When he first explained the idea, I thought it sounded ridiculous and essentially made all the same/similar arguments people here have posted. But he kept insisting that it worked well at his previous company. (Pretty large, well known corporation-do we say names here?) Anyhow, to be polite, I told him I'd do a little research and get back to him on the idea, but I didn't think it very plausible for our company. Theory is all it will ever be as he doesn't get to decide. Fortunately, that's up to me and the GM. What gets me is that this is pretty out of character for him. He's implemented some great concepts and is usually logical and level headed, but he swears by this and everytime he does, I want to have his temperature checked.
We will talk about it, it won't happen, but we probably won't sit down until next week or so.
I feel like the lone ranger, but I do have a few comments. MB1004, your mfg culture may not work with such a plan; maybe your evaluation and pay process is so great and favorably received by both employees and management that such a change would be disasterous. Help your PM understand why the way it is now is the best method. Hopefully your research included more than just this Forum, such as contacting his previous employer and other firms that have plans like he is advocating to get their pros and cons.
Having come from mfg to city government, I see no difference in the people in terms of their effort, motivation, dedication, etc. There is a bell curve for every workforce from those who care and try hard to those who don't. How they're paid makes no difference. It's the personal character and work ethic of the individual that makes them perform a certain way.
The implication that a pay system that pays employees in certain grades the same amount for equal length of service will lead to high turnover, low morale, no motivation, no job interest, and in general a lower class of employee is just plain wrong. At least that's not the case in my city government, and I venture to say that's not the case in many other organizations, govt. or otherwise, that have a similar pay plan. Job satisfaction and effort come from many factors besides the weekly pay check.
Finally, I would argue there are incentives to do your best or at least to try even if presently your co-worker makes the same pay. Unless Mgt is negligent, the better performer will get the promotions, praise, and recognition they deserve. Where teamwork is involved, those who don't do their share are usually put straight in a hurry either by their co-workers or their supervisor, who ultimately controls their job security.
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 07-09-04 AT 03:27PM (CST)[/font][br][br]CRAWFORD: I believe that many of us pointed out that government service is one of those areas of many vocations where this type system does work. However, you will find that these God given wonderful people that run our governments have a much stronger appeal for the security that government service provides. You will also find that these wonderful people are not motivated by $OLLARs for long term service. They get things much more important to them than money like self recognition and esteem and self awareness of being a part of a much larger something. Sure they would all like more money but they don't drop the tax collecting job for the production line making more money and overtime and bonuses.
Production jobs have the greatest opportunity to achieve, it is they that are located, where the "rubber hits the road" and it is they that realize they are normally carrying better than 50 percent of the rest of the company. You can bet they deserve more for carrying more. I like the subject bonus award I usually get each year at the end of the year averaging $3000.00 per year, but I sure would like the $15,000.00 production bonus that those people receive. But I am not willing to go out and "pull the pigs" or crop the tails, or shovel the manure all day long ever day.
In Manufacturing there is no comparsion to justify a scaled system of compensation. I have been there and done that and it don't mix. There is no government position that carries a greater load of importance to the organization from the city clerk to the garbage collector, they are all equally important and the heat is on in any one area when there is failure. Knock out electricity and even the city clerk gets up set with the electric department.
crawfod- Thanks for your opinion, but I do have to disagree. I did do research outside the forum and found more cons than pros for the flat scale. In the PM's case, the previous company paid extremely well for their industry and most of the jobs were similar, so there were few disgruntled employees. In our case, we have numerous varying degrees of skill levels and many people entering with years of experience...why would they start the same as a green hire?
"Job satisfaction and effort come from many factors besides the weekly pay check."............ True to a certain degree, especially for those with higher education and in professional occupations, but when it comes down to min wage workers/mfg employees, the bottom sector of the payscale, money IS what matters. (at least here) We have a great work environment, but all they really want is another $ in their pocket. I can tell them they are our #1 employee all I want, post it and announce it at a meeting, but then they'd turn around and ask me...."If I'm your number #1 employee, why do I get paid the same as Joe Schmoe who does jack all day?" How would you answer that?
I had to check in even though it's Friday evening. Sad, huh! I appreciate no one ripping into me yet. I was afraid I'd be like one of Pork's hogs who steps off the market ramp, looks around, and says, "Hey, this place looks nice and clean and those guys with the rods over there look friendly."
I'm glad you checked with the PM's old company. When you sit down with him, he should appreciate your efforts to consider his idea, and you can explain the differences in where he is now. It sounded like he was just going by his previous experience, which was favorable. Maybe you can tie the two plans together some way, paying more for those who do more or learn more.
My mfg experience never found pay for performance to please even the majority of our workforce, although I do believe we mostly rewarded the most deserving ones. Was there favortism, cronyism, racism, ageism, sexism, kiss-assism, etc.? You bet there was. Did we have grievances and lawsuits? You bet we did. And we kept changing and trying to find that magic formula of objective and subjective measures that would equal a fair pay increase, and we never got there.
Don't get me wrong though by implying our pay system is the answer, because I too don't see it working very well in most mfg cultures I've seen, and I realize that was what you were asking about. I just felt I had to leap in here and defend those employees who work in this system, probably your own Police and Fire employees. Getting a practically guaranteed 2.5% raise every year plus a COLA for 14 years, plus extremely high job security (cities don't move to Mexico), and very fair benefits can offset some pay frustrations and frees people up to concentrate on serving the public.
As for your #1 employee, your seemingly lame at the time but honest answer is, "I know it's rough right now, but you are appreciated, and when the next higher opening comes up, you've put yourself right in line for it. Thanks for the tip about Joe, we'll be watching him more closely, and you may not see him around much longer."
Crawfod posted: "The implication that a pay system that pays employees in certain grades the same amount for equal length of service will lead to high turnover, low morale, no motivation, no job interest, and in general a lower class of employee is just plain wrong."
My analysis of this comes from 25 years in a system where everybody got the same raise no matter what or IF they contributed or how or whether they performed. It was a terribly disastrous system as far as morale. I can still remember how people resented working their asses off while some fat, lazy, less-than-mediocre guy who would never retire got the same raise and enjoyed the same perks and benefits, couldn't be fired and rarely contributed a damned thing.
Additionally, I worked in a union environment for four years (until 4/03) and saw the same morale problems. Everybody in the same grade made the same money. People were awarded job bids based solely on seniority. Mediocrity was the byword. A horribly defeating system. No incentive to excel. No rewards for superior performance.
THESE PLACES KEEP THE DUNCE CAP FACTORY IN BUSINESS!!
I worked for the unemployment office from 1980-1984. This was during the Federal extensions and everything was still done manually. I will never forget a long term employee telling a new hire, "Don't let them work you too hard, you get the same pay no matter what". It was always up to a few of us to authorize the certifications and manually run the checks, plus run group registrations etc. while most of the others moved at a snail's pace. No wonder state agencies have such a bad rep. and no wonder I left to work for private industry - not that they don't have their issues too.
Comments
Theory is all it will ever be as he doesn't get to decide. Fortunately, that's up to me and the GM. What gets me is that this is pretty out of character for him. He's implemented some great concepts and is usually logical and level headed, but he swears by this and everytime he does, I want to have his temperature checked.
We will talk about it, it won't happen, but we probably won't sit down until next week or so.
Having come from mfg to city government, I see no difference in the people in terms of their effort, motivation, dedication, etc. There is a bell curve for every workforce from those who care and try hard to those who don't. How they're paid makes no difference. It's the personal character and work ethic of the individual that makes them perform a certain way.
The implication that a pay system that pays employees in certain grades the same amount for equal length of service will lead to high turnover, low morale, no motivation, no job interest, and in general a lower class of employee is just plain wrong. At least that's not the case in my city government, and I venture to say that's not the case in many other organizations, govt. or otherwise, that have a similar pay plan. Job satisfaction and effort come from many factors besides the weekly pay check.
Finally, I would argue there are incentives to do your best or at least to try even if presently your co-worker makes the same pay. Unless Mgt is negligent, the better performer will get the promotions, praise, and recognition they deserve. Where teamwork is involved, those who don't do their share are usually put straight in a hurry either by their co-workers or their supervisor, who ultimately controls their job security.
Production jobs have the greatest opportunity to achieve, it is they that are located, where the "rubber hits the road" and it is they that realize they are normally carrying better than 50 percent of the rest of the company. You can bet they deserve more for carrying more. I like the subject bonus award I usually get each year at the end of the year averaging $3000.00 per year, but I sure would like the $15,000.00 production bonus that those people receive. But I am not willing to go out and "pull the pigs" or crop the tails, or shovel the manure all day long ever day.
In Manufacturing there is no comparsion to justify a scaled system of compensation. I have been there and done that and it don't mix. There is no government position that carries a greater load of importance to the organization from the city clerk to the garbage collector, they are all equally important and the heat is on in any one area when there is failure. Knock out electricity and even the city clerk gets up set with the electric department.
"Dandy PORK" it can't get any better than this!
Thanks for your opinion, but I do have to disagree. I did do research outside the forum and found more cons than pros for the flat scale. In the PM's case, the previous company paid extremely well for their industry and most of the jobs were similar, so there were few disgruntled employees. In our case, we have numerous varying degrees of skill levels and many people entering with years of experience...why would they start the same as a green hire?
"Job satisfaction and effort come from many factors besides the weekly pay check."............ True to a certain degree, especially for those with higher education and in professional occupations, but when it comes down to min wage workers/mfg employees, the bottom sector of the payscale, money IS what matters. (at least here) We have a great work environment, but all they really want is another $ in their pocket. I can tell them they are our #1 employee all I want, post it and announce it at a meeting, but then they'd turn around and ask me...."If I'm your number #1 employee, why do I get paid the same as Joe Schmoe who does jack all day?" How would you answer that?
I'm glad you checked with the PM's old company. When you sit down with him, he should appreciate your efforts to consider his idea, and you can explain the differences in where he is now. It sounded like he was just going by his previous experience, which was favorable. Maybe you can tie the two plans together some way, paying more for those who do more or learn more.
My mfg experience never found pay for performance to please even the majority of our workforce, although I do believe we mostly rewarded the most deserving ones. Was there favortism, cronyism, racism, ageism, sexism, kiss-assism, etc.? You bet there was. Did we have grievances and lawsuits? You bet we did. And we kept changing and trying to find that magic formula of objective and subjective measures that would equal a fair pay increase, and we never got there.
Don't get me wrong though by implying our pay system is the answer, because I too don't see it working very well in most mfg cultures I've seen, and I realize that was what you were asking about. I just felt I had to leap in here and defend those employees who work in this system, probably your own Police and Fire employees. Getting a practically guaranteed 2.5% raise every year plus a COLA for 14 years, plus extremely high job security (cities don't move to Mexico), and very fair benefits can offset some pay frustrations and frees people up to concentrate on serving the public.
As for your #1 employee, your seemingly lame at the time but honest answer is, "I know it's rough right now, but you are appreciated, and when the next higher opening comes up, you've put yourself right in line for it. Thanks for the tip about Joe, we'll be watching him more closely, and you may not see him around much longer."
My analysis of this comes from 25 years in a system where everybody got the same raise no matter what or IF they contributed or how or whether they performed. It was a terribly disastrous system as far as morale. I can still remember how people resented working their asses off while some fat, lazy, less-than-mediocre guy who would never retire got the same raise and enjoyed the same perks and benefits, couldn't be fired and rarely contributed a damned thing.
Additionally, I worked in a union environment for four years (until 4/03) and saw the same morale problems. Everybody in the same grade made the same money. People were awarded job bids based solely on seniority. Mediocrity was the byword. A horribly defeating system. No incentive to excel. No rewards for superior performance.
THESE PLACES KEEP THE DUNCE CAP FACTORY IN BUSINESS!!
(My clock is off. It's not really 2:30 a.m.)