I've been in several companies that do it, but it's not pay for performance so I don't think it works that well. Operators just worry about how big the check will be rather than what they can do to increase it. It's a common union attitude that makes me not care much for unions despite their past contributions to building a middle class. I think unions should be able to set minimum pay, but not disallow pay for performance.
I've been playing around in my head with different ideas how to make our system truly pay for performance because it's in our nature for politics to be a big part of advancement. I think we would do a lot better if performance really was the dominant factor in pay. I'm curious if anyone else has ideas along those lines since mine are still in flux.
Regards,
Mark
Current Events » in reply to Bonuses
It's Called Gainsharing
The whole thread (29 posts)
- Who Is Responsible for the Economic Debacle?
- There's enough blame to go around ffor everyone.
- There's enough blame to go around ffor everyone.
- "While there was some crime in the mortgage industry..."
- Not one politician anywhere to be seen. (n/t)
- You do not pay for a war with tax cuts for the wealthy
- Gee. And I thought it was the Clinton Administration.