4 ms·

Why should the union decide who gets raises, rather than the manager whose job it is to monitor and grade the performance of his employees?

by ericd 8y ago

lovich 8y ago
If the management gets to decide who gets raises, why wouldn't they give it to themselves. You've never seen companies do layoffs right before the end of the quarter so management can get raises, and then immediately go on a hiring spree when the new quarter starts so they can get the work done again?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- ericd 8y ago
  I haven't, that sounds like a massive waste of time and energy, so those managers are doing a very bad job if their goal is to get stuff done. Most well functioning companies that I've seen act very much the opposite. I could believe that some companies are crappy enough to do that, though.
  - lovich 8y ago
    Their goal isn't to get stuff done. No one in management other than maybe founder's have a goal to get stuff done. Their goal is to make money and getting stuff done is one possible way to do that. Well run companies manage to properly align the interests of the company and the management and the workers all towards those same goals. A lot of companies are not well run
mnsc 8y ago
Well the manager could decide that the best performance is the people who does their work and don't make a fuss. Those who go to work even when they are sick, do a little extra without expecting compensation. If you reward those "performing" employees you get everyone trying to do the same. The reward then might even be very small but it would be presented as "this year the general pay increase will be 0.69%, but you have broken your back for the company so you will get almost double that, 1.18%". Just to create a divide and something to strive for. Im aware that this is the American Way and as a swede we value the collective more, as a culture. But a divide work force is an obedient work force.
- jazzdev 8y ago
  When it comes to Swedish soccer players, it looks like the top players are valued 5x more than the average. Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/867492/leading-swedish-national-football-team-players-at-fifa-world-cup-by-market-value/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/867492/leading-swedish-n... I worked with a software team once where the manager let the team divide up the raise pool. And they didn't divide it evenly. There was consensus about who deserved more each year. Of course that could still be a cultural value of working long hours or working when sick.

Why should the union decide who gets raises, rather than the manager whose job it is to monitor and grade the performance of his employees?

by ericd 8y ago

Why should the union decide who gets raises, rather than the manager whose job it is to monitor and grade the performance of his employees?

lovich 8y ago

If the management gets to decide who gets raises, why wouldn't they give it to themselves. You've never seen companies do layoffs right before the end of the quarter so management can get raises, and then immediately go on a hiring spree when the new quarter starts so they can get the work done again?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ericd 8y ago
I haven't, that sounds like a massive waste of time and energy, so those managers are doing a very bad job if their goal is to get stuff done. Most well functioning companies that I've seen act very much the opposite. I could believe that some companies are crappy enough to do that, though.
- lovich 8y ago
  Their goal isn't to get stuff done. No one in management other than maybe founder's have a goal to get stuff done. Their goal is to make money and getting stuff done is one possible way to do that. Well run companies manage to properly align the interests of the company and the management and the workers all towards those same goals. A lot of companies are not well run

mnsc 8y ago

Well the manager could decide that the best performance is the people who does their work and don't make a fuss. Those who go to work even when they are sick, do a little extra without expecting compensation. If you reward those "performing" employees you get everyone trying to do the same. The reward then might even be very small but it would be presented as "this year the general pay increase will be 0.69%, but you have broken your back for the company so you will get almost double that, 1.18%". Just to create a divide and something to strive for. Im aware that this is the American Way and as a swede we value the collective more, as a culture. But a divide work force is an obedient work force.

jazzdev 8y ago
When it comes to Swedish soccer players, it looks like the top players are valued 5x more than the average. Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/867492/leading-swedish-national-football-team-players-at-fifa-world-cup-by-market-value/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/867492/leading-swedish-n... I worked with a software team once where the manager let the team divide up the raise pool. And they didn't divide it evenly. There was consensus about who deserved more each year. Of course that could still be a cultural value of working long hours or working when sick.