U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Would you accept a job offer like this?
Yes 0 0%
No 20 100.00%
Voters: 20. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-20-2012, 05:56 PM
 
19 posts, read 16,373 times
Reputation: 15

Advertisements

I don't want to spam threads as a new user, but I feel making a poll is the best way to get feedback on this question.

For those who are looking for work only: if there was a job offer where you were only guaranteed a minimum number of hours of work each week (say 20 hours), and if you worked beyond that you would be paid at a reduced rate 2/3 of your normal wage until a limit of 40 hours per week, would you accept that job offer?

How much you worked would depend on what the business needed as the market changed and other employees joined or left the company. If something unexpected happened (someone quit or was unable to work) you would be required to work up to the 40 hour limit at the reduced, 2/3 normal rate.

This could either be a shift-based job, or it could be a task-based job where the amount of work required is partly up to your discretion. (Similar to Flexitime work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flextime)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-20-2012, 05:58 PM
 
107 posts, read 321,938 times
Reputation: 69
No, I wouldnt do it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2012, 07:08 PM
 
Location: Simmering in DFW
6,947 posts, read 18,741,845 times
Reputation: 7187
I am not unemployed so I won't take your poll. I think this would only work if the base hourly rate is at least 30% above the competitive rate for the kind of work being paid for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2012, 07:28 PM
 
19 posts, read 16,373 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirl View Post
I am not unemployed so I won't take your poll. I think this would only work if the base hourly rate is at least 30% above the competitive rate for the kind of work being paid for.
That would be an option, since many companies could certainly afford to pay a higher rate. Median wages not having increased for the past 30 years, corporate profits being at a record level at this point in the recovery despite the lack of jobs (The Wageless, Profitable Recovery - NYTimes.com), and so on.

Previous feedback I have had was resistant to the idea of paying a higher wage rate, but I wasn't using the argument that it would increase productivity in the workplace then.

I believe it would be fair to say that whatever the base hourly rate was, a business that used a compensation scheme like this would quickly raise the wage rate for productive employees until they were competitive enough to retain those employees.

Given the number of long-term unemployed (and the fact that 76% of employed workers said they were willing to accept a pay cut: Most workers willing to take a pay cut: poll - Business - Careers - msnbc.com) I am just trying to understand the current results of this poll of 0 Yes, 3 No. Maybe I misunderstand how many people think about work, for example I just found this article:
Facebook at work more important than a large salary to college graduates | Mail Online
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2012, 07:32 PM
 
Location: Simmering in DFW
6,947 posts, read 18,741,845 times
Reputation: 7187
Problem is, most production jobs wind up with overtime so it would be very difficult to limit the work to 40 hours.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2012, 07:59 PM
 
2,248 posts, read 6,050,541 times
Reputation: 2062
I absolutely would not accept those terms.

What kind of company pays you less for doing more work? It should be the other way around.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2012, 08:07 PM
 
19 posts, read 16,373 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirl View Post
Problem is, most production jobs wind up with overtime so it would be very difficult to limit the work to 40 hours.
Only because employees want to be working 40 hours in a normal week.

If the average preference was for, say, 30 hours, then the company could require them to work 30% more hours in a week without anyone going into overtime.


Taking the above suggestion, if the base normal rate for the first 20 hours was 30% above normal so that people could accept working at a company with this kind of compensation scheme... then no one would have a reason to complain if they were only working 30 hours per week, since they would be getting (20*1.3 + 10*1.3*2/3) = 34.7 hours of normal work for doing 30 hours of work, and any further work would just be reducing their average pay rate.

So at least some workers would prefer to only work more than the minimum if the company required them, which would be the situations that would normally result in overtime.

This angle, which maybe could use more attention, is that some people DO value their time away from work, while some people DON'T up to a certain point. Altho this might change such as wanting or needing to spend time with family for a special reason. Allowing the firm to benefit from a desire to work more (for shift-based work) or to work less (for task-based work) is more optimal and should therefore allow both the firm and its employees to benefit.

There is also the effects on society from high unemployment, such as having to pay taxes or maybe even things like higher crime rate, but the way this can affect decisions at a single firm is probably only through things like progressive taxation. Relatively few people have an option right now to work less if they don't like the tax rate of their current income bracket, so instead they just complain about taxes and so the government spends money it doesn't have, leading to inflation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2012, 08:13 PM
 
19 posts, read 16,373 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colts View Post
I absolutely would not accept those terms.

What kind of company pays you less for doing more work? It should be the other way around.
Salaried jobs (including flexitime in the UK) pay you nothing for doing more work.

If an employee had absolutely no control over how much they worked then it might be a problem; that's why it would help for enough companies to do this so that unemployment is low enough that it would be easy to get another job if your current company forced you to do an unfair amount of work at the lower wage rate.

But feedback like yours raises the possibility that a more balanced approach (the 30% higher base wage rate) would be the best compromise while retaining positive benefits from productivity and so on to all parties, as well as reducing unemployment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2012, 08:29 PM
 
Location: NJ
17,579 posts, read 38,400,792 times
Reputation: 16101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misaki View Post
Salaried jobs (including flexitime in the UK) pay you nothing for doing more work.
That is not necessarily true. A salaried job doesn't automatically mean 40 hours. I always work more than 40 hours a week. I knew that going in and I believe the compensation I am getting covers that.

And the flip side to what you say is that you get paid the same for doing less work as well if you put in a short week.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2012, 10:02 AM
 
Location: Olde English District, SC (look it up on Wikipedia)
244 posts, read 302,037 times
Reputation: 294
I particularly have a problem with the part where if they were short-handed they'd require people to work 40 hours with anything over 20 at the reduced rate. The cynical side of me suspects they're short pretty often and use it as an excuse to pay less for full-time work. I'm not crazy about the pay policy in general, but anytime time the extra hours above 20 are NOT optional, the employee should be paid the regular rate, not 2/3.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top