Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
Are you paying your workers 'too much'? (Read 1545 times)
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 57063
Here
Gender: male
Re: Are you paying your workers 'too much'?
Reply #30 - Dec 24th, 2010 at 11:35am
 
Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 24th, 2010 at 11:23am:
Dnarever wrote on Dec 24th, 2010 at 11:07am:
Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 24th, 2010 at 9:37am:
I think one of the best forms of reward is share options.

Obviously you'd probably link it to middle management and above - if you open up to the masses then you dilute the EPS.

But if managers are part owners in the company, we are all stretching ourselves to achieve an aligned mission objective of the company.



Just another way to differentiate the payment of yourself from other workers.


Not it isn't. How come you're so cynical??

It's a way of ensuring management have a stake in the company and aligning our goals along with the corporate mission statement.

The better your department does, the better the company does, the higher the share price, the greater the value of your share options.

It ain't rocket science - hence why share options are so successful across US listed entities.




Every employee has a stake in the company and most on the floor contribute more to the success of the company than the finance team. Basically if nobody is producing anything you can jingle money around all you like and it will make no difference in the end. The companies profit is built on the effort of its workforce as a whole but is definatly led from the bottom as the upper half produce little or nothing.

As long as the vehicle exists which will ensure that the employee wage bill will be minimised while not impacting management increases the situation will be taken advantage of and employee results will be substandard and unfair.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 57063
Here
Gender: male
Re: Are you paying your workers 'too much'?
Reply #31 - Dec 24th, 2010 at 11:41am
 
Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 24th, 2010 at 11:34am:
That happens everywhere.

Effective headcount management is a tool to control variable costs and increase the drive through from the top line through into the bottom line return.

It's part and parcel of business.



More like bean cruncher stupidity, they pretended to remove 2 positions and increased overheads by around $700,000 while reducing productivity and blind Freddy could have forseen the impact.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: Are you paying your workers 'too much'?
Reply #32 - Dec 24th, 2010 at 11:44am
 
Dnarever wrote on Dec 24th, 2010 at 11:41am:
Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 24th, 2010 at 11:34am:
That happens everywhere.

Effective headcount management is a tool to control variable costs and increase the drive through from the top line through into the bottom line return.

It's part and parcel of business.



More like bean cruncher stupidity, they pretended to remove 2 positions and increased overheads by around $700,000 while reducing productivity and blind Freddy could have forseen the impact.


It depends on the metric.

For example you can reduce headcount, increase costs (through temporary support consulting) yet increase your share price as a result of the metric delivered to Wall St.

My area's budgeted costs have increased, our revenue has dropped but because the costs have gone up within fixed cost areas, the variance analysis metric shows us to be better performing.

It's smoke and mirrors. You can paint things anyway you like.

Hence my point before, you need guys like us to do it for you.
Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 57063
Here
Gender: male
Re: Are you paying your workers 'too much'?
Reply #33 - Dec 24th, 2010 at 11:49am
 
Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 24th, 2010 at 11:44am:
Dnarever wrote on Dec 24th, 2010 at 11:41am:
Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 24th, 2010 at 11:34am:
That happens everywhere.

Effective headcount management is a tool to control variable costs and increase the drive through from the top line through into the bottom line return.

It's part and parcel of business.



More like bean cruncher stupidity, they pretended to remove 2 positions and increased overheads by around $700,000 while reducing productivity and blind Freddy could have forseen the impact.


It depends on the metric.

For example you can reduce headcount, increase costs (through temporary support consulting) yet increase your share price as a result of the metric delivered to Wall St.

My area's budgeted costs have increased, our revenue has dropped but because the costs have gone up within fixed cost areas, the variance analysis metric shows us to be better performing.

It's smoke and mirrors. You can paint things anyway you like.

Hence my point before, you need guys like us to do it for you.



In other words bullshite over substance.

Do that too much and you may end up with the healthiest looking bankrupt company in the market.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: Are you paying your workers 'too much'?
Reply #34 - Dec 24th, 2010 at 12:00pm
 
Of course.

You apply it within reason - hence why we have Sarbannes Oxley controls.

Enron did it far too much and over estimated their revenue stream to excess.

It's all relative.

You name me a single $500m+ listed company and you won't find one that doesnt do it.
Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
Verge
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6329
Gender: male
Re: Are you paying your workers 'too much'?
Reply #35 - Dec 24th, 2010 at 12:28pm
 
Funny how a thread on the application of the new workplace laws and their transitional provisions under the fair work act was turned by DNA into a "Management bad, workers are screwed over" thread.
Back to top
 

And why not, if you will permit me; why shouldn’t I, if you will permit me; spend my first week as prime minister, should that happen, on this, on your, country - Abbott with the Garma People Aug 13
 
IP Logged
 
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: Are you paying your workers 'too much'?
Reply #36 - Dec 24th, 2010 at 12:29pm
 
Verge wrote on Dec 24th, 2010 at 12:28pm:
turned by DNA into a "Management bad, workers are screwed over" thread.



It should be on his headstone.

His ability to see good management seems extremely hindered.
Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
Prevailing
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 7169
Stop Men
Re: Are you paying your workers 'too much'?
Reply #37 - Dec 24th, 2010 at 1:15pm
 
The State has not achieved best practice yet in meeting its legal obligations and targets in raising Pensions in Parity with minimum wages.
Back to top
 

I condemn Male Violence Against Women
The Government Supports Gynocide
There Is Something Dreadfully Wrong With Men
 
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 57063
Here
Gender: male
Re: Are you paying your workers 'too much'?
Reply #38 - Dec 27th, 2010 at 1:09pm
 
Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 24th, 2010 at 12:29pm:
Verge wrote on Dec 24th, 2010 at 12:28pm:


Funny how a thread on the application of the new workplace laws and their transitional provisions under the fair work act turned by DNA into a "Management bad, workers are screwed over" thread.



It should be on his headstone.

His ability to see good management seems extremely hindered.


Why Singlle me out for this:

On this thread stared by Equ

Equ 1 post on topic and 3 off topic

Adelcrow 4 posts off topic

Karnel 1 post off topic

Aussie Free Ride 1 post off topic

Verge 3 posts off topic and 3 posts on topic

Dnarever 7 posts off topic and 3 posts on topic

Andrei 10 posts off topic 0 posts on topic

Moz 1 post off topic.

Note: a good portion of the off topic posts were a responce to other off topic statments or off topic but relating to an on topic statment. some of us seem to treat the topics a bit more broadly - it reduces the number of similar topics which we have been asked to not create. Also discussion tends to drift a bit and I do not see a real problem with that. I was not the first poster off topic nor the last.

It is strange that I get the blame for this when I have made as many on topic posts as you and you supporter is yet to find his first on topic statment?

The point I started out trying to make is that it is not manditory to pay to the lowest allowable rate of the modern award - the award is the safety net manditory level used primerily by the stingiest employers.

This is on topic.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 57063
Here
Gender: male
Re: Are you paying your workers 'too much'?
Reply #39 - Dec 27th, 2010 at 1:19pm
 
Verge wrote on Dec 24th, 2010 at 12:28pm:
Funny how a thread on the application of the new workplace laws and their transitional provisions under the fair work act was turned by DNA into a "Management bad, workers are screwed over" thread.



Funny that the description you have chosen (workers are screwed over) is in fact the impact of the transitional provisions.

The award changes are giving workers conditions thay should have had a decade ago and the transitional arrangements are delaying them for another 5 years.

Note: this is not saying that management is bad it is saying that the transitional arrangements are poor.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Verge
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6329
Gender: male
Re: Are you paying your workers 'too much'?
Reply #40 - Dec 27th, 2010 at 8:42pm
 
Dnarever wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 1:09pm:
Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 24th, 2010 at 12:29pm:
Verge wrote on Dec 24th, 2010 at 12:28pm:


Funny how a thread on the application of the new workplace laws and their transitional provisions under the fair work act turned by DNA into a "Management bad, workers are screwed over" thread.



It should be on his headstone.

His ability to see good management seems extremely hindered.


Why Singlle me out for this:

On this thread stared by Equ

Equ 1 post on topic and 3 off topic

Adelcrow 4 posts off topic

Karnel 1 post off topic

Aussie Free Ride 1 post off topic

Verge 3 posts off topic and 3 posts on topic

Dnarever 7 posts off topic and 3 posts on topic

Andrei 10 posts off topic 0 posts on topic

Moz 1 post off topic.

Note: a good portion of the off topic posts were a responce to other off topic statments or off topic but relating to an on topic statment. some of us seem to treat the topics a bit more broadly - it reduces the number of similar topics which we have been asked to not create. Also discussion tends to drift a bit and I do not see a real problem with that. I was not the first poster off topic nor the last.

It is strange that I get the blame for this when I have made as many on topic posts as you and you supporter is yet to find his first on topic statment?

The point I started out trying to make is that it is not manditory to pay to the lowest allowable rate of the modern award - the award is the safety net manditory level used primerily by the stingiest employers.

This is on topic.


You were the one who kicked it off with the offtopic posts.

As far as Andre is concerned every thread is about him and he is always on topic.

In our industry, it was last reported that well over 90% of the industry applied the Award.  It is a generous award, and in actual fact the NSW arm of our industry has been fighting hard for the retention of many of the existing provisions, but because Vic, SA, WA and NT have never seen those sorts of things, many of our really generous provisions are now gone over the next 5 years.  We have managed to keep a couple, not many though.

The transition provisions are about fairness and balance.  An employer should be given the rights to phase in a raft of new changes that will affect their bottom line, and employees can hope that the provisions they are loosing happens also over a long period.

Would you support there being no transitional arrangements providing the employer can also remove the now lost benefits just as quickly?
Back to top
 

And why not, if you will permit me; why shouldn’t I, if you will permit me; spend my first week as prime minister, should that happen, on this, on your, country - Abbott with the Garma People Aug 13
 
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 57063
Here
Gender: male
Re: Are you paying your workers 'too much'?
Reply #41 - Dec 27th, 2010 at 10:01pm
 
Verge wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 8:42pm:
You were the one who kicked it off with the offtopic posts.




BS.

At least 5 off topis posts before mine and I only went off topic in responce to off topic comments.

My first off topic post was in responce to an off topic statment made by Andrei and my second off topic post was in responce to an off topic comment made by you. (when you said that your company do not give bonuses).

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
viewpoint
Gold Member
*****
Offline


A joke is a very serious
thing. [Winston]

Posts: 2209
Gender: male
Re: Are you paying your workers 'too much'?
Reply #42 - Dec 28th, 2010 at 7:52am
 
Typically stupid thread from a typically stupid person. 

You pay your workers what they are worth and what your business can afford.  If they are worth a lot, you pay them a lot if your business can afford it. If they’re worthless, you get rid of them or don’t employ them in the first place.
Back to top
 

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
- Sir Winston Churchill
 
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 57063
Here
Gender: male
Re: Are you paying your workers 'too much'?
Reply #43 - Dec 28th, 2010 at 8:37am
 
viewpoint wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 7:52am:
You pay your workers what they are worth and what your business can afford.  If they are worth a lot, you pay them a lot if your business can afford it. If they’re worthless, you get rid of them or don’t employ them in the first place.



I would agree about 70% with this in the case of small business but the larger the company the less relivant this attitude becomes.

THe bigger the company the less likley that management will correctly identify the worth of employees and the more probable that the worthless one may be the manager making the decision.

I have never worked in a corporation where the person seen as the best worker was not the same person who the Boss / manager did not drink beer with (or equivilant services) and the worst worker least effective is always the person the boss does not like. This person tends to be deemed the least productive even when they can clearly demonstrate that they complete more tasks and projects in better time with less problems than others.

A number of years ago I worked as a shift manager with 4 other team leaders, we were each responsible on certain shifts to allocat additional shifts and overtime based on the selection of the most appropriate person for the required work from a pool of about 70 workers.

Interesting was that we all tended to favour a group within that pool based of efficiency of the people and that we all had selected a different list of staff as meeting that catagory. In each case the basis of the groups were the people we liked the most. Virtually all managers do this and they do not even know that they are biased - it is not deliberate just human nature.

People truly believe that the employees they like are more efficient when in fact they can often be the people who do the least and I have never met a manager who does not regularly fall for this trap, I could give dozens of examples.

(this is an off topic responce to an off topic post / appology to anyone offended by discussion movement).
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 57063
Here
Gender: male
Re: Are you paying your workers 'too much'?
Reply #44 - Dec 28th, 2010 at 9:07am
 
Verge wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 8:42pm:
As far as Andre is concerned every thread is about him and he is always on topic.


You are not wrong

Quote:
In our industry, it was last reported that well over 90% of the industry applied the Award.  It is a generous award, and in actual fact the NSW arm of our industry has been fighting hard for the retention of many of the existing provisions, but because Vic, SA, WA and NT have never seen those sorts of things, many of our really generous provisions are now gone over the next 5 years.  We have managed to keep a couple, not many though.


Yep this is the main problem with modern awards the are unfair to the better off high cost of living states because the look at the total picture and go for an average result.

It does sound like your area would like to do the right thing and in this case I would think that to move forward with the intention of the system would be the only way to get the required result.

The Modern award is meant to be a base position and the mechanism to provide for meeting the current position would be to put an enterprise agreement on top of the award to return to the current position.

In terms of things like shift penalties which have been around since around the 1930's they should have been in place decades ago. The employers not paying them have been getting away with it for a long time and getting the benefits - while I can understand the fairness point the employer side could have been fair 10 years ago if they wanted I believe that it has been a rip off of employee entitlements which the process is extending.

I don’t think it a huge problem because it is moving in the right direction but overall I think the modern award system is crappy in terms of implementation, it is unfair on too many counts.



Quote:
The transition provisions are about fairness and balance.  An employer should be given the rights to phase in a raft of new changes that will affect their bottom line, and employees can hope that the provisions they are loosing happens also over a long period.

Would you support there being no transitional arrangements providing the employer can also remove the now lost benefits just as quickly?



As I said before I do not believe that there should be lost benefits - negotiate an enterprise agreement and keep these benefits in place. I feel that this should have been manditory and automatic in the process.

In terms of fairness in transition I think it reasonable to phase in changes except in areas like penalty rates, shift leave etc where the employer has basically been getting away with ripping off the employee on conditions which should have already been in place for a long time.

Phase in changes - yes

Extend the rip off - no.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print