|
My relationship with my employer is transactional, and I don't work with my employer. My relationship with my co workers is comradely, and I do work with them.Mineaiki posted:I’ve actually found my most “transactional” bosses to be some of my best, due to their respecting me as a human being who needs to work in order to make money. On the other hand, the other bosses, who I will call “lifestyle bosses”, tend to be some of the worst. They want you to hurl your heart and soul into the job because of course you love it. So you do that, and you stake a great deal of your self-worth on it, but the boss of course can just hide behind “the budget”/“corporate”/his/her boss when they inevitably deny your devoted rear end a raise. So it’s personal for you, transactional for them. Also this, gently caress if I want to work with some prick who thinks this is a lifestyle choice and not a paycheck. My immediate boss doesn't and that's a big part of why I like him. He knows it's about money and doesn't bullshit you otherwise. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:49 on May 14, 2019 |
#
?
May 14, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 05:32 |
|
|
I spent 2 years working at the bottom of the totem pole at a fast-casual restaurant chain. After my first full year they gave me a $ 0.30 / hr raise. I should have been better at negotiating!  That's also the point where I fully embraced death and when my managers told me to do something I didn't want to do I just said "No, I don't want to." It goes both ways, assholes.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:It's always transactional at the low end. If you're convinced that an applicant is not viewing the hiring process as transactional, then you're just being duped by someone who is better at the game than you. It doesn't become more than this until you're well into the salary range where applicants stop treating jobs as paychecks. Exactly. And usually that salary range begins around $60k+ (adjust for higher areas of COL). There has to be much more incentive than just a salary once you get into that range.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:This happens everywhere - I've gotten recruiters pitching a job in my own team more times than I can remember, they don't even look at your loving LinkedIn I interviewed myself, and we agreed I was not a good fit for the position at the salary I was willing to offer.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
If you find yourself lamenting that workers are being too transactional, ask yourself what you’re doing for them in order for you not to be approaching their work in a transactional way. Is it cool if they slack off a lot? Is it cool if they take long lunches sometimes? Do you offer good insurance, time off, parental leave? Will you go way out of your way to avoid firing them? Because if you’re doing all you can to maximize profit off of their work, you’re approaching the relationship transactionally.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 18:41
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:please rename the thread to "Why does no one want to work for a giant rear end in a top hat?"
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 18:44
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:It's always transactional at the low end. If you're convinced that an applicant is not viewing the hiring process as transactional, then you're just being duped by someone who is better at the game than you. It doesn't become more than this until you're well into the salary range where applicants stop treating jobs as paychecks. Yeah, that's just the way it is to some extent. With most positions you as an employer expect people to come in and do their jobs well (or at least sufficiently), and they expect to get paid on time and the right amount, etc, and that's mostly it. And at some level it's healthy that everyone be aware of that. But that doesn't mean that as an employer you should be an rear end in a top hat to your employees. Or that as an employee you should be resentful of your employer for demanding that you actually work or for not paying you what you think you're worth (if you're worth more then you're earning then dude play the game and negotiate for more money - or jump ship. No hard feelings, at least from me). Mineaiki posted:If you find yourself lamenting that workers are being too transactional, ask yourself what you’re doing for them in order for you not to be approaching their work in a transactional way. Is it cool if they slack off a lot? Is it cool if they take long lunches sometimes? Do you offer good insurance, time off, parental leave? Will you go way out of your way to avoid firing them? I try to give my people as much freedom as possible in things like vacation and flex time and etc within the constraints of what we're doing. Nobody gets ridden about taking a strict lunch or not being constantly busy or taking off an hour early because sometimes the workload allows for that, and sometimes it doesn't, and IMO the tradeoff for being asked to bust your rear end sometimes is not being required to do that when there's downtime. Also people seem way more productive when they're not being tasked a lot of make work. How are u posted:I spent 2 years working at the bottom of the totem pole at a fast-casual restaurant chain. After my first full year they gave me a $ 0.30 / hr raise. I should have been better at negotiating! I worked some lovely jobs when I was young, too? I went on to better things later (also things that sucked but in different ways and for more money) and I imagine you did, too. edit: ref: Firing people. I do try not to fire people and in Chile it's regulated and a pain in the rear end. But even if it weren't... it costs a lot to search for someone and get them onboard, then they're not really productive for a few months...even just looking at it from a cold rear end in a top hat perspective if makes sense to try to keep the people you have unless you can't avoid it. And from a human perspective...we're a small team and you do get to know people. It's hard to fire someone you know that way. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 19:36 on May 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 19:31
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I worked some lovely jobs when I was young, too? I went on to better things later (also things that sucked but in different ways and for more money) and I imagine you did, too. What if they didn't? What if a lot of people never actually go on to better things? And you're loving blinded by the privilege you enjoy because you were one of the rare few who did? Have you ever considered that idea for a second in your worthless loving existence, bootlicker? Have fun with the applicant search, it seems to be going swimmingly, sure you'll have no problems at all.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:What if they didn't? That sucks? But really not my fault and not in my power to fix.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:(if you're worth more then you're earning then dude play the game and negotiate for more money - or jump ship. No hard feelings, at least from me). This leads to systematic discrimination against racial minorities, women and any other identifiable group of people who are less able to find work or negotiate good wages due to social prejudices or circumstances beyond their control.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 19:43
|
|
|
Healthcare is a little different here, too. 7ish percent of the employee's gross salary gets directed to the health insurance provider of their choice. There are public options and private options and different grades within each that give different coverage levels and access to different clinics and etc. Employees can elect to contribute more but they pay at minimum the 7ish percent and their choice of health plan is totally theirs.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 19:49
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:That sucks? But really not my fault and not in my power to fix. Hmm, you know what? Eat poo poo. You clearly cannot even imagine a non-Just World.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
Helsing posted:This leads to systematic discrimination against racial minorities, women and any other identifiable group of people who are less able to find work or negotiate good wages due to social prejudices or circumstances beyond their control. In theory this is mitigated by anti-discrimination laws but yeah, it still happens. Discrimination in outcomes is a really, really difficult thing to deal with in practice.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Healthcare is a little different here, too. 7ish percent of the employee's gross salary gets directed to the health insurance provider of their choice. There are public options and private options and different grades within each that give different coverage levels and access to different clinics and etc. Employees can elect to contribute more but they pay at minimum the 7ish percent and their choice of health plan is totally theirs. Wait so they get paid 7% less but they get to choose which other knobhead gets it? That doesn't sound like a great choice tbh.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
Trapped in a cycle of poverty and debt? LOL, learn to negotiate, bro. Just move on to a better job, man! Nobody's stopping you from just being successful.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Wait so they get paid 7% less but they get to choose which other knobhead gets it? The 7% goes to fund the insurance, yeah. The tradeoff for that is everyone with any kind of a job does HAVE insurance and can at least theoretically get healthcare when they need it. In practice the public system lacks facilities and where it has facilities lacks specialists and the quality can be pretty bad, and the private side has its own problems. Healthcare reform is a big topic now and a measure to create a "plan único" - basically one mandated comprehensive plan that every company has to offer - is working its way into law.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 19:58
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:In theory this is mitigated by anti-discrimination laws but yeah, it still happens. Discrimination in outcomes is a really, really difficult thing to deal with in practice. This is something you are actively doing to your own employees and prospective hires, not some abstract process beyond your control.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 19:59
|
|
|
Helsing posted:This is something you are actively doing to your own employees and prospective hires, not some abstract process beyond your control. I pay people pretty well and employ more women than men.  edit: Some Venezuelan refugees, too.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 20:00
|
|
|
Under capitalism, basically every sub-management level employee is, pretty much by definition, "worth more then [they're] earning"
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 20:01
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I pay people pretty well and employ more women than men. "Pretty well" can me a whole lot of things to a whole lot of people. No offense but I don't trust your view for a moment. Maybe you should disclose your industry and the actual pay so we can better evaluate this.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 20:02
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:But that doesn't mean that as an employer you should be an rear end in a top hat to your employees. Or that as an employee you should be resentful of your employer for demanding that you actually work or for not paying you what you think you're worth That's not what a transactional relationship means. What it means is that you and your employees both understand is that you're paying them for work, and act accordingly.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 20:04
|
|
|
Pablo Nergigante posted:Under capitalism, basically every sub-management level employee is, pretty much by definition, "worth more then [they're] earning" If you accept a marxist description of capitalism, then yes. But if a person's ability to for example touch computers isn't monetizable without the context of a business then there's value in the COMBINATION of their labor with the enterprise rather than merely their labor, and the business is due some income because of that. IMO that's a better description of what's going on than Marx.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 20:04
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:If you accept a marxist description of capitalism, then yes. But if a person's ability to for example touch computers isn't monetizable without the context of a business then there's value in the COMBINATION of their labor with the enterprise rather than merely their labor, and the business is due some income because of that. IMO that's a better description of what's going on than Marx. Maybe the reason for that is because of the existence of the business taking up space.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 20:05
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:That's not what a transactional relationship means. What it means is that you and your employees both understand is that you're paying them for work, and act accordingly. Ok. Would you be more comfortable with "it's a transactional relationship, but that doesn´t mean either side needs to act like an rear end in a top hat?"
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 20:06
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Wait so they get paid 7% less but they get to choose which other knobhead gets it? depends on how it's implemented, medical costs, and how much out of pocket expenses the insured is expected to foot. If for example it's just the US model, where there are copays and deductibles, so in practice insurance doesn't really kick in until you've paid 14% of the median household income, plus that 7% of your check they automatically get) and a ton of other weasel bullshit like "Oh yeah we covered that surgery and the hospital was in network, but not the anesthesiologist who worked there, so you owe the half a year's median pay he charges," yeah that's awful. If there's better controls or it's pretty much just "Yeah you pay 7% of your income, but are guaranteed healthcare with no time of service charges" yeah that's okay.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Wait so they get paid 7% less but they get to choose which other knobhead gets it? It's functionally the same system as the German one where employers and employees are on the hook each for 7.5% of the employee's income
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 20:16
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Ok. Would you be more comfortable with "it's a transactional relationship, but that doesn´t mean either side needs to act like an rear end in a top hat?" I'm not clear on where the "rear end in a top hat" part came from at all. No one said it was okay for employees to act like an rear end in a top hat in any relationship style.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 20:17
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I pay people pretty well and employ more women than men. How does that have any bearing on what we're talking about though? By your own admission you pay your employees whatever they negotiate for themselves. Presumably if their gender factors into that equation then it is only logical for you to act accordingly, right? If you suspect a woman is going to need time off for childcare then surely it's reasonable for you as the employer to pay her less or to avoid hiring her since she might take maternity leave? Or if you happen to know that someone is going to struggle to find work because they're from a discriminated against minority then wouldn't you be entirely in your rights to offer them lower wages, since you know full well that they don't have many other options?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 20:18
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:depends on how it's implemented, medical costs, and how much out of pocket expenses the insured is expected to foot. If for example it's just the US model, where there are copays and deductibles, so in practice insurance doesn't really kick in until you've paid 14% of the median household income, plus that 7% of your check they automatically get) and a ton of other weasel bullshit like "Oh yeah we covered that surgery and the hospital was in network, but not the anesthesiologist who worked there, so you owe the half a year's median pay he charges," yeah that's awful. If there's better controls or it's pretty much just "Yeah you pay 7% of your income, but are guaranteed healthcare with no time of service charges" yeah that's okay. It's kind of half-way between. On the private side there are copays but not deductibles. You're covered until a certain amount of usage in a category like say lab tests, then you have to pay up to an out of pocket amount, then your insurance kicks on again at 100%. So for relatively small expenses you're covered almost completely, and for catastrophic expenses you´re covered, but for the stuff in between you can get boned. There are loopholes as well. The reform project moving through law right now is aimed at cleaning up as much of that as possible and rationalizing the system to one where you're just...covered. Remains to be seen how well it will work in practice and how much it will cost but I think it's a good plan. The public system, if you elect that, is much cheaper for a lot of things but availability can be bad and if you're trying to go to a private hospital they might not reimburse all your costs. Things here are just cheaper, though. A visit to the ER a couple years ago, for instance, cost approx $120 of which I paid about $8. I don't know that you can walk into an ER in the States and get seen by anyone for less than $1K.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 20:20
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 20:20
|
|
|
Helsing posted:How does that have any bearing on what we're talking about though? By your own admission you pay your employees whatever they negotiate for themselves. Presumably if their gender factors into that equation then it is only logical for you to act accordingly, right? If you suspect a woman is going to need time off for childcare then surely it's reasonable for you as the employer to pay her less or to avoid hiring her since she might take maternity leave? Or if you happen to know that someone is going to struggle to find work because they're from a discriminated against minority then wouldn't you be entirely in your rights to offer them lower wages, since you know full well that they don't have many other options? Any of those things would be illegal here. Other than having some industry metrics I really don't know what anyone's practical alternatives are when they interview with me. I make my offer if we get to that stage and if they like the fit then either they say yes, say no, or they bargain and we repeat. Some people have turned me down and that's ok? Some people over the years have left for other jobs and that's also ok? IDK what you want me to say but I think you're attributing more knowledge to employers than they reasonably have. edit: Like, it's the same initial offer to everybody. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 20:41 on May 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:What if they didn't? Something like 2.5% of the workforce aged 16+ make minimum wage so nah, it's a rare few that don't move on to bigger and better things.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 20:43
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Something like 2.5% of the workforce aged 16+ make minimum wage so nah, it's a rare few that don't move on to bigger and better things. So making slightly above minimum wage but not a living wage is your idea of "bigger and better things?" It's so funny how threads like these get the worst assholes to just show up and crow how big an rear end in a top hat they are and then get shocked and appalled when they get dogpiled.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 20:45
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:So making slightly above minimum wage but not a living wage is your idea of "bigger and better things?" I mean I work at a factory making over $40k on the back of a community college certificate that cost essentially nothing since the pell grant covered all of it, which is enough for a living wage and investments on top of that which will give me all sorts of financial independence later in life. I'm the low man on the totem pole here, but I'm still doing fine and happy, and everybody above me is in the same boat. Like yeah not everyone is going to be successful, but there's a difference between recognizing that, and assuming the game is so rigged against you from the start that you don't even try to pursue any opportunities when the truth is that they are out there for just about anyone.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 20:55
|
|
|
Helsing posted:This is something you are actively doing to your own employees and prospective hires, not some abstract process beyond your control. Like...here's why this is a really hard problem. You don't need discriminatory hiring practices to generate discriminatory outcomes. Let's say a given position across many employers Could pay $7/hour on the low end up to $10/hour on the high end. Think something really ubiquitous like cashiering. If employers start out offering toward the low end and you have populations (women, minorities, other groups however defined) who have a lower wage threshold then those jobs are going to get filled at the low end of the salary range first (because people are saying yes) and with more likelyhood by people in those groups with a lower wage threshold. People who have a higher wage threshold (because they can afford to wait longer to take a job, or they have more opportunities, or whatever reason) can be more choosy and find the openings that can get filled toward the higher end of the range. No discriminatory actions on the part of the employers but... in aggregate those disadvantaged populations end up getting paid less. That is not to say that there aren't employers who will size someone up and lowball them because they think they can. That is a thing that absolutely does happen whether it's illegal or not. Just that it's not required to generate disparate outcomes and that's why systemic discrimination is such a hard thing to combat.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 21:06
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I mean I work at a factory making over $40k on the back of a community college certificate that cost essentially nothing since the pell grant covered all of it, which is enough for a living wage and investments on top of that which will give me all sorts of financial independence later in life. I'm the low man on the totem pole here, but I'm still doing fine and happy, and everybody above me is in the same boat. Like yeah not everyone is going to be successful, but there's a difference between recognizing that, and assuming the game is so rigged against you from the start that you don't even try to pursue any opportunities when the truth is that they are out there for just about anyone. You and wateroverfire are both Just_World_Fallacy.txt but I guess you win the no-prize for the sadder of the two because you were bought off for much cheaper than he was. So, congrats!  eta lmao missed the poo poo about "investments on top of that" on first glance, get the gently caress out of here quote:all sorts of financial independence later in life. I'm the low man on the totem pole here 
WampaLord fucked around with this message at 21:18 on May 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 21:13
|
|
|
Why don't you just hire one of your friends like every other HR person does?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 21:17
|
|
|
Gaunab posted:Why don't you just hire one of your friends like every other HR person does? I'm the owner not an HR person. I have to care about whether who I hire can do the job well. =(
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 21:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 05:32 |
|
|
Volkerball posted:I mean I work at a factory making over $40k on the back of a community college certificate that cost essentially nothing since the pell grant covered all of it, which is enough for a living wage and investments on top of that which will give me all sorts of financial independence later in life. I'm the low man on the totem pole here, but I'm still doing fine and happy, and everybody above me is in the same boat. Like yeah not everyone is going to be successful, but there's a difference between recognizing that, and assuming the game is so rigged against you from the start that you don't even try to pursue any opportunities when the truth is that they are out there for just about anyone. you should probably educate yourself on the last 40 years of neoliberal economic policy if you think you're not getting hosed by your company
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 21:24
|
|
