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.

 

What you're doing wrong in an interview... and in your life.

page: 7
48
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Mitt?!?

Is that you? I had no idea you were doing that poorly you'd need to shill your campaign on ATS.




posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by QueSeraSera

OK, now that is a direct insult!

No, I wasn't born with a silver spoon in any anatomical areas. I wasn't born to a liberal governor who I want to out-liberal. I wasn't idiotic enough to institute a mandate on the people of Massachusetts then try to get votes by saying I'm against it now. And I certainly am not a twin-tongued two-faced poll chaser!

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by InTheLight

And you forget that without the business, those employees have no job.

Ironically, this is one of the things I am considering: is it even feasible to hire people in today's society, what with all the concessions that have been negotiated? I'm coming to the conclusion it probably is still feasible, but barely. I do not consider it feasible to spend my time and money and sweat on something that someone else will expect to just walk in and take from me; thankfully, I believe at this time I will be able to start up with a few hand-picked employees, mostly older workers who do not have the youthful sense of entitlement.

Again, you want the company profits, or feel you deserve the company profits? Start a company and they're all yours.


Many industries depend on scale, capital and connections that people cannot easily replicate on their own even though they could be quite effective as minority owners.

If you want your employees to consider your viewpoint and work with some of the dedication of an owner, it can serve well to structure some of the compensation in a way that coordinates your and their motivations.

Imperious "you don't deserve profits" attitudes result into "you don't deserve more than my mediocre effort".



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by sarra1833
 


Don't be that honest because it's obvious your interviewees ain't.
The best of luck for a new job.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
As I define entitlement, it's a regular raise just for not getting fired, as opposed to a raise for doing something to deserve it.


There's (a) inflation and (b) usually the case that employees with longer tenure will be more productive and knowledgeable than newbies.


It's demanding health insurance, even making it illegal not to offer it. It's demanding sick leave, vacation time, counselor services when your feelings get hurt, having to put in writing when you can't manage to show up on time so you don't sue for 'wrongful termination'... then demanding a share of the business profits on top of your pay.


Employers who have health insurance, sick leave (do you want ill employees coming to work to infect people?), vacation time and fair firing practices and profit sharing---they have enthusiastic and dedicated employees who don't feel "entitled'. Some might like coming into work.



And on top of all that, showing no respect or appreciation whatsoever for having all that handed to you in the first place. Instead, spending all day every day complaining about how I am taking advantage of you because you actually have to move during the day. That's what I see from the 'younger' generation and that's what I call entitlement.


Some, sure, but an attitude about "the younger" generation as a whole is also pretty grating, and results in grating attitudes back.

edit on 8-7-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Okay. Point taken. But still, you definitely have the "one up" mentality that a lot of "job creators" ooze, without even realizing in how many instances that situations aren't so cut and dried concerning a supposedly "simple" job application. After all, you're the one with the power to "pick and choose", and not the one finding themself at times on the desperate "short end of the stick", through no fault of your own.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   
The op is full of # and giving half a story when this story has more then two parts views to it, in fact it has more then a hundred different perspectives on it. Treat any job as something that will be there to take as much energy off you as it can without giving much back, because that is what all businesses are and that is what all business have produced in the people, so that is all that they will get back in return. In fact most of them especially the more high paying ones are basically do nothing jobs, or jobs were there whole time is spent on figuring out new ways to suck up that bottom dollar through all kinds of deceptive ways, basically they get paid to # the other guy over and call it some other name, or another way of looking at it, there pissing on you and calling it rain.

A corporation is a parasitic entity, the job worker system is a more or less a parasitic system and should be looked at as that because that is what they are, very few if any are anything more then that. All the fancy words wont change what they are, and that is the case always, and that is why you all are in the mess you are. You get what you give.

And no most companies and business do not look for the best people out there, they look for the ones who can do what they want them to do, while being payed the least amount of monies for there effort. Why do you think illegal aliens are let into the country. The answer to displace the populous for those very same reasons, and seeing as most jobs are just machine like and can be done by anybody well it just becomes a self interest cluster# that can only be sustained by constantly moving the "workers" around and always on the move, and always keeping people guessing and starving for an opportunity so that way they will work for anything.

If a company or business actually pays you what you put in or are worth then ya by all means stick to it, but most wont in fact that is self indicated of there bottom dollar business interests. All in all I do not think interviewing is all if anything like the op says, I have seen plain scuzzy people and idiots get hired because of illusory traits or many more of the other more qualified people get passed over for any other number of other reasons. In fact most, especially corporate business look for the people who are a little more able to be easily controlled then dumped when they can make a profit out of it. And in the end that is what it is about....Basically this whole mess is brought upon by the business practices that have been going on for a long long time, and will be going on for long long time after.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel

Imperious "you don't deserve profits" attitudes result into "you don't deserve more than my mediocre effort".

If I have to cowtow to someone who thinks they deserve what I have worked for in order for them to do their job, sorry, but I will close the business before giving in to that kind of demand.

Imperious? You can call it that. I call it reasonable, just as reasonable as you would be if I showed up at your front door demanding you give me free room and board in your bedroom.

 

reply to post by mbkennel

Employers who have health insurance, sick leave (do you want ill employees coming to work to infect people?), vacation time and fair firing practices and profit sharing---they have enthusiastic and dedicated employees who don't feel "entitled'. Some might like coming into work.

There is a huge difference between providing benefits and bending to demands for benefits. I have no real problem with sick leave/vacations/documented firing practices/health insurance (a little suspicious of the profit sharing thing personally) if it is something I have chosen to provide for my employees. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I have this stubborn streak when someone decides for me what I am going to give them.

Every business I have built operated on one single core concept: I was the one who started it, I was the one who grew it, and I was the one responsible for it. That meant I made the final decisions. Period. End of paragraph. End of discussion. There is something I just cannot stand about anyone coming into a business I built and thinking they should make decisions. Call it a pet peeve; call it arrogance; call it peanut butter. It is what it is.

 

reply to post by QueSeraSera

After all, you're the one with the power to "pick and choose", and not the one finding themself at times on the desperate "short end of the stick", through no fault of your own.

The refusal to make a choice does not mean the inability to make a choice.

I have turned down job offers; why do you believe people are being forced to work where they are unhappy? It is always a choice one has whether or not to continue employment.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 

Fantastic advice from an employer's perspective. I already practiced those principles & maintained those qualities wherever I've worked. And you're correct, if you don't like the way the employer treats you, get a job somewhere else. I had to do that a few times and always ended up with a better paying job and benefits.

Unfortunately I've also seen CEOs lie straight to the faces of employees that worked loyally for 25+ years telling them they would make it to their 30 years for full retirement benefits only to sell the company 6 months later to one of George Soros' liquidation firms. Seeing tough grown men (plant managers, supervisors, machinists, die cast workers, electricians, etc.) in their 50's and 60's break down crying at work because the company they helped build and the only job they ever had just screwed them big time is hard to watch. I was only 30 when I witnessed that, I saw it coming, the guys close to etirement didn't think the company would do that to them. They were in denial. Most had to continue working at new jobs instead of retiring. Sad to see.

That same company gave me a $75 gift certificate for Bass Pro Shop for an idea I came up with that saved them $250k a year. $75 gift certificate! What an insult! And it took me 3 years to even get them to consider my idea cause I was just a machinist and assembler and they thought there was no way a drill press operator could solve a problem they had top engineers working on lol

Anyways, like a previous poster said, it works both ways.
I work to live. I don't live to work.

You sound like an honest employer. Where do I apply?

Just kidding.

Great thread. Thanks for the insight.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by MidnightTide

Microsoft employs 92,000 people.
Apple, Inc. employs 60,400 people.
Facebook, Inc. employs 3539 people.

So, because Bill Gates built on Steve Jobs' work, because Steve Jobs was a taskmaster, because Mark Zuckerberg hacked into his school computer to start his prototype site, would you put 155,939 people out of work? How about the thousands of software companies that exist because Gates standardized the computer market?

I am not a huge fan personally of any of those people. I do, however, believe that they performed a service and produced products that people willingly paid for. That means they deserve their money. None of their employees were forced to take those jobs; all of them actually had to apply before being hired. No one has ever been forced to buy or use any of their products; all of them who did so paid money to have the product or chose to accept the terms and conditions to use the service.

How exactly is it wrong to give people something they obviously want?

TheRedneck


Oh I am sure Microsoft and all those companies hire more people then that. But then they always forget to include all the ones in china in sweat shops who actually make all the things they sell to themselves.
And that is a big reason why they got rich, because they got a big base work base mostly in China it seems, who is working for pennies on the dollar to create and put together there hardware, and software as well because that is not big deal and can be assembly lined to.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck

Every business I have built operated on one single core concept: I was the one who started it, I was the one who grew it, and I was the one responsible for it. That meant I made the final decisions. Period. End of paragraph. End of discussion. There is something I just cannot stand about anyone coming into a business I built and thinking they should make decisions. Call it a pet peeve; call it arrogance; call it peanut butter. It is what it is.


TheRedneck


And with you wonder why your employees don't smile? This is you might be having trouble with employee "attitude". If you rented a room in a house, would you go the extra mile and do things like make repairs or care about the long-term value?

Most people (at least the good workers) WANT to have responsibilities at work. The people who are not going to care if you make all the decisions don't really care about their work.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Moneyisgodlifeisrented

This is the new face of employment in America, they just want to get as much work done for the least amount of price paid out.

There's nothing new about that.

If you are qualified in a field where 10,000 others are also qualified, and there are 5,000 potential jobs, then you have to be in the top half of that group to get a chance to work. Qualified means the same thing it means when you are shopping for a TV: will it do a good job and how much will it cost. If you have a choice between a 50" plasma that costs $500 and a 52" plasma that costs $10,000, you're probably going to get the 50" set.

If you are more expensive than the other guys, you won't get the job. Period. It's not the employers being mean; it's the employers trying to make a living just like you are.

But if you are one of 10 in your area qualified for a job and there are 20 potential jobs, you have a job. As long as the employer can pay you what you want, they will. Just like in a Christmas sale, consumers fight over the last few items they want and will pay outrageous prices.

If you want a good high-paying job, pick a field where you don't have much competition. My son had a job with a decent starting wage three weeks after graduating high school. My chosen profession went computerized and I didn't, so I have had a much harder time.

But whatever you do, don't go in with the notion in your head that this guy sitting across the desk is just trying to use you as much as they can for as little as they can. You'll give off vibes that will make it pretty certain you won't be called back afterwards.

TheRedneck


I don't agree with this comparison you make. A 50" TV for $500 and a 52" TV for $10.000 is not exactly what I would compare to how employment works. For starters, an employer doesn't know how good the employee will work, and thus, he will always look at the pay the employee requires. It's like having to choose between ten TV's, all without a brand and without a description, however, they are all priced about equally, one is 300, another is 350, and another 450,... Which one will you choose? What is there to apply judgement on? One might be a Sony and the other might be a well-made fake with electronics that severely underperform... You don't know the TV, you haven't seen it work yet, you can't possibly decide that the 350 one is better than the 300 one, all you see is what is presented to you, and you will only find out about the quality after the "purchase" and when you start "testing" it.

So which TV will you pick? The cheap one? Might as well, you don't know if the $450 one will be better than the $300 one, and thus, the trend is set, because every time someone picks the cheap employee, their competitor will lose if they don't pick the cheaper one too.

Combine this with the disgusting trend of people being judged by how fancy a piece of paper they have and you're done.



But oh well, I don't agree with how pretty much everything work-related works nowadays anyway, there is fairness in a way, but in another way there is an absolute lack thereof. I appreciate that you invested your money, time, energy and ideas into something, but the dominant position of certain people, employers if you will, holds many other people back in life. Whereas, in a cooperative, everyone gets an equal chance, even if one or some people had the idea etc...

You did most of the effort, but I STILL AM the one, or one of the people, that help you achieve it. It's like a coach of a football team that thinks he's the one that should receive all the credit, WRONG, the players contributed just as much, and are equally essential.

All people are essential, and I do not agree that some deserve a minimum wage for doing a harder job than others who receive a royal pay, no matter what job you do, if you contribute, you deserve a great life. Sadly, this idea is not shared by most of todays politicians, economists, business owners, even employees.

(I'm not promoting communism in any way, mind you, read the thread in my sig if you want to know where I stand in these things. I don't let my thinking be confined by -isms, I see things, I value them and try to find what could change for the better, not for myself, but for every person on this planet and the whole of it, which is not how the world works today, where people think of themselves in the first place. Sure, you may think you deserve $10k a month for your initiatives, but there are others who simply want to live a simple life, which COULD be possible (but is not now), even without working your ass off till you're 70, and those people are prohibited from accomplishing it, because others want as much profit as they can.

And because of this, nowadays even the people who want a simple life, like me, are forced to either; work every damn day, doing a job you do not like, OR, start something of your own and in your own turn 'exploit' others. It's a vicious circle which should be broken, but that, in it's turn, is prevented from higher up, because the people that profit the most from this system, will do everything in their power to prevent an alternative from emerging, sadly. )


Sorry this is not completely in line with your OP subject.
edit on 9/7/12 by ThisIsNotReality because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/7/12 by ThisIsNotReality because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/7/12 by ThisIsNotReality because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by mbcsmc
 



Yes I was a good employee, extremely respectful even when I was belittled and used as a punching bag for his bad days. The guy begged me to stay. My health and sanity is more important. If you beat up your boss you would be in jail, more nonsense.


Yes, your health and sanity is definitely more important. Sometimes people are enablers though. If you were constantly a punching bag for his bad days, and then one day you decided to leave and he begged you to stay, perhaps you should have stood up to him much earlier? Maybe you could have salvaged the working relationship, if you had put your foot down? Maybe not, sometimes people are just bad people, but sometimes they just push as far as they can until someone pushes back.

And yes, I have actually beat up two bosses, and I didn't get fired either time. I've been in hundreds of fights, and I've never been arrested for any of them. People rarely call the police over a silly fight. The story I relayed earlier, if the police had come, they would have arrested my boss and his fat little cohort, not me. We had a trace on our phone, because the phone calls were so disturbing, and we had police reports, and I caught him in the act. There are some things a person just can't get away with, and messing with someone's young wife home alone at night is one of those things.

Now, I have been fired, once for depantsing a guy at Sonic, that one I deserved, but it was still worth it, and once for something stupid that I didn't deserve, but one of my underlings set me up and then slithered into my position. It happens sometimes. Not every employer is a good employer, but we don't have control over those things, we can only control our half of the situation, and that is what this thread is about.

Also, for the record, I haven't always been a good boss, I started supervising people at age 16 for my father's businesses, and I was a terrible boss. Up until I was about 25 I bounced back and forth between leadership roles and production or sales roles, and I made a lot of mistakes. But since the age of about 26 or so, I haven't done anything except supervise, and now I am pretty damn good at it. I'm often called in to take over the worst situations a business can get into. I've taken over as a consultant for businesses in the middle of bankruptcy, I've taken over non-profits, and I've been flown in to take over struggling retail locations with theft and fraud and the worst of the worst. I've always been successful. I've never encountered a situation I can't improve. My current situation is one of the most difficult I've encountered, but in 18 months it has improved noticeably, and the employee satisfaction surveys, and the scorecard our unit uses have both seen significant back to back improvements, so technically this is a success, but it is a lot slower going than I would have liked. I think by the end of this year, my position here will be a complete success, so hopefully some new challenge comes along.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by getreadyalready


There is no employer, not even a menial factory job, or box loader at UPS, that doesn't want intelligent people that require little supervision.


Not true. If a higher up is insecure in their abilities, they will be afraid of those who they see as more capable. I've seen it happen quite a few times, even if its to the companies detriment. Remember, stupid people dont make smart decisions.



This is true, but it is almost always a temporary situation. Everyone has a boss, or some numbers they are responsible for, or some customers they are responsible for keeping. If a stupid person gets into a position of authority and makes a lot of bad decisions, they won't last.

You are right though, occasionally a boss will have a fragile ego and anything you do good will be a threat to them. In those cases, you have two choices. Get them fired, or get them promoted. I've always found it easier to do the best job possible, and give all the credit to my boss, and they love me, and they get out of my way pretty quickly. If that is impossible, then it becomes necessary to do very thorough record keeping, and CYA, and let them hang their self. That approach is very difficult and risky, but sometimes it is the only choice.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   
It all comes down to whether or not you are a liability to your employer.

And also, I think they should have some sort of interviewing process reality tv show. That would be awesome.
edit on 9-7-2012 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck

  • I want you to be honest with me. I do not want a "yes man"... all that does is let me go off on a wild goose chase that will cost me money. I want someone to tell me when I ask what they think of a plan and why. I want someone who will let me know when they have a problem that might affect their job... that way I can plan for possible contingencies arising from those problems.


  • Thanks for the advice. I usually have a problem with the above, I work in IT. I've learned it's best to keep my mouth shut most of the time. Disagreeing with my supervisor/elder coworkers about how something was done and they take it personally and try to make me look bad because otherwise I might make them look bad. Which I don't want to but sometimes things happen that could have been avoided if I spoke my mind beforehand.

    One would think money would be the all important factor, more important than a coworkers personal feelings and dented ego but what I've experienced so far is most managers/employers rather want to keep the harmony and consider my critique disruptive, even if it might have saved the company money.

    I've worked in large companies and smaller ones, especially at the latter I felt like I had to keep my mouth shut if I wanted to keep my job and I would have had to be more dishonest, flattering my employer on what I consider a poorly done job but of which he was proud. Most of the coworkers did this, resulting in an unrealistic view of their abilities but because there was no critical word they became convinced of their qualities. The customers who were mostly IT illiterates didn't have a clue, it was amazing how easily they were fooled making them believe a bad, costly solution was something great for them and their bussiness. Yes this is badmouthing even if I don't mention the companies name but I have to keep my standards up.


    I want you to know your place. You are an employee... you come to work, put in your hours, get your pay, and go home. That's fine, but understand that I spent sleepless nights trying to put together business plans, argued with investors, invested my money, my time, my talents, went without because I needed equipment or materials that came before my home life, all without a guarantee of even getting paid, just to make my living and in the process create that job for you. Advice is fine and wanted, but the final decision is mine.


    It's not the employee's fault you spent sleepless nights, it's your responsibility to control your mind and emotions. Neither is it the employee's fault you had to argue with investors. Maybe if the employee was there he would have argued even better than you.

    The employee has also spent a lot of time on learning his or her trade, he or she might have made similar sacrifices. In my case, at some point I decided to spent more time on learning (more than average in my profession) rather than enjoying myself in the sun with friends. You might have created a job for which society and the future employee should be grateful 'but' it was not specifically created for that particular employee. There should be some respect sure but would you really want someone to put on a mask each day to make you believe they are grateful only to take it off again when going home without you ever realizing? Sure the final decision should always be up to the employer.



    posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 09:55 AM
    link   
    reply to post by Dragonfly79

    Disagreeing with my supervisor/elder coworkers about how something was done and they take it personally...

    Unfortunately, those egos do come into play. I have found that the worst offenders when it comes to taking input personally are those middle managers who are well aware they are in over their head.

    The most successful businessmen I have ever come into contact with have been those who listen, even ask for input, but then make up their own mind. The middle managers who are themselves worried about their jobs are not included in this group; they are managers, not businessmen. I tend to think of them as businessmen apprentices; some will succeed, but most will drop out or never finish the apprenticeship.

    Don't consider them businessmen. They are inexperienced businessman wanna-bes. If you come across these guys, keep your ideas to yourself; you might want to start your own business with them later.

    Of course, there are also the kinfolk who get promoted; this has been mentioned many times. To be honest, I would conceivably place my kin in an important position before I would someone else. Why? Because I know what kind of job they will do. If I believe they will do a good job, then I have little worry about them going to my competition with my information, or sabotaging a business that will someday belong to them to 'get even' with me, or do something totally unexpected.

    That assumes of course that the kinfolk in question meets those expectations above... if they are regular screw-ups or just plain lazy, I for one wouldn't dream of putting them in an important position.


    It's not the employee's fault...

    It's absolutely not the employees fault... it's mine. The point I was making was not that I faulted the employee, but rather that the employee had risked little, come into the business late, was guaranteed their pay, and was provided the space to work, the work to do, and any support needed to perform it. The business owner is risking a lot (their entire life savings in many cases), was there from day one, had no guarantee the business would profit, and had to provide all those items mentioned above for himself and every other employee there.

    I'm sorry; I see a difference between the two.

    The one thing I like the most about self-employment is the freedom. The risk that comes with it is not a problem for me... but I would bet money if I told an employee they would get paid only through profit sharing, I wouldn't have that employee for very long. As the business owner, I only get paid if the business profits. I only get a 'raise' if profits are up. An employee can decide tomorrow they want to change companies for a better deal; the owner of the business cannot just decide they want to own a competing business.

    That last paragraph is about to be taken out of context, so let me clarify: I am not jealous of the deal an employee under me gets. After all, I offered the deal. All I am saying is that one cannot waltz into a business, start making the big decisions on business operation, demand a part of the business in addition to a salary, and expect the business owner to be OK with that. To do so is to demonstrate either a severe lack of understanding of how business really operates, or a severe lack of the ability to fairly judge an issue... or both.

    TheRedneck



    posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 10:37 AM
    link   
    I really hate that phrase "know your place". It sounds too much like the phrase "let them eat cake" because it sounds like the wealthy putting poor people down.



    posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 10:37 AM
    link   
    reply to post by ThisIsNotReality

    I don't agree with this comparison you make.

    That comparison was concerning skill sets. If you are a CNC Mill Programmer (a 52" $10,000 TV), and you are working in fast food (50" $500 TV), you are not going to be treated as anything more than a fast-food worker. With all due respect to those who work in fast food, that is not an exclusive skill set; there are a lot of people capable of doing your job.

    If you want to be treated like a $10,000 TV, you have to be in the field where you have less competition. The way you do that is to compete: increase your education, make that extra push to get more and better experience, change jobs to get closer to your goal (even if it means less money for now), engage your goal as a hobby to learn about it, etc.

    In the context of hiring people for a single skill set, your example is more apt. It's just not the same context.


    You did most of the effort, but I STILL AM the one, or one of the people, that help you achieve it. It's like a coach of a football team that thinks he's the one that should receive all the credit, WRONG, the players contributed just as much, and are equally essential.

    We're back to the middle-manager subject.

    The coach is not the owner of the team. He works for the owner just like the players do. So who gets the profits from the team? The owner. Not the coach, not the players; they get their salaries and bonuses as negotiated. Can you imagine if Eli Manning walked into the head Patriots office and demanded he owns 5% of the Patriots? He'd be on the street wondering what happened before he could get his shoulder pads off!

    Profit sharing (as it has been pushed) is an idea that came into play to draw the best employees in a particular highly-specialized field. It can be a good idea, but it also opens the company proposing it up to a major problem: the fact that turnover becomes a very bad thing that is totally out of the owner's control. While even that might be manageable in an engineering firm, can you imagine what would happen to McDonalds if they gave every employee that ever worked for them a piece of the pie? There wouldn't be any pie left soon, between the sheer number of employees and the high turnover rate.

    I do know some of the larger companies have instituted a profit-sharing plan that serves as nothing more than fake incentive... a WalMart employee can get into a profit-sharing plan (so I have been told) where you can buy WalMart stock as a part of your paycheck... that is not profit sharing! All they do is act as a broker to sell their stock! Why do they want to sell you their stock? Because the major investors are not buying it any more... the numbers are dismal!

    True profit-sharing is like a cooperative where a percentage of the stock is owned by present employees, and share dividends are then split among those employees when distributed. Some older companies who need to keep a competitive edge use it as a motivation tactic and as an incentive to hire the best employees out there. It is basically a bonus system, and I have no problems with bonus systems. I have a problem with lying to my employees to make them think they are getting a great deal when actually I am just using them to prop up stock prices, and that is what the majority of these 'profit-sharing' scams are.

    Maybe people really don't realize this... if so, I'm sorry I thought it was so obvious. Unless you are already making big bucks in a good work environment, your company does not offer real profit-sharing. There's a hook in that juicy worm.


    All people are essential, and I do not agree that some deserve a minimum wage for doing a harder job than others who receive a royal pay, no matter what job you do, if you contribute, you deserve a great life.

    I just can't agree with this. The range of skills and abilities is just too great and the economic realities will not allow it.

    The guy who spent 6-7 years in college, racking up student loans and eating mac-n-cheese every night to learn and become an engineer is simply worth a lot more in business than the guy who dropped out of school early and somehow managed to land a job sweeping the floor. The latter does not deserve to starve; I want everyone to have a good life. But he does not deserve a plush corner office, a six-figure salary, a company car, and a nice bonus package. The guy who sacrificed and worked hard to become better than he was does deserve that.

    I would love to see the drop-out go back to school as well, get his degree, and land a nice cushy job. But who decides his position? He does.

    That's fairness. You get what you are willing to work for. It's just not Politically Correct.

    TheRedneck



    posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 10:42 AM
    link   
    reply to post by TheRedneck
     


    Sorry, but that's just not true. If you look strange, or don't know anybody, or have an unusual personality, it just doesn't matter how much of an education you have, you will never get hired period.

    Even more so if you live in a poor county where there's little to no jobs.



    new topics

    top topics



     
    48
    << 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

    log in

    join