"Prometheus" wrote in message
Is that a bad thing? If a guy has worked at the same place for five
years, and still is as useless as the day he was hired - why would he
get paid more?

Not to disagree with your opinion, but there are some things that make the
long time employee more valuable, at least from the get go when hiring a new
person.

- New person takes time to train and has to prove himself. Working twice as
hard in the beginning, while laudable, doesn't state much since every new
employee works twice as hard in the beginning.
- Long time employee has assumedly proven that he's going to show up for
work.
- Long time employee has assumedly proven that he's trustworthy.
- Long time employee has the experienced the occasional operation problems
and how to accomplish something if there's a difficulty doing it the regular
way.
- If the long time employee has contact with customers, then he's going to
have developed a relationship with some or perhaps many of those customers.

Sure the long time employee could be lazy, untrustworthy and barely worth
his wages, but if that was true, then it's the management's problem for
keeping him as an employee. One could also argue that the long time employee
knows how to work the system, but anyway you slice it, there's always going
to be some advantages that the long time employee has over newer employees.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

"Prometheus" wrote in message
Is that a bad thing? If a guy has worked at the same place for five
years, and still is as useless as the day he was hired - why would he
get paid more?

Not to disagree with your opinion, but there are some things that make the
long time employee more valuable, at least from the get go when hiring a
new
person.

- New person takes time to train and has to prove himself. Working twice
as
hard in the beginning, while laudable, doesn't state much since every new
employee works twice as hard in the beginning.
- Long time employee has assumedly proven that he's going to show up for
work.
- Long time employee has assumedly proven that he's trustworthy.
- Long time employee has the experienced the occasional operation problems
and how to accomplish something if there's a difficulty doing it the
regular
way.
- If the long time employee has contact with customers, then he's going to
have developed a relationship with some or perhaps many of those
customers.


Good points Upscale - you well identified some of the characteristics of
"performance". Well worth paying for.

--

-Mike-

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...


I know that in my "poster child" HD story, the "little" factoid that a
supposedly "expert" HD employee didn't know was the fact that one could
have more than 100 amps worth of circuit breakers in a 100 amp electrical
panel and, in fact, insisted that one could not have more than 100 amps
worth of breakers in such a panel. Seems like kind of a major issue when
he was trying to influence the design and purchase decisions as a supposed
"expert" on the floor. In fact, he attempted to emphasize this fact by
telling us that he was an electrician before coming to work at the Borg
(he
was a fairly young fellow, so he definitely wasn't a retired electrician).


I know what you're saying Mark but that would fall into the category of
anecdotal. Not all of the advice in the BORGs is advanced level advice and
occasionally you can find downright wrong advice as in this case. Not
trying to suggest it does not exist, just that it is anecdotal and things
like this are too often use to characterize the folks there. Heck - I've
gotten plane and simple wrong advice at far better stores than HD before -
it happens. Frankly, I don't look to the folks at the BORG for much more
advice than where a particular product is in the store. It's all I really
expect from them for the most part, so I'm seldom disappointed.

--

-Mike-

"Upscale" wrote in message

Not to disagree with your opinion, but there are some things that make the
long time employee more valuable, at least from the get go when hiring a
new
person.

(good list of attributes snipped)

All those things do add up to a more valuable employee and if true, he
should make more. In the real world. that is not always the case.

Let's say we make widgests. We have 20 people making them. We expect each
employee to make 100 widgets a day. It is repetative labor, not much skill
required. The new guy comes in and makes 80 widgets today, 90 a few days
later, eventuall work up to 110 a day. Old Fred has been here for 15 ears
and makes between 99 and 101 a day. Has never taken on any additional
duties, never showed interest in a promotion, just keeps making his widgets
and goes home.

We sell widgets based on what our costs are and what the market will bear on
prices. How can you justify paying the senior person more money?

In a skilled labor environment, experience make a huge difference. Knowing
where the main power switch is on a malfunctioning machine, knowing how a
problem was solved ten years ago can save the company thousands of dollars
in down time. That makes an employee valuable.



- One could also argue that the long time employee
knows how to work the system, but anyway you slice it, there's always
going
to be some advantages that the long time employee has over newer
employees.

One would hope so, but . . . . There will always be an exception. You
don't need the old guy telling the new workers to slow down. Why do 110
widgets when the company only expects 100?

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
news
- One could also argue that the long time employee
knows how to work the system, but anyway you slice it, there's always
going
to be some advantages that the long time employee has over newer
employees.

One would hope so, but . . . . There will always be an exception. You
don't need the old guy telling the new workers to slow down. Why do 110
widgets when the company only expects 100?



I see you've worked in a union shop. Production plus one, even if you had
to stop the line a couple times in the last hour for critical potty breaks.

BTDT

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message newsVGhe.12

One would hope so, but . . . . There will always be an exception. You
don't need the old guy telling the new workers to slow down. Why do 110
widgets when the company only expects 100?

Unfortunately, I've had direct experience with something similar in only one
place and that was a union setting. When I worked at Pearson Airport in
Toronto for General Aviation some thirty years ago, the 'minimum needed'
type of work ethic was 'strongly suggested' in almost every case because it
supported the union. The people I respected and befriended there were people
who didn't subscribe to that ethic and to a man, they all transferred out to
other companies at the airport during the two years I was there. I was glad
to get out of there because of the strong-arming that went on. One or two of
them I could have challenged and would probably have had to fight if it came
down to it, but to challenge dozens at the same time is tantamount to
getting the crap beat out of you.

The only other union shop I worked in was the job I had at Goodyear in a
truck tire retreading plant. Unknowingly, I befriended one of the union
stewards so that the job was relatively stress free, but like the idiot I
was, I left that job for the better pay at the airport. That's something
that was very demoralizing, reaching for something I thought was better only
to find that I landed in a world of ****.

Upscale wrote:

"Prometheus" wrote in message
Is that a bad thing? If a guy has worked at the same place for five
years, and still is as useless as the day he was hired - why would he
get paid more?

Not to disagree with your opinion, but there are some things that make the
long time employee more valuable, at least from the get go when hiring a new
person.

- New person takes time to train and has to prove himself. Working twice as
hard in the beginning, while laudable, doesn't state much since every new
employee works twice as hard in the beginning.
- Long time employee has assumedly proven that he's going to show up for
work.
- Long time employee has assumedly proven that he's trustworthy.
- Long time employee has the experienced the occasional operation problems
and how to accomplish something if there's a difficulty doing it the regular
way.
- If the long time employee has contact with customers, then he's going to
have developed a relationship with some or perhaps many of those customers.

Sure the long time employee could be lazy, untrustworthy and barely worth
his wages, but if that was true, then it's the management's problem for
keeping him as an employee. One could also argue that the long time employee
knows how to work the system, but anyway you slice it, there's always going
to be some advantages that the long time employee has over newer employees.

The upshot of all is always that labor is a cost of doing business--it's
required that the labor be cost-effective for the employer or there
won't be any long-term employment.

If productivity is improved, then there may be additional revenue
generated that can absorb increased wages, but these benefits are often
offset by rising costs in other areas.

"Robatoy" wrote in message


One of the "Big Boys" had made serious investments in buildings and
machinery and had to bail. Many investors lost their shirts.

Moral of the story: when one of my loyal customers calls for a rush job,
I'll stay late to make it happen. If one of the dealers who dropped me
calls for a rush job...he waits and his price goes up. That is not
revenge, it's business. That was there excuse too: "Just business, Rob,
really"....

Glad you hung in there.

Second moral to the story. Bigger is not always better; more sales is not
always more profit. You MUST make a profit.

"Robatoy" wrote in message news:design-

Don't get me ranting on that one, Ed...LOL PLEASE!!!
I used to supply roughly 20 area kitchen dealers with solid surface
counter tops."The Big Boys" from the big city rolled in
radius around Toronto) and started to beat my prices.

Let me guess. This one of your wife transitioning periods?

In article ,
Robatoy wrote:

That was there excuse too: "Just business, Rob,
really"....

Ouch ouch ouch...I wrote:

That was there excuse too: "Just business, Rob, really"....

Was supposed to have read:

That was their excuse too: "Just business, Rob, really"....


*shaking my head* That does it, I need to stop reading UseNet....LOL

Their, their...

Lou

In article ,
Robatoy wrote:

In article ,
Robatoy wrote:

That was there excuse too: "Just business, Rob,
really"....

Ouch ouch ouch...I wrote:

That was there excuse too: "Just business, Rob, really"....

Was supposed to have read:

That was their excuse too: "Just business, Rob, really"....


*shaking my head* That does it, I need to stop reading UseNet....LOL