAYS have someone more desperate than you wanting your job.
(disclaimer: the following isn't aimed at you personally, more at "the people")

So? Having someone available who is more desperate than your current employee is a pretty strange reason to fire someone. And even if he does, what then? Making a difference is taking a stand somewhere. You can't just use the weak "if I don't do it someone else will" excuse all your life. Unless you like the world exactly as it is now, change has to start somewhere.

Also, your boss (or "manager" as I like to call them, nobody's my boss) cannot "make" you do anything. You choose between doing it and getting fired. And yes, that is always a choice. Grow a spine and take some responsibility.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Logged

This one thread is mine. MIIIIINE!!! And it will remain a happy, friendly, encouraging place, whether you lot like it or not. 
will rena,eme sique to sique sxds-- siquo if sucessufil
(cant spel siqou a. every speling looks wroing (hate this))

Gantolandon

  • Bay Watcher
  • He has a fertile imagination.
    • View Profile
Re: Vector's Progressive Rage Thread
« Reply #1060 on: June 24, 2011, 10:34:59 am »

Quote from: Truean
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It's hard to me to discuss about the American law, especially that I don't live here. I am aware that the partnership has a lot of unwanted consequences and - right now - it's not the most viable of options. I'm quite surprised that you can be sued as a partner even when not having anything to say about the company's policy, though.

I tried to point out something else - you get what you pay for. Between your quite sound arguments, I managed to spot some less appealing ones. You claim that, as the employees didn't take any risk, they don't deserve anything out of the cut of those who did. Maybe they really don't, I don't know - ethics is a bit tricky. However, if you basically pay people for showing up and just doing something during that time, you can't demand anything more from them. Especially that they voluntarily sacrifice their time and energy to help your company make a profit.

It's not a job of a salaried employee to care about your profit or the company. When comes to employee-employer relation, words are meaningless if not backed up by money. Or its equivalent.
Logged

sluissa

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Vector's Progressive Rage Thread
« Reply #1061 on: June 24, 2011, 10:49:26 am »

Employers will ALWAYS have someone more desperate than you wanting your job.
(disclaimer: the following isn't aimed at you personally, more at "the people")

So? Having someone available who is more desperate than your current employee is a pretty strange reason to fire someone. And even if he does, what then? Making a difference is taking a stand somewhere. You can't just use the weak "if I don't do it someone else will" excuse all your life. Unless you like the world exactly as it is now, change has to start somewhere.

Also, your boss (or "manager" as I like to call them, nobody's my boss) cannot "make" you do anything. You choose between doing it and getting fired. And yes, that is always a choice. Grow a spine and take some responsibility.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

This is especially true in the current economy, but some people can't afford to be fired, and if there are easy replacements out there, if you make any waves at all, it's always a possibility that you will be.

Even in my case, where I basically work for myself, or in reality, directly for the customers, I find myself doing more, for less money than I probably want simply because they don't HAVE to choose me to do the job I do. There are plenty of options out there and while I might, currently be near or at the bottom of the price list, it's not by much, and if I give service even slightly below what's expected, they might just choose someone else that can do it perfectly for just a few dollars more. Nobody ever complains about my prices, but that's the way it has to be. Very few people I work for would complain directly to me. If they thought I was overpriced, they'd just move on to someone else.
Logged

RedKing

  • Bay Watcher
  • hoo hoo motherfucker
    • View Profile
Re: Vector's Progressive Rage Thread
« Reply #1062 on: June 24, 2011, 11:19:37 am »

There's also the fact that most companies will just ignore you. HP seems to be fond of this--sending out "anonymous" surveys to get feedback on what could be done better, *mandating* a response, then promptly ignoring feedback and doing what they've been doing all along. It's a cheap "empowerment" tactic to try and raise employee morale, which basically does the opposite because we all realize that no one pays us any attention and we're even more powerless than we thought.

And for all the threat of firing, surprisingly few people are actually fired in my experience. We have a lot of dead wood in our ranks--people who frankly shouldn't be here and who I resent because they're incompetent at best and lazy and malingering at worst, and they're taking up positions that could be filled by competent people who are currently unemployed. I personally would have thought that times like this would be an excellent chance to thin the herd and replace them with competent employees, but that's not how it works in the real world.

1. Firing people is a pain in the ass. There's a lot of paperwork, there's the ever-present threat of litigation, there's the case you have to make to HR to cover the company's ass, etc. If you work in government or in a unionized environment, it's even more complicated and time-consuming.

2. Firing people tends to kill morale. Unless the person in question was such a colossal fuck-up that everyone else saw it coming, firing a person (especially from something like performance rather than a violation of code of conduct or similar) gets everyone else worried that they're next. You might get a short-term burst of productivity as people work their ass off to show that they're really valuable after all, but long-term you'll lose productivity as people get depressed, fatalistic ("They're probably gonna can me anyways, so fuck it...I'm not going to break my back for them"), spend their time looking for other jobs, etc. You especially see this if it's a round of layoffs as opposed to a single person incident.

The ironic thing is that you often see a drop in morale and productivity among top performers when you don't fire people who are obviously subpar, especially if there's also limited or no increased compensation for those top performers. YOu wind up with your best people saying, "Well hell...if I can do half as much work and constantly screw up and STILL keep my job and get paid like Bob over there, why am I bothering?"

3. Finding replacements is an even bigger pain in the ass. Despite (or perhaps because of) the large pool of potential replacements out there, it's an enormous amount of work to go through the horde of resumes and applications you're going to get when you list a job opening. Then the interviews, the meetings with HR, the followup interviews, and the actual finalized hiring and onboarding process. And if new guy turns out to be a bigger bust than the person they're replacing, it looks bad on the manager.

4. Managers keep a certain amount of useless employees as "cannon fodder". Chalk this one up to the insanity that is corporate politics. Let's say a manager takes it upon themselves to trim down their staff by eliminating people who aren't that useful, and then HQ comes along and says "We need to save money. All units must shed 10% of their staff." They don't consider the previous firings in their calculations. So now the manager who has already made his unit leaner and meaner by getting rid of the dead wood has to get rid of people who are actually useful. By keeping a few subpar people on staff, they've got a buffer of easily disposable staff that can be sacrificed to save the jobs of those that are actually needed. Which is kinda insane, because it follows from that that at least 10-20% of payrolls are filled with "padding" whose main role is to take the downsizing hit for the people who are actually working hard.

With all that, it's not surprising that it's actually pretty difficult to get fired unless you're in a single-owner small business.
Logged

Remember, knowledge is power. The power to make other people feel stupid.
Quote from: Neil DeGrasse Tyson
Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you.

Truean

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ok.... [sigh] It froze over....
    • View Profile
Re: Vector's Progressive Rage Thread
« Reply #1063 on: June 24, 2011, 11:31:44 am »

Quote
It's hard to me to discuss about the American law, especially that I don't live here. I am aware that the partnership has a lot of unwanted consequences and - right now - it's not the most viable of options. I'm quite surprised that you can be sued as a partner even when not having anything to say about the company's policy, though.

I tried to point out something else - you get what you pay for. Between your quite sound arguments, I managed to spot some less appealing ones. You claim that, as the employees didn't take any risk, they don't deserve anything out of the cut of those who did. Maybe they really don't, I don't know - ethics is a bit tricky. However, if you basically pay people for showing up and just doing something during that time, you can't demand anything more from them. Especially that they voluntarily sacrifice their time and energy to help your company make a profit.

It's not a job of a salaried employee to care about your profit or the company. When comes to employee-employer relation, words are meaningless if not backed up by money. Or its equivalent.

On Partnership and "Control"
Imagine you're the judge and someone is being sued as a defacto partner for a company loss, tort/personal injury claim etc. They know they aren't liable (don't have to pay) if they aren't a partner so that's what they'll argue, and they know that if they aren't in "control" that's what they'll say: EVERY SINGLE BLOODY ONE OF THEM. Even the ones who are in control will say they aren't to try and dodge out of this mess. Moreover, it's incredibly hard to determine who is "really" in control and how much control they have. It's like how everyone in prison says they are innocent.... We can't really track it easily if we can at all.

We can take a look and see who got what of the profits though.... Path of least resistance wins....

Even if it wasn't the law here, it wouldn't seem right to me that people would take from the profits but not the risk of loss. They go hand in hand.
_________________________________________________________________

You're absolutely right, you do get what you pay for. The whole point of my recent post sections on "not wanting time punchers" and "proper mechanism," was that performance should be rewarded and reflected in wage/salary/total compensation. Rather than using a different mechanism, "profit sharing" which has numerous pitfalls, you should pay the productive ones more in wages/salary/benefits/or other compensation.

Productivity is hard to measure too though, which is why this is difficult. People will actively try to fool you. Even when no one does that, it's often very hard to see. Let's say you manage a division of a company and there are ... eight (8 ) departments let's say that 6 of those 8 are making profits. 1 of them is breaking even and 1 of them is loosing money. The first instinct of many managers is to take a good hard look at and possibly eliminate or vastly restructure the department that is loosing money. This is sometimes a trap. What the numbers might not show is that 1 department is holding up the 6 other ones, so if you mess with that what you're really doing is playing around with the support structure and endangering the other departments.

Quote
It's not a job of a salaried employee to care about your profit or the company. When comes to employee-employer relation, words are meaningless if not backed up by money. Or its equivalent.

I get where you're coming from I really do. I just have never operated this way as an employee myself, because I knew that I'd stand a greater chance of keeping my job if the company survived and if I helped it do that... you see where I'm going with this....

The issue is that we now have a broken mechanism, which used to make it rational for salaried employees to give a damn about the business: the possibility of a raise. <---- That basically made you care, because if you were smart, you'd realize that the better the business was doing the better position it would be in to give you a raise. It works the other way too if the business is going down.... The problem is that no one seems to be getting raises anymore.

I bet if I sat down with you over a cup of coffee and asked you face to face if you would care about the company as a salaried employee if there was a real possibility of a raise in it for you (and not just bullshit promises) you'd say yes. Moreover, it would be rational to say yes.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 11:40:58 am by Truean »
Logged
The kinda human wreckage that you love

Current Spare Time Fiction Project: (C) 2010 http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63660.0
Disclaimer: I never take cases online for ethical reasons. If you require an attorney; you need to find one licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Never take anything online as legal advice, because each case is different and one size does not fit all. Wants nothing at all to do with law.

Please don't quote me.

Gantolandon

  • Bay Watcher
  • He has a fertile imagination.
    • View Profile
Re: Vector's Progressive Rage Thread
« Reply #1064 on: June 24, 2011, 12:05:43 pm »

Quote
I get where you're coming from I really do. I just have never operated this way as an employee myself, because I knew that I'd stand a greater chance of keeping my job if the company survived and if I helped it do that... you see where I'm going with this....

The issue is that we now have a broken mechanism, which used to make it rational for salaried employees to give a damn about the business: the possibility of a raise. <---- That basically made you care, because if you were smart, you'd realize that the better the business was doing the better position it would be in to give you a raise. It works the other way too if the business is going down.... The problem is that no one seems to be getting raises anymore.

I bet if I sat down with you over a cup of coffee and asked you face to face if you would care about the company as a salaried employee if there was a real possibility of a raise in it for you (and not just bullshit promises) you'd say yes. Moreover, it would be rational to say yes.

Of course. It's even better if the possibility is replaced by certainty that all your hard work won't be for naught. "Profit sharing" just sounds appealing because it would be harder for the employer to screw you over. But, as I said, it's not something viable. At least not right now.

But there should be at least a way to filter out companies fueled by bullshit. The ones which take people, fill their heads with fairy tales and let them work for peanuts until they leave. Or just toss them out when they are not needed anymore. Unfortunately, the only way to get rid of them is to vaccinate yourself against the ideology they spout. That's why I'm extremely weary of an employer who talks about motivation.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 69 70 [71] 72 73 ... 852