On 17/02/2018 11:49, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
On 17/02/2018 10:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 18:20 16 Feb 2018, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
I refused to join "the union", I didn't want them to have sole
negotiating rights over *my* terms and conditions.

Ah - right. Not many large companies would be willing to negotiate
new terms with every single employee on perhaps an annual basis.

That's exactly how it works in most companies I have been in. I take it
your experience is different. It was the lack of individualised
assessments which made me leave the public sector.

In a large company, it's going to make the HR department even larger.
Adding to non productive overheads. And opening up the much bigger
possibility of favouritism, etc.

Why would it be the HR department?
Its the line managers that know what a person can do and is doing.
The HR department only has to check procedures are being done as
required and the law is being complied with.

And this line manager is going to set the salary of each and every person
on a regular basis? Secretly, I assume? Or are you going to make these
figures available to the workforce?

Is you wage a secret or do you tell everyone what it is?


And I can imagine you jumping up and down if you discovered
someone doing the same job was better paid than you...

That was an almost inevitable consequence of individual pay. In some
cases people doing a better job would be paid less than someone else
doing a worse job. It depended on what salary you initially
negoatiated and how important it was to retain that person.

You think a large organisation is going to negotiate the starting
salary of everyone individually too? Even the bog cleaners?

No, but do you expect the union to negotiate every individuals salary?

Where did I even imply that? Sounds like you've not understood much of
this.

More like you don't understand paying workers for what they do rather
than what the union defines as the job.


There is a big difference between skilled staff and semi skilled staff
like cleaner, sound technicians, train drivers, car assembly workers,
etc. Once you have worked as a skilled worker come back and let us know.

Another jealous of my job, eh? Love to know what you consider a skilled
job.

I don't consider anything that requires a few weeks training as skilled.
At best its semi-skilled.

I would like to know what you think is skilled.

You appear to think that a semi-skilled job like driving a tube is worth
more than say a nurse because it happens to be boring. The answer to
that is to advertise it and see how many applicants you get and choose
some suitable staff.




No reason not to reward someone who is exceptional at a job individually.
But to have individual saleries for everyone would be a nightmare.

You seems to be very jealous of what some earn in jobs you can't possibly
know. I wonder why?


You seem to think every worker is the same and should be treated the
same as the worst one.

Perhaps you would employ poor workers to do a job. I'd not. It's a recipe
for disaster - saving a few quid. But I'd guess you'd think that ideal.

This results in no incentive to do a good job and
standards fall and the company goes bust.

All I see is the sort of resentment the likes of pamela shows. Being more
worried about what others earn than just getting on with the job.

If you pay the minimum (legal or the union rate) to everyone the good
employees will leave and get jobs elsewhere and you are left with the
dross. At this point you may as well give up and invest you money
somewhere else rather than the company as you aren't going to get
anything back.

Thus speaks a good Tory. Who hasn't a clue about working as part of a
team. Everyone just out for themselves. Keep well in with your manager to
have the best pay in the department.


I can assure you we worked as a team. You have no idea about how many
engineers worked on SystemX to make it work.