Pay Rises: Should They Be Guaranteed?

Reebok Trotter wrote:

Mr Magoo wrote:

Reebok Trotter wrote:

Mr Magoo wrote:I wouldn't give them any pay rise, they are lucky to be in a job.
If they don't want to do it, feck off.

You're all heart.

   Y did you edit it, come on don't be shy.

I spelt your'e instead of you're. I blame the weed and the lateness of hour.

I would not have noticed  

Mr Magoo wrote:Nobody forced them to take the job, I agree its a difficult one, but the country is fucked.

I agree, but there is no need to punish the nurses. At the rate we are going we will have to recruit nurses from third world countries to make up the shortfall from the lack of English lasses prepared to don the apron.

Thats bin going on for yrs.

Mr Magoo wrote:Nobody forced them to take the job.

Thank fuck they did, only a dickhead would say or think otherwise!!
It's called thinking of other people and not being a selfish Cnut. Just because they have a selfless attitude doesn't mean they should be shat on and taken advantage of.
The pillock who started this thread would be the first to start belly aching if illness befell.

I agree Soul, throughout history nurses have earned their reputation and money.

I love them all, I'd only give a pay rise to the good looking ones though.

What a bunch of utter bellends - all missing the point by a mile.

This isn't a thread about nurses being underpaid, it's about where society has gone wrong i.e. giving automatic pay rises and no longer expecting people to work for them.

If you don't award pay-rises which are at least in line with inflation, you're effectively penalising your staff by taking money off them every year.

Why should they suffer financially, if they're still doing an excellent job, week in, week out?

Natasha Whittam wrote:What a bunch of utter bellends - all missing the point by a mile.

This isn't a thread about nurses being underpaid, it's about where society has gone wrong i.e. giving automatic pay rises and no longer expecting people to work for them.

Have you actually got a bellend?
You seem obsessed with them!!

Soul Kitchen wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:What a bunch of utter bellends - all missing the point by a mile.

This isn't a thread about nurses being underpaid, it's about where society has gone wrong i.e. giving automatic pay rises and no longer expecting people to work for them.

Have you actually got a bellend?
You seem obsessed with them!!

She comes on here ringing it every now and then   .

I'm in the meritocracy camp i.e. nothing should be guaranteed, and staff should share in both the success or failure of the business as in theory, everyone is in a team working together. Within that structure, individual performance should be measured and rewarded if they achieve their objectives providing the business has performed as a whole.
Benefits are that the business isn't jeopardised by paying out more than it's earned (so job security is maintained) and colleagues can see that good performance is rewarded.
Downside is that performance measures need to be fair and accurately assessable - which is not always the case and that it's difficult to agree the value of any given role within an organisation as every part is in theory necessary.
But in general, people should be able to get high rewards where possible and wage cuts where necessary so that it's fair all round and the business (the golden goose that all depend on) is sustainable.

Should the likes of Mears, Andrews, Sordell, etc be guaranteed a pay rise - because no doubt they will have had one every year as per their contract with the club!

Breadman wrote:If you don't award pay-rises which are at least in line with inflation, you're effectively penalising your staff by taking money off them every year.

Why should they suffer financially, if they're still doing an excellent job, week in, week out?

But if they're doing excellent work they should be rewarded with a pay rise. But why should the folk NOT doing excellent work get the same pay rise?

Every company has a number of staff that do the bare minimum in the hours they're are expected to work - all I'm saying is these people should not be getting a guaranteed pay rise.

By giving everyone the same yearly pay rise you are actually rewarding mediocrity.

I actually agree with you to a certain extent, but you can't start taking money off people.

What I'm advocating is, pay everyone a base-line increase in line with inflation, then reward the "over achievers" with "Inflation + X%".

If you've got members of staff who aren't performing, you don't just say "Right, you're a lazy knob so as of next week we're halving your money" because it's both unethical and (probably) illegal.

There are ways and means of eradicating the dead wood from any organisation, but you've got to follow the procedures properly to protect everyone.

That's where Competency-Based assessment , KPI's, Appraisals, "SMART objectives" and all that bollocks comes in.

But I'm sensing you know all this already, don't you and I can't believe I'm wasting my valuable time engaging you in a serious debate.

You've got me again, you cow....... 

Performance related pay is actually a good idea because it rewards the higher achievers.

Reebok Trotter wrote:Performance related pay is actually a good idea because it rewards the higher achievers.

In theory, perhaps but the ones I've had experience of have been calamitous.

I could write a book on the subject but in simple terms to measure performance you have to have targets to set them against.

The setting of these targets are open to abuse in many ways - not least the prioritising of resources to meet targets set (to earn the bonus) yet reducing resources elsewhere which could and does effect core business. Think along the lines of the 'ten year' targets set by communist country's with the aim of improving things, which led to manipulation and over production in areas where the target was set and scarcity and deprivation (even starvation!) in the areas where they were not.

People being people look for ways to manipulate things so those targets are met and exceeded to earn the performance related pay - the clasic example recently is how the American (then world) bankers packaged the 'toxic' housing situation, which basically brought the western economy to its knees which we are still paying for and which will for secades to come.

Those are examples on a macro level but things are just as bad on a micro level where PRP is made on a 'does your face fit' basis - as more often than not the results are not made public and people doing the same job achieving the same results can receive different amounts of PRP.

About twenty years or so ago the public sector in particular introduced Performance Indicators in a very big way, in an attempt to show the public where and how improvemnts in service were to be made. Remember the Citizens Charter anyone?

You don't see many places doing that any more because they have been quietly dumped because the system (people) cared more about meeting their targets (and earning themselves money) than actually providing the actual service itself - is it a target - no, then don't bother with it, let someone else worry about it - type attitude.

Reebok Trotter wrote:Performance related pay is actually a good idea because it rewards the higher achievers.

You mean like bankers?

Fully agree with Sluffy.

Collective performance targets linked to rewards are a good idea in the manufacturing sector because quality controls are built in to the system, so you're effectively guaranteeing that people can't compromise quality for the sake of increasing quantity and thus achieving a bonus payment.

However, in the service sector (ie where out-puts / tangeable results are far more difficult to quantify and measure), they're actually a hinderence which can easily compromise quality and have a real negative impact on overall efficiency and service.

Take for example the NHS which nowadays is devoid of skilled nurses and technicians but is awash with administrators and bean-counters.

If you start setting targets for throughput (ie patients seen and attended to) to reduce waiting times, then the emphasis switches from providing appropriate care to simply seeing as many people as possible, as quickly as possible so that the hospital doesn't get penalised financially.

And that, in my humble opinion, is dangerous.

 

surely everyone is entitled to a cost of living rise whether in private or public sector?

Wages can't stand still for years on end, inflation adds a cost to everything and it eventually means people are actually getting a pay cut.

And yes i do work for the NHS so Magoo and Scott best avoid coming to Central Manchester and getting ill, i will find you and make sure the enemas are on standby

Breadman wrote:

What I'm advocating is, pay everyone a base-line increase in line with inflation, then reward the "over achievers" with "Inflation + X%".

Even if the business is losing money? 
So keep paying out until the business goes tits up and everybody is laid off?
Can't see how that's in anyone's interest.