h a l f b a k e r yTastes richer, less filling.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Complaints are common about the currently popular systems of remuneration for employees.
The most commonly used system is an hourly wage, where you get paid a specific amount of money per hour you work. This incentivizes you to take longer doing
tasks, so that you get paid the same amount while
doing less work, or more while doing the same work. It also doesn't incentivize you to make improvements to
efficiency (though if you do, you can have some free time that you probably have to spend pretending to work).
Another is salary, where you get paid a specific amount per month or so, just to be an employee, regardless of how much work you do or how long it takes you
to do it. It usually comes with an expectation that you'll work overtime for free.
Another is piece work, where you get paid a specific amount of money for each task you do. This is illegal in some places, though I forget why. It incentivizes
efficiency and task completion, but it also encourages rushing and therefore doing a worse job.
Those are just the complaints that I could think of on the spot; there are others. Also, if you are the boss, deciding how much an employee is to be paid can be
difficult, and if you are an employee, asking for a raise can be awkward, and you might unknowingly get paid much less than a coworker who does the same
work and hasn't even been with the company as long as you (because bosses discourage employees to discuss with each other how much they are paid).
Anyway, my solution is to throw all of those out and just ask the employees how much they want to be paid, and/or how they want their pay calculated, and
then just pay them accordingly. They can ask for an hourly wage, an output-based wage, a salary, compensation calculated by a custom formula, or even just a
lump sum of arbitrary amount whenever they want.
For example, you could use a formula like $300/[feature implemented] + $15*(1.1^[hour spent implementing a given feature]) + $5/[hour on call at home] +
$100/[hour worked when called in]. Another employee doing the same job could choose to use the same formula or a different one (or one of the simple
hourly/piece work/etc. options).
Whatever an employee sets, that's how they get paid. Employees are expected to use this power fairly, considering how much similar jobs elsewhere are
offering, how much value they provide to the company, etc. Employees can set their formulas to give themselves incentives to work in certain ways, such as
taking on fewer larger projects instead of more smaller ones.
In exchange for allowing them to set their own compensation, all of this information is 'publicly' available within the company. Everyone at the company can see
how everyone else gets paid, and everyone else's compensation history. Therefore, they can also use the knowledge of how much their coworkers are paid in
setting how much or by what formula they get paid. They can also see if someone else is paying themselves too much or too little.
This system can be implemented using a internal payroll application that employees can access to set their compensation settings.
Yes, you'll probably need good people to make this work well. If someone abuses their power, you can warn and/or fire them. (They'd probably be a bad
employee in other ways too.) On the other hand, giving your employees more agency in this way should be good for morale, so it should help with retention.
I thought of this mainly in the context of companies with employees doing highly skilled work (such as software development), so I don't know if it would work as
well for other jobs, especially those with lower skill requirements, but it probably could.
63/384 [2018-05-03]
[link]
|
|
Is there a summary, something shorter? |
|
|
//Another is piece work, where you get paid a specific amount of money for each task you do.// |
|
|
Hey, that's how I get paid! |
|
|
//This is illegal in some places, though I forget why.// |
|
|
It has it's downsides. Lots of downsides. No benefits, no vacation pay, no sick pay, no royalties, no taxes deducted, no severance pay, no severance notice, no pension, oh the list just goes on and on but there are perks if you look for them hard enough. |
|
|
//It incentivizes efficiency and task completion, but it also encourages rushing and therefore doing a worse job.// |
|
|
Not if contractually obligated to repair any deficiencies at ones own cost for a year after the job is complete. Yep, downsides. |
|
|
//Everyone at the company can see how everyone else gets paid, and everyone else's compensation history. Therefore, they can also use the knowledge of how much their coworkers are paid in setting how much or by what formula they get paid. They can also see if someone else is paying themselves too much or too little.// |
|
|
So everyone will demand the maximum. |
|
|
//This is illegal in some places, though I forget why.// |
|
|
Because in practice it's far too often deliberately set at a
level of pay per "piece" that it's impossible to make enough
money for the very lowest form of subsistence living let
alone an hourly target of the minimum wage (in
those countries that have a minimum wage). |
|
|
In countries that do have a minimum wage it's often
viewed (not entirely without cause) as a loophole
to paying the minimum wage that can only be closed by
banning it completely. |
|
|
//In countries that do have a minimum wage it's often viewed (not entirely without cause) as such a loophole to paying the minimum wage that can only be closed by banning it completely.// |
|
|
Some jobs are better paid this way. Even here in Canada which has a very strict minimum wage policy I have worked two strictly piece-work jobs. One was when I would take over for absent balloon printing girls when I worked night-shift maintenance in a printing factory, and flooring installation. You can work either job hourly or by salary but you won't earn as much. |
|
|
//Is there a summary, something shorter?// |
|
|
Let employees set their own compensation packages. If their price is too high, fire them. |
|
|
This is fairly well aligned with the technical contract employment market where people work on
(say) a 6-month contract, with the expectation of renewal if they've done a good job. Since
it's relatively short-term, there's a regular opportunity to renegotiate or walk into another
employment should the remuneration not meet expectations, and equally, it's incumbent upon the
worker to do a good enough job that their services will be called upon again. In my industry,
there's a good 60-80% of people who work this way, who find themselves bumping into old
colleagues from gigs months or years ago, meaning that despite the constant churn across
organisations, there's a relatively stable community of faces - which encourages longer-
termism in behaviours and reduces some of the silliness that people who think in 3-month
packets can fall into. |
|
|
Having worked in security work, this already happens -
but in kind. A guy was stealing the petrol + oil, when
he was supposed to guarding it etc |
|
|
As for Rolex stores, who watches the watches? |
|
|
..about 4 seconds after I thought of it. It's a knack. |
|
|
Oh, and someone in a supermarket who'd beat tin cans
out of shape so they'd go on sale, and this person got
them first. Most jobs seem to have a self-gifting option
to those inclined. |
|
|
^ and there's no better way to encourage inclination than
paying too little. |
|
|
Maybe I should have mentioned, back in January, that I
thought of this idea in the context of, and it is optimized
for, a company where every employee gets total freedom to
set their own hours, and only people who can be trusted
with such freedoms are hired. It might make more sense
now. |
|
|
Truth usually is a bitter pill, I not sure most people can, by instilled nature, value themselves correctly. It would take pain that the orange guy wouldn't ever face. |
|
|
Without reading the entire idea, due to lack of time and
money, I voted "yes". Just because. No other reason. |
|
|
Things are worth what others are willing to pay for them. |
|
|
A guy I knew owned a small town hardware store.
He said that if he ever won the lottery he would
GIVE the business to his employees. Then sit
back, watch and laugh. |
|
|
//Things are worth what others are willing to pay for them.// |
|
|
That's not a bad guide, [tc], but it does lead to certain well-known
paradoxes. For example, if you wash up on a desert island, then
the sole fresh water spring on that island is, by this definition,
worthless, since no-one can buy or sell it. |
|
|
//Things are worth what others are willing to pay for them// Most of us moved on from acquisition by club. |
|
|
... except those of us in cartels, obviously. |
|
|
//...if you wash up on a desert island, then the sole fresh water spring on that island...// - but this will never happen! A desert island, by definition, cannot have a fresh water spring on it. |
|
|
there is no paradox, only an overly simplistic definition of
"pay". |
|
|
There is no "pay", only an overly simplistic definition of "paradox"
;-) |
|
|
I'm kidding, but if we're going to start stretching an empirically
observable event, "someone pays something to someone else",
into something more metaphysical, I'm not against that, but we
could be here for a while. |
|
|
Supply and demand is a natural law, so no metaphysics
needed, ask the bonobos trading sex for food. You need
metaphysics where scarcity is NOT a factor, for the god in
the machine. |
|
|
The human race is going to the next level beyond supply and demand. Beyond supply manipulation. Humanity has the technology to see all resources and all demands, an overview not seen before. |
|
|
well, we've eliminated scarcity in downloadable material,
and that hasn't made people too happy. Can't imagine
figuring out the philosopher's stone would make too many
people happy, at least initially. |
|
|
People need to chase their own individual genius. It's always been the goal. All of life seems to be engineered to prevent any attempt at accomplishing this task unless one happens to be privileged enough to not really care to. |
|
|
When the robots take all of the jobs maybe this whole 'subjugate others in order to elevate ourselves' attitude will go away. |
|
|
I've never understood it. I get how it is a reality... but the whole shebang is completely out-of-whack and in need of an overhaul. ...and what [wjt] said. |
|
|
oh, please. Status is even more important to primates than
direct wealth, even the Borg had a queen. The Soviets had
a lot of titles to hand out to people living in communal
apartments. |
|
| |