Guitar Gear Forum

we all see people who only work just hard enough not to get fired. currently 3 hens down the way are discussing god knows what and they very rarely do anything actually related to work. i would fire them but i dont make those decisions, yet.

i make more money the harder i work so there is a reason to show up and put up great numbers.

so why dont more jobs offer some type of performance based incentive? wouldnt that increase productivity?

Nope. People rise to their level of incompetence. And the less you pay people, the bigger the company's profit margin.

i dunno about that. i see us paying multiple people to do a job that one motivated person could do. health insurance, taxes, etc, i dont see how having extra useless staff would make sense vs paying one person slightly more.

Flip side is it can encourage the wrong kind of work ethic.

Works for some jobs and not so well for others.

Chuck Nutz wrote:Flip side is it can encourage the wrong kind of work ethic.

Works for some jobs and not so well for others.

So much this. Certain jobs have been incentivized to disastrous effect (see housing crisis, various stock bubbles, and the reason your broker wants to shift your stocks all the time). Not saying they shouldn't be at all, but it depends on how the system works.

I'm back on the counter fulltime now and getting paid off the profit I make not just the department's gross. I like it this way even though it puts more pressure on me.

But like Dave said, it really depends on the job and how the incentives are set up.

Good point. There does need to be controls and limits but I just hate seeing waste and people doing nothing at work.

sleewell wrote:Good point. There does need to be controls and limits but I just hate seeing waste and people doing nothing at work.

I totally hear ya dude.

mine is, and i like it that way. when i took a break from this stuff and just got bonuses/incentives based on what "the firm" did as a whole, i was like umm no, gtfo.

when i'm putting in 25-30hrs of OT/week for 4-5 mo's a year i like those bi-annual bonuses.

My job has been incentivized off and on, and in various ways for around 15 years, and my conclusion is that it's hard to get it right. The way it worked the best to incentivize me cost the company more than the a-hole we had as a COO at the time thought was reasonable, even though the company made gobs more off my efforts than they paid me, and pissed off people who weren't in a similar position. It then switched to something that was structured such that you couldn't make diddly, which worked as a disincentive to work hard and royally pissed off everyone. The way it works now is too egalitarian and doesn't serve as an incentive to anyone, but also doesn't piss anyone off.

sleewell wrote:i dunno about that. i see us paying multiple people to do a job that one motivated person could do. health insurance, taxes, etc, i dont see how having extra useless staff would make sense vs paying one person slightly more.

So here is how it is normally done:

You see that one motivated person could do this job that 4 do right now. You get promoted to the management job that over sees that level. Your first action is to get in and fire the other people and keep the one person in that role. That one person now horribly over worked and stressed out starts missing work for illness. A lot. Your manager above you starts to get upset because productivity is dropping. You as the manager are suddenly now forced to pick up the slack yourself on top of your own workload. Your productivity drops. You are seen as incompetent and let go. The manager that replaces you was the one horribly overworked person you left in that department. His/her first act as manager is to hire three more people and productivity rises. His/her salary is less than yours. The three people hired make less and the company now has a better profit margin. The people at the top rungs of management get bonuses because the company is making more profit with less cost.

Most seasonal farm jobs are. And when I say seasonal, I mean picking.

It only works if each person working in a compartmentalized way. Everyone is on their own team worrying about themselves where ultimately their own small successes creates the overall success of the company.

Like I said, with the farm picking as an example. A guy in one row doesn't give a notherfuck what the next guy over is doing. And he shouldn't. He is in his own world, doing what he has to do to succeed and earn for himself.

If a field is full of those guys the farm does well.

If you apply that 'selfish' attitude in an office or team environment where people are expected to come together it never works. It turns into Survivor: office edition- alliances, undermining, lying and rat fucking everyone around you to succeed because as long as others are failing (through their own ignorance or booby traps set by others) you are succeeding. Or rather, getting "incentives."

Funny enough, I see a lot more helping eachother out and loyalty to one another in the "selfish" field type work than you do in an office where management is trying their best to create a team atmosphere.

I believe it has a lot to do with pride and culture. Mexican Americans are a wonderful group of people and although they have their downfalls (mostly their children do)- it is a group we could all learn a lot from. Bwthdik.

Also, there are rules/laws. Not enough employees, no qualifications for certain tax breaks. So hire 100 people at minimum wage so the owner/CEO can make his/her $20MM deferred/tax-free/low tax compensation and shamelessly collect another $10MM bonus.

sleewell wrote:we all see people who only work just hard enough not to get fired. currently 3 hens down the way are discussing god knows what and they very rarely do anything actually related to work. i would fire them but i dont make those decisions, yet.

i make more money the harder i work so there is a reason to show up and put up great numbers.

so why dont more jobs offer some type of performance based incentive? wouldnt that increase productivity?

Its our ever creeping socialist behavior. We reward "yes" men, fire free thinkers, and participate in a world mired in groupthink.

marshallnoise wrote:Its our ever creeping socialist behavior. We reward "yes" men, fire free thinkers, and participate in a world mired in groupthink.

lol

Lloyd Blankfein wrote:
If you apply that 'selfish' attitude in an office or team environment where people are expected to come together it never works. It turns into Survivor: office edition- alliances, undermining, lying and rat fucking everyone around you to succeed because as long as others are failing (through their own ignorance or booby traps set by others) you are succeeding. Or rather, getting "incentives."

Exactly this. Some people really don't want to work harder or do better.

Maybe its just me then. I fucking killed it last month and have an even bigger pipeline for this month. I love my job and don't mind going to work. I hear people in the office complain about being broke and its bc they don't do shit so I was thinking if they got paid based on performance it might help.

sleewell wrote:Maybe its just me then. I fucking killed it last month and have an even bigger pipeline for this month. I love my job and don't mind going to work. I hear people in the office complain about being broke and its bc they don't do shit so I was thinking if they got paid based on performance it might help.

I think in some situations it would be great. Others.....

Most people who bitch about being broke are just stupid with their money. $100+ for phone/month, $150+ for cable/internet, car payment, rent/mortgage, going out, eating out, buying every little thing they want no matter if it fits the budget (the budget they don't usually have.)

Those people bitching probably wouldn't do anything if they did get paid for performance.

I do have to say, now that I am again, its both exciting and nerve-wracking.

tough to really be a "company man" these days. companies show very little loyalty to employees these days as they know you can be replaced cheaply. while i don't condone goofing off to much it's tough to find incentive to really work hard these days. killed myself in the coporate world for a long time, my big reward oh sorry bob we're closing down this facilty to go to another cheaper state. nope none of you are coming with us.

ovid9 wrote:

sleewell wrote:Maybe its just me then. I fucking killed it last month and have an even bigger pipeline for this month. I love my job and don't mind going to work. I hear people in the office complain about being broke and its bc they don't do shit so I was thinking if they got paid based on performance it might help.

I think in some situations it would be great. Others.....

Most people who bitch about being broke are just stupid with their money. $100+ for phone/month, $150+ for cable/internet, car payment, rent/mortgage, going out, eating out, buying every little thing they want no matter if it fits the budget (the budget they don't usually have.)

Those people bitching probably wouldn't do anything if they did get paid for performance.

I do have to say, now that I am again, its both exciting and nerve-wracking.

I will argue that in this day and age, Internet is pretty much a must to function daily. For example, a certain corporation that buys my products doesn't respond to anything but email. Literally. I can call a direct line 6 times in a row and get a voicemail. I send an email from my handy dandy iPhone- I'll get a response in 5 minutes. Without my $100 dollar phone + its internet/email/whatever capabilities I'd be sunk. Literally.

Now a days ( I don't know if its the same everywhere) but they'll bunder your internet cable. These companies have found out that Internet makes cable obsolete. We can watch movies/tv shows from the internet now and without making us buy both, no one would buy the cable (at least young'ns). So, internet is $60/month but oh wait, you need the BASIC cable program to qualify, that's another $49.99. Fuck.

Rent should 1/3rd (in a metro) or 1/4th (suburb and rural) your monthly take-home pay. With the salaries and wages these days definitely not adjusting with inflation and rent demand, I'd say rent is a huge burden.

I ultimately get what you're saying, but sometimes there are factors that make it not as easy as one would assume.

Lloyd Blankfein wrote:I will argue that in this day and age, Internet is pretty much a must to function daily. For example, a certain corporation that buys my products doesn't respond to anything but email. Literally. I can call a direct line 6 times in a row and get a voicemail. I send an email from my handy dandy iPhone- I'll get a response in 5 minutes. Without my $100 dollar phone + its internet/email/whatever capabilities I'd be sunk. Literally.

Now a days ( I don't know if its the same everywhere) but they'll bunder your internet cable. These companies have found out that Internet makes cable obsolete. We can watch movies/tv shows from the internet now and without making us buy both, no one would buy the cable (at least young'ns). So, internet is $60/month but oh wait, you need the BASIC cable program to qualify, that's another $49.99. Fuck.

Rent should 1/3rd (in a metro) or 1/4th (suburb and rural) your monthly take-home pay. With the salaries and wages these days definitely not adjusting with inflation and rent demand, I'd say rent is a huge burden.

I ultimately get what you're saying, but sometimes there are factors that make it not as easy as one would assume.

Oh no, I totally get what you're saying man, I really do and plenty of that stuff is legit. Lots of people work from their smart phones, I agree having internet is pretty much a must, but I just hear people who bitch about "never having money" that DO have money, they just chose to spend it on XYZ and then have none for ABC but that somehow means they don't have money.

Yeah, its really rough. And now that mortgage lending has gotten strict again, its harder for people to move from renting to owning, especially if they don't make a ton of money. (This is both good and bad depending on who wants the loan.) Its a mess.

I certainly should not have said "most" people because that's certainly not true.

My favourite post in this thread is the one where all of a sudden we're talking about Mexicans.

Cirrus wrote:My favourite post in this thread is the one where all of a sudden we're talking about Mexicans.

who ever stops??

Cirrus wrote:My favourite post in this thread is the one where all of a sudden we're talking about Mexicans.

My favorite post in this thread is the one where you shut the fuck up. The one where you tighten your belt around your neck and fasten the other end to a bullet train. The one where you learn how to spell favorite you euro trash piece of grabasstic amphibian shit.

Lloyd Blankfein wrote:My favorite post in this thread is the one where you shut the fuck up. The one where you tighten your belt around your neck and fasten the other end to a bullet train. The one where you learn how to spell favorite you euro trash piece of grabasstic amphibian shit.

rofl