In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
pamela wrote:
Are you saying you were better at your job than any of your
thousands of colleagues doing the same job? And did they agree?

We could largely see for ourselves who in the department was doing a
good job and who wasn't. I could estimate how my performance
compared to my peers.

Ah. Right. So no need for anyone else to assess your performance. Just
tell the boss what you should be paid. And how much less your colleagues
should be paid too.

And how do you know you were better paid than any of them?

Some co-workers were probably earning more than me for doing a
similar job but that didn't bother me because I was happy with what
I got.

But not happy with what someone in a job you know nothing about gets paid?
Be it a tube driver or GP?

My pay had gone up in line with my efforts and if I wanted
to progress faster then I would work extra hard. If I didn't like
my pay and conditions then I moved elsewhere.

You only get a pay rise through working harder, over time. Which means you
start off shirking. Not sure I'd want to employ you.

I at one time worked for the BBC. There weren't thousands doing
the same job as me even there. So just what company did you work
for?

There were not several thousand in the UK doing the same job as me.
I was saying the companies each had several thousand UK employees
assessed the same way.

I simply don't believe you. The work required would be enormous. And that
costs come straight from profits.
You just show your lack of knowledge of businesses time and again.

Why do you find this so strange? Surely at the BBC you had an
annual appraisal and the assessment you were given would determine
your pay?

A simple pay scale based on age and experience, up to a limit. Something
like 5 years. A formula which applied to all. Think based on civil service
practice. If someone was doing badly, that increment could be withheld.

Absolutely nothing like your idea of assessing each individual's pay every
year.


--
bert