Should an employee work to the best of his ability, or only to the level of his pay?
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.
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?
If it looks like your doing this in my plant you get shown the door!
When I started in this industry I was cleaning the crappers! Now I get to build and manage power generation facilitys. One I first started someone asked me if I would jump off a bridge if ordered to do so...My reply was that if there's a check floating in the water I'm going for a swim!!!
Should an employee work to the best of his ability, or only to the level of his pay?
The employee should do what ever they feel they need to. If they are underpaid they should go see if in the market they are worth more. If not they are taking a risk working partial efforts IMO.
I would think people like that also need a good drug test.
What type of question is that? Always work to the best of your ability. If not, you're being lazy. I'm sometimes guilty of laziness (everyone has their moments), and it's not a good feeling.
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. Remove the fear of losing one's job and livelyhood and a worker won't even do the bare minimum (see the failure of Communism across the globe for examples).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda
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)
The issue is whether a worker perceives any opportunity for betterment. If so, they will tend to work harder based on the belief doing so will result in a better job, promotion or raise. There is no difference if the worker is a white collar middle manager or a minimum wage toilet scrubber. What matters is the perception of the worker, not their current job or pay.
If the worker perceives no opportunity, then they would tend to do just the bare minimum.
And as I said in my original post (and you deleted from your quote), formally removing all possibility for betterment or firing (as communism did) results in a worker who doesn't even do the bare minimum.
another question would be: 'if we raise the minimum wage would it actually make these workers more efficient at their jobs?'
No. Those who do more will coninue to do so. Those who do the minimim will continue to do so. Again, it's not the size of the paycheck, but the perception of the worker (in regards to the opportunity for betterment) that drives the quality of their work.
another question would be: 'if we raise the minimum wage would it actually make these workers more efficient at their jobs?'
I doubt it. Wages and benefits are lower now than they were a few years ago, and employee productivity is up. That's why the big employers see no need to hire. They are making greater profits with a reduced payroll and benefits. Why would they hire?
If I were a manager faced with a do nothing employee I would encourage him to work for my competition and would provide a glowing reference to help the employee change jobs.
If the worker perceives no opportunity, then they would tend to do just the bare minimum.
And as I said in my original post (and you deleted from your quote), formally removing all possibility for betterment or firing (as communism did) results in a worker who doesn't even do the bare minimum.
I just wanted to avoid another communism v. captitalism scenario.
but really, there seems to be little difference here for the low skilled workers.
no incentive = do the minimum.
what's the way around it?
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.