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.
It's not contrary to my case.......I said the type of actions described were now a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Why because someone brought a lawsuit?
The outcome indicates that it's not a lawsuit waiting to happen, indeed Ginsberg specifically calls out their should be legislative action to remove the SCOTUS ruling, and permit cases to be brought.
Further, lawsuits are brought against large rich corps. all the time, sometimes frivolously, sometimes for justified reasons. It's the cost of doing business.
Issue is that if you're right, then regardless of performance everyone will end up with the same income. So people like me, who was a star enough performer to retire at 40 (from increased salaries, bonuses annual and discretionary, and stock), will still be working at the same place when I'm 70, because I'm being paid the same as Fred the Neanderthal who struggles to tie his shoelaces. Furthermore, Fred only survives because the rest of the team picks up the slack he's leaving so the team meets the team goals, if there's no reason to pick up that slack (because there are no salary raises, bonuses, or stock on the table that are affected by missing goals), then Fred's going to be gone (bye Fred).
The company will be happy, because they're not paying high performers high wages, but can eliminate poor performers for poor performance. That said they're going to be less happy, because they're not going to be able to really take advantage of rock stars they have on their teams, unless that rock star is prepared to work for free.
I don't think that's what the intention is, but that's the upshot of what it will cause.
The outcome indicates that it's not a lawsuit waiting to happen, indeed Ginsberg specifically calls out their should be legislative action to remove the SCOTUS ruling, and permit cases to be brought.
And they can if brought in a more timely manner.
Quote:
Further, lawsuits are brought against large rich corps. all the time, sometimes frivolously, sometimes for justified reasons. It's the cost of doing business.
Issue is that if you're right, then regardless of performance everyone will end up with the same income. So people like me, who was a star enough performer to retire at 40 (from increased salaries, bonuses annual and discretionary, and stock), will still be working at the same place when I'm 70, because I'm being paid the same as Fred the Neanderthal who struggles to tie his shoelaces. Furthermore, Fred only survives because the rest of the team picks up the slack he's leaving so the team meets the team goals, if there's no reason to pick up that slack (because there are no salary raises, bonuses, or stock on the table that are affected by missing goals), then Fred's going to be gone (bye Fred).
The company will be happy, because they're not paying high performers high wages, but can eliminate poor performers for poor performance. That said they're going to be less happy, because they're not going to be able to really take advantage of rock stars they have on their teams, unless that rock star is prepared to work for free.
I don't think that's what the intention is, but that's the upshot of what it will cause.
I'm NOT arguing for that system.......I'm simply saying it is now the way it is. Just because I argue things as they are does not mean I am promoting that idea. I think more should get paid based upon performance but today for so many that is as I said, a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Then it would entirely depend on the contents of the documented reviews received. Like I said this case may have been justified, it doesn't demonstrate however that the system is not legal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
I'm NOT arguing for that system.......I'm simply saying it is now the way it is. Just because I argue things as they are does not mean I am promoting that idea. I think more should get paid based upon performance but today for so many that is as I said, a lawsuit waiting to happen.
A lawsuit waiting to happen that is used by Apple, Amazon, GE, Google, Microsoft and thousands of other companies. While they're transitioning from formal annual reviews, the review hasn't really changed, it's just more frequent and more rapid, the information is still recorded and will be used to either improve your compensation or hang you whichever end of the scale you land on.
Seriously if that ever happens, then you can wave good-bye to the major players, the cost of doing business in the US would just have become more than they're prepared to pay. How do you motivate people to produce their best when they're only going to wind up with the same compensation as Fred the Neanderthal? You can't do it with money, and you can't do it with material goods (it's payment in kind), you can't do it with improvements to working conditions for your performers either (because it's all discriminatory, and people are working "the same jobs"). It'll become a race to the bottom, hell for my levels before I retired, I'd only need to work around a 3 hour day to hit my standard achievements. Around 5 to reach my stretch but why invest those 2 more hours, when I could be home watching NetFlix, or doing something more relaxing, might make me consider returning to work just to get the income, bennies, and sit on my @ss on a swivel chair for 3 hours a day laughing at the idjits sweating away for 8 hours, and maybe collect a few more patents on the way.
Then it would entirely depend on the contents of the documented reviews received. Like I said this case may have been justified, it doesn't demonstrate however that the system is not legal.
I would never argue otherwise.
Quote:
A lawsuit waiting to happen that is used by Apple, Amazon, GE, Google, Microsoft and thousands of other companies. While they're transitioning from formal annual reviews, the review hasn't really changed, it's just more frequent and more rapid, the information is still recorded and will be used to either improve your compensation or hang you whichever end of the scale you land on.
I would certainly hope that companies have gotten smarter about it
Quote:
Seriously if that ever happens, then you can wave good-bye to the major players, the cost of doing business in the US would just have become more than they're prepared to pay. How do you motivate people to produce their best when they're only going to wind up with the same compensation as Fred the Neanderthal? You can't do it with money, and you can't do it with material goods (it's payment in kind), you can't do it with improvements to working conditions for your performers either (because it's all discriminatory, and people are working "the same jobs"). It'll become a race to the bottom, hell for my levels before I retired, I'd only need to work around a 3 hour day to hit my standard achievements. Around 5 to reach my stretch but why invest those 2 more hours, when I could be home watching NetFlix, or doing something more relaxing, might make me consider returning to work just to get the income, bennies, and sit on my @ss on a swivel chair for 3 hours a day laughing at the idjits sweating away for 8 hours, and maybe collect a few more patents on the way.
That is the system we have made the law in many cases. Go to a production facility and every employee is going to be paid the same irrelevant to their work ethic. It does tend to drive it down overall.
Yes but not just anyone gets to the Supreme Court. This was very costly to Goodyear.
The next person now knows to sue in a more timely manner.
LOL. Not true. Any issue can go to the Supreme Court if one party doesn't like the ruling.
The places I used to work for always have 20-50 cases open at any given time for variety of reasons. Getting sued is just part of doing business. Costly and bad but the business just passes the cost to the consumers.
Getting sued for documenting performances? LOL, seriously, virtually every company does that. If they don't, they would have no way of giving people raise or bonus.
I would certainly hope that companies have gotten smarter about it
That is the system we have made the law in many cases. Go to a production facility and every employee is going to be paid the same irrelevant to their work ethic. It does tend to drive it down overall.
I came from a communist country where everybody is paid the same for doing the same job. Nobody understands what productivity is as it doesn't exist. People spend more time smoking, chatting and drinking coffee and tea than working.
I came from a communist country where everybody is paid the same for doing the same job. Nobody understands what productivity is as it doesn't exist. People spend more time smoking, chatting and drinking coffee and tea than working.
They were paid poorly. That is why they didn't work, not because they all made the same rate.
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.
