Why be an employer ?

CJay said:
Casuals are still entitled to long service leave.
Click to expand...

property_girl said:
So he would be happy to let his boss see him on the internet for an hour while there was work to do? And you think any boss would be happy to see his employee surfing the net for an hour during work hours?

I can't think of any job I've had--both in the public and private sector--where I would dream of spending an hour on the internet while I had work to do. And I spent years working 15 hour a day for weeks at a time--starting work at 9.30 am and finishing at about 3 am, sometimes 4 or 5 am. I didn't have the time to spend one minute on the internet, let alone an hour.
Click to expand...

I have a bloke who smokes and spends at least an hour down time on his phone or is late to work, but I don't care. You know why? Because he does the work of 2 men every single day. He works 48 weeks straight without a day off sick or needing annual leave through the year, and never turns down a single hour of overtime. He then takes his 4 weeks off at Christmas to recharge the batteries and then we go again. Incidently he rents a house off me - never misses a payment ever. I make an absolute killing off this guy and he does well for himself. I have no need to push the guy or to micro manage him. Is this the type of guy every employer wants?

pinkboy
 
How the tide turns.

Ironic that people were celebrating the demise of the employee and the rise of casuals; complaining about employees having all the rights and employers being screwed by having to pay super and long service leave; the difficulties involved in 'getting rid of' an employee; employers saying 'you fu<k up, expect to be kicked to the curb Matey'; how employers take all the risks.

Yet as soon as you remind people that if they have a boss and they're posting on SS, they're basically stealing, it becomes about employees having the right to have a break; how they do better work when they take a break; how horrible a boss must be if he/she actually expects their employee to work when they're being paid.

Make your mind up boys.
 
property_girl said:
How the tide turns.

Ironic that people were celebrating the demise of the employee and the rise of casuals; complaining about employees having all the rights and employers being screwed by having to pay super and long service leave; the difficulties involved in 'getting rid of' an employee; employers saying 'you fu<k up, expect to be kicked to the curb Matey'; how employers take all the risks.

Yet as soon as you remind people that if they have a boss and they're posting on SS, they're basically stealing, it becomes about employees having the right to have a break; how they do better work when they take a break; how horrible a boss must be if he/she actually expects their employee to work when they're being paid.

Make your mind up boys.
Click to expand...

Funny how the 'boys' who are suggesting there are means in which they are happy with workers having access to websites etc during workhours, are also self employed. :p

No one said anything about 'rights' property_girl - it's about effective productivity. A savvy business person understands that humans are not robots and that to encourage the highest productivity you balance 'nose to the grind' with non monetary benefits for employees which thrive off this type of structure. A dawdling 'do the bare minimum' worker wouldn't work under this system, hence why you set expectations and go from there.

Are you saying you would rather a staffer who works at 8 productivity units per 8 hours, than a worker which produces 15 productivity units through 7 hours of productive work. Humans aren't robots which have a scale-able work rate. If there was we would run staff at 18 hours a day to enable minimum sleep sufficient, but we all know the productivity would decline.
 
property_girl said:
Cjay, read the earlier posts.
Click to expand...

Already have. Are you suggesting there is no such thing as productivity decline?

Likewise do you think an employment structure which allows for zero non work time within their 8 hours is going to encourage staff retention of those who are the most productive, or will they leave for better conditions, or worse become less productive because there is no incentive to be a faster worker. 'go slower you're making us look bad'.

Most companies have worked this out, including large scale multinationals. Even my wife's employment contract has specific mention of allowances to time per day on non-work related activity - specifically social media etc.

Just curious to see why you believe this is such a radical concept which is clearly wrong? What type of business did you run?
 
CJay said:
Funny how the 'boys' who are suggesting there are means in which they are happy with workers having access to websites etc during workhours, are also self employed. :p

No one said anything about 'rights' property_girl - it's about effective productivity. A savvy business person understands that humans are not robots and that to encourage the highest productivity you balance 'nose to the grind' with non monetary benefits for employees which thrive off this type of structure. A dawdling 'do the bare minimum' worker wouldn't work under this system, hence why you set expectations and go from there.

Are you saying you would rather a staffer who works at 8 productivity units per 8 hours, than a worker which produces 15 productivity units through 7 hours of productive work. Humans aren't robots which have a scale-able work rate. If there was we would run staff at 18 hours a day to enable minimum sleep sufficient, but we all know the productivity would decline.
Click to expand...

Nailed it!

Kudos.

pinkboy
 
Once again you have completely missed the point

Cjay was using the one hour internet as an example

This led to the proven fact that micro managing decreases productivity

Human beings aren't machines, we are emotional, and inconsistent beings, thats why therr are laws, regulations and rules

As one very very very successful guy once said to me, if you have the energy and time to microvmanage, then you aren't focussed enough on the business

Im sure I'm not the only one but I am seeing a clear pattern to your poor arguments and emotional responses

You seem to not be able to accept being proven wrong or others having a different opinion to you
 
CJay said:
Funny how the 'boys' who are suggesting there are means in which they are happy with workers having access to websites etc during workhours, are also self employed. .
Click to expand...

That sentence doesn't make sense. And the 'boys' I am referring to are all the posters not just the self-employed.

And nobody talking about 'rights'. Really? So what do you call the following comments because they sound an awful lot like people complaining of 'rights' to me:

never being able to get rid of a dud employee if they are permanent - unfair dismissal cases are very common these days, and cost the Employers lots of wasted time and money to pursue....

- you fu<k up, expect to be kicked to the curb Matey!
... much easier to rid an employee ... if you dont have them wrapped around your little finger from the start.,

too difficult for employers to dispose of non-productive employees without being sued ...

fairly difficult for an employer to sack an employee they don't like

In a dispute situation, a tribunal tends to favor the tenant over the landlord. The same thing occurs in the workplace.
 
property_girl said:
That sentence doesn't make sense. And the 'boys' I am referring to are all the posters not just the self-employed.

And nobody talking about 'rights'. Really? So what do you call the following comments because they sound an awful lot like people complaining of 'rights' to me:

never being able to get rid of a dud employee if they are permanent - unfair dismissal cases are very common these days, and cost the Employers lots of wasted time and money to pursue....

- you fu<k up, expect to be kicked to the curb Matey!
... much easier to rid an employee ... if you dont have them wrapped around your little finger from the start.,

too difficult for employers to dispose of non-productive employees without being sued ...

fairly difficult for an employer to sack an employee they don't like

In a dispute situation, a tribunal tends to favor the tenant over the landlord. The same thing occurs in the workplace.
Click to expand...

property_girl said:
Yet as soon as you remind people that if they have a boss and they're posting on SS, they're basically stealing, it becomes about employees having the right to have a break
Click to expand...

$10 if you find the post where it was suggested that it's a workers right to take a break during paid working time.
 
CJay said:
Likewise do you think an employment structure which allows for zero non work time within their 8 hours is going to encourage staff retention of those who are the most productive ...
Click to expand...

My question was very simple: would you be happy to see an employee surfing the net for an hour? Noone has been able to answer that question.
 
property_girl said:
My question was very simple: would you be happy to see an employee surfing the net for an hour? Noone has been able to answer that question.
Click to expand...

I will and have. If my bloke looks at his Facebook 10x 6min every work day, but produces several $100,000s of income for my business singlehandedly per annum - then yes, Im not upset.


pinkboy
 
My post quite clearly states 'employees complaining about employees'. Why are you so hot under the collar when I was clearly not referring to the self-employed?
 
property_girl said:
That sentence doesn't make sense. And the 'boys' I am referring to are all the posters not just the self-employed.

And nobody talking about 'rights'. Really? So what do you call the following comments because they sound an awful lot like people complaining of 'rights' to me:

never being able to get rid of a dud employee if they are permanent - unfair dismissal cases are very common these days, and cost the Employers lots of wasted time and money to pursue....

- you fu<k up, expect to be kicked to the curb Matey!
... much easier to rid an employee ... if you dont have them wrapped around your little finger from the start.,

too difficult for employers to dispose of non-productive employees without being sued ...

fairly difficult for an employer to sack an employee they don't like

In a dispute situation, a tribunal tends to favor the tenant over the landlord. The same thing occurs in the workplace.
Click to expand...

You have quoted me, but Im unable to see where I am 'complaining of rights' ? :confused:

I mitigate their rights by already having a means to sack someone who doesnt make me money safely.

pinkboy
 
property_girl said:
My question was very simple: would you be happy to see an employee surfing the net for an hour? Noone has been able to answer that question.
Click to expand...

Sure, I'll answer with a no.

1) Instill a culture in the workplace where its the norm to be doing work related stuff at work , generally from keeping them happy and occupied
2) Give the employee enough tasks so that they can't / don't need to do other stuff
3) Otherwise, implement IT measures to prevent it.

I'm involved in a number of companies from a number of industries and have only seen a couple resort to step 3.
 
property_girl said:
My question was very simple: would you be happy to see an employee surfing the net for an hour? Noone has been able to answer that question.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't give a fig. So long as they produce the desired results required in the time frame required, they can juggle in the corner for all I care. You set the efficiency expectations right from the start. You can leave them be to hit your KPI's, and work on providing value yourself instead of watching a clock.

If you believe that is inefficient, obviously you haven't set the targets high enough. Or you can provide bonuses for outperformance. Many ways to skin a cat.
 
D.T. said:
Sure, I'll answer with a no.

1) Instill a culture in the workplace where its the norm to be doing work related stuff at work , generally from keeping them happy and occupied
2) Give the employee enough tasks so that they can't / don't need to do other stuff
3) Otherwise, implement IT measures to prevent it.

I'm involved in a number of companies from a number of industries and have only seen a couple resort to step 3.
Click to expand...

Thank you DT. At last an honest answer.
 
Property Girl,
Most of people here are pencil pushers.
They have never worked a physical job in their life...working in a factory as a labourer would be beneath them.


Now if you asked them, if they hired a plumber by the hour, and they watched him constantly playing on his phone instead of doing the job, they'd be upset.


When an employee is hired to do a job, they should be working on it.
If there is 'downtime', they should be doing something work related, as you suggested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Would you do Termidor treatment after this report?
Replies
12
Views
4K
wylie
W
C
Cash Converters are nation's fastest growing retailer
Replies
10
Views
2K
Aaron Sice
Aaron Sice
The Y-man
The Lizzie Interview
Replies
1
Views
6K
The Y-man
The Y-man
The Y-man
The MIW Interview
Replies
1
Views
10K
The Y-man
The Y-man
I
Fantastic article by Steve Keen
2
Replies
28
Views
4K
locko24
locko24
Back
Top