Employees... ugh.

[CharleyH]

Cat got your tongue Joe? Trying to get a top level position in my business without knowing who Ponzini was is like trying to get a job at the Metropolitan Opera without knowing who Caruso was.

Joe has no leverage - only you give it to him. - foolishly I might add.

 

[matriarch]

Joe has no leverage - only you give it to him. - foolishly I might add.

*sigh*

My hero.

 

[CharleyH]

*sigh*

My hero.

Again? :|

 

[matriarch]

Again? :|

Always.

 

[CharleyH]

you are way to beautiful, Mat.

 

[wazhazhe]

... the ones who have sex in their office get $40.

Gee, I got paid more than that and never got to have sex in my office. Come to think of it, I never had an office either. I think I got gipped.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Cat got your tongue Joe? Trying to get a top level position in my business without knowing who Ponzini was is like trying to get a job at the Metropolitan Opera without knowing who Caruso was.

I just got back from "An Inconvenient Truth", missed your post. Regardless, and here's an interesting point, your question shows... what? You mention a guy and time them? I should point out (and I'll bold this so you can see it clearly) when I asked for a specific example I really did mean for a specific example of a whole situation--one whereby you had an applicant, interviewed him by asking the unique style of questions you apparently do, and gleaned reasonably concluded information from them that ended up true and profitable and wise in a basic P&L format and not an example of some random question that doesn't show one's ability to effectively complete any sort of task other than regurgitation of trivia.

Context is needed to understand how that question meant anything other than "do you know something??????".

Incidentally, Behavioral Interviewing provides that--(I was certified by IHG in that, incidentally). It's a great technique, easy to learn, and yeilds fantastic results... that are documentable and numerous in sample.

I will say this, only once and never again because its not the sort of thing that demands repeating ever... from how you speak, the inconsistencies you use to refer to yourself and what you do and how big a deal that is, and the conclusions you seem to draw from your "business experience" or whatever--I very much doubt you're a successful entrepreneur, certainly not on the scale of product I work with on a daily basis. I could well be wrong, but I'm really only basing this on your presentation so far--this founded on both the context and content of what you're saying.

I didn't even hint that I would pay more for someone who speaks a foreign language. However, if I have someone with a demonstratable talent that I can use, I will use that talent sparingly or heavily as I can make money from the talent. If I use the talent heavily, I will pay a little extra for the talent. That extra talent is not confining the employee to a specific, narrow role. That extra talent also does not mean that the employee is special in any other way.

So, essentially... you don't disagree with what I've already said.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Joe has no leverage - only you give it to him. - foolishly I might add.

Well, I concede I have no leverage because I'm not reinventing the wheel here... this is the state of affairs in the commonly accepted business world all over the country/planet(?).

But, regardless, you're right.

 

[gauchecritic]

leverage... wheel. Joe made a funny.

 

[R. Richard]

Andrea Ponzini - Ceramics?
George Ponzini - Glass sculptures?
G.Ponzini who wrote the following articles:
Comparison between ground water finite difference models for regular and irregular grids, with emphasis on the space distribution of source terms
(Geophysical Research Abstracts)

A quasi three dimensional model of water flow in the subsurface of Milano (Italy): the stationary flow
(Hydrology and Earth System Sciences)

All three seem pretty specialist to me.
And I wouldn't have a clue what to ask about them.

Matriarch:
You make my point perfectly! You mention several Ponzinis. However, none of them have anything to do with my business. In addition, I doubt that any of the Ponzinis you mention are at the top of their field. I suspect that the Ponzinis you mention are the result of a web search. The guy I am interviewing does not have access to a web search, nor time.

Minsue:
"Gee, ya want to at least say what job is being applied for? Presumably the applicant would at least have that info..."
Actually, I am not going to tell you what job is being applied for, as there might be a question about the job being in technical violation of some ticky-tacky little law. However, the top level people who I interview know who Ponzini is and they respond accordingly.

The point is what I said earlier, "No normal person can answer my questions." You have to be a qualified operator in my highly specialized field to have any idea of the answers to my questions. If I were to publish a list of the questions, I would destroy the usefulness of my questions. I almost never go very far into my list of questions, as the applicant very quickly reveals whether or not he is qualified.

By the way, none of you are qualified, which is probably just as well.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Matriarch:
You make my point perfectly! You mention several Ponzinis. However, none of them have anything to do with my business. In addition, I doubt that any of the Ponzinis you mention are at the top of their field. I suspect that the Ponzinis you mention are the result of a web search. The guy I am interviewing does not have access to a web search, nor time.

Minsue:
"Gee, ya want to at least say what job is being applied for? Presumably the applicant would at least have that info..."
Actually, I am not going to tell you what job is being applied for, as there might be a question about the job being in technical violation of some ticky-tacky little law. However, the top level people who I interview know who Ponzini is and they respond accordingly.

The point is what I said earlier, "No normal person can answer my questions." You have to be a qualified operator in my highly specialized field to have any idea of the answers to my questions. If I were to publish a list of the questions, I would destroy the usefulness of my questions. I almost never go very far into my list of questions, as the applicant very quickly reveals whether or not he is qualified.

By the way, none of you are qualified, which is probably just as well.

So... you can't say how it works... what the components are... or illuminate any sensible relationship between the premises (obfuscated ones or not) and the conclusion. Is that about the gist of it?

 

[minsue]

Minsue:
"Gee, ya want to at least say what job is being applied for? Presumably the applicant would at least have that info..."
Actually, I am not going to tell you what job is being applied for, as there might be a question about the job being in technical violation of some ticky-tacky little law. However, the top level people who I interview know who Ponzini is and they respond accordingly.

The point is what I said earlier, "No normal person can answer my questions." You have to be a qualified operator in my highly specialized field to have any idea of the answers to my questions. If I were to publish a list of the questions, I would destroy the usefulness of my questions. I almost never go very far into my list of questions, as the applicant very quickly reveals whether or not he is qualified.

By the way, none of you are qualified, which is probably just as well.

You're making no sense. I cannot for the life of me figure out what any of this has to do with the topic at hand.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

You're making no sense. I cannot for the life of me figure out what any of this has to do with the topic at hand.

I've been wondering that since the beginning... I'm getting a vague resume' of secret-service and innovative entrepreneurial brilliance, but the knee-jerk reactions of a pencil pusher who identifies with the "employee" from my initial post moreso than "the most mysterious Bill Gates ever".

I just don't know what's up with that.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well, JOe, If I were looking for an $8.00 job, I would prefer to work for someone like you. You lay out the guidelines in clear and easy-to-understand terms, and let me do the work I came for. You don't expect me to exert myself any more than our original agreement, and what's more, you don't slip in extra responsibilities for which I will NOT be paid. If everyone else around me is diong their jobs as well, I don't have to engage myself in any extraordinary way, leaving my mind untrammelled, at the end of the day, by what-ifs and I shouldas.

That's not a bad bargain.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Well, JOe, If I were looking for an $8.00 job, I would prefer to work for someone like you. You lay out the guidelines in clear and easy-to-understand terms, and let me do the work I came for. You don't expect me to exert myself any more than our original agreement, and what's more, you don't slip in extra responsibilities for which I will NOT be paid. If everyone else around me is diong their jobs as well, I don't have to engage myself in any extraordinary way, leaving my mind untrammelled, at the end of the day, by what-ifs and I shouldas.

That's not a bad bargain.

There are levels of employment where that formula breaks down... highly coordinate team efforts and project-based enterprises (catering and advertising come directly to mind), higher level employement (lawyers, doctors, aquisitions executives, maybe). I can see definitely where there's a need to grey certain lines and duties to cover the pioneering industry or complex multi-tasking.

But basic labor? Entry-level positions? Very often the formula of X for Y is a great way to go, assuming you have the other duties covered by other X's and Y's.

 

[Stella_Omega]

There are levels of employment where that formula breaks down... highly coordinate team efforts and project-based enterprises (catering and advertising come directly to mind), higher level employement (lawyers, doctors, aquisitions executives, maybe). I can see definitely where there's a need to grey certain lines and duties to cover the pioneering industry or complex multi-tasking.

But basic labor? Entry-level positions? Very often the formula of X for Y is a great way to go, assuming you have the other duties covered by other X's and Y's.

well, yeah, and if I were looking for an entry-level job, as I said, I'd want to work for someone like you. I really wasn't being sarcastic!

 

[R. Richard]

You're making no sense. I cannot for the life of me figure out what any of this has to do with the topic at hand.

My original theme was that the Joe's perception of unsatisfactory employees could most likely be traced to inadequate interviewing prior to hiring. However, the entire thing has degenerated to ad hominem attacks.

It is probably very difficult to hire satisfactory $8 per hour employees. However, there is a large labor pool of people who work for $8 per hour. If an unsatisfactory emplyee is hired, it is possible to replace that employee. If the employee is not replaced, I have to wonder at the thinking of the "manager" who allows an unsatisfactory employee to remain on the job.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Well, JOe, If I were looking for an $8.00 job, I would prefer to work for someone like you. You lay out the guidelines in clear and easy-to-understand terms, and let me do the work I came for. You don't expect me to exert myself any more than our original agreement, and what's more, you don't slip in extra responsibilities for which I will NOT be paid. If everyone else around me is diong their jobs as well, I don't have to engage myself in any extraordinary way, leaving my mind untrammelled, at the end of the day, by what-ifs and I shouldas.

That's not a bad bargain.

You've got a good point.

I hated working in positions where that last line in my job description: "OTHER DUTIES AS ASSIGNED" appeared. It just meant I ended up doing everyone else's damned job. If I'm working for someone else AND only making $8 an hour, I damned well don't want to do anything but what I agreed to do in the first place.

I also wish there were more employers who would quit the complaining when you actually USE your sick and vacation time. HELLO!?

 

[minsue]

My original theme was that the Joe's perception of unsatisfactory employees could most likely be traced to inadequate interviewing prior to hiring. However, the entire thing has degenerated to ad hominem attacks.

It is probably very difficult to hire satisfactory $8 per hour employees. However, there is a large labor pool of people who work for $8 per hour. If an unsatisfactory emplyee is hired, it is possible to replace that employee. If the employee is not replaced, I have to wonder at the thinking of the "manager" who allows an unsatisfactory employee to remain on the job.

Ah. Gotchya.

One of the main problems with an $8/hour job is that, if you do manage to get a great employee, they're usually on to greener pastures pretty damn quick. If they're that good, they can make more money elsewhere or work their way quickly out of entry level. I started at an entry level $6/hour job at a major corporation, because I have no education beyond high school, but I sure as hell didn't stay in that position for very long before moving my way up the salary ladder to better jobs a rung at a time. Some of the people stayed in that same first position the entire time I worked there, but those weren't what I would consider quality employees. Just good enough to keep from getting fired since hiring at entry level is such a crap shoot and training new hires is expensive.

 

[gauchecritic]

I missed this completely (damn Lit and their "someone has replied')

How much do you think is appropriate for an entry level position that requires no skills beyond those needed to play Pong on the computer, and basic politeness?

So let's see what 'no skills' consists of (I'll have to assume reception job here)
NO SKILLS = computer literacy, English as a first language (there goes your $3 applicants), filing, handwriting, several levels of communications, accounting, cash handling, numeracy and smiling.

On what grounds would you set wages? Are you at all concerned that if you imposed a $20/hour minimum wage then the general price level of everything would simply rise to a level that cancelled out any gains for the lower-income workers you are seeking to help?

Hmm, on what grounds. let me see. (You must know your talking to a socialist here [I'm just being kind by not using the 'C' word]) What about "a fair day's days work for a 'fair' day's pay". How about reducing employee turnover for those that leave when they find a job for 7 bucks? Could I be talking about a reasonable rather than maximum profit? Choose any one, or all.

Are you at all nervous that if to counter this you imposed a profit cap or price controls on the owners of businesses many of them would disagree with you regarding what is a "fair" return given the risks they take and the lean years they must endure, and just close up shop;

And the alternative is?... working a job and taking government handouts? or are you assuming that this hotel is a mom & pop business with those two erstwhile entrepreneurs still manning the tills?

that many investors would just put their money into (relatively) risk-free government bonds, thus starving productive enterprises of capital; and that you, Gauchecritic, would have triggered a worldwide depression that would make the 1930s look like the golden years? (Sticking tongue a bit in cheek with that last, but serious about the rest.)

Ahh. Investors, profit motive. I see. Keynesian economics. 19th century theories applied to 21st century philosophy.

Seriously Rox, both you and Joe are applying economics to social welfare (which is the domain of Communism) and seem to be guided by Reaganomics. It doesn't work. In theory it ought to work, but it doesn't.

People making money on what they know hasn't worked since 'those dark satanic mills'. They were merely creating a 'middle class' which is socially untenable over the long term and utterly divisive and destructive over the middle/short term.

You either work for a living or you own things, there is no middle ground. Knowing rocket science is no more 'worthy' than knowing your customer doesn't like pickle on her BigMac (tm).

Now I've moved to my 'raison' I shall stop before it gets heated.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

gauche, your post smacks of highly aggressive ignorance.

 

[gauchecritic]

gauche, your post smacks of highly aggressive ignorance.

[cockney]Well, you've put me in my place then, fair and square, Guv'nor.[/cockney]

(If you weren't Yanqui Joe you'd be able to see the wit and irony) [mainly in that last sentence] (maybe I should stop doing that, I ought to have learned by now, you'd think){and I'm running out of parentheses}

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

[cockney]Well, you've put me in my place then, fair and square, Guv'nor.[/cockney]

(If you weren't Yanqui Joe you'd be able to see the wit and irony) [mainly in that last sentence] (maybe I should stop doing that, I ought to have learned by now, you'd think){and I'm running out of parentheses}

It's not just being a Yank... even with regard to Yanks, I'm not good at catching them.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Quote:
On what grounds would you set wages? Are you at all concerned that if you imposed a $20/hour minimum wage then the general price level of everything would simply rise to a level that cancelled out any gains for the lower-income workers you are seeking to help?

Hmm, on what grounds. let me see. (You must know your talking to a socialist here [I'm just being kind by not using the 'C' word]) What about "a fair day's days work for a 'fair' day's pay". How about reducing employee turnover for those that leave when they find a job for 7 bucks? Could I be talking about a reasonable rather than maximum profit? Choose any one, or all

.
Ah, well, that's clear enough. Now all we need to do is to define "fair pay" and "reasonable profit." I'm sure there aren't more that 6.6 billion opinions on what these definitions would be, but not to worry: We'll just create a Government Ministry on Fair and Reasonableness, and it can create continuously updated definitions. Of course this will complicate business and ivestment decisions just a bit, never knowing what those definitions will be from day to day, but I'm confident that the good intentions of those in the ministry can overcome all. (I know I'm talking to an S-word person here, and am engaging in a lighthearted manner, realizing that the chances of us coming to agreement are, er, slim.)

Quote:
Are you at all nervous that if to counter this you imposed a profit cap or price controls on the owners of businesses many of them would disagree with you regarding what is a "fair" return given the risks they take and the lean years they must endure, and just close up shop;

And the alternative is?... working a job and taking government handouts? or are you assuming that this hotel is a mom & pop business with those two erstwhile entrepreneurs still manning the tills?

Note the adjective attached to the job description: Entry-level. Presumably those with reasonable intelligence and diligence will advance, which is the alternative I would offer. Here is one area where we might agree a little: In an economy that no longer has much use for nor offers much reward for a strong back, I am concerned about the fate of those at the left end of the bell curve on intelligence and other intrinsic characteristics. I don't want them to be condemned by nature to lives on the edge with no hope of advance. In this there may be ground for discussions between S-word people and C-word people like me (C as in Capitalism, that is - not the other C-word.)

BTW - "Keynesian economics" - that's a good one!

Thanks for playing.

 

[English Lady]

As much of a fan of irony, sarcasm and generally taking the piss that I am, I gotta say gauche -it don't come over good on paper or the screen esp if you do it in it's "pure" form and don't even give the odd smiley to show you're being "funny".

Flinging your Brit wit at Americans isn't going to make'em any more likely to "get it." not through simple words on a screen anyway. I mean, I'm a Brit but I'm obviously a level or two thicker than you, because I thought you were just being nasty, I got none of the irony, and I like a ood bit of irony in the morning (better than ironing any day)



R Richard - I really don't think you have a point, love. You're the one who attacked Joe's ability to hire people in the first place, and I seem to think his first post said nothing about being upset with the employee's work -just the fact they seemed to want a raise for doing nothing extra.

And Min raisies a good point, it's a pain in the arse firing, you've got to pay to advertise for a new employeee in the paper etc and then you have to take time out of your schedule to interview folks...

time and money wasted = Not good business sense (least I'm pretty sure that's how it goes)


Oh, and Joe was just having an ikkle moment of ranty goodness. You know, getting something off his manly chest.

Now i'm derailing my own points...erm, yes. I'll step away from the debate again now, before Joe Smecks me again (I think it might be painful!)