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 the OP really think that employees should not be allowed to know the fundamental facts about their job?
It's an employee-employer relationship, not a slave-master relationship. If that's the kind of thing you find offensive in an employee you shouldn't be employing anyone at all.
This type of attitude and behavior is clear cut evidence who holds all the cards in the "employment contract".
The company can act as rude or callous as they want, run the employee through any gambit of tests, march them around, yank their chain, etc etc.
However, the employee is discarded for simply wondering what his working conditions would be like, or asking some other question that rubs the interviewer the wrong way.
It was a stupid question at the time, but I wouldn't really hold it too much against him.
Vacation time is important to people and yes, during interviews its always on the potential employees mind....most just hope the interviewer explains it up front(which they should)
What's amazing, and sort of pisses me off though is he's getting handed all sorts of opportunities and screwing them up, while those who beg for an opportunity and won't screw it up can't find an open hand anywhere.
I'm beginning to think that these types are the people who get handed the most opportunities. Sometimes it seems like the more competent you are the fewer opportunities you get. I see this happen all the time.
The only logical explanation I can come up with is that "screw ups" take more risks.
He's already working in the company just in a different capacity. There are certain things I look for when conducting an interview for someone who will be working under me on a team and when he blatantly asked "What's the MINIMUM amount of hours I'd have to work per week?" ...I was stunned. It gives ME the feeling that you really don't WANT to work, why should I give you a position in which I feel you aren't going to contribute 100% too but rather are going to be watching the clock until it's time to leave. It's a salaried position and the hours are malleable depending on various factors but asking the minimum amount you'd have to work just doesn't sit well.
Nothing to do with being egotistic or having an attitude, I want the best people on my team, why would I hire someone who I don't feel is committed to the company?
I'd have to agree, and I'm usually sympathetic to workers' rights, etc..
If the prospective employee asked that question, using those exact words, then that clearly represented very poor judgement. Asking about mininum hours to be worked during the week wouldn't sit all that well with me, either..
Asking about benefits such as health insurance, etc would have been fine, but to ask about "minimums" in such a way is pretty unprofessional..
People don't work for free. This isn't about him volunteering himself to you or company's benefit. He wants to know what he is going to get out of the position. And I damn well support that.
Riddle me this......are you getting paid any more then the workers you are bashing because your "customers love you"? No, your company is reaping the rewards of that.
There is absolutely no motivation to do any more then the minimum.
Those who do nothing but the minimum are stuck in $35k/year jobs their entire lives, while those who go above and beyond get promoted, and get raises.
That is the motivation to do more than the minimum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
If I had an employee, I wouldnt be paying them a wage that suggests a minimum effort.
Then you would have a mediocre team that struggles to keep up with your competition. You have obviously never had to manage anyone, have you?
What ever happened to organizations that valued the worker? We used to have people working for 20-30 years for a company, building up skills, moving up the ranks.
Now the average employee is a free agent who maybe puts in 2-3 years before being fired, quitting, being burnt out, or treated like crap by the employer.
How can you blame someone asking what sort of benefits the job offers? I thought we were supposed to be FREE AGENTS in this new market.
Those who do nothing but the minimum are stuck in $35k/year jobs their entire lives, while those who go above and beyond get promoted, and get raises.
That is the motivation to do more than the minimum.
In my experience, the best production workers STAY production workers forever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
Then you would have a mediocre team that struggles to keep up with your competition. You have obviously never had to manage anyone, have you?
I have managed people, however I have never been in charge of setting pay. I have been knee capped by the quality of employee a garbage low end wage attracts though. Not something Id ever do in any business I had.
In my experience, the best production workers STAY production workers forever.
So you disagree that a production worker who goes above and beyond the minimum gets a higher raise than the person who does not?
For people who hold the same position, the more motivated and harder working person gets a raise that is a few % higher every year than the person who just does the minimum. I can guarantee that.
Quote:
I have managed people, however I have never been in charge of setting pay. I have been knee capped by the quality of employee a garbage low end wage attracts though. Not something Id ever do in any business I had.
It really depends on the position. If there is a lot of demand for that position and there are low barriers to entry (ex. it only takes a week to train someone new vs. six months), then pay as low of a wage as you can get away with so you can allocate more money to more value-added channels.
On the other hand, if it is a position where it is difficult to find a quality employee, you will obviously want to pay more for that talent.
You do know that there are people who work fewer hours but do the job better and more efficiently, don't you? As a manager, I don't want people putting in a lot of extra hours because it means one of 2 things:
Employee is inefficient and/or not getting proper training
Employee is overloaded so I need to cut back/re-distribute so they can actually have a life outside of work.
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.
