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.
When I first saw this thread, my immediate response was NO! But here it is a few days later and I'm considering taking a second job on, one that pays min wage. I will work just as hard because the job is at my church and I know almost everyone employed there (and the folks there that don't attend services I know by sight).
So, really it depends. I need a second job, but my situation is limited at the moment. My church has a position they need to fill and it will pay me the min $$ I require, though I'll be working twice as many hours at that job as I would a position I would usually seek. Then again, it may be fun and I'll get to work with some great people... maybe it won't be so bad!
In other words, when it comes to the amount of effort you put out on your job, would you say that your employer...."gets what they pay for", or would you give 100 percent effort regardless of whether you were making $12,000 a year or $30,000 per year?
Just wondering, y'all
20yrsinBranson
I would say, yes I would, because I was hired to do the job
and if they gave me a raise how would I produce
more unless it was a different type of work.
When a school teacher does there job correctly for a certian amount of money
they agree on, would not be able to teach more or better on the same subject
even if the got a $5000.00 raise, because they were teaching
a complete subject before the raise if they were doing there job correctly ! ! !
.
But I find that I am worked like a damn mule at my 9.68/hr as a PCA than my 10.80/hr job where I literally just sit with patients.
I should also note that I probably wouldn't even apply to an $8/hr job to begin with. I worked really hard for minimum wage at McDonald's, and I couldn't do that again for **** pay and no respect. At least with the 9.68/hr job I have, I get 15% differentials and "weekend" pay.
Last edited by TiltheEndofTime; 07-30-2012 at 08:57 AM..
Yes, if you are accepting the position with the understanding of what you'll be doing on the job in its entirety, you should do your best at it no matter what the wage is. Otherwise, you should not accept the position if you are not satisfied with the pay.
However, I have some examples of why an employee, IMO, has the right to be disgruntled.
I've noticed that employers, while attempting to sell their open positions to applicants, have a tendency of not describing the position in full. Their description is usually limited to how great, exciting, challenging, and full of potential the opportunity is.
The job I took one year ago literally had four bullet points to describe what the position would entail. It's in SCM (Procurement/Logistics), so you might imagine the general duties and requirements if you are familiar with this line of work. But there are several things management failed to mention about the job.
- The sheer volume of work you are expected to handle is incredible, especially given our pay grade. We do EVERYTHING, from procurement to logistics to accounting for every deal we touch. While this typically fluctuates on a weekly basis, most of the time the volume is absolute insanity. Although it mentioned in the description vaguely what the duties were, it did not expand on the actual volume and breadth of the duties. I eventually discovered that the position is a stress fest on a daily basis.
- Our work week is 37.5 hours long. But oh wait...every couple weeks you are expected to work late because of either 1) a vendor's month, quarter, or year end or 2) our company's month, quarter, year end.) Did they mention any of that in the interview? Not at all. Needless to say, I haven't worked a 37.5 hour week probably since my first week a year ago.
- They offer new employees 20 days PTO and Summer Fridays. Sounds pretty great, right? Ah, but another catch. PTO can only be taken during the first few weeks of any month. The month ends, quarter ends and year ends require SO much preparation and work, that it is shunned upon for anyone to take time off during the last week. It is prohibited for anyone to take off the last day of the month, quarter, or year. Go home to visit family for Thanksgiving, Christmas, or New Years? Nope, not allowed. As far as Summer Fridays go, for the entire three months of summer they fall within, you might only get to take advantage of 4 or 5 of them (out of 12). Most of the time you are so busy that you end up working past your half day mark anyway or your Summer Friday falls on a vendor month/quarter/year end. Also in regards to the PTO, most people are afraid to take off more than a few days at a time because so much work ends up piling up on them that it's not even worth taking the time off.
- About four to five months in to the new job, we lost nearly 40% of our team either to being let go or taking other positions internally/externally. Existing team members were left with the extra workload. They flaunted the idea of back filling the positions, but it never happened. Did we get raises for taking on all the new work? Absolutely not. So now my volume of work has increased significantly more than what I was originally hired to do and there is no pay raise in sight. But hey, they didn't mention the volume of the work in the job description, so hypothetically they could increase my volume by 200% and still pay me the same. That's good to know.
These are just some examples of why I can understand people's frustrations with accepting a certain wage for a job only to find out that it's not all that the employer described in the interview. Instead, they lure candidates in with picturesque images of an ideal work place with so much great potential. It only takes a few months until the new hire starts realizing how not so great their new gig is.
So, my proposition is this. Employers, if you're advertising a position, give the description of the job in its entirety. Explain the good with the bad so that the potential new hire is not blind-sided by a bunch of stuff they should have known about the job in order to have made a well-informed decision before accepting it. That way, you avoid all sorts of issues down the road such as higher turnover after having spent plenty of time and money on training a person for a job they didn't want once they knew what it was all about.
.
If a person is working for a company and doing there job,
and then gets more money through a raise, and then starts doing and producing more
they were not doing the job they were hired to do in the first place ! ! !
.
If a person is working for a company and doing there job,
and then gets more money through a raise, and then starts doing and producing more
they were not doing the job they were hired to do in the first place ! ! !
They were SLAKERS cheating the company ! ! !
.
Say what???
If someone gets a raise as a result of a promotion (that entails more work), how would that be cheating the company?
I'm guessing that the exceptionally poor grammar, spelling and punctuation of this post is a good indication of the quality of logic we're dealing with here.
.
If a person is working for a company and doing there job,
and then gets more money through a raise, and then starts doing and producing more
they were not doing the job they were hired to do in the first place ! ! !
They were SLAKERS cheating the company ! ! !
.
How do you know they werent doing the job they were hired to do?
If I was hired to flip burgers, and I only flip burgers for $8 an hour, then I get a raise to $8.50, and I decide to start sweeping the floor, how was I not originally doing my job when I was just flipping burgers, which is what I was hired to do?
When you accept a job, you do not accept being an unlimited slave for the company that will take on any and all tasks, assigned or not assigned. You accept X dollars for doing X tasks.
I do not owe the company extra because they "graciously" hired me.
If someone gets a raise as a result of a promotion (that entails more work), how would that be cheating the company?
I'm guessing that the exceptionally poor grammar, spelling and punctuation of this post is a good indication of the quality of logic we're dealing with here.
If you think you are smarter than me you should realize you misunderstood my post.
I said doing there job they were hired to do from the beginning.
I said nothing about being required to do more work ! ! !
OH by the way ... I don't care about spelling and your grammar schooling teaching ! ! !
.
I misunderstood your post, or you have not mastered the art of clearly expressing your viewpoint? Which is it?
And, yes, it is very clear that you do not care about spelling, grammar, or punctuation.
So now you have figured it out.
I'm glad you had to have someone else to explain it to you ! ! !
.
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.
My only issue...
