Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let me help you out. Did the bonus provided to the GM workers encourage increased productivity? Was any increased profit realized as a result of the bounus? No and no. Giving workers a bonus for doing the expected is not a good use of resources. Let me give you an example. When your mechanic presents a bill for work done, do you then give him extra? Why of course not, he hasn't done anything extra to earn that money. Get it?
If you get a bonus check on Christmas, is that a waste to your company's shareholders?
It's a reward for a job well done. These workers have had a tough past couple of years, and they're still working, and now GM is making a profit. It's not unreasonable to provide a bonus for that.
If you get a bonus check on Christmas, is that a waste to your company's shareholders?
It's a reward for a job well done. These workers have had a tough past couple of years, and they're still working, and now GM is making a profit. It's not unreasonable to provide a bonus for that.
Let me help you out. Did the bonus provided to the GM workers encourage increased productivity? Was any increased profit realized as a result of the bounus? No and no. Giving workers a bonus for doing the expected is not a good use of resources. Let me give you an example. When your mechanic presents a bill for work done, do you then give him extra? Why of course not, he hasn't done anything extra to earn that money. Get it?
If you said to GM workers you will get a bonus for producing "x" number of cars, that provides benefit to the share holders. That is productivity above and beyond the expected.
You didn't answer my question. You say "A bonus for X is OK, because it benefits the shareholders. A bonus for Y is not OK, even though it also benefits the shareholders."
What good does increased productivity do, if it doesn't lead to increased profit. Profit sharing *is* an incentive for workers to do their best work, with the possibility of increased profit (and profit sharing) as a result.
Oh, don't worry! Your ONLY god, wealthy corporate executives, still earn their $2,000 AN HOUR....so quit whining about a handful of average Americans, that you obviously hate, that got 4k bonus for a YEAR of work.
Were you this upset when the Wall Streeters got much BIGGER bonuses with YOUR money????
You didn't answer my question. You say "A bonus for X is OK, because it benefits the shareholders. A bonus for Y is not OK, even though it also benefits the shareholders."
What good does increased productivity do, if it doesn't lead to increased profit. Profit sharing *is* an incentive for workers to do their best work, with the possibility of increased profit (and profit sharing) as a result.
I think I did answer your question. Giving bonuses after ther job is done doesn't increase productivity, therefore the shareholder gets no greater benefit.
Let me make it even easier for you. An employee is expected to make 100 widgets in a day. The employee makes those one hundred widgets. He gets paid.
The next day the boss comes along and says, I will give you 110 dollars if you make 120 widgets. The employee makes 120 widgets and gets a 10 dollar bonus.
What happened at GM is the first empoloyee got the bonus for doing nothing more than was required for him to get his base salary. How is this improving shareholder value?
Of course increased productivity increases profit!
Where the heck did you get your MBA, a cereal box?
Obviously you don't know much about manufacturing. Let me help you - increased productivity alone doesn't mean increased profits, when you figure in units that have defects or need some other form of repair, at additional cost to the manufacturer, prior to delivery to the end customer.
Plus you need the requisite amount of advertising/marketing to increase demand and desire for the product.
Rolling 50 more units off the end of the line in a shift doesn't mean anything of 60 of those units are unfit for delivery to the customer, or there aren't customers to purchase them.
That's how increased productivity doesn't automatically mean increased profit.
How does rewarding the workers, AFTER a tangible goal, like profit, has been reached not encourage the workers to do their jobs better? More profit is a benefit to the shareholders, no?
Where did you get your MBA?
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
I think I did answer your question. Giving bonuses after ther job is done doesn't increase productivity, therefore the shareholder gets no greater benefit.
Let me make it even easier for you. An employee is expected to make 100 widgets in a day. The employee makes those one hundred widgets. He gets paid.
The next day the boss comes along and says, I will give you 110 dollars if you make 120 widgets. The employee makes 120 widgets and gets a 10 dollar bonus.
What happened at GM is the first empoloyee got the bonus for doing nothing more than was required for him to get his base salary. How is this improving shareholder value?
Of course increased productivity increases profit!
Where the heck did you get your MBA, a cereal box?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
