Castiel233 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 OK, so I have a basic job (FLT Driver) and I earn a very basic wage (take home £252 per week) No matter how good my work is, no matter how reliable I am the wage does not change. My point is this, surely it is better to pay people for their output rather than pay them for the hours they put in. A case in point. I used to work with a chap who told me of a previous job he had. His job (along with his co-workers ) was to unload, say five lorries per shift on say a eight hour working day. The boss said to them, as soon as all the lorries are unloaded you can go home and I will pay you the full days pay. So they screamed through the loads, finished about three hours early every day. Everyone wins, the workers go home at 11am instead of 2pm, but are paid until 2pm and the boss knows everything will get done well ahead of schedule which is a boon to his business. The were motivated to work faster and although they did not earn more in cash, they earned more in free time and the boss did not lose out financially Now where I used to work (this was on a different shift to mine) the manager tried a similar (albeit more sinister) approach. He said to the staff when all the work is done you can go home on a full shifts pay. So they rushed through it, finished well early and he refused to honour his offer, stating that he merely offered it to prove they could work faster. So after that they slowed right down, the work often failed and they never trusted him again. Personally I think it is far better to pay for output than hours. Thoughts? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 I absolutely agree. It would solve a lot of problems of inefficiency and put work back into the realm of productivity as well as rewarding those who actually do stuff. I have a similar ^^^ part time job, and the whining I've seen, especially from the people who have been there the longest is incredible - BUT this is a two-edged sword.. they don't work all that hard (anymore), but management hasn't rewarded them when they did. Their heels dig in, management sees this and blames the workers instead of looking at themselves.. and round and round it goes. No one is happy. On a merit system, or productivity system this would be addressed. The lazy would move on or be out of a job, those that are capable and willing would be rewarded and feel better about their position…management would save money on lost productivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castiel233 Posted December 16, 2014 Author Share Posted December 16, 2014 I absolutely agree. It would solve a lot of problems of inefficiency and put work back into the realm of productivity as well as rewarding those who actually do stuff. I have a similar ^^^ part time job, and the whining I've seen, especially from the people who have been there the longest is incredible - BUT this is a two-edged sword.. they don't work all that hard (anymore), but management hasn't rewarded them when they did. Their heels dig in, management sees this and blames the workers instead of looking at themselves.. and round and round it goes. No one is happy. On a merit system, or productivity system this would be addressed. The lazy would move on or be out of a job, those that are capable and willing would be rewarded and feel better about their position…management would save money on lost productivity. Excellent reply and so true. The company where I work has a ten minute meeting every shift, with about 60 (ish) members of staff attending per shift. Each meeting is 99 percent of the time the same. We are told to help each other, tidy as we go, wear seat belts, etc, there is rarely any change. Every day the company loses around 180 productively minutes telling us the same thing they told us the day before, and the day before that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 OK, so I have a basic job (FLT Driver) and I earn a very basic wage (take home £252 per week) No matter how good my work is, no matter how reliable I am the wage does not change. My point is this, surely it is better to pay people for their output rather than pay them for the hours they put in. A case in point. I used to work with a chap who told me of a previous job he had. His job (along with his co-workers ) was to unload, say five lorries per shift on say a eight hour working day. The boss said to them, as soon as all the lorries are unloaded you can go home and I will pay you the full days pay. So they screamed through the loads, finished about three hours early every day. Everyone wins, the workers go home at 11am instead of 2pm, but are paid until 2pm and the boss knows everything will get done well ahead of schedule which is a boon to his business. The were motivated to work faster and although they did not earn more in cash, they earned more in free time and the boss did not lose out financially Now where I used to work (this was on a different shift to mine) the manager tried a similar (albeit more sinister) approach. He said to the staff when all the work is done you can go home on a full shifts pay. So they rushed through it, finished well early and he refused to honour his offer, stating that he merely offered it to prove they could work faster. So after that they slowed right down, the work often failed and they never trusted him again. Personally I think it is far better to pay for output than hours. Thoughts? Depends on the job. In your case of warehousing type work, I agree. I was in a law enforcement job. We had to wait for the stuff to happen. :-) But we didnt usually have to wait long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucy Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Each job should have its own requirements. I have no idea why we settled on 8 hour work days for nearly everyone. If you're making widgets, then you should be paid by how many items you made that were not defective. If I make 50 good quality widgets in 4 hours and leave, then I should be paid the same as someone who spent 8 hours making 50 quality widgets. If I stay a whole 8 hours making 100 widgets then pay me double instead of the same rate as the worker making only 50 widgets in the same amount of time. Usually the more productive employees only make slightly more, but they draw irritation from the slower coworkers so there is pressure on them to slow down to not irritate the group by raising expectations. This sort of job ends up with everyone working at a slower pace than they can just so expectations don't become too high for all. If it's a job with tasks to do and you're done with that task, then I think you should go home after you're done and there are no tasks to do. But I feel like this sort of job should be paid retainer salary so that you're not looking for other work in the downtime. In other words, pay me a flat rate a week and I will be always available for whatever task it is you need. If there are tasks to do, I'll happily do them. If there's nothing to do let me go home instead of being a seat warmer. This sort of job encourages lots of non-productive time for workers who get done faster than others. And it also causes lots of pointless sitting around during down time. (Note: I'm talking about an office type job. Physical labor is different. I have no idea what they do with labor workers during down time. Layoffs? Make them show up anyway and stand around?) If your job is to just "man the station" then that should be hourly pay. It's not really fair to pay cashiers by how many customers checked out today. They are spending their time to man those registers regardless of how many customers pass through. The worker isn't responsible for customer volume. Someone needs to always be available in certain businesses to deal with customers. Police, guards, and nurses have to wait around for certain time periods too. It's the nature of the job. There's no way to get done faster and go home with these jobs. BTW, how do you edit a post? I don't see how. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castiel233 Posted December 16, 2014 Author Share Posted December 16, 2014 Each job should have its own requirements. I have no idea why we settled on 8 hour work days for nearly everyone. If you're making widgets, then you should be paid by how many items you made that were not defective. If I make 50 good quality widgets in 4 hours and leave, then I should be paid the same as someone who spent 8 hours making 50 quality widgets. If I stay a whole 8 hours making 100 widgets then pay me double instead of the same rate as the worker making only 50 widgets in the same amount of time. Usually the more productive employees only make slightly more, but they draw irritation from the slower coworkers so there is pressure on them to slow down to not irritate the group by raising expectations. This sort of job ends up with everyone working at a slower pace than they can just so expectations don't become too high for all. If it's a job with tasks to do and you're done with that task, then I think you should go home after you're done and there are no tasks to do. But I feel like this sort of job should be paid retainer salary so that you're not looking for other work in the downtime. In other words, pay me a flat rate a week and I will be always available for whatever task it is you need. If there are tasks to do, I'll happily do them. If there's nothing to do let me go home instead of being a seat warmer. This sort of job encourages lots of non-productive time for workers who get done faster than others. And it also causes lots of pointless sitting around during down time. (Note: I'm talking about an office type job. Physical labor is different. I have no idea what they do with labor workers during down time. Layoffs? Make them show up anyway and stand around?) If your job is to just "man the station" then that should be hourly pay. It's not really fair to pay cashiers by how many customers checked out today. They are spending their time to man those registers regardless of how many customers pass through. The worker isn't responsible for customer volume. Someone needs to always be available in certain businesses to deal with customers. Police, guards, and nurses have to wait around for certain time periods too. It's the nature of the job. There's no way to get done faster and go home with these jobs. BTW, how do you edit a post? I don't see how. If I recall you can edit a post after your have reached a certain number of posts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castiel233 Posted December 16, 2014 Author Share Posted December 16, 2014 I agree with the points made by Lucy, certain jobs (such as a cashier) are indeed hourly rate for a reason, that cashier is needed there regardless if the store is busy or not. The widget job example perfectly illustrates my OP. I once worked in a dreadful shoe factory (shudders at memory) It was low pay and I got the same amount of pay regardless if I did 200 pairs of shoes a shift or 75 pairs. They basically wanted around 90 to 100 pairs a shift and I roughly did that, I could have done a lot more but I knew that I would not see an extra penny and new totals would have been given me. If they had said," look once you have done 120 pairs a shift you can go home", then I would not have taken my paid break and would have screamed through it, I reckon the same could have been said about other co workers. Instead they let you plod on and paid you for being there which just not make sense to me. So many people hid in the toilets or worked slowly on purpose (partly in response to the laughable low pay) the company was basically paying out for nothing. A guy goes in does the bare minimum and spends say 45 minutes a shift goofing off, he is not focussed and the company is not as productive as it could be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Furball Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 A challenging post. I would love a job where you can rush through it, get off early and still get a full days pay. At the jobs i have worked in the past i was paid for the hours but was expected maximum output anyways. When i finished my work early, the boss would still make me stay on and told me to find things to do, like sweeping areas that were already swept and cleaned. I rarely got off early, and when i did it was only like 15 minutes early or close to that. -peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Piece-work is becoming more and more common here in the U.S. And it's almost ALWAYS used to fuck over workers. I was a mechanic for 16 years, and 'flat-rate' is common in the industry. Meaning you're paid per job. I've worked jobs that way, though I avoided it as much as possible. And I've known LOTS of people to do this kind of work. At first glance it's an appealing idea. We all know we're smarter, faster, and more productive than average... wouldn't it be nice to be compensated for that? Well somebody has to administer this system. Is it administered fairly? Are you actually compensated for all the work you do? Or just the easily measured stuff? Are you expected to be at work even when said piece work isn't available? Are you expected to do other stuff UNPAID even when paying work isn't available? Is management actually competent enough to pay you for the work you do? Or will they screw up the paperwork routinely so that you're paid less... though you have no real way to verify it. Will all the easy and lucrative jobs go to a couple of favorites who suck the boss's dick while everybody else is forced into vicious competition for scraps? Employers can, and will, and do skew every one of those administrative questions against you. So be careful what you wish for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castiel233 Posted December 16, 2014 Author Share Posted December 16, 2014 I suppose my main gripe with work is the fact they pay you to be there rather than what your actual output is. It seems so often to be a waste. I recognize that no company will have a perfect set up, but my god, so many of them have terrible ones. So much waste, bad workers, bad managers, lousy pay, pointless work....... Actually that reminds me, some years ago one of the newspapers basically reported a woman in a shop window, cleaning balloons. The author complained (rightfully IMHO) that is was a pointless task. Did the manger look at the display and say, gosh those balloons need a good clean, Susan get in the window in front of the public and wash them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Furball Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 I wonder what the pay was for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheerbliss Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 When a lot of workers are futzing around much of the time, the business is ripe for layoffs as soon as there's a downturn or change in management. The reward for being more productive: you'll probably keep your job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Work to earn a paycheck is a good motto. Live to work....well, that's not why I live. My happiness is not measured by my work output. My employer though had some sort of fantasy that my reason for living was work. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Furball Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 My employer though had some sort of fantasy that my reason for living was work. :-) Don't they all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castiel233 Posted December 16, 2014 Author Share Posted December 16, 2014 I wonder what the pay was for that. Very low I can say with confidence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I don't know what the answer is. In an ideal world a person would be compensated solely on how well they do their job, but that isn't the case, particularly in an office job. It seems to be all about personality and office politics. Also, if the boss someday decides he just doesn't like you anymore, he can fire you for any made up reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Many jobs consist of a blend of salary and merit pay. For example, the law firm that I worked at for about 20 years, first as an associate and later as a partner, had a base salary plus a bonus. The bonus was based on many factors, such as total hours billed, actual income receipts, number of pro bono hours spent helping the poor with legal problems, involvement with internal law firm committees, how much business was brought in, personal and firm marketing efforts, and several other factors. It provided the security of a base salary plus incentive to earn more if so desired. It was administered quite fairly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gall Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 OK, so I have a basic job (FLT Driver) and I earn a very basic wage (take home £252 per week) No matter how good my work is, no matter how reliable I am the wage does not change. My point is this, surely it is better to pay people for their output rather than pay them for the hours they put in. A case in point. I used to work with a chap who told me of a previous job he had. His job (along with his co-workers ) was to unload, say five lorries per shift on say a eight hour working day. The boss said to them, as soon as all the lorries are unloaded you can go home and I will pay you the full days pay. So they screamed through the loads, finished about three hours early every day. Everyone wins, the workers go home at 11am instead of 2pm, but are paid until 2pm and the boss knows everything will get done well ahead of schedule which is a boon to his business. The were motivated to work faster and although they did not earn more in cash, they earned more in free time and the boss did not lose out financially Now where I used to work (this was on a different shift to mine) the manager tried a similar (albeit more sinister) approach. He said to the staff when all the work is done you can go home on a full shifts pay. So they rushed through it, finished well early and he refused to honour his offer, stating that he merely offered it to prove they could work faster. So after that they slowed right down, the work often failed and they never trusted him again. Personally I think it is far better to pay for output than hours. Thoughts? I know this may seem strange but when I see that you are an "flt" driver it makes me think that you drive FASTER THAN LIGHT I know the acronymn is not the same (FTL) but it is close and it made me smile picturing you driving at like 18 billion miles per second or so lol. Do you fly a spaceship for a living Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts