I think it can work only in small companies. I used to work in a place that had 15 people total, and our compensation was tied directly to company revenue. Not even individual performance, company performance. And each one of us had a direct impact on it.
It was one of the healthiest job environments ever. Burnout was a risk, but even that was manageable with conscious planning.
I was so much happier working my ass off with only two dozen people at the company total than I am now with double that.
When you’re a small company, everybody matters and everybody needs to be good at what they do, and it’s easy to communicate and keep everybody up to date. We’ve reached that size where not everybody is great, and their performance (or lack thereof) affects your own work. and then it cascades from there.
This is why more places should have performance related pay. Either as performance related pay rises or bonuses. That way people like Chad can do the minimum to not get fired, then bitch and moan about how they didn’t get a bonus this year.
I don’t think so. What something bad happens in your life and your performance goes down naturally for a while? You shouldn’t be punished for that and you might even need the money now more than ever
okay but you’re thinking of it as being entitled to the bonus in the first place, which is incorrect
Of course you have to factor in does profit sharing mean that they’re paying everybody less than they could, but excluding that factor, it is entirely a bonus, not a punishment
Having worked in retail sales where a significant portion of my pay was based on performance… there are a lot of problems with performance based incentives. They inevitably get people to focus on only the one or two aspects those are based on, while everything else suffers. They almost always end up punishing individuals that have any sort of outside situation like needing to take sick time or simply taking vacation time.
If all you give a shit about is work, which is not mentally healthy in most cases, especially since were talking about employees here not business owners and partners that are invested, that works for some people. Usually those that are trying to escape their life outside work are the ones that works best for, and that says a lot.
Chad is a lot happier. Everyone who had to cover for Chad is not. Because this is capitalism. You aren’t hurting the corporations. You are hurting your co-workers who need this job.
This attitude is how people end up burnt out and how corporations continue to get away with things like wage theft.
It is not solidarity to allow the corporation to abuse you just because they abuse your coworkers.
Everybody needs a job to survive
You’re not special just because you have this particular job. Either get with the program like Chad has or you’ll end up burnt out, in therapy, unable to comprehend why you hate your life, being vengeful about those who understand that the corporation does not care about you and will not treat you with any sort of respect and as long as you’re getting them profit they don’t care what you do either.
If Chad hits the metrics he’s supposed to despite him forgetting to do his job and corporate doesn’t care then you’re the fool for working past chads level.
What Chad does is recognize what his labor is actually worth and what the company is paying him. What you’re doing is allowing the corporation to take advantage of you and pull more of your labor for even less wage. You’re actually allowing the system to screw hard workers and pay workers less by capitulating your time in this way to corporations
This defense mechanism is also seen similarly in
toxic relationships for those who don’t want to rock the boat. What you’re doing will ultimately capitulate to the toxic relationship and make things worse.
If you will allow a company to abuse you and then push others to accept the same abuse “in an effort to keep things running” you are keeping your comrades in chains
I think the problem here is that you think he expects people to cover for him. Don’t cover for him and let him fail
It’s not an abusive of Labor to check out specially if your bosses do nothing to punish it. Either become like Chad or get burnt out.
Learn to let the business fail around you or lose your entire self to the business trying to upkeep when the even the owners can’t be bothered.
That presupposes that it’s either 110% or 10% with no in between. You can do the bare minimum to not create headaches for your co-workers, while still not going above and beyond.
Do 60%, and focus on not making more work for your co-workers. That’s the best strategy for day-to-day.
That presupposes that it’s either 110% or 10% with no in between. You can do the bare minimum to not create headaches for your co-workers, while still not going above and beyond.
Exactly what I meant but I was unable to put it into words. You shouldn’t abandon your co-workers, you should hold up your end of responsibility to your work and be accountable in that way but that you should not go above the letter of your job description.
I think Chad’s got the right attitude
Chances are that Chad will get promoted faster too.
Exactly, working harder than the bare minimum not to be fired will not get you rewarded.
“Take what you can, give nothing back”
it can get you rewarded, up to a point
my company reached that point. 50 people and now working all that extra doesn’t get me anything else. it did when we were sub 30 people
so I backed off. if I won’t be paid more for it, I’m not gonna stress myself out like that
I think it can work only in small companies. I used to work in a place that had 15 people total, and our compensation was tied directly to company revenue. Not even individual performance, company performance. And each one of us had a direct impact on it.
It was one of the healthiest job environments ever. Burnout was a risk, but even that was manageable with conscious planning.
I was so much happier working my ass off with only two dozen people at the company total than I am now with double that.
When you’re a small company, everybody matters and everybody needs to be good at what they do, and it’s easy to communicate and keep everybody up to date. We’ve reached that size where not everybody is great, and their performance (or lack thereof) affects your own work. and then it cascades from there.
it should be: “work hard only for ideals that you actually believe in, not for the pockets of some CEO”
This is why more places should have performance related pay. Either as performance related pay rises or bonuses. That way people like Chad can do the minimum to not get fired, then bitch and moan about how they didn’t get a bonus this year.
I don’t think so. What something bad happens in your life and your performance goes down naturally for a while? You shouldn’t be punished for that and you might even need the money now more than ever
That’s a very good point.
okay but you’re thinking of it as being entitled to the bonus in the first place, which is incorrect
Of course you have to factor in does profit sharing mean that they’re paying everybody less than they could, but excluding that factor, it is entirely a bonus, not a punishment
The comment that I was replying to was also taking about pay, not just bonuses.
Having worked in retail sales where a significant portion of my pay was based on performance… there are a lot of problems with performance based incentives. They inevitably get people to focus on only the one or two aspects those are based on, while everything else suffers. They almost always end up punishing individuals that have any sort of outside situation like needing to take sick time or simply taking vacation time.
If all you give a shit about is work, which is not mentally healthy in most cases, especially since were talking about employees here not business owners and partners that are invested, that works for some people. Usually those that are trying to escape their life outside work are the ones that works best for, and that says a lot.
Yes and no.
Chad is a lot happier. Everyone who had to cover for Chad is not. Because this is capitalism. You aren’t hurting the corporations. You are hurting your co-workers who need this job.
This attitude is how people end up burnt out and how corporations continue to get away with things like wage theft.
It is not solidarity to allow the corporation to abuse you just because they abuse your coworkers.
Everybody needs a job to survive
You’re not special just because you have this particular job. Either get with the program like Chad has or you’ll end up burnt out, in therapy, unable to comprehend why you hate your life, being vengeful about those who understand that the corporation does not care about you and will not treat you with any sort of respect and as long as you’re getting them profit they don’t care what you do either.
If Chad hits the metrics he’s supposed to despite him forgetting to do his job and corporate doesn’t care then you’re the fool for working past chads level.
What Chad does is recognize what his labor is actually worth and what the company is paying him. What you’re doing is allowing the corporation to take advantage of you and pull more of your labor for even less wage. You’re actually allowing the system to screw hard workers and pay workers less by capitulating your time in this way to corporations
This defense mechanism is also seen similarly in toxic relationships for those who don’t want to rock the boat. What you’re doing will ultimately capitulate to the toxic relationship and make things worse.
If you organize a slow work or a strike, you are fighting for labour.
If you faff off and expect people to cover for you, you are abusing labour.
I disagree.
If you will allow a company to abuse you and then push others to accept the same abuse “in an effort to keep things running” you are keeping your comrades in chains
I think the problem here is that you think he expects people to cover for him. Don’t cover for him and let him fail
It’s not an abusive of Labor to check out specially if your bosses do nothing to punish it. Either become like Chad or get burnt out.
Learn to let the business fail around you or lose your entire self to the business trying to upkeep when the even the owners can’t be bothered.
That presupposes that it’s either 110% or 10% with no in between. You can do the bare minimum to not create headaches for your co-workers, while still not going above and beyond.
Do 60%, and focus on not making more work for your co-workers. That’s the best strategy for day-to-day.
Exactly what I meant but I was unable to put it into words. You shouldn’t abandon your co-workers, you should hold up your end of responsibility to your work and be accountable in that way but that you should not go above the letter of your job description.