It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Seattle CEO Who set Company Minimum Salary at $70k/yr Struggling

page: 10
18
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: ketsuko

Sure, I completely understand your point. But that's not my line of thinking. I don't think like that, and I refuse to think like that. If I'm standing on the top of that hill, I refuse to stand idly by while those at the bottom struggle.


It's one thing if you have some standing there not trying to get up the hill at all. For those instances, I'm in full agreement with you and others who state one must work for what they have. But when I look down that hill, and see others struggling and trying to make it up, I'm dragging myself right back down and pulling them up with me.

Call me crazy, dumb, or whatever one thinks might fit. But I have a personal code that I try to live by:

Whenever one has the ability to effect something for the good, one has a moral and obligatory responsibility to do so.


Some people at the top just ignore the others.

Some will roll boulders down or hot oil. Along with the excrement of course!

You my friend are the minority.

edit on 3-8-2015 by corvuscorrax because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicusI would be pretty pissed off if my direct reports made as much as me and did not have the same responsibilities, consequences or workload.


As there is no relation whatsoever between the value of an individuals performance for society and the amount of money he or she makes, I can't really appreciate your point.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
As there is no relation whatsoever between the value of an individuals performance for society and the amount of money he or she makes, I can't really appreciate your point.


Probably because you think I work for society, I work for myself and the person that signs my paycheck.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Imagine a future where the jobs we did were not because of the pay, but because we actually enjoyed doing them. All the crappy, dangerous, repetitive jobs were now done by robots. People worked as much or as little in whatever field interested them.

Maybe someday we'll have an enlightened enough society in which a dream like that could come true. It's something to at least strive for.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Imagine a future where the jobs we did were not because of the pay, but because we actually enjoyed doing them. All the crappy, dangerous, repetitive jobs were now done by robots. People worked as much or as little in whatever field interested them.

Maybe someday we'll have an enlightened enough society in which a dream like that could come true. It's something to at least strive for.


I could only imagine how many more Einsteins, Mozarts, Shakespeareans, or Da vincis we'd have...
edit on 8/3/2015 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicusI would be pretty pissed off if my direct reports made as much as me and did not have the same responsibilities, consequences or workload.


As there is no relation whatsoever between the value of an individuals performance for society and the amount of money he or she makes, I can't really appreciate your point.



I think this is a good highlight of the difference in thinking between the individualist and the collectivist.

The collectivist concerns themselves with their role in society, how they fit in, the impact they have on others, etc. The individualist concerns themselves more with managing their own world through their actions.

My biggest issue is that society concerns themselves with what i make. Being told, "You can afford to do x because you make y" is a classic example of a collectivist trying to influence my life.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Aazadan

She was upset that others were being unwarrantedly treated BETTER than her and her peers that had more training, experience and responsibility.

If you don't understand the difference, then you are hopeless.

Jaden


Upset that others were treated better? The woman in this article was quite possibly the highest paid person at the company (besides the CEO's brother) after the pay restructuring. It sounds to me like she was being treated pretty well.


originally posted by: ketsuko
No, it's about earning your place and your privilege.


Why does paying your dues matter at all? It's a social construct that does nothing other than give people a sense of superiority by holding others down.
edit on 3-8-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

There is a difference between mentoring and helping people work their way up and just handing them something.

You know that same coach? Yeah, he was also big on team. You didn't just do your events and park your butt. You were out cheering for your teammates, bringing their warmups to the finish line, helping them walk it off, etc., no matter what class they were and you were, and they did it for you. We all practiced together top to bottom and mentored each other.

You do that for the ones who are working their way up; it's good business practice if nothing else.

But that doesn't mean you suddenly decide they should get exactly the same amount you put in your time to earn out of the blue.

If you earned it, so should they other wise it's something that lacks any meaning for either of you.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

There is also a difference between a team that cares about making sure its weaker or newer members have opportunities to excel, and a 'team' that looks for every opportunity to get ahead by impeding those who may overtake them.

A friend of mine told me about a friend of his who went to Boise State to play football. Very big man and very talented. Based on that merit he was likely to start.

Until two 'teammates' threatened to break his legs in the locker room because he threatened their spots on the team. Not sure what happened after that but I know that many people in their workplace would gladly 'break the legs' of anyone who they viewed as a threat to their own position.
edit on 3-8-2015 by corvuscorrax because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
I think this is a good highlight of the difference in thinking between the individualist and the collectivist.

The collectivist concerns themselves with their role in society, how they fit in, the impact they have on others, etc. The individualist concerns themselves more with managing their own world through their actions.

My biggest issue is that society concerns themselves with what i make. Being told, "You can afford to do x because you make y" is a classic example of a collectivist trying to influence my life.


I think it's more that some people take the view that if everyone looks out for themselves, it puts them in a secure position, in a society where everyone does this, everyone is well off.

Others look at it as, we live in a society that's connected to each other, none of us are totally independent. Therefore the responsible thing to do is to make sure that others are also secure.

With regards to what you quoted from the other poster, it is 100% accurate. The same job at two different companies with the same cost of living can have a 33% or 50% difference in pay, and sometimes even more. Then after that you have the negotiation phase for pay. What a person makes has little if any bearing on the value of their work beyond the basics of a happy employee being a productive employee.

That is what the CEO is having a problem with now. All of his employees know roughly what each other makes, and almost every employee probably feels they're in the above average performer group. So now you have an entire company where each person believes they're in the top 50% knowing that they're earning the same as the others who are in the bottom 50%.

If anything this is an example of the fallacy of the first group, because if you're doing the same as everyone else but believe yourself to be working harder, you are not in a secure position.


originally posted by: ketsuko
If you earned it, so should they other wise it's something that lacks any meaning for either of you.


Why does it lack meaning if you don't spend time as a second class citizen?
edit on 3-8-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: EternalSolace

There is a difference between mentoring and helping people work their way up and just handing them something.


Absolutely there's that difference and I'm in full agreement with that.

It's why I made that distinction when I mentioned the folks standing at the bottom of the hill not even bothering to climb. You cannot help someone who will not take any initiative to help themselves... and that saddens me. On a personal level though, If I've worked for five hours on a project, someone comes in to help me and they only put in an hour of time in helping me on that five hour project, I've no problem in sharing credit on this project.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Even more...why should I be the one to miss birthdays with my kids when there's an emergency at work when Im not being paid for it? When someone doesn't show up and I cover for them....do i get compensated for that, too? How about the time I spent away from my family learning how to do everyone elses jobs, to make sure that we would always be covered? Should I be compensated for that?

If not, then who will do it? I have no motivation to...im not being paid more, and my wife won't accept "good intentions" as fair trade for our time spent apart from each other. So all that extra support for the business that the manager provides....it just doesn't get done. No one is trained on service standards, because no one was motivated enough to become proficient in service standards, nor motivated enough to take time out of their day to train anyone. The supply closet is empty....when the person who does that didn't show up for work due to a sick child, no one else made the order. So we don't get to print receipts for our guests....im sure they'll understand.

What's that? The IRS is auditing everyone who works here? I guess no one was motivated enough to make sure the accounting principles were managed. It takes a lot of work to learn the ins and outs of the volumes of IRS codes...why bother when we all make the same?



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: corvuscorrax

Stuff like that happens at my job all the time. Sabotaging each other, ect... there's two people in my department that do everything they can to screw over anyone that shows any promise of being as good as them. Since they've been there longer and have seniority half their bs is treated as gospel by the higher up, everyone knows they do it, and they've even got caught, but yet it continues because they get the good numbers ect, ignoring that half the reason they're doing better than others is sabotaging them, ect.

We're all supposed to work together to help each other be the best we can be and further the company, not screw each other over, lie, and try to get anyone with promise fired so you can continue to be the star.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

If everyone is working hard to get those performance based raises, then everyone is still making the same while doing those jobs. Where a person starts is irrelevant to improving their performance while on the job. Most people go the step extra because they want raises.

What happens when everyone gets a 5% raise because of performance but they were making the same to start with? They're still making the same amount and the work is getting done.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
If everyone is working hard to get those performance based raises, then everyone is still making the same while doing those jobs.


What fantasy company are you working for where everyone works equally as hard?



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicusProbably because you think I work for society, I work for myself and the person that signs my paycheck.


And there, in a nutshell, we see the problem at hand: you work, he signs a check.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

The problem is, that the decision gets made for you regardless of your own input. It may be the responsible thing to do to make sure I bring cookies for everyone if I ever want a cookie for myself. But the loss of self determination inherent in that notion is wholly unacceptable.

Perhaps not being kind is a bad thing. But I should have that choice. It is extraordinarily insidious to take someones self determination and free will. To disallow choice.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
What fantasy company are you working for where everyone works equally as hard?


Where does working equally hard factor into things at all? Raises are all about a perception of value, long hard work on tasks that need to be done but aren't ever thought of or appreciated results in lower wage increases than small easy things that have a lot of visibility especially if there's an easy metric between doing it and not doing it.

Let me give an example. There's two web developers on a project at a company. One person builds the back end database, populates it, and so on. This takes a lot of time but is basic functionality. If it's there or not there is a very easy metric because it either works or it doesn't. Another person is doing SEO and UX design. These things are more subjective because you can't measure against them not being there or being done different.

Which one do you think is going to have more leverage come wage time? The one who can give a consistent metric of "doing this enabled the website" or the one with the metric of "our best guess is this made more people use the website". They're both very necessary jobs, though database creation is pretty straight forward while the other stuff is much more subtle in the skill involved.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Aazadan
If everyone is working hard to get those performance based raises, then everyone is still making the same while doing those jobs.


What fantasy company are you working for where everyone works equally as hard?


That's the crux of it all... it's an incurable human condition. The aspects of want, need, having the means for things, and self-worth has been so deeply ingrained into us, that I don't believe it can change. I don't know if those are the right words for the point I'm trying to convey, but it's all I can come up with at the moment.

If a magic alien snapped its fingers and everyone in the world owned a nice home, a nice car, and no one had to worry about money or being able to afford anything ever again, people would still get upset and try to get ahead of their neighbor because they wanted a blue car instead of a green one. Or this neighbor has 2,000sqft and I only have 1800sqft.

We are the cause of our own problems.




top topics



 
18
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join