On Oct 14, 10:33*pm, "Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...
snip---Harold...the point is how does one assess what quality what

compensation produces.

You don't, * It has been my experience that those with a good work ethic and
pride in themselves don't work better or faster if they are given a raise..
They work at a steady and productive rate---because that's who and what they
are. * You most likely haven't experienced anything like that in the same
way I have, *as I suspect you're of the generation that doesn't understand
the value of these qualities. *Not trying to be rude---just stating what I
have learned in my 72 years of life. * Precious few young people, those that
came through the 60's, have respectable values. * Sorry, but that's my
observation.

You say that paying more does not guarantee better quality.
I say that paying more can improve your chances to get better quality.

I'll use the same theory and assume that standing in the garage long enough
will make me a car.

Fair?

What prevents a slacker from demanding money beyond his worth? * Pay him
more and he simply demands more yet. *We've seen that with the corrupted
unions, where they have convinced the worker that they are entitled to
portions of the profits of the businesses for which they work. * If that was
true, would they not be just as responsible for losses, and have to forfeit
pay when things were bad? * What's the difference?

If it takes more money to get someone to do what they bargained to do for
you in the first place, it's a statement about them, not the wages you pay.
I maintain, and it would be a virtual impossibility for me to perceive it
any differently (thanks to personal experiences). * *I maintain the posture
that if you hire a person to work and they accept the terms of being hired,
then they drag their feet, they are a classic example of those I speak of..
If they don't like conditions, why in hell did they accept the offer?

Gummer has a LONG history of being caught lying...so I would suggest

not using him as a "standard of quality".

I'm not a Christian and I know better than to judge others. * Shame on you.
Gunner is what he is, and he's a living, breathing human being. *Let him be.

I chose the CEO example to show that more money is not a guarantee for

better quality.

I chose the hamburger flipper to show that less money is not a

guarantee for better quality either.

That be the case, why are we having this discussion? * *If you agree that
paying more does not guarantee quality, that's been my point right along.
What guarantees quality is hiring people with qualifications *that have
pride in their work*. * *They know and understand that the work they turn
out bears their name---and will produce quality as a matter of course. * I
worked with several that shared that philosophy, many of whom went on to
found their own businesses, just as I did. * They were all successful, save
for one, who had an attitude of entitlement. *Nice guy, just no pride.

Now what if that CEO used to be a hamburger flipper...and was named

Ray Kroc.

I'm not the least concerned what a name may be, nor does the name Ray Kroc
mean anything to me. * Sorry.

You mentioned that you had a machine shop.
On your theory that higher compensation does not mean quality, I would

assume that you paid all who worked there minimum wage regardless of
their title.

So how did that work for you?

You haven't been paying attention, have you?
Did you take note of my original comment that if you wanted things done
right, to do them yourself?

I spent the 16 years in my commercial shop working alone. * Do not let that
taint your picture of my success. *I had mainstream customers, well
recognized in the defense industry. *I numbered amongst them Sperry/Univac
(same corporation in different time intervals), Litton Guidance and Control,
and in the pharmaceutical industry, Becton Dickinson, for whom I was sole
source for precision metering pumps for a computerized blood analyzing
machine. * *That's what happens when one places quality before making money.

Reason I worked alone?

Because I knew my work could be trusted. * I knew that the work of others
could not be, nor would money motivate them to be responsible. *Those
amongst my peers that had the needed *killer* instinct to do great work all
went on to found their own businesses, and there number was surprisingly
large.

My rejection record proved my point, and the few rejections I received
proved I was human and subject to error. * I *never* knowingly shipped a
single item I knew to not be to specifications. * Even if it meant running
at a loss for a prolonged period of time, which happened on more than one
occasion. * In the end, it was still my name on the work, and it was more
important to me than making money. * Truth is, without the good name I had
established, the business would not have been successful.

When I closed the doors on machining, it was a decision I made so I could
pursue a different vocation, one of refining precious metals. *It, too, was
a resounding success, thanks to my concern for quality and my ability to
actually earn my pay-----without stealing from the customer, or charging
unreasonable fees. * It is for that reason *I suggested that I am not a good
person to challenge, as I lived what I preach, and I still do. * I dare say
you won't find another like me, not where money is concerned.

And of course that would have applied to you the owner also.
So were you happy drawing minimum wage?

I was happy with the money I made, yes. *I was also cheaper than virtually
all shops around me. * *I slept well when my head hit the pillow, secure in
the knowledge that I had done my best, and had earned my humble pay. * Most
importantly, I was not working for someone that had more interest in making
money than they did in doing a job right. * I worked for just such a person
before I worked for myself. *Didn't much like it.

I also never found need to own three boats, a house that was beyond my means
(I won't include the castle, which was instrumental in my success in
precious metals), didn't smoke cigarettes, didn't do drugs, didn't drink $50
bottles of wine, and didn't buy the latest and greatest in clothing and
other foolish expenditures. *Didn't buy new vehicles yearly. *One must be
happy within---and I am. * *Those that find they must compete with others
and have the best in the latest trends are a big part of the problem. *I'm
not one of them.

The most important thing I've learned in my life is that people are not
worth what the want to be paid. * Most of them have poor qualifications in
their chosen trade or profession, and expect payment beyond their worth.
They're paying the price for that now, and they don't like it. *They think
it's going to be business as usual (when things improve), and I'm pretty
sure it's not. * Those that have demanded unearned pay will never find that
level of income again, and they shouldn't.

Harold

I see that you are not answering the question...

So were you happy drawing minimum wage?

And if so, were you overpaid since you were the owner?

If not, did you pay yourself more for the same quality of work?

History shows that management almost to the one will short those who
work for them..the people who generate the productivity that creates
the compensation for the management.

Once in a great while you will hear of a story of an owner paying the
employees what he is getting...another version is that the boss gives
the employees the business when he has retires.

Did you do either of these things Harold?

TMT

TMT