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.
I believe it. I for one am not a good butt kisser, but there is nothing wrong with a little manipulation like in this case where the mid 20 year old played her cards the best she could putting the odds in her favor, and who knows if it was even an intentional move on her part or not. Manipulation would be the little brother of negotiation. It's a tactic used to negotiate.
There definitely are no promises in life. We play the cards and hand we were dealt to the best of our abilities and hope we can "deserve" whatever it takes to make ourselves happy.
There are lots of excellent people that work for me and that should have very good careers over the course of their lifetime.
I recognize and reward that when I can. Sadly, that works out to less than 20% of the time. Openings and promotions only come along when they do.
To be clear, and to simplify the definition, in subjective cases where I do work and was promised a certain thing, after that work is completed I deserve that thing.
And this is essentially exactly the gist of my very first response on this thread.
What do people "deserve?" What was agreed upon in exchange for their efforts, presuming their end was upheld. Bottom line. Anything else is subjective.
Quote:
However regarding teachers:
Back in 2007-2008 in California there was a backlash vs. teachers. Moreso unions, but teachers as well. Issues regarding pay.
People got their pitchforks and newspapers posted the salaries (which was public knowledge anyway, including my measly salary at the time) of all teachers, administration and staff.
A lot of outside the teaching profession couldn't believe how much certain teachers were making. They thought that those teachers didn't deserve their salaries. Teachers were being scapegoated for the economic problems of that time.
Those that were angry, were probably out of jobs or upset they lost their homes, or just hate the idea of taxes paying for other people's salary even though it's for they betterment of society. Whatever the reason, the idea of deserved, especially in accordance to their own life and what they believe they deserved ruled their thought process.
Now personally I think teachers ought to get paid more, but I also understand that the way in which our society is based, can only support a certain level of pay. And that is socially understood as well as capitalistically understood. Meaning it would be pretty absurd to pay a new teacher $500,000. They may deserve it more than someone bouncing a ball, but there are many metrics and factors that are pretty vague when it comes to measuring a teacher's success.
The whole point, though, is, how do you determine that that's what the teacher deserves? At this point, the only thing teachers deserve, monetarily, is the compensation they agree to when signing a contract. It's all anybody deserves...what they agreed they'd be getting in exchange for agreed-upon tasks.
Now, do I personally think there's more value to teaching than is typically recognized and monetarily rewarded? Of course (I'm a former teacher, actually). But that isn't really the point. The point is that you deserve whatever it is that you agree to. You sign the contract, you make the call. Now, do you have limited choice in what's offered for you to agree to or not agree to? Absolutely. You sign a teaching contract that says you'll get paid, say, $37,000/year, because nobody's offering you a contract that says you get $500,000/year. Obviously. You definitely only have the options of going with what a given governing group has deemed is appropriate for you to earn. Which is a different discussion.
I agree that discussions of "what is deserved" are mostly unproductive.
The whole point, though, is, how do you determine that that's what the teacher deserves? At this point, the only thing teachers deserve, monetarily, is the compensation they agree to when signing a contract. It's all anybody deserves...what they agreed they'd be getting in exchange for agreed-upon tasks.
Not speaking about teachers here because I'm not one...but I find this argument to be flawed. Let me explain why.
I started with my company doing X. When I accepted the job offer, I accepted the pay rate for doing X.
Now, I'm approaching the two year point. Now, I'm doing X, Y, and Z. Through my display of competence and strong work ethic, I've been rewarded with more responsibilities by management.
But...
I'm still getting paid at the rate I accepted for doing X.
Do I deserve more pay for the additional responsibilities that have been placed on me? At which point can I deservedly re-negotiate my pay rate for taking on Y and Z?
In my opinion, the whole "you deserve what you agreed upon" argument goes out the window once the contract has been changed, absent your consent or sign-off, by your employer/business partner.
This is why people leave jobs. And I think that this is a mutual understanding between employers and employees, because not everyone can get a large pay bump for taking on extra responsibilities.
Not speaking about teachers here because I'm not one...but I find this argument to be flawed. Let me explain why.
I started with my company doing X. When I accepted the job offer, I accepted the pay rate for doing X.
Now, I'm approaching the two year point. Now, I'm doing X, Y, and Z. Through my display of competence and strong work ethic, I've been rewarded with more responsibilities by management.
But...
I'm still getting paid at the rate I accepted for doing X.
Do I deserve more pay for the additional responsibilities that have been placed on me? At which point can I deservedly re-negotiate my pay rate for taking on Y and Z?
In my opinion, the whole "you deserve what you agreed upon" argument goes out the window once the contract has been changed, absent your consent or sign-off, by your employer/business partner.
This is why people leave jobs. And I think that this is a mutual understanding between employers and employees, because not everyone can get a large pay bump for taking on extra responsibilities.
You have every right to think what you think. And you are correct...to a point.
Margins are getting tighter in every business sector. People are expected to do more. Maybe they were overpaid to begin with? Maybe now they are actually earning their pay?
(All assumptions and scenarios) - You are now responsible for Y & Z. Your obviously more efficient at X, so you can do Y & Z. Why couldn't you do Y & Z in the beginning? Can the business compensate you for the extra responsibilities? Can you go to another company and do X,Y, & Z and get paid more?
I've gone through these very same issues with my employee's. I want them happy, I want the best for them. But I can't always pay them what I want. I've seen them slack off, I've seen them excel. Is it a balance? No. Are they happy, yes. Do I pay them too much...OH HECK YEA!!! LOL
Get another offer from another business, as back up, and approach your boss. Make sure the risk is worth the reward.
Hang in there Left-handed! BTW, maybe it's cause your not right handed? lol just make'n a funny. or as my kids say, "a stupid dad joke". lol
I think you could make a case for a long term caregiver deserving a vacation or time off duty. Or an innocent person wrongly convicted of a crime, deserving an exoneration and pardon.
Mostly though, I believe that if we deserve the good stuff, we also deserve the bad stuff. None of us is perfect. We mess up frequently, even though we don't always stop to consider our actions or lack of action. Many times we only consider why we "deserve" the thing(s) we really just want.
If you are Christian, you know you do not deserve God's grace. I can't speak for any other religions on that topic.
Basically, we are just people who want what we want, and we will try to justify our wants as being deserving, or as needs. I think it is healthier to simply acknowledge that we want certain things. When we receive or obtain what we want, we need to be thankful. If we don't get what we want, it is best to manage not to feel cheated or deprived.
Of course, in our modern way of thinking, we all deserve to have clean air, water and access to decent, affordable food. And good medical care as well. But I don't think that is what the OP is asking.
Not speaking about teachers here because I'm not one...but I find this argument to be flawed. Let me explain why.
I started with my company doing X. When I accepted the job offer, I accepted the pay rate for doing X.
Now, I'm approaching the two year point. Now, I'm doing X, Y, and Z. Through my display of competence and strong work ethic, I've been rewarded with more responsibilities by management.
But...
I'm still getting paid at the rate I accepted for doing X.
Right. Your performance now includes work you weren't initially contracted to do.
This happens. Prior to teaching, I worked in print journalism, as a general assignment reporter in a small newsroom. The newsroom continued to shrink with budget cuts, and when a reporter left, their duties would get distributed to the remaining employees...initially, coinciding with a raise in pay, but over time, the raises diminished and disappeared.
Quote:
Do I deserve more pay for the additional responsibilities that have been placed on me? At which point can I deservedly re-negotiate my pay rate for taking on Y and Z?
Yes.
You can renegotiate when you feel that you're now being required to do more than your initial agreement involved (and if there was no "...and other duties as required" clause in your contract...something that does happen frequently with educators). Obviously, your employer can decline to compensate you for the additional duties outside the scope of your contract...and you can of course decline to continue in the position, that being the case (of course, whether or not that's realistic is a separate discussion, which is exactly how people do end up taking on a bunch of extra crap for no extra compensation, if they can't afford to walk away from he job).
Quote:
In my opinion, the whole "you deserve what you agreed upon" argument goes out the window once the contract has been changed, absent your consent or sign-off, by your employer/business partner.
Of course. the contract isn't valid anymore if it's been changed without your agreement. Nobody likes to work with the "Hey, not in my job description person," true, but it's actually the only way to ensure that you're actually being paid what you deserve, in this context, and being fairly compensated for your work. Obviously, employers often try to get something for nothing, in the form of tacking on additional duties that fall outside the agreed-upon scope of work. It not being particularly fair doesn't prevent it from being super common.
You still deserve what you agreed upon, though. X compensation for Y work.
Quote:
This is why people leave jobs. And I think that this is a mutual understanding between employers and employees, because not everyone can get a large pay bump for taking on extra responsibilities.
Of course. And I've been in both positions...where I had added duties but no added compensation, but couldn't in good faith walk away, either because I felt obligated by something particular to the work, or because I legitimately couldn't afford to walk out of a job without something else lined up...and also where the continued piling on of work for no better compensation (be it in the form of a raise, a title change, some other perk, whatever) made walking a no-brainer.
Overall, though, I do still think the maxim of "You deserve the deal you agreed to" applies. What you're talking about is when the deal you agreed to changes, which obviously changes everything. I'm not seeing the flaw.
Right. Your performance now includes work you weren't initially contracted to do.
This happens. Prior to teaching, I worked in print journalism, as a general assignment reporter in a small newsroom. The newsroom continued to shrink with budget cuts, and when a reporter left, their duties would get distributed to the remaining employees...initially, coinciding with a raise in pay, but over time, the raises diminished and disappeared.
Yes.
You can renegotiate when you feel that you're now being required to do more than your initial agreement involved (and if there was no "...and other duties as required" clause in your contract...something that does happen frequently with educators). Obviously, your employer can decline to compensate you for the additional duties outside the scope of your contract...and you can of course decline to continue in the position, that being the case (of course, whether or not that's realistic is a separate discussion, which is exactly how people do end up taking on a bunch of extra crap for no extra compensation, if they can't afford to walk away from he job).
Of course. the contract isn't valid anymore if it's been changed without your agreement. Nobody likes to work with the "Hey, not in my job description person," true, but it's actually the only way to ensure that you're actually being paid what you deserve, in this context, and being fairly compensated for your work. Obviously, employers often try to get something for nothing, in the form of tacking on additional duties that fall outside the agreed-upon scope of work. It not being particularly fair doesn't prevent it from being super common.
You still deserve what you agreed upon, though. X compensation for Y work.
Of course. And I've been in both positions...where I had added duties but no added compensation, but couldn't in good faith walk away, either because I felt obligated by something particular to the work, or because I legitimately couldn't afford to walk out of a job without something else lined up...and also where the continued piling on of work for no better compensation (be it in the form of a raise, a title change, some other perk, whatever) made walking a no-brainer.
Overall, though, I do still think the maxim of "You deserve the deal you agreed to" applies. What you're talking about is when the deal you agreed to changes, which obviously changes everything. I'm not seeing the flaw.
The way in which you describe it makes sense to me. Especially since you seem to be a proponent that more duties and responsibilities should equate to a higher rate of pay.
There are some people who say, "Too bad, how sad. Deal with it!" I'm pleased that you are not one of them.
The way in which you describe it makes sense to me. Especially since you seem to be a proponent that more duties and responsibilities should equate to a higher rate of pay.
There are some people who say, "Too bad, how sad. Deal with it!" I'm pleased that you are not one of them.
Of course, I'm talking in hypotheticals about what is fair and ethical. Do the work you're hired to do, get compensated as agreed upon. No more, no less - that's the beginning and end of "what's deserved."
We both know that what is fair and ethical and what actually happens versus what would ideally happen are not necessarily the same thing.
And we both know how common it is to be asked (or, required) to do more than was agreed upon without commensurate compensation. Even if it's not fair, ethical, or reasonable. "Too bad, so sad, Don't like it? See ya!" is kind of the rule of thumb a lot of times.
Of course, I'm talking in hypotheticals about what is fair and ethical. Do the work you're hired to do, get compensated as agreed upon. No more, no less - that's the beginning and end of "what's deserved."
We both know that what is fair and ethical and what actually happens versus what would ideally happen are not necessarily the same thing.
And we both know how common it is to be asked (or, required) to do more than was agreed upon without commensurate compensation. Even if it's not fair, ethical, or reasonable. "Too bad, so sad, Don't like it? See ya!" is kind of the rule of thumb a lot of times.
If I may add this little tid bit of info into your conversation with L-H.
As an employer/employee/and friend helping a friend.
When I busted my butt, I didn't get paid extra. When I didn't do so well, had a broken wrist/dislocated shoulder, I didn't get paid less. ie, 110% same pay, 90% same pay.
From a business partner, I agreed to split even though he owe's me 1.5 mil. Why? (well he lost the money and has no way to pay, for one thing) But, because I have learned so much that I will be fine. Helping others with no pay, I learned. Working hard, I learned and taught my kids a valuable lesson. Most importantly, I realized that money doesn't make me happy. I make myself happy, serving God makes me happy, teaching my kids what I've learned makes me happy. I got what I "deserve", happiness.
This will explain they type of person I am and do my best to be:
A couple songs to listen to, humble and kind by Tim McGraw. And how I'll always be by Tim.
"I'm a little more bust your back than take it for free."
You don't have to deserve an entitlement to get it, that is why it's called an entitlement.
As far as everything else goes; you know you deserve it when you have it.
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.
LOL
