"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Oct 16, 11:08 pm, "Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...
snip--

Harold...I am not trying to pick a fight nor am I am badgering you.
I do note that you have launched several personal attacks on me..

Show me one example. Just one will do.

.to

divert from the subject that you bought up.

That's absurd.

Harold

*One example..

"Makes me wonder what you've done in your life to warrant the kind to
treatment you apparently are speaking of. Are you one of those I've
been
speaking of that has little talent and expects unearned money? Such
people
are always the victim, when, in fact, they get more than they
deserve---and
certainly more than they earn."

No, not an example at all. I did not attack your character---I simply asked
a question. A simple yes or no answer was expected. I wondered (then, and
still do, now) why you feel that money equates to quality. Could my
suggestion be the reason?

It's not that I don't understand your reasoning. I do. It's just that I
don't agree----and when you're right, it's not because money buys
quality--it's because you have people in your employ that are *not motivated
by pride*. That's what I've been saying right along. Show me an employee
with skill and pride and I'll show you an employee that will give you his
best performance, even if he doesn't happen to be the highest paid guy in
the shop. Seen it time and again. It's a statement about the character of
the individual.

I worked jobs where I knew I wasn't making as much money as I would have
liked to have been making----(who does?), but I still maintain that I did
the job to the best of my ability---that I wouldn't have worked any *better*
(for lack of a better description) were I paid more. I consider that a
sleazy side of humans---a quality I do not respect. I did my best because
that's the impression I wanted others to have of me and my skill level.
That was the inducement to pay me a fair wage. They didn't have to buy it
from me, it came with the job I didn't bargain for the half guy---I
bargained for all of the guy. It's called pride, a long lost commodity,
or so it seems.


*You then told us that quality and pay are not related...and I
disagreed.

Yes, I did, and I still do. You're trying to have me believe that if you
throw enough money at an employee that he suddenly becomes a good employee.
*I say you're wrong*. If you hire a good employee, he'll be a good
employee and do good work because that's who he/she is. They may or may not
stay around if they feel they are not well taken care of--but they still do
their jobs. If they don't, they're NOT good employees, and throwing money at
them won't fix the problem. As soon as they're comfortable with the new
wage, they want more. Nothing you can say will change my mind, for I've
seen examples of what I speak on numerous occasions. Some folks simply won't
do a good job, and some won't do a bad job. *It's who they are*, not what
they're paid.

*If I hired you for a job and paid you more than you expected for the
quality that you have produced, would you not want to work for me
again?

No one in their right mind could answer that question, for they don't have a
clue about how you are as a manager, nor of your expectations. I quit two
of my jobs because I didn't like management. The second one was high pay,
and I was working as a toolmaker. The job didn't play out as I had hoped,
in spite of good pay.

It takes more than money to keep me happy. Having respect for my skill and
talent is far more important---which is what I've tried to have you
understand right along. Until you lose the notion that money equates to
quality, none of this is going to make sense to you.

The friend I spoke of, the one that does the carbide saw sharpening, pays
exceedingly well, but that hasn't stopped some of his employees from being
slackers. How much more must he do for them in order for them to be more
responsible? They're already overpaid as far as I'm concerned.

Harold