Printable View
HR is a needed entinity, but they work for the employer so dismissing someone is not as big a deal as one would think, if there are levels of seperation or progressive discipline then they should be followed, unless there is gross neglegence. In the case you mentioned Rick firing was apropriate (guesss that spelt right) any drug usage is grounds for termination IMHO, but then double dipping is wrong in my book too and so much of that goes on it sickens me.
Think...motor vehicles branch, taxation, offices like that. People manage to survive their jobs and continue to collect pay checks by very carefully doing as little as possible. They don't do anything to get themselves disciplined or fired either, those are the hard ones to get rid of Beo and the most costly. Like Rick said, it's the 80/20 split. I've got maybe 3 staffers that I trust to get things done and in my organization, that means programs for youth, elders, the needy, just aren't functioning sometimes. It sucks, but I'm stuck with them AND they have a union :mad:
I've been yelled at for talking politics. Guess what, this is one of those subjects I'm going to steer clear of.Quote:
Originally Posted by BraggSurvivor
Hey, GVan. Quick with the politics. Okay?!
I've got my lazy eye on a lift bridge operators job. I figure I can sleep most of the time. The boat horn should wake me up. Press the UP button. Wait. Press the DOWN button. Sleep. I can handle that.
I don't think it matters if the job is local, state, federal or private sector when it comes to cost of living increases. It is, and should be IMO a function of your (or your unions) negotiation of an employment contract. If your employment contract allows for cost of living increases that are tied to inflation, fine. If they don't, they don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf65
Wages have never kept up with inflation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf65
However, in a hyper-inflationary environment, if employers don't at least make an effort, we may reach a point where few can AFFORD to have a job. Food, fuel and housing costs will keep them in the breadline and not wasting money and fuel to go to work.
Honestly, where DO you come up with this stuff. Of course it has. In fact, wages generally exceed the rate of inflation. The average wage increase is somewhere around 3 - 3.5% (I've seen varying numbers). Even last year, the rate of inflation was as low as 1.97% and remained below 3% until the 4th quarter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bragg
http://www.inflationdata.com/inflati...Inflation.aspx
Come on now Rick, did you really have to ask?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
Pure and simple Braggenomics.
:D
:D:DSo...what??? You make stuff up, throw it against the wall and see what sticks???:eek::eek::DQuote:
Originally Posted by BraggSurvivor
Not really...... my gears are always turning. ;) I call it a "RickTheSuperModerator" thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by crashdive123
:D
So...You're sort of the Bear Gryllis of the WSF, then?
:eek::eek: OUCH :eek::eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
The mountain climber guy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
Uh, yeah. Sure. That's the one.
OK, and you can be Scott Thomas "the dog killer" Beauchamp. ;)
No thanks. I Gotta Be Me.
Whether I'm right or whether I'm wrong
Whether I find a place in this world or never belong
I gotta be me, I've gotta be me
What else can I be but what I am
More like the 'mountain falling off" guy I think Bragg, but yeah you got the right guyQuote:
Originally Posted by BraggSurvivor
For those of you that think it is the responsiblity of the employer to......... turn the question around a bit. For employees that are well compensated for their work in the form of wages and benifits - do they have a responsibility to the employer to cut those wages and benifits if the employer is struggling?Quote:
Originally Posted by BraggSurvivor
There's a difference between the economy struggling and the employer struggling. If the employer is struggling because of the economy he probably doesn't have the ability to compensate his employee's anyway, which is ultimately going to cause the business to go under when people start jumping ship for more profitable companies. Not guaranteed, but a good likelihood.Quote:
Originally Posted by crashdive123
From the way your statement above reads, it would work like this...when my employer makes a crappy business decision, my wages would take a hit. But, if I make a crappy personal financial decision, then my wages would get increased to compensate.
My point is, and has been, that if you want to keep the quality people you have, pay them more to help them make it through the rough times, but not to the extent it starts to hurt your business. Even a 2% raise to your key people would be appreciated, if kept on the DL. If you don't care about your business, keep paying them the same wage for the same job without any benefits for time served. See how long they stay. If they actively work to make themselves a better asset, whether for you or for their resume, and you don't compensate them for it, they'll be a better asset helping your competition. If you can't afford to give out bonuses, go get everybody a $50 gas card. You'd be amazed at the loyalty and relief you'll see on peoples faces.
But most business owners tend to be "sharks" and not willing to help out their people because they're too concerned with lining their own pockets. (Rick, we've had this conversation before...)