Should workers be rewarded for the profits they help to create?

antrobus

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Same applies to many executives. Who you know matters more than how good you are.

Indeed, but then executives are also workers.

Graham_Devon

Yes

TheBlueHorse wrote: »

Apparently it isn't his fault if they fail.

Well it's not really.

You can't force someone to take on and retain information.

Loughton_Monkey

No

A while since I glanced at the cut and thrust of current debate. I must admit to being confused about this one.

It is patently unclear whether the OP wants 'fat-cat' pay reduced, or shelf-stackers' pay to increase, or employees to get profit share [won't see that in Tesco's for a while?]. Or does he simply want to rape the economy to throw more money at the bottom decile of life's losers in the interest of so-called 'fairness'?

Employment is largely (but not wholly) a free market commodity. Every job has its price (wage) and you take it or leave it. A Sales Director might get £70K because his skill can produce an extra £3million of profitable revenue. But the floor sweeper is not paid £70K. His labour is "worth" £7 an hour because if he left, there would be 50 other people around who would do it just as well for £7 and hour.

Whether the sweeper does his job slowly or quickly, or does it well or badly, is a management issue. A slow bad sweeper will never, never, become a good fast sweeper just because you pay him £8 an hour. Equally, if his employer (Tesco, say) makes a £600bn loss because of a mistake by the FD, or makes a £1trillion profit because of a masterstroke of globalisation by the CEO, the floor sweeper has had not one ounce of influence over that. Why should he be given more money?

He should be given more money only if he's worth it. Perhaps he goes to the boss and argues the case for giving all sweepers wider brooms, then the job can be adequately done by two people instead of three, then the boy should be given a bonus, a pay rise, and a pat on the back.

I am the first to recognise, and agree, that employers who 'look after' employees tend to be more productive. This is largely a management issue. Yes, it sometimes involves carefully designed bonus systems, profit share, or other incentives as well. But pay on its own is never a motivator. I don't particularly 'admire' employers (perhaps like Amazon) if they treat their staff like s4it. It leaves room for a more intelligent competitor to do things differently and get a far more productive staff with overall higher profitability. Almost certainly, Amazon will eventually 'pay the price' [or reap the rewards] for what they do. The market will decide. But Amazon operates a business model. John Lewis operates a different business model. Both models are 100% legitimate and it is not for governments, nanny states, political parties, do-gooders, Guardian readers, or whingers to try and change either model.

Like most people, when I want to buy a few books and DVD's, I will gladly buy it from Amazon if it's the right price, quality, and service. As it happens, I bought a £470 coffee machine just the other day. I bought it from John Lewis. Same price as Amazon. The only reason I went to JL was that I could click and collect a mile down the road for the next morning, whereas Amazon could have taken up to a week. Simple! I simply don't care how much the staff get paid.

JencParker

Yes

antrobus wrote: »

Indeed, but then executives are also workers.

Who tend to get profit shares!

JencParker

Yes

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

A while since I glanced at the cut and thrust of current debate. I must admit to being confused about this one.

It is patently unclear whether the OP wants 'fat-cat' pay reduced, or shelf-stackers' pay to increase, or employees to get profit share [won't see that in Tesco's for a while?]. Or does he simply want to rape the economy to throw more money at the bottom decile of life's losers in the interest of so-called 'fairness'?

Employment is largely (but not wholly) a free market commodity. Every job has its price (wage) and you take it or leave it. A Sales Director might get £70K because his skill can produce an extra £3million of profitable revenue. But the floor sweeper is not paid £70K. His labour is "worth" £7 an hour because if he left, there would be 50 other people around who would do it just as well for £7 and hour.

Whether the sweeper does his job slowly or quickly, or does it well or badly, is a management issue. A slow bad sweeper will never, never, become a good fast sweeper just because you pay him £8 an hour. Equally, if his employer (Tesco, say) makes a £600bn loss because of a mistake by the FD, or makes a £1trillion profit because of a masterstroke of globalisation by the CEO, the floor sweeper has had not one ounce of influence over that. Why should he be given more money?

He should be given more money only if he's worth it. Perhaps he goes to the boss and argues the case for giving all sweepers wider brooms, then the job can be adequately done by two people instead of three, then the boy should be given a bonus, a pay rise, and a pat on the back.

I am the first to recognise, and agree, that employers who 'look after' employees tend to be more productive. This is largely a management issue. Yes, it sometimes involves carefully designed bonus systems, profit share, or other incentives as well. But pay on its own is never a motivator. I don't particularly 'admire' employers (perhaps like Amazon) if they treat their staff like s4it. It leaves room for a more intelligent competitor to do things differently and get a far more productive staff with overall higher profitability. Almost certainly, Amazon will eventually 'pay the price' [or reap the rewards] for what they do. The market will decide. But Amazon operates a business model. John Lewis operates a different business model. Both models are 100% legitimate and it is not for governments, nanny states, political parties, do-gooders, Guardian readers, or whingers to try and change either model.

Like most people, when I want to buy a few books and DVD's, I will gladly buy it from Amazon if it's the right price, quality, and service. As it happens, I bought a £470 coffee machine just the other day. I bought it from John Lewis. Same price as Amazon. The only reason I went to JL was that I could click and collect a mile down the road for the next morning, whereas Amazon could have taken up to a week. Simple! I simply don't care how much the staff get paid.

Really? - are you referring to the lower paid or the highest paid? Because not being able to attract the best with high financial recompense is the excuse they use to justify these huge salaries!

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I simply don't care how much the staff get paid.

I think that sums it up - too many don't care about anyone but themselves or what they can get our of it for themselves.

zagubov

Yes

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Same applies to many executives. Who you know matters more than how good you are.

I remember reading about how sociopaths tend to rise to the top of hierarchies due to what we can euphemistically describe as people-handling skills.

Problem is, they can achieve promotion easily but they're usually rubbish performers as they didn't get there on merit or talent.

In fact, very few people are irreplaceable, even at the top.

Graham_Devon

Yes

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Or does he simply want to rape the economy to throw more money at the bottom decile of life's losers in the interest of so-called 'fairness'?

How many of life's losers do you use every day? Think about it. What would your life be like without these losers?

Who would empty your bins for you? Who would you call when you have an issue with a service? Who would be putting that veg on display in order for you to peruse it? How would you have collected your expensive coffee machine if losers hadn't sorted it for you?

Employment is largely (but not wholly) a free market commodity. Every job has its price (wage) and you take it or leave it. A Sales Director might get £70K because his skill can produce an extra £3million of profitable revenue.

On his own? Or with the help of the losers beneath him?

But the floor sweeper is not paid £70K. His labour is "worth" £7 an hour because if he left, there would be 50 other people around who would do it just as well for £7 and hour.

Seems we can do without floor sweepers anyway. Apparently the sales director can do it all.

A slow bad sweeper will never, never, become a good fast sweeper just because you pay him £8 an hour.

Maybe, maybe not, but evidence suggests people are more likely to do a better job when they feel valued.

I simply don't care how much the staff get paid.

Doesn't surprise me. I doubt the welfare of anyone or anything concerns you, so long as you are getting what you want from your previous posts.

The tone of your post and the disdain you hold for people carrying out everyday tasks which you use on a daily basis will go down with many on here. I always find the wealthier the person, the thicker skinned they are and less likely to take part in sponsoring or charitable events. You only need to look at an office sponsor form and 9 times out of 10 those giving the most will be those with the absolute least.

CLAPTON

one can only conclude that many people on this thread
either

-always research the employment condition of their providers of goods and services
-or always go the most expensive providers on the grounds that they 'probably ' treat their workers better.


and also can't distinguish between the presentation of an argument and the merits of the argument

Graham_Devon

Yes

CLAPTON wrote: »

one can only conclude ......

Well you'd have to be pretty narrow minded if that's all you are capable of concluding.

Why is it one or the other?

Why can't it simply be that people see or hear something about a business and decide to stop using it from that point forward? or indeed decide they like what they have heard and decide to support that business when they can?

Is that just too difficult a concept?

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well you'd have to be pretty narrow minded if that's all you are capable of concluding.

Why is it one or the other?

Why can't it simply be that people see or hear something about a business and decide to stop using it from that point forward? or indeed decide they like what they have heard and decide to support that business when they can?

Is that just too difficult a concept?

so you hear a rumour

and you don't bother about 99.9999% of companies you deal with : but only the ones that make the headlines (and even then without doing any actual research : note newspapers aren't ALWAYS correct)