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.
The employment "contract" is completely one sided and forces people to do a job function for significantly less than what its worth, simply because the "market" establishes some exchange rate for the function.
If you arent paying me what the job is worth, Im not giving you more than an equivalent effort. If you think you can get someone with my qualifications to do a better job for that pay, go for it.
You are worth whatever you are currently being paid, no more, no less.
You work for them, not the other way around. Remember?
Maybe your comprehension skills aren't up to date but if you read carefully, you can see it was a JOKE. Some people really lack sense of humor on here.
Yes. Because everyone can clearly comprehend when someone is joking over a forum in a thread.
Randomdude: Remember, corporations only hire and retain the most qualified people (connections, nepotism, and criminal behavior never factor in), would never exploit slave labor to drive down wages in developed nations to levels that cause economic collapse, and should never held accountable for anything.
If your job was sent overseas to some guy who can do the same work for 1/5 the price, than you need to work 5 times harder (200 hours a week) or be willing to accept 1/5 the pay, even if that means you can no longer pay your bills. Never accuse corporations of anything - they are perfect, and even though they control every aspect of our society, we should just work harder, ignore the problems, and continue the race to the bottom.
And is the job challenging enough. I'll work low pay if it's challenging, interesting, and I feel the job is going to lead somewhere. But if it's something that I'm way over qualified for, I'll have a hard time being interested in the job enough to do a great job.
A bad work environment will do the same for me. If the OP's environment is hostile with a morale problem... then I'd have a hard time coming into work on time
And before anyone calls me lazy, feel free to do so, but be cognizant of the fact that I work for a Fortune 500, have put in 40 hours already this week, will most likely put in another 30 this week and make six figures. Not to mention I am in an environment where type-A personalities like me excel and have been essentially promoted twice in the last year alone.
Last paragraph. I WISH someone would have the audacity to call me lazy. I don't even make $25 an hour with this job. But I do it because I enjoy the work and I know I'm on the right path.
And I just accepted a job on the weekends making $9 an hour.
You are worth whatever you are currently being paid, no more, no less.
You work for them, not the other way around. Remember?
Wow, so, if someone will give you $10 for an item, and you are able to buy that item for $3 from someone else, that clearly makes the item worth $3.....
Get real. This is called arbitrage for people who never had a finance course.
Randomdude: Remember, corporations only hire and retain the most qualified people (connections, nepotism, and criminal behavior never factor in), would never exploit slave labor to drive down wages in developed nations to levels that cause economic collapse, and should never held accountable for anything.
If your job was sent overseas to some guy who can do the same work for 1/5 the price, than you need to work 5 times harder (200 hours a week) or be willing to accept 1/5 the pay, even if that means you can no longer pay your bills. Never accuse corporations of anything - they are perfect, and even though they control every aspect of our society, we should just work harder, ignore the problems, and continue the race to the bottom.
I can never seem to give you enough thumbs up, so here is another artificial one.
The employment "contract" is completely one sided and forces people to do a job function for significantly less than what its worth, simply because the "market" establishes some exchange rate for the function.
If you arent paying me what the job is worth, Im not giving you more than an equivalent effort. If you think you can get someone with my qualifications to do a better job for that pay, go for it.
But that's the thing, Randomdude, no one is forcing you to do anything. You have a choice. You either do the job as the employee expects for the pay they are willing to give you or you work somewhere else.
With all due respect, it sounds like you are reading personal experiences into what the OP is saying. Also, you have never had to hire someone, have you?
What you suggest is MUCH easier to say in theory than it is to practice when the employee will lie, cheat, make up references, etc. just to get the job.
With all due respect, we are ALL putting our pewrsonal experiences in our responses
As for hiring, YES, I have had to hire employees. In addition, at one time I was the sole party responsible for a local office and althrough i had access to corportate resources, the final responsibility was all on my shoulder. Now is that really the tone you want to take with me on this? How about your hiring experience?
No, it is not much easier to say it than to practice it. Not practicing good and competent hiring is a failure of the person doing it. Once again, I don;t disagree that those employees failed to report to work on time and may deserve to be let go. BUT, what is the job of the person doingt he hiring? isn;t it their responsibility and job duties to do the best they can to ensure the highest quality candidate is hired? And part of that is to make sure that any personal traits that can indicate a probem is vetted. Thats my point, the employees failed in their responsibility to the company but so did the hiring manager for hiring so many slackers in the first place.
If you hold the employee to a standard why aren;t you holding the person hiring them to a hiring standard? The Hiring Manager is incompetent and that person also needs to be fired! Plain and simple!
But that's the thing, Randomdude, no one is forcing you to do anything. You have a choice. You either do the job as the employee expects for the pay they are willing to give you or you work somewhere else.
Contrary to popular opinion, the average Joe has two things
1. The need to work, or they will starve
2. The lack of interest from multiple companies
This creates a situation where the person MUST take the job, any job, or starve. This is duress.
That duress allows the employer to take advantage of arbitrage between the actual WORTH of the job, and what he is PAYING the employee, that are determined on two completely different scales, and put the scratch in their pocket. The employee is obliged to accept this, or starve, regardless of whether he would accept such conditions if he were not under duress.
What is usually the case is that, leveraging the SAME duress, the employer continuously increases the expectations of the employee, to much greater levels than anything explicitly discussed during interview processes, with no greater compensation. The employee is normally left with either simply lapping up the crap, or, starving. Great "choice" there.
So, I advocate, at MAXIMUM one should only do exactly the duties enumerated in the interview or job posting, in exchange for the money offered, and not one ounce more effort should be given. I work at a company that does contract bids, and if the client requests something else that requires even an ounce more effort, or an additional part, they get another quote for that. We dont just hand it over under the umbrella of the original agreement.
See, problem is, we have so many idiots busting their asses, under the impression that ALL of them are going to be the manager, or get a raise, or somebody else will get laid off instead of them, that we've just moved the bar upwards, so that its EXPECTED that people give way more effort than they ever agreed to give. Still, only one person is going to be the manager, still, the same number of people will get axed, actually, probably more people will probably get axed, since the conglomeration of stolen additional efforts probably improved efficiency enough for the company to lay a few extra people off. The rest of you? Well, all your effort was graciously donated to the company, and your reward for it is nothing. Congratulations!
And part of that is to make sure that any personal traits that can indicate a probem is vetted. Thats my point, the employees failed in their responsibility to the company but so did the hiring manager for hiring so many slackers in the first place.
If you hold the employee to a standard why aren;t you holding the person hiring them to a hiring standard?
How do you know? OP did not say how many they hired, how many worked out, how many failed. If these 2 are the only ones, ok he is 0 for 2..problem. But if he hired 23 good ones before, and these are the first bad ones..23 for 25 is a good hiring manager. Most honest managers are happy with far less success.
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.
The Hiring Manager is incompetent and that person also needs to be fired! Plain and simple! 
