|
No call, no show, and the interview was set up yesterday afternoon. This is the second one today. Why???? Each of these people is presumably looking for a job. They indicated interest literally 18 hours ago. And then...nothing. This happens a lot, at least here in Chile. I'd say the no-show rate for applicants is about 60%. At times like this I start thinking about what obligations we have to each other in this match making process. Hiring people sucks. Looking for a job also sucks. I would be willing to bet literally no participant on either side of the process likes going through it, yet we don't seem to be able to do any better. I think at minimum employers owe applicants who are not going to be considered a call or an email back letting them know. And from prospective employees I'd kind of appreciate it if they showed up. Or at least called. But beyond that, I'm kind of at a loss. How does this process suck and from what perspective? How can it be better? ITT let's brainstorm or bitch about that.
|
#
¿
May 9, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 03:22 |
|
|
Helsing posted:What's the job you're trying to fill? It's for a sales assistant. Pay is a little above average for that sort of thing here, which is (take home) about $1,000 per month. For context, minimum wage here is I want to say about $350 per month and the average wage outside the mining industry and some multinationals is around $800 (after taxes, deductions for healthcare, etc). Indeterminacy posted:As a general guideline, I prefer to give a week's notice for interviews. That way the interviewee has time to ask their current employer for time off, make childcare and travel arrangements, plan questions and do some research. That's a good point and something I hadn't thought about. I was thinking about it in terms of people wanting to get through the process as fast as possible but...yeah... maybe people who are not working also have other things to do Paradoxish posted:I'm curious too. You're probably right, which is depressing af. Though I think technology, at least in hiring, is not doing either employees or employers a lot of favors. For instance, the biggest online job portal here, laborum.com, digitizes peoples' uploaded resumes and often butchers them so badly it's hard to tell they were ever written by humans. And then apparantly doesn't show the applicants how their information comes across. So trawling through that information ends up being done the old fashioned way - just eyeballing each resume - or a ton of worthy candidates get discarded. I think in this specific venue workers need to be better educated, too, in how to make themselves stand out.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2019 18:21
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Also at least compared to the US, isn't flakiness more common in Chile? Like, no-shows or showing up late is more common in general, not just for interviews? Yeah, that is definitely a thing to consider. I was reading a report for a mining consultancy about productivity and they had a figure comparing time requirements for the same job in different countries. The US was the comparison unit and like...Canada was 2x that, and Chile was 5x that. That's pretty much right in my experience.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2019 18:23
|
|
|
Prokhor Zakharov posted:You aren't paying enough. If you were paying what the work was worth people would show up. I don't have the pay listed on the ad, either. =P I'm curious how long you've been looking? Just straight-up not wasting time on opportunities that don't seem worth your time is a solid strategy but you also have to make sure your expectations are tuned realisticly.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2019 18:49
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Alternatively if you don't want to pay more, consider increasing unemployment, underempoyment, or depressing wages in the economy generally, along with decreasing the viability of self sustaining labour outside the wage economy, that will make people more desperate for work and make your job much easier, plus you can pay them less. I'm not the kind of capitalist who can mess with any of those settings.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Perhaps this might inform why different countries have different levels of willingness to turn up to your job interviews, however. If anything the unemployed have less explicit security here than in the US though, so idk? edit: Though thinking about it, who knows, maybe? People here tend to live with their parents way longer and have closer family and more extended family, so maybe people just don't feel as much pressure in general. Certainly hustle for work is less part of Chilean culture than American culture. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 18:55 on May 9, 2019 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2019 18:52
|
|
|
Prokhor Zakharov posted:Well there's your problem. You're obfuscating important details and that sets off red flags for applicants. There's no reason to hide pay unless its crap/subpar. I'm not attacking you, man. Sorry if it came off that way. I'm just curious how many potential matches you're discarding to find the one that meets your expectations. Maybe it would be better to put, say, the midpoint of the range out front. It kind of gives up a point to bargain around but at least that way everybody knows what to expect. OwlFancier posted:What about practical alternatives? Do people cohabit in larger families more often? Do they work unpaid in exchange for keep? If you're in a rural area is all the land enclosed/do people grow/hunt much? Is squatting or unsanctioned housing much of a thing? If people have places to live and food to eat without involving money then working for money becomes less attractive. It's Santiago so about as urban as it gets. Public transport is pretty good here - most of my workers don't drive and don't need to. I wouldn't if I didn't sometimes need the car during the day. It's very common for families to live together and for kids not to leave their parents houses until they get married. You can also live veeeery cheaply here if you're not trying to live an "international" lifestyle. Coolness Averted posted:Yeah a degree of social safety net (even if it's more family or community than from the state) will also influence things. Locally, we're competitive. In general we pay more than small-medium sized businesses in the same market for the same position. We pay less than mining (because mining is either swimming in money or dead, depending) and less than the multinationals (who tend to get the top-tier people because of that and prestige). I'd like to be able to match them but we're not there at this point.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2019 19:30
|
|
|
Jolly Jumbuck posted:I never no-showed for an interview, but several years ago when I was looking to switch into data science / analytics from engineering, I did go on a place that was completely industrial. Turns out it was for inventory management, not actual data analytics, so I looked completely out of place in a suit. Upon driving up, I considered just turning around and not wasting my time, but went in for an interview and in about 5 minutes it was done and we pretty much agreed it wasn't a fit for me. There's a lot of discourtesy on the hiring side that I think is often compeltely unnecessary. In 2019 an HR department should at least be able to process a polite mass rejection email to candidates who weren't selected. Often I think delays are caused by the team a person's being hired for not having their poo poo together or having other things to do and being professionals about thier jobs but not about that, so it's probably a hard problem to solve. A couple of people upthread talked about employment being a transactional relationship and no side having particular obligations to the other, and...yeah, from a certain point of view, that's true. If you reduce it down to its most basic "law of the jungle, everything is an exploitative power dynamic" kind of interpretation, that's true. Sort of. The thing is, though, holy poo poo do you not want to be working with or working for, for the most part, people who only look at it that way. That kind of cynicism is poisonous in a work environment and if I get a whiff that a potential hire thinks that way then they cease being a potential hire. And I would hope that if people perceive an employer thinks that way they run far, far away. Re: Not wanting to negotiate. I don't know if that's mostly an American thing but I feel like it is? Americans never seem to want to bargain and view it as a huge pain in the rear end. As a consequence they often take too much as it's presented and either pay too much or ask too little. IMO, at least. Nobody hiring you has infinite money so if they can save a little on paying you because you're not willing to negotiate...well...they're doing their jobs and you're not.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2019 16:27
|
|
|
How are u posted:Lol your last two paragraphs Negotiating to come to an agreement isn't exploiting anyone, on either side. It's just looking out for your interests.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2019 16:42
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I mean, it's literally deciding how much someone gets paid based on one random irrelevant skill. L Skill at negotiating salary - an irrelevant skill when it comes to getting a salary. How are u posted:It sure as poo poo is when the power dynamics are skewed as all gently caress, and you fully understand it. Again...that is some toxic attitude, IMO. Not just for an employer but for YOU. If you don't like an offer you can find a better one and tell the employer to gently caress off, or negotiate. People do both all the time, and people who are willing to do those things will make more than people who don't.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2019 16:52
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Other than a salesman what merit is there at paying someone who is better at negotiating more than someone who isn't? Especially when the vastly uneven distribution of who gets good at negotiating in our society? You save money on your hiring budget for some of your hires, one. Two, those skills translate usefully into other areas. An employee who can navigate their choices and negotiate you without coming off as too much of an rear end in a top hat to hire has social skills that are going to help you as an employer.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2019 17:00
|
|
|
How are u posted:This is not at all how life works for like at least half of the population. Your privilege is shining like the sun. It works like that for everyone whether the outcomes seem just or not. A lot of people potentially have only lovely options and that sucks, but is not really my fault, either.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2019 17:01
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:To expand on the "cognitive flaw" issue I mentioned before. This kind of broken thinking is equivalent to Steve Pinker's idea that because everything has been "getting better" incrementally for the past 50 years, it will continue getting better in the future. That's a good point. On a long enough (and large enough) scale there's really no predicting what the future is going to look like or what institutions are going to be around. Most people don't think on that scale, though. That's not a cognative flaw as much it is an adaptive trait that lets people focus on the things that most materially affect their lives. In that regard Volkerball has it way more together I think than most posters ITT. Big picture, yes, a lot of things are extremely hosed up and there's no guarantee society won't go spiraling off into unfathomable distopian darkness or destroy itself by destabalizing the earth's ecology. But it might not. And unless a person's investing in paramilitary training and a survival community or something like that then focusing on that kind of view is paralyzing instead of empowering. Instead, it makes more sense - it's adaptive - for people to look at their individual situations and find the ways they can work within the present paradigm to make that better. So yeah rag on a guy for contributing to his 401K but if society doesn't collapse or the revolution doesn't happen or whatever it's likely to have been a good plan and if either of those things does happen I doubt he's going to be missing those contributions. Similarly, while looking at big societal problems and being able to evaluate what's going on at a societal level is important but getting stuck on that is kind of overwhelming and the cynicism and fatalism that seems to promote doesn't help anyone live their lives. If it helps people get involved and make positive political changes that's all to the good but... in terms of "how can an individual help get his/her life to a better place", not helpful. On that level, an optimistic mindset and an internal locus of control are going to go serve someone much better than a macro appreciation of societal injustices (which do exist and are important, please don't get me wrong) that they really don't individually have the power to change.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2019 21:05
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:So sticking with the general hiring practices thing, I recently had an interview with the most bizzare question I've ever been asked. 'If our company <did a crime> knowingly for profit would you as <position in charge of preventing that crime> report it to authorities?' Hopefully if they offer it to you you're going to run far, far away? O.o
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2019 21:09
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I don't know how you can pivot between contradictory arguments this quickly with so little shame but if you acknowledge that statistic discrimination is a huge and pernicious problem then it's really grosse that you fall back on this trite cliches about how "if you don't like your crappy wage maybe you should learn to negotiate better". A lot of good research quoted in your post. I enjoyed looking through it. I think you are mingling two concepts that it would be better to disentangle. Individual people are not statistics. Within every group there's variation in outcome and what I'm proposing here is that whatever the economic or social headwinds an individual faces, they should do what they can to maximize their good outcomes. That means if a person's looking for more money, they should (IMO) go out and play the game and try to get it - and even figure out how to be better at that skill. On a societal level many people won't do that, or will try and not be successful, but that doesn't make it bad individual advice. It's not the solution to everyone's labor problems or to any big picture problems. So I think it would be good to talk about individual strategies separately from these big societal statistical considerations - which are real and valid - rather than treating the statistics as reasons for people to decide advancing in life is impossible.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2019 21:27
|
|
|
Dire Lemming posted:It's not bad advice in the sense that having a skill is generally better than not having a skill. However it is bad advice in that you're telling people to spend time learning a skill that will at best only get them what they deserve to be paid anyway and in most cases will have no effect. Pretty much the only people who have a real ability to negotiate their wages in their favour are people with high demand jobs, people who are likely already quite comfortable and don't need the advice. People make points like this and it makes me think they are the ones who believe in a Just World. Why do you believe that what a worker deserves corresponds to absolutely as much as an employer will pay? You wouldn't view any other economic transaction that way. If you personally hire a plumber or a landscaper or whatever else you're not going to volunteer to pay them extra, at least most likely not, just because you happen to have that amount available. You'd probably (again, idk you, but I would hope) quote around and try to keep the price down so that when other things come up for you that require you to spend money, you have more available. I think we'd probably all recognize that as normal and a good practice? Why is it any different when you're receiving the check instead of writing it? Dire Lemming posted:The only thing you can get out of a wage negotiation is what you should be getting in the first place and generally if you refuse an offer you just won't get the job, a company can handle a position being unfilled for far longer than most people can handle being unemployed. The only real leverage you can have on your employer is "you literally can't replace me" which is a rare position to be in and doesn't require great oratory skills to argue. This is true for certain values of true but also wrong and unhelpful. If you're currently employed and you're not a gently caress-up your employer by and large does NOT want to replace you. Not-a-gently caress-up can actually be a hard quality to find. So if you have that quality you have some leverage. Maybe not a lot, depending on exactly what you're doing. But some leverage. Also you might be kind of a gently caress-up but not think you are, so make sure to do a realistic self appraisal. People seem to fall into that trap a lot. But if you're genuinely good you have some leverage to tactfully make demands. The way you do that is first go out and research your other options. Yes, that is some extra work. Yes, you've already worked long and hard and you have a zillion things to do and etc but do it anyway. Once you've found out if there's greener grass somewhere and that it's grass you can actually get to you go to your boss and tactfully tell them you've grown in your job and feel ready for more responsibility (or whatever bullshit. Tact is key) and that you also want more of a role and more money by X amount. Then depending on what they say you either succeed or you bounce. Either way you succeed. D&D would have you believe that this is literally impossible but people do it all the time and people who approach it as part of the game instead of a ridiculous imposition because their employer should just pay them more are going to make more.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2019 19:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You are saying this literally as the operator of a company, and the "skill" you're advocating for is people arguing with you about money. 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?
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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 don´t 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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
How Rude posted:Here, I'll go first. I do corporate financial accounting for a private printing company whose primary revenue is business to business. Nonetheless.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2019 22:34
|
|
|
Iamgoofball posted:nonetheless isn't a job title Sales Assistant. I posted that pages back. Like...assistant to sales people.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 03:22 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:You know that you need their labor badly enough to justify spending that amount of money to hire and employ them. You're not hiring employees out of charity, you're doing it because they'll enable you to maintain or increase your profits even after accounting for their salary and other related costs. Do you think we're stupid or something? I think I'm really, honestly trying to ask you about this and you keep being snarky instead of just engaging with it. Yes, I know I need a person. I know that person is (to me) worth spending at least some amount, that I offer to them in exchange for working for me. I have no idea what their "objective" value is and no idea how to figure that out. I have no idea whether they feel what they're going to earn is fair except that they agree to come earn it. What is their worth? Is it the amount I'm willing to pay them? Is it the amount they accept? Is it the amount they would ideally want if they could pick?
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2019 22:40
|
|