Do you think its fair to be payed per hour or per performance by employer?
By YoungInLove
@YoungInLove (1254)
Canada
September 13, 2009 2:55pm CST
I just wrote an article on this issue for my associated content account. The reason I am so for being paid per performance is because:
When I was younger and getting paid student wage, (which was like 7-725$ at the time) I was working hard because it was one of my first jobs and I wanted to be the type of employee that coul be depended on. My other coworkers who were older then me (and getting paid way more) didnt really do anyhting. They were lazy and half @$$ed their job. They were doing work, but not as well as it could have been done, as fast, and they just didnt really care anymore because they were only hgetting paid a small amount. Well HELLO, I was getting paid even LESS and still did the same if not more then they did. Which frustrated me. After a while I wasnt getting recognized for the work and started becoming lazy as well.
Which is why I got a job as a waitress. I lvoe the idea that I can make more money with tips depending on how well I do my job.
But I still believe that people should be paid for their job on how well they do isntead of getting paid a set amount per hour.
That way, people will work harder, work faster, and put all their effort into a job, knowing that they will be fairly compensated for that effort.
What do you feel about the whole issue?
2 people like this
6 responses
@Sissygrl (10912)
• Canada
13 Sep 09
I have got to agree with you on that one.. but most jobs.. are so not that way.. although if your employer is a good one, and recognizes that you are doing a better job then msot employee's and working harder, then you're more likely to get a raise then the others.. but one one persons morale is down, a lot of the time everyones morale goes down. negativity is contagious!
I always am hard working in a job like you where when i first start. and then i get bored, and see everyone else doing half the job i do, or i'm picking up the slack, so i give up too.. Screw it! you dont get ahead working twice as hard as everyone else for the same amount of money!!
1 person likes this
@YoungInLove (1254)
• Canada
13 Sep 09
lol I know that its too good to be true, I just wanted to hear peoples opinions. I watched a avideo from a talker who does seminars for a product that I will be selling (pyramid style lol need all the motivation we can get) but he said a line in the video that was entirely true
"Employers will pay you just enough money to keep you, but never enough money for you to get ahead"
Which i agree with, were making these people tons of money while they're paying us the bare minimums. The overall attitude towards the job would do a complete change if they changed their approach, and I dont see why they dont do it, in the longrun everyone would work harder and they would make even MORE..(possibly, cant guarantee)
But I know everyones attitude would change towards the job and they would be more productive, knowing that they will most deffinately be recognized for their efforts.
1 person likes this
@UmiNoor (4523)
• Malaysia
13 Sep 09
I think it's only fair to pay an employee for the hours that he spends working at the job. Employees do have to pay for bus fare to go to work and food to eat during their break. They have to be compensated for these and the time they spend at the workplace. If they're only compensated for performance then it'll be very unfair since they've used up their time at the workplace and as they say time is money.
Performance based payment can be used to make employee want to excel in their work as something that is given on top of their basic pay. This way employees would work harder and improve their performance if they see their hardworking co-workers get more by doing a better job. Performance-based payment should be used only as an add-on to the basic pay and not as the sole mode of paying employees. This is my opinion.
1 person likes this
@expect (10)
• India
14 Sep 09
i am with performance....an example i can say is in our locality the construction workers get their payment according to there performance and according to the number of hours they worked...but in second case the task will go on and go on for days if it can be complete within one week if the payment is in the basis of performance...it will take about 2-3 weeks instead of one week....that is what i am doing now spending my job time on mylot instead of working i had to spend two to three more hours here although the project that is assigned to me is completed....so my answer is payed according to performance in that case i will be now at the back waters with my friends instead of spending in front of this stupid computer
@ladyhope (377)
• Canada
14 Sep 09
I don't think this is a good idea because it is too subjective ans who gets to decide how good your work is? What happens if you get a crummy boss who is never satisfied?
I think a base salary with a chance to ear more depending on performance is the best option. Unfortunately, though, most bosses do not always give raises where raises are due.
@Tantrums (945)
• Philippines
14 Sep 09
I'd go to per performance, I once worked for a multimedia company and because some of my co-workers were tenured, they were always slaking off, giving the jobs to newbies like I was before.
