Should an employee work to the best of his ability, or only to the level of his pay? (suspect, Canada)

[mwruckman]

Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda

does an employee have an obligation to work to the best of his ability, or should he just work to what he feels his paycheck merits?

If he is on a low wage, does he have a right to do the bare minimum that he can get away with - in other words, what is the incentive for the floor sweeper on min wage at MacD's?

if he gets fired, then so what.

but if we look at this the other way around, those on much higher salaries and profit earnings, say they must get these wages otherwise they would not work so hard and create jobs.

Anyone see the glaring double standard here

so what is it to be?

I'll ask my hero on the Dilbert Comic strip named Wally. Wally has robbing his employer blind down to a science. Wally actually spends most of his time thinking of new ways to look like he is working when he is doing nothing. No double standard here but a brilliant strategist on a par with Sun Tzu!

[11thHour]

"Work just hard enough to be an asset to your boss, but not so hard that you outshine your boss." I had a boss tell me this once when I suggested some efficiency improvements.

[hotair2]

Working hard may be a function of genetics rather than environment.

Differences in dopamine may determine how hard people work

[Kenneth-Kaunda]

Originally Posted by le roi

this doesn't ring a bell, do you have an example ?

sure - if we raise the minimum wage then many people say that those higher up the chain should also get a raise.

but these higher ups agreed to their pay before this raise - so why do they have a right to get more now?

[Kenneth-Kaunda]

Originally Posted by brock.teller

Your statement is very true, which is why employees always need to be thinking about what they can do to destroy their employer.

that's true - and it seems to be 1 way traffic with many jobs these days.

ie: do exactly what you're told else you are fired - but when it is no longer convenient to keep you, you are fired anyway.

so how can an employee be expected to have any loyalty under these conditions?

[11thHour]

Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda

that's true - and it seems to be 1 way traffic with many jobs these days.

ie: do exactly what you're told else you are fired - but when it is no longer convenient to keep you, you are fired anyway.

so how can an employee be expected to have any loyalty under these conditions?

It's unrealistic to expect an employee to have loyalty. There is none on the part of the employer, so the employees have simply responded in kind.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda

does an employee have an obligation to work to the best of his ability, or should he just work to what he feels his paycheck merits?

Badly crafted question.

The only obligation that any employee has to his employer is to work to the expectations initially set by the employer.

Any level of productivity that exceeds the expectations of the employer is solely up to the prerogative of the employee.

[Kenneth-Kaunda]

Originally Posted by UNC4Me

The reality is that most people will work harder if they believe it may lead to a positive outcome in the form of getting a better job or a bigger paycheck. We are, for the most part, driven by what is in our own best interests.

In general, the higher the salary is or the opportunity for advancement, the greater importance a worker will place on keeping the job and the harder they will work. Remove any incentive for betterment and a worker will do the bare minimum.

This is mainly what I am getting at.

Higher up the chain, then yes, for sure you have an incentive.

but for the guy on min wage, cleaning the toilets, doing the washing up or stacking the shelves at the supermarket then the only 'incentive' is to not get fired.

especially when you think of temporary low-skilled agency work.

so how can working flat-out in these positions be of any real benefit to the worker? (once they have realised what the acceptable minimum is without getting fired)

[bluesjuke]

Always to the best of their ability.

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Badly crafted question.

The only obligation that any employee has to his employer is to work to the expectations initially set by the employer.

I think the intended question is, what should an employer expect? Should they be judging the employee's performance by how many beads of sweat have fallen from their brow/their stress level, or keep in mind that the employee is working harder for less pay, and maybe- just maybe- find room to cut 'em a little slack? This is one of the most neglected aspects of being someone else's boss. Every now and then, you should look around and determine whether someone's being overworked, mentally or physically. Not just assume that because they keep coming in for another round of it, the system isn't in need of some improvement.

To the OP:

The less money you get for a job, the harder you're supposed to work...

That's the official rule, anyway. I think people should only have to work roughly as hard as the average effort put in by everyone else in their work environment. Not much easier, and not much harder, as both extremes could bring some adverse consequences.

Oh, and in the averaging process, you should include supervisors, managers, etc. If one man's working his fingers to the bone and the three people nearest him are chuckling, smug little superiors, something's wrong with that picture. They need to get to work or make themselves scarce...

...My apologies. That last part was obviously a rant inspired by events in my own life