5 ms·

You raise some interesting points. As an employer, do I have a moral obligation to help an under performing employee through a bad period? Many, though not all,

You raise some interesting points. As an employer, do I have a moral obligation to help an under performing employee through a bad period? Many, though not all, would say, "yes." Let me rephrase the question. Do I have a moral obligation to pay said employee more than the current value he is providing to me? Now, most economists would say, "No," though there may be an argument about the present value of what the employee can provide me with in the future, perhaps in terms of special skills or increased loyalty. Now, let me rephrase one last time. What if the cost of supporting this employee is make or break for my business? What if it is not just the under performing employee, but several others who would lose their jobs? What then is my moral obligation?

SomeCallMeTim 13y ago
That was really my point, though you said it more eloquently: If Uber does less well (because of image problems), then it will provide a living for fewer people in the end. It's great to be loyal to employees, if you can. If you put your loyalty to your employees above the quality of the product you're providing, you may find you have no ability to pay any of your employees. Or in the case of Uber, that people stop hiring drivers.
taejo 13y ago
> Do I have a moral obligation to pay said employee more than the current value he is providing to me? Now, most economists would say, "No," The problem here is that you're asking economists moral questions.
nhaehnle 13y ago
Do I have a moral obligation to pay said employee more than the current value he is providing to me? Now, most economists would say, "No," I seriously doubt that. After having gotten to know some actual economists (you know, academics; not the ones who pretend to know about economics on TV) I have learned that most of them are actually quite different from the "hooray free markets all the way" stereotype. In fact, I would bet that most of them will say that you do have a moral obligation, and many (perhaps most) will say that it also makes economic sense to help an under-performing employee through a bad period. Real economists don't emphasize the short term.
- viscanti 13y ago
  I think what's lost here is that they're really more of a market place. It's similar to arguing that ebay has a moral obligation to make sure that people selling things there make enough per hour. I'm not sure I'd agree with that. It's not that Uber is paying $21 an hour. It's that they're allowing the driver to go on and be matched with people who want that service. It might average out to $21 an hour for some set of hours (I imagine it's higher on the weekends and lower at low peak times). The fact you can back out dollars per hour from someone providing services on a marketplace doesn't really change things.
eli_gottlieb 13y ago
>Let me rephrase the question. Do I have a moral obligation to pay said employee more than the current value he is providing to me? Now, most economists would say, "No," though there may be an argument about the present value of what the employee can provide me with in the future, perhaps in terms of special skills or increased loyalty. This whole line of argument ignores reality. The normal, real action is actually to pay the employee less than the value he is currently providing you.
Gravityloss 13y ago
That Uber can keep doing that (requiring 4.5 star averages) could be a symptom of a power imbalance: there is a huge surplus of qualified and willing potential employees to them so they can be picky. That means that at the moment, there is less competition in the business than there could be (competitors could be nicer places to work, and hence could get by for example with paying less to workers, and be cheaper to customers as a result), or there are simply too much workers available compared to the amount of work available. It's probably some mix of those. I've also noticed that in low skilled jobs, there can be many companies with very different cultures, and people pick the one where they fit in. They might all pay roughly the same and they don't differentiate that much with their service quality, because there isn't that much to differentiate with. Despite all the talk about excellence, the customers are not willing to pay much for any cosmetic extras.

SomeCallMeTim 13y ago

That was really my point, though you said it more eloquently: If Uber does less well (because of image problems), then it will provide a living for fewer people in the end. It's great to be loyal to employees, if you can. If you put your loyalty to your employees above the quality of the product you're providing, you may find you have no ability to pay any of your employees. Or in the case of Uber, that people stop hiring drivers.

taejo 13y ago

> Do I have a moral obligation to pay said employee more than the current value he is providing to me? Now, most economists would say, "No," The problem here is that you're asking economists moral questions.

nhaehnle 13y ago

Do I have a moral obligation to pay said employee more than the current value he is providing to me? Now, most economists would say, "No," I seriously doubt that. After having gotten to know some actual economists (you know, academics; not the ones who pretend to know about economics on TV) I have learned that most of them are actually quite different from the "hooray free markets all the way" stereotype. In fact, I would bet that most of them will say that you do have a moral obligation, and many (perhaps most) will say that it also makes economic sense to help an under-performing employee through a bad period. Real economists don't emphasize the short term.

viscanti 13y ago
I think what's lost here is that they're really more of a market place. It's similar to arguing that ebay has a moral obligation to make sure that people selling things there make enough per hour. I'm not sure I'd agree with that. It's not that Uber is paying $21 an hour. It's that they're allowing the driver to go on and be matched with people who want that service. It might average out to $21 an hour for some set of hours (I imagine it's higher on the weekends and lower at low peak times). The fact you can back out dollars per hour from someone providing services on a marketplace doesn't really change things.

eli_gottlieb 13y ago

>Let me rephrase the question. Do I have a moral obligation to pay said employee more than the current value he is providing to me? Now, most economists would say, "No," though there may be an argument about the present value of what the employee can provide me with in the future, perhaps in terms of special skills or increased loyalty. This whole line of argument ignores reality. The normal, real action is actually to pay the employee less than the value he is currently providing you.

Gravityloss 13y ago

That Uber can keep doing that (requiring 4.5 star averages) could be a symptom of a power imbalance: there is a huge surplus of qualified and willing potential employees to them so they can be picky. That means that at the moment, there is less competition in the business than there could be (competitors could be nicer places to work, and hence could get by for example with paying less to workers, and be cheaper to customers as a result), or there are simply too much workers available compared to the amount of work available. It's probably some mix of those. I've also noticed that in low skilled jobs, there can be many companies with very different cultures, and people pick the one where they fit in. They might all pay roughly the same and they don't differentiate that much with their service quality, because there isn't that much to differentiate with. Despite all the talk about excellence, the customers are not willing to pay much for any cosmetic extras.