3 ms·
I've worked in logistics and supply chain for a while, and that type of quota is pretty much the norm (honestly, it kind of is in any job that is easy to quanti
by shados 5y ago
I've worked in logistics and supply chain for a while, and that type of quota is pretty much the norm (honestly, it kind of is in any job that is easy to quantify, like call centers, sales, and some segments of retail).
The way the quotas get set is kind of as a bell curve. You set quotas, including threshold for promotions, as some where you'll get let go. They hire people, and those folks thrive to meet the quota/make more money. If everyone is doing so well that the tip of the bell curve is too much to the right, they increase the quota. If they have trouble hiring and everyone's leaving, or if they end up needing to let go too many people, they lower it.
Of course, a company could push it way too far if they have enough power and a big enough employee pool. They can then put super high quotas and only keep people who can push it that far (probably where the whole "peeing in bottles" come from).
The concept itself isn't that weird. Maybe weird to people who mostly worked in salaried jobs that are hard to quantify.
Where it becomes a problem is when too many people are desperate enough for money that they're willing to literally harm themselves to meet their quotas or get promoted. That's probably where regulators came from with this type of law. I didn't read it, but that sounds really tough to implement.
- konschubert 5y agoAll this would be much less if a problem if people didn’t have to work to survive. Universal healthcare and UBI are would enable much more employer freedom in defining working conditions.
- nomel 5y ago> if people didn’t have to work to survive Living has always required energy, effort, and skill. How can we get around this without some sort of parasitic relationship? Do you have any recommendation for some reading for a sustainable model? From my understanding, UBI is largely unproven.
- konschubert 5y agoMost people will want more than just the basics. Most people won't be satisfied with UBI. They want to earn something on top. So people will still want to work. But they no longer are forced to take any job just to survive. I'm sorry I don't have reading recommendations. This doesn't mean they don't exist, I am just not deep enough into this topic to ever have looked for them.
- shados 5y agoI'm a big UBI advocate, but even if we went that route, it will require a certain maturity on both the government and the citizens. It won't be long before people are in the street saying UBI isn't enough as you can't buy a house in a big city while feeding a family of 4 with it. We'd need to, as a society, draw a line in the sand as to what "the basics" are (it's extremely subjective. I think MIT or Harvard has a site with threshold they consider the minimum, but it uses arbitrary metric like expected amount of kids, and it's by city). Once we pick, while we should always be ready to revisit, it can't be a constant thing. If folks are robbing CVS saying they wouldn't if UBI was higher (assuming it was set to a reasonable amount to begin with. A big if), we're not much better off than where we are now.