|
OwlFancier posted:How much money do they make you? How much money can they make without me and what I do? Because if that sum is less than the one you're referring to then my organization is doing some work that deserves to get paid out, too.
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:57 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:How much money can they make without me and what I do? Because if that sum is less than the one you're referring to then my organization is doing some work that deserves to get paid out, too. I don't know, have you considered turning the company into a cooperative and seeing exactly how much your labour contributes to the organization, and letting everybody else who works there decide together who contributes what and who should get paid what? That seems like a way to find out. Or are you worried that might make your share a bit smaller than you'd like?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 19:56
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't know, have you considered turning the company into a cooperative and seeing exactly how much your labour contributes to the organization, and letting everybody else who works there decide together who contributes what and who should get paid what? That seems like a way to find out. If they want to buy me out then sure, why not?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:If they want to buy me out then sure, why not? Are you planning to pay them enough so that's an option? Or are you planning to keep skimming their contribution to the company in order to inflate its price, under your name, of course.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 19:58
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Are you planning to pay them enough so that's an option? You seem to have a particular view on this, under which literally nothing I could do other than put my neck in the guillotine could possibly be above board.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 20:08
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:You seem to have a particular view on this, under which literally nothing I could do other than put my neck in the guillotine could possibly be above board. It's weird that you compare a suggestion that you should abdicate ownership of your business to equal co-ownership with everyone who works there as you "neck in the guillotine". Owlofcreamcheese posted:[regarding education, income, and fecundity] it was a survey of studies and made a point of disclaiming that it was only looking at the US, and this was some years back. i don't have a link to hand. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 20:14 on May 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:You seem to have a particular view on this, under which literally nothing I could do other than put my neck in the guillotine could possibly be above board. As a much vaunted small business owner and responsible guardian of the sum of capital over which you hold authority, do you perhaps have some... vague ideas about how much the labour of the various people working at your enterprise might contribute to the process? And any ideas about how long and how hard those people might work, relative to each other, and relative to the degree of compensation they receive?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 20:14
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:You seem to have a particular view on this, under which literally nothing I could do other than put my neck in the guillotine could possibly be above board. Or you could pay your employees what they're worth.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 20:14
|
|
|
Literally no one is saying "don't make money for yourself", the point is stop trying to pay people as little as possible to make yourself as much as possible.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 20:18
|
|
|
OP, you missed this post so I'm gonna post it again.wateroverfire posted:play the game Why? What is the good that is being advanced here? Other than you trying to squeeze out more profit by paying people as little as possible.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 20:18
|
|
|
And once you've answered my above post, do you think if you did do some sort of, informal consultation among your employees, possibly anonymously, whether or not their assessment of the relative contributions and compensations in your noble enterprise would line up with yours?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
JBP posted:I think it's more that rostering is scheduled tightly thanks to computerised time management and corporate edicts that overtime never be offered, so if overtime absolutely must be done, it goes to an old timer/pet. This and they scedule most employees to keep them part time. Many companies don't even let hourly workers get up to full time let alone to get overtime. The long timers they can't do this to (they try) because poo poo falls apart when they gently caress with them too much. Or they do it and poo poo falls apart.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 20:33
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't know, have you considered turning the company into a cooperative and seeing exactly how much your labour contributes to the organization, and letting everybody else who works there decide together who contributes what and who should get paid what? I get the point you are making but majoritarian voting on who gets paid what is unlikely to result in people getting paid what their labor is worth
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
Typo posted:I get the point you are making but majoritarian voting on who gets paid what is unlikely to result in people getting paid what their labor is worth Few people work harder than the people who have to clean the toilets in a lot of places, IMO, but voting is never going to grant them the salaries they deserve.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 20:38
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:Few people work harder than the people who have to clean the toilets in a lot of places, IMO, but voting is never going to grant them the salaries they deserve. also: if you any degree of involvement with office politics whatsoever with your co-workers, you'll probably have serious doubts about whether majoritarian voting on everyone's salary is going to give the average employee the salary they deserve (in the marxist sense or otherwise)
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 20:40
|
|
|
Typo posted:I get the point you are making but majoritarian voting on who gets paid what is unlikely to result in people getting paid what their labor is worth Co-ops and non-profits can be decent, not great, but decent at doing this. Management can still gently caress it up (more for the not for profits).
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
doverhog posted:OP, you missed this post so I'm gonna post it again. I'm going to try to answer you but I need to clarify some points a little. Let's say that instead of a range between X and Y a given position just pays Z and no negotiating is possible. If you get into that position then you make Z, that's it, and everyone in that position makes Z. That's what I understand you to be saying should happen instead. Is that right? edit: Or I guess to put it another way and advance a little... let's say that is the policy. What does an employer do when an employee they want to keep comes to them and says "hey boss, you've been great and I fit in good here, but I need more money and if you can't help me I need to go somewhere else."? If the employer negotiates that's rewarding someone for playing the game. But if they don't, the person leaves and some other employer rewards them for playing the game. The alternative (what you seem to be advocating) is they just stay where they are making the same money? "The game" is to the employee's benefit. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 20:53 on May 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 20:49
|
|
|
I'm an open minded guy, maybe there is a better way to do it. In my current job every is paid according to a public document that the union negotiated. It seems to work alright. However my question is, do you honestly believe negotiating pay is a net positive for society? You do it because you want to pay less if you can get away with it. Fair assessment of your motives? If not, describe in detail, on a philosophical level if you can, why you think workers ability to individually negotiate should determine their pay. *it's possible to get extra pay in addition to the agreed document, but that is not something that would come up in the hiring process doverhog fucked around with this message at 21:02 on May 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 20:59
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:"The game" is to the employee's benefit. Do you think labor unions and collective bargaining just sprang up out of nowhere? "The game" is always rigged to the employer's benefit. People making low wages cannot afford to just walk out on a job or to take the time off they need to do interviews.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 20:59
|
|
|
doverhog posted:I'm an open minded guy, maybe there is a better way to do it. In my current job every is paid according to a public document that the union negotiated. It seems to work alright. I want to give this a good answer but I'm at work now and won't be able to really sit down and give it the time I think it it deserves until at least tomorrow. Short answer, though, it's less that "it's a net positive for society" and more that "it's a thing a certain amount of people are going to do no matter what on both sides of the transaction because there's advantage to be had, even though it collectively makes things kind of shittier". But give me until maybe tomorrow night please to flesh it out. FWIW I donīt think doing it through unions and collective bargaining is necessarily bad and in a lot of situations probably could work better than not for everybody. But that depends a lot on the culture the union is embedded in (German vs Chilean, for example).
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 21:06
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I want to give this a good answer but I'm at work now and won't be able to really sit down and give it the time I think it it deserves until at least tomorrow. Short answer, though, it's less that "it's a net positive for society" and more that "it's a thing a certain amount of people are going to do no matter what on both sides of the transaction because there's advantage to be had, even though it collectively makes things kind of shittier". But give me until maybe tomorrow night please to flesh it out. FWIW I donīt think doing it through unions and collective bargaining is necessarily bad and in a lot of situations probably could work better than not for everybody. But that depends a lot on the culture the union is embedded in (German vs Chilean, for example). Ok, I'm gonna be working for the next 5 days starting tomorrow so probably wont respond but I'm sure other posters can fill in. 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:Few people work harder than the people who have to clean the toilets in a lot of places, IMO, but voting is never going to grant them the salaries they deserve. Generally I found that the opposite was true. When voting was used to allocate relative labor values within the coops I've been around, cleaning the toilets was almost always allocated as more valuable labor than cooking or kitchen cleaning. This was reflected in marginal bonuses in relative allocated effort (e.g. a 30 minute task cleaning the toilets allocated at 1 hour).
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 21:18
|
|
|
Someone's always going to be dropping white phosphorus on innocent civilians so it might as well be me making a profit off it
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 21:19
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Generally I found that the opposite was true. When voting was used to allocate relative labor values within the coops I've been around, cleaning the toilets was almost always allocated as more valuable labor than cooking or kitchen cleaning. This was reflected in marginal bonuses in relative allocated effort (e.g. a 30 minute task cleaning the toilets allocated at 1 hour). I can see that, I guess, but they also definitely work harder than all the people who sit at desks and type emails.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 21:22
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The argument I'm making boils down to "if you are 30 or younger working at a grocery store and not getting by, there are doors open to you to change your situation to one where you are doing well financially." It's getting much harder than it has any right to be because wages aren't growing relative to GDP and haven't in a long loving time, but not that many people literally have no recourse. Few of us are inherently a statistic. I started posting about the $14 an hour for 40 hours thing to point out that even at that level you can get by with some extra cash, simply to make the case that there are attainable goals that can see you have a good life. It wasn't my intention to get bogged down in the minutiae of that exact figure. $14 an hour is not a goal that should be the end goal of your life plan. It's a poo poo wage, and you can do a lot better than that, particularly when you get more experience and get older and further down your career path. A lot of people arguing with me here are doing better than that, and are just trying to make the case that the most amount of people possible will fail. But if you aren't doing well and don't see a way out, and wallow around in these sorts of talking points, you 100% will fail, which doesn't need to be the case. The point of statistics is that your one personal anecdotal experience does not trump the experiences of the millions of other people. Yes, you were lucky enough to get opportunities to move upward and outward. Statistics tell us that plenty of people don't get those opportunities. Your sob story about starting your very first entry level job at $11 an hour fresh out of high school doesn't seem to have a date stamp, but that's 150% of the current federal minimum wage. If it was more than ten years ago, it'd be double the minimum wage. I don't want to hear advice for moving up from minimum wage from someone who's never made that little money in their entire life. I mean, really, step back for a minute and think about it. Think about the numbers you've posted in this thread, and compare them to your own life. With just a few years of experience and a community college certificate, you're already making several dollars over the median hourly wage in the US. Over 80 million people make less than you do. The lesson to take away from that isn't that it's really easy to get ahead if you just work hard, it's that you've been exposed to opportunities that many others haven't had. I realize you feel like you had it so tough with your $11/hr manufacturing job right out of high school which let you build experience and served as the base for a career. But five years ago, 24 million workers made less than that. And on top of that, over half of them were older than age 30, and just under half had more education than a high school degree. The study doesn't provide info on their occupations, but given what we know about low-wage work, it's safe to say many of them were working jobs like janitorial or fast food where accumulating more work experience would be unlikely to open further career opportunities for them. wateroverfire posted:Why is someone's labor worth X and and not 0.5*X? If you want to say that a worker should be paid what they're worth then at the very least there has to be some objective way to measure what that is. So what is it, in your opinion? Clearly you already have a way of determining that, since the moment you post the job ad, you already know the salary range you're willing to pay. Obviously, they can't negotiate you up to 2X or 3X - X is the number you have in mind, and while you'll happily go under X, you're unlikely to go much over X. You wouldn't even be hiring for that position unless you had a fairly clear idea that it would be worth the cost, and that means being able to quantify more or less how much the position is worth. We're not dumb loving rubes gathering at your feet to receive the wisdom of the inscrutable small business kings and their endless knowledge. The fact that you think tame questions like these are going to be a decent Gotcha trick against anyone here is downright sad.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The study doesn't provide info on their occupations, but given what we know about low-wage work, it's safe to say many of them were working jobs like janitorial or fast food where accumulating more work experience would be unlikely to open further career opportunities for them. What's worse, from the last time this bullshit came up (in the libertarian thread, unsurprisingly), the more fast food/retail/janitorial experience you have on your resume, the harder it gets to break out of those jobs to anything more remunerative. Employers see it, think "well he's just a slacker who ~*never worked hard or applied himself*~" and move on to the next in the stack.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 21:33
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:"The game" is to the employee's benefit. No, it is not, because the employee only has the power to quit their job if you say no, assuming they can even possibly take that risk. Or as is the case in a lot of places, gets "a reputation" for being trouble or expected to leave anyway so reasons are found to get rid. NinpoEspiritoSanto fucked around with this message at 21:49 on May 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 21:46
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:How much money can they make without me and what I do? Because if that sum is less than the one you're referring to then my organization is doing some work that deserves to get paid out, too. Since you are complain that potential hires keep ignoring your company, it appears that what they can make without you (a lovely boss) and what you do more than enough?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 21:54
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:it was a survey of studies and made a point of disclaiming that it was only looking at the US, and this was some years back. i don't have a link to hand. Do you think you can find it? Because I've always heard it's straight linear forever in both directions.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Clearly you already have a way of determining that, since the moment you post the job ad, you already know the salary range you're willing to pay. Obviously, they can't negotiate you up to 2X or 3X - X is the number you have in mind, and while you'll happily go under X, you're unlikely to go much over X. You wouldn't even be hiring for that position unless you had a fairly clear idea that it would be worth the cost, and that means being able to quantify more or less how much the position is worth. I have no idea what anyone's labor is "worth" in any kind of objective way and I'm asking you (or anyone else), seriously, unironically, how someone would arrive at that number. I know more or less what I can budget and there are statistics that can help figuring out at what wage I might be able to fill a position but literally the only way I can assess whether someone thinks I'm paying what they're worth and that what I'm paying is fair is whether they agree to come work for me or not. edit: Wow someone was mad enough to spend $10 over this?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:You seem to have a particular view on this, under which literally nothing I could do other than put my neck in the guillotine could possibly be above board. i dunno have you considered paying your employees a living wage and letting them unionize
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 22:17
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I have no idea what anyone's labor is "worth" in any kind of objective way and I'm asking you (or anyone else), seriously, unironically, how someone would arrive at that number. you need to bite the bullet and tell us what your actual business you own is for anyone to give you any good estimate provided you're posting in good faith
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 22:19
|
|
|
Iamgoofball posted:you need to bite the bullet and tell us what your actual business you own is for anyone to give you any good estimate provided you're posting in good faith
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:I've got cash on "payday lender." No. But also, not going to post anything that would be remotely personally identifying.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 22:23
|
|
|
Typo posted:I get the point you are making but majoritarian voting on who gets paid what is unlikely to result in people getting paid what their labor is worth I said "decide together" not "majority vote" Of course if a clear majority did somehow occur that resulted in our benevolent overlord getting fired, well, maybe he just needs to get better at negotiating, the game is to the employee's benefit after all.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
Well since I am one of the lucky ones that aren't living in poverty, I would also buy you an av calling you an rear end in a top hat, because you are one. This is like Business 101: More people will apply for your job and follow through if you actually offer to pay them more. Shockingly, workers that get paid more/ are treated fairly like human beings tend to work harder as well, especially if the hiring process is transparent. Playing "a game" is just going to frustrate applicants because you are being an arbitrary rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:No. But also, not going to post anything that would be remotely personally identifying. what type of work your business does is so loving un-identifying that we can't do poo poo with it your username is far more doxxable than the type of work you're hiring people to do
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
post what work you're hiring people to do or stop posting long platitudes about how you totally can't pay them more or whatever
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 22:30
|
|
|
Iamgoofball posted:what type of work your business does is so loving un-identifying that we can't do poo poo with it And that's about the level I prefer to keep it on.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:57 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:And that's about the level I prefer to keep it on. okay so basically what you're saying is you made this thread to waste everyone's time post the type of job people aren't following up on or gently caress off, op
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 22:32
|
|