Nigel Latta's new series

[mashman]

This illustrates a disrespect for front line employees. That leads lower salaries and poorer conditions. Less money being spent on employees leads to higher profits - in the short term.

... which then leads to less money being spent in the economy as the numerous front line employees tighten their belts etc... Something that a well paid management does not offset.

[Ocean1]

Yeah .. but my experience of many companies is that they do exactly that - go for short term gain .. so stupid - but hey, that's the world we live in.

Must have been damned short experience, no commercial entity in a free market ever makes any money behaving like that. And don't be confused with businesses working in a shrinking market, in those cases it's poor management not to reduce costs appropriately. Which has nothing to do with short term gains, quite the opposite, it allows them to remain viable longer giving them more options to improve and in the process ensuring that the shrinking market continues to sustain their employees.

This illustrates a disrespect for front line employees. That leads lower salaries and poorer conditions. Less money being spent on employees leads to higher profits - in the short term.

The hysteresis inherent in the results of a move from good teamwork to shit teamwork is zero, there is no time at which it's profitable to pay your people less than they're worth in terms of their value to the company. The real trick is agreeing with them what they're worth, and let's not forget that it's ultimately the company's clients that define that. There's a few recognised methods to make that work reasonably smoothly, but you have to recognise that you're dealing with people, and while people generally behave in ways that are predictable individually their behaviour isn't always beneficial to everyone involved: the team.


So amongst all of this general denigration of employers let's not lose sight of the fact that while everyone may be worthy of respect some employees aren't worth their pay packet. That destroys a team just as effectively as an ineffective manager. What do you do about them?

[Banditbandit]

So amongst all of this general denigration of employers let's not lose sight of the fact that while everyone may be worthy of respect some employees aren't worth their pay packet. That destroys a team just as effectively as an ineffective manager. What do you do about them?

Yes - and as a manager I have faced exactly that situation ... I tried several strategies to improve their performance - and sometimes that worked. (On the basis that happy staff work harder and better) If it didn't work, after a while they no longer worked for me ...

But what springs to mind was something I've seen from an American "hatchetman" - employed by companies to do the nasty work of restructuring and getting rid of employees.

He said that he always went into a company and asked "what do you want me to do?"

If they replied; "get rid of the dead wood" ... or words to that effect, he said he always threw the question back with; "did you hire them dead or did you kill them off?"

[swarfie]

Yes - and as a manager I have faced exactly that situation ... I tried several strategies to improve their performance - and sometimes that worked. (On the basis that happy staff work harder and better) If it didn't work, after a while they no longer worked for me ...

But what springs to mind was something I've seen from an American "hatchetman" - employed by companies to do the nasty work of restructuring and getting rid of employees.

He said that he always went into a company and asked "what do you want me to do?"

If they replied; "get rid of the dead wood" ... or words to that effect, he said he always threw the question back with; "did you hire them dead or did you kill them off?"

Hell yeah can't argue with that. About 5 years back we had a big clean out where I work and got rid of the dead wood. Some of them had been festering for years (poms most of them) and just dragging the rest of us down with them. Best thing that ever happened IMO. It's mostly a sweet place to work now with a much more focused team. Not to say the big honcho from Oz still isn't a prick though

[Banditbandit]

Hell yeah can't argue with that. About 5 years back we had a big clean out where I work and got rid of the dead wood. Some of them had been festering for years (poms most of them) and just dragging the rest of us down with them.

So .. where they hired dead or where they killed off?

[swarfie]

So .. where they hired dead or where they killed off?

Bit of both to be honest. Some of them were okay when I first started there (almost embarrassed to say but that was 37 years ago) and grew rotten over time and others were just friggin useless from birth

[Voltaire]

Bit of both to be honest. Some of them were okay when I first started there (almost embarrassed to say but that was 37 years ago) and grew rotten over time and others were just friggin useless from birth

Bet your looking forward to cheap bus rides
Criky.....I've been working for 34 now. Only 6 more years that nice Mr Muldoon promised me

[swarfie]

Bet your looking forward to cheap bus rides
Criky.....I've been working for 34 now. Only 6 more years that nice Mr Muldoon promised me

No cheap bus rides for me while I got bikes to ride. Muldoon was a lying prick and there was nothing nice about him

It'll be "Work till ya 70 mate, we've got lots more tax to squeeze out of ya yet" by the time we get to have cheap bus rides Bro

[swbarnett]

there is no time at which it's profitable to pay your people less than they're worth in terms of their value to the company.

The very fact that you believe that says to me that you're one of the good ones. However, you can underpay people for a short time before they start to push back. By the time this happens the CEO has their bonus and is on to ruin the next company.

So amongst all of this general denigration of employers

I don't think anyone's denigrating employers per se. Hell, without them most of us would be up shit creek without a paddle. What is behind this is the desire to have employers show their employees in real, tangible ways that they are valued. Paying someone a wage that doesn't even allow them to feed themselves does just the opposite.

[Ocean1]

What is behind this is the desire to have employers show their employees in real, tangible ways that they are valued. Paying someone a wage that doesn't even allow them to feed themselves does just the opposite.

There is a class of employers that don't appreciate the value of their staff. I particularly dislike some of the asset management multinationals, mostly because I work for some of them and I can see the lack of effective productivity across the board. They also tend to be large enough to dominate whole industries. In short they're monopolies, and there's simply no such thing as an effective entity in such a position.

There's also a class of employee that doesn't appreciate the fact that there needs to be a link between his productivity and his wages. Whether that's enough to feed him or not is completely irrelevant.

[swbarnett]

There's also a class of employee that doesn't appreciate the fact that there needs to be a link between his productivity and his wages. Whether that's enough to feed him or not is completely irrelevant.

Yes, there are some that won't pull their weight no matter how much you pay them. Better to get rid of them than pay them a pittance. That's better for the company and the employee in the long run.

It's a pretty poor state of affairs, though, when someone in full employment that's doing their job well can't feed themselves. There are a number of jobs that don't directly produce anything of value to the company. How do you asses the value of a cleaner? How do you assess the value of a manager? Neither directly contribute to the company's profits. They are merely facilitators that provide a better work environment for those that do.

To my mind the absolute minimum value to be placed on jobs that are not directly productive is a living wage.

[PrincessBandit]

Manys the time I've wondered whether some sort of global catastrophe where we are effectively returned to a very basic level of existence would ultimately benefit us. Sure, there will always be the exploiters who take advantage of the misery and need of others, but a lot of our present problems seem to be driven by greed (can be individual, business, government), the desire for power/control, and the insatiable desires of a consumer society.

While the prospect of some kind of worldwide meltdown and NZ becoming once again an isolated nation, kind of like I imagine it was in the 1800's, is scary I sometimes try to imagine us as a self-sufficient nation of get-on-and-do people NOT reliant on the cheap labour of other countries spewing out goods we don't really need; living off the land; helping our neighbours and community; not poisoning the environment with toxic chemicals (all part of the stuff that makes our life "easier") etc. (I really am an idealist deep down, with a cynical coating on the outside).

Of course, I understand that medical progress (amongst other things) is dependent often on world-wide research, big global drug companies etc. and no one would want a return to the days of epidemics that decimate populations for lack of the medical advances that have been made. Sadly I can't see there ever being some kind of balance between the two - the "simple" but hard living of a less consumer driven society but with the health benefits of our current existence.

[swbarnett]

it has been said global warming will be the catastrophe that will happen as oil and coal will have to be left in the ground to stop it if you believe the greenies. Or a nuclear war which the threat of has never gone away its just it does not make the news like back in the 60s 70s.

"Global warming" is a natural process that's happened many times over past epochs (as evidenced in choral core samples). Are we causing this one? Maybe, maybe not. I don't think we'll ever know for sure.

The thing with global warming is that the wrong question is being asked. It's not a case of "How do we stop it?". More a case of "How do we adapt?".

Hell, it may even be short-lived. Afterall, headlines in the '70s spoke of a new ice age on the immediate horizon.

[Voltaire]

"Global warming" is a natural process that's happened many times over past epochs (as evidenced in choral core samples). Are we causing this one? Maybe, maybe not. I don't think we'll ever know for sure.

The thing with global warming is that the wrong question is being asked. It's not a case of "How do we stop it?". More a case of "How do we adapt?".

Hell, it may even be short-lived. Afterall, headlines in the '70s spoke of a new ice age on the immediate horizon.

Yes I suppose 9 billion people and all the associated cows, coal fired power stations, deforestation and co2 spewing motor vehicles are just part of the natural

process. That 70's article was probably written by someone from the greatest consumers on the planet

[Banditbandit]

Hell, it may even be short-lived. Afterall, headlines in the '70s spoke of a new ice age on the immediate horizon.

The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Some Climate change scenarios include Ice Sheets advancing south from the Artic Circle to cover Europe

If the temperature in the Artic Circle rises, then the sinking cold water north of the British Isles that sucks in warmers water from the Carribean will no longer sink .. no longer drawing warmer water north - the Gulf Stream stops .. and stops warming the British Isles and the west coast of Europe .. then temperatures in that area will drop - possibly enough to have major ice sheets across a fair chunk of Europe ..'


It's not hard to find this information - I'm sure you can use Google.