| The majority of companies employ their
| |
| | While the bad staff stay bad and the good
|
| staff on a time basis. The employee is
| |
| | staff turn bad and demoralised, the SEO
|
| contracted to work so many hours each
| |
| | sits in his
|
| week and is paid for each one of those
| |
| | ivory tower saying that it is too hard
|
| hours.The questions
| |
| | to pay on performance indicators rather
|
| is....why?Pay-for-Time versus Pay-for
| |
| | than by time alone while. Poor thing.
|
| PerformanceIf an employee is employed
| |
| | Let's put the SEO on a pay-by-performance
|
| simply to be somewhere and not have any
| |
| | system and see if things change! Yes,
|
| other function then it may be
| |
| | let's take away his salary and give him a
|
| understandable that they are paid solely
| |
| | small chunk of the company. Now he is a
|
| on how many hours they are there. A few -
| |
| | part-owner, how does he feel about
|
| very few
| |
| | free-riders using up his
|
| - examples come to mind: perhaps a
| |
| | money?ProgressPay-by-time goes back to
|
| security guard who simply reports what he
| |
| | factory work and sweat shops from the
|
| or she sees or is simply there as a
| |
| | last century and the century before, when
|
| deterrent to would-be thieves; perhaps
| |
| | the machines kept running and the staff
|
| somebody who is employed to monitor how
| |
| | simply had to turn up and sew, or put
|
| many cars pass through a particular
| |
| | this gismo into that gismo etc. Yes,
|
| junction. Hey, wait a minute, surely the
| |
| | there are still sweat shops around the
|
| security guard needs to look smart and
| |
| | world, but even
|
| have
| |
| | many of them are more sophisticated
|
| his or her top button fixed; the
| |
| | these days with staff being paid on
|
| car-counter must ensure that an accurate
| |
| | quality
|
| record is being kept?Well, the more
| |
| | criteria. In fact, many factories are
|
| enlightened companies tend to pay on a
| |
| | leading the way in pay-for-performance. I
|
| mixed basis with time still being the
| |
| | would say that it is in administration
|
| main element and quality elements such as
| |
| | and even is some
|
| smartness or accuracy, for example, being
| |
| | professional work where there is a
|
| used to top up the salary. However, with
| |
| | stubborn lack of progress.Chef
|
| many jobs should this be taken one stage
| |
| | ExampleTake, as an example, a chef. I
|
| further? Surely most companies want their
| |
| | would class this as a professional job.
|
| staff to complete the tasks they have
| |
| | Yet many
|
| been
| |
| | establishments pay their chefs according
|
| set? Many jobs are not directly
| |
| | to how many hours they have worked. OK,
|
| dependent on the clock at all. They are
| |
| | they may not clock on and clock off, but
|
| more dependent on getting the job done.
| |
| | they will be expected to put in a week's
|
| Admittedly, a call-centre salesperson may
| |
| | work for a week's pay. As an illustrative
|
| be tied to their desk (some might say
| |
| | example only, why
|
| chained!) for a fixed period of time.
| |
| | not pay on this basis:Weighting
|
| Yes, they have tasks to
| |
| | Aspect60%
|
| fulfil, but they are governed largely by
| |
| | Profit achieved20%
|
| the clock. However, the labourer,
| |
| | Michelin Star (or similar)10%
|
| electrician, plumber, postman, sales
| |
| |
|
| manager, buyer etc etc are largely judged
| |
| | Health and Safety Record10%
|
| on getting the job done. Why shouldn't a
| |
| |
|
| fast postman, for example, be allowed to
| |
| | Cleanliness and Food Safety RecordOK,
|
| go home early on full pay - if they have
| |
| | the Michelin star element is a little
|
| completed their round? By the same token,
| |
| | ambitious for most restaurants, but there
|
| shouldn't the slow postman be made to
| |
| | are equivalents at lower
|
| stay until the job is done, without any
| |
| | levels! The health and safety record
|
| extra pay? Further still, shouldn't the
| |
| | speaks for itself: accidents can be
|
| fast postman be permitted to carry out a
| |
| | banded into grades of
|
| second round in one day and double his
| |
| | seriousness. Cleanliness can be measured
|
| pay? Of course I have simplified the
| |
| | by having an outside independent agency,
|
| argument to make the point. Many postal
| |
| | or the boss, if you like, carrying out
|
| organisations do have a policy of paying
| |
| | random inspections against predetermined
|
| for the round (or perhaps paying
| |
| | criteria. You see, as long as it's
|
| according to how many letters are posted)
| |
| | measurable, then a fair system of
|
| - but many do not. Why? Why are so many
| |
| | remuneration can be built around it. If
|
| companies paying on a time basis when
| |
| | the chef works for 90 hours a week to
|
| this does not fit the goal of the
| |
| | earn a decent living then, so be it (it
|
| organisation? Take builders. If a house
| |
| | may be worth his while looking for
|
| could be built simply by having a load of
| |
| | another job). If, on the other hand, chef
|
| builders turn up on time and stay for 8
| |
| | has set things up so efficiently that he
|
| hours each day then house building would
| |
| | only needs to pop in for few hours a week
|
| be very easy indeed. No, builders should
| |
| | to achieve his goals and therefore earn
|
| surely be paid for their productivity.
| |
| | a good living then good luck to him! The
|
| Turning up for 8 hours a day doesn't
| |
| | business
|
| really come into it.Speed versus QualityI
| |
| | is obviously thriving and the chef
|
| think I partly know the answer to my own
| |
| | deserves his time off. In this situation
|
| question. I have omitted quality, of
| |
| | an ignorant owner might sack his
|
| course. Take builders. Just being fast is
| |
| | successful chef and pocket the money for
|
| only part of their job. They also must
| |
| | himself. Wrong wrong wrong again. If a
|
| work safely. Skilled builders must do a
| |
| | manager, or any member of staff is paid
|
| quality job, not just hit the deadline.
| |
| | for doing a good job, rather than merely
|
| The postman must post the letters to the
| |
| | turning up AND ends up doing just a few
|
| right
| |
| | hours a week, then that employee is ready
|
| addresses: if he tries to squeeze in an
| |
| | for promotion. I would say to
|
| extra round he may not achieve this in
| |
| | the restaurant owner: hurry up and open
|
| the rush. Because this balance must be
| |
| | another restaurant and get your chef
|
| struck in most jobs - the speed versus
| |
| | running two so he can double his pay and
|
| quality balance, it is easier for
| |
| | you can get a healthy return.Rabbits and
|
| companies to simply pay on a time basis,
| |
| | HatsPay by time can be very unfair. Many
|
| and manage staff within that
| |
| | staff quietly and conscientiously get on
|
| framework.Too Complicated - Too
| |
| | with their work and do a good job. They
|
| DifficultIsn't this laziness on the part
| |
| | get ahead of the game, smoothing over
|
| of employers? Wouldn't is be better to
| |
| | future problems, removing barriers before
|
| analyze each job and work out the best
| |
| | they appear. Others are
|
| way to pay staff. Surely the salesman's
| |
| | fire-fighters. They don't anticipate
|
| salary should be mainly weighted towards
| |
| | looming problems and hit them head-on,
|
| sales with minor weighting given towards
| |
| | sometimes failing to solve them. Other
|
| administration, keeping up corporate
| |
| | times they dramatically solve such
|
| policies and image etc. Shouldn't a
| |
| | problems themselves and grab the
|
| labourer's pay be weighted with safety
| |
| | headlines and become the hero. These are
|
| record at say 55% and productivity at
| |
| | the people that get noticed. They put
|
| 45%? And what about our postman,
| |
| | rabbits in hats and then pull them out
|
| wouldn't it be better if his pay rewarded
| |
| | again. They are the ones that get
|
| quality and speed in roughly equal
| |
| | promotion while those that prevent
|
| measure? No, say many employers, this
| |
| | problems in the first place go unnoticed.
|
| would not be better, it would be very
| |
| | Now, with a pay-by-performance system,
|
| complicated. Speed could be measured
| |
| | such
|
| fairly easily but quality aspects require
| |
| | fraudulent and unfair practices would be
|
| judgements. There are bound to be
| |
| | exposed.Fly KillersIn our business we
|
| anomalies and accusations of unfairness,
| |
| | sell fly killer machines that use
|
| say employers. It's simply easier to pay
| |
| | ultra-violet lamps to attract and kill
|
| by time, make sure the staff turn up and
| |
| | flies. The ultra-violet emissions, that
|
| then work on them.I say that is the lazy
| |
| | are the main attractant, degrade after
|
| approach. I don't accept that most
| |
| | about a year and the uv bulbs need to be
|
| quality measurements
| |
| | changed. We also sell a gadget called a
|
| boil down to human judgement. Most
| |
| | UV Light Tester. Those that are
|
| measurements can be devised using
| |
| | conscientious - who want to change uv
|
| established
| |
| | bulbs at the optimum time - have
|
| criteria, often simply based on
| |
| | purchased the u.v. Light Tester from us.
|
| mathematics.UnfairnessIt's unfair when a
| |
| | They will not suffer from inexplicable
|
| hard working member of staff is working
| |
| | fly infestation nor will they have their
|
| alongside a lazy here-for-the-ride
| |
| | premises closed down by the
|
| good-for-nothing waste-of-space employee
| |
| | Environmental Health Inspector. Those
|
| and both are paid by time and both on the
| |
| | that buy this gadget would surely be paid
|
| same rate of pay. That is surely unfair.
| |
| | well under a pay-by-performance system!
|
