4 ms·
All I'm saying is that you have to evaluate each employees contributions and a chef is less likely to be as valuable as an engineer in an engineering company, f
by scottschulthess 15y ago
All I'm saying is that you have to evaluate each employees contributions and a chef is less likely to be as valuable as an engineer in an engineering company, for a variety of reasons, and then should be compensated accordingly.
- brown9-2 15y agoa chef is less likely to be as valuable as an engineer in an engineering company based on what? You are assuming something about an individual's contribution to a group of people based on nothing but the job title. Based on actual evidence from an early Google employee, this guy's contribution was huge. Will all chefs at company's have similarly large contributions? Not likely. But it doesn't change what this guy contributed and to assume something like this seems really unfair and useless.
- scottschulthess 15y agoa chef is less likely to be as valuable as an engineer in an engineering company based on what? Why do you think engineers get paid more than secretaries, on average? There's your answer.
- brown9-2 15y agoBecause their skills are in higher demand and the supply of them is lower. But that does not mean that an engineer's contribution is inherently greater than that of a secretary based on nothing but their job title.
- lancewiggs 15y agoMeanwhile I've seen and heard of plenty of personal assistants (nobody uses the term secretary any more) share in the upside of the company through substantial annual bonuses. Often these come directly from their boss's personal funds. A great PA, and a great person in any position, will make everyone's life better, and help the people on the front line perform to their capability.