Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Make the poor pay!


Recommended Posts

You don't just suck at math,stopstaaron....

You just suck....

What's wrong with sucking? Are you making an anti-gay slur here? Or maybe a misogynistic anti-female slur!?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What's wrong with sucking? Are you making an anti-gay slur here? Or maybe a misogynistic anti-female slur!?

I also could be making fun of a pump of any kind...

Perhaps I'm "mechanophobic"?

But...Nope...This guy just sucks...Just like the Argos...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Argus brings at least something to the table in arguments.. Your bringing a bucket load of self-loathing and an Ant-am love affair.... Take it out-side.. Its creeping me out

Game on!

I also could be making fun of a pump of any kind...

Perhaps I'm "mechanophobic"?

But...Nope...This guy just sucks...Just like the Argos...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Argus brings at least something to the table in arguments.. Your bringing a bucket load of self-loathing and an Ant-am love affair.... Take it out-side.. Its creeping me out

Game on!

Huh?

Speak English please...

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's offensive to anyone, it's offensive to Canadians - not Pakistanis.

It is not against the rules to offend people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what else is there to expect from left wingers

their hobby is reporting people

Insults levelled at third-parties (companies, political parties, nationalities) are also political parties, nationalities) are also forbidden in the forums.

I'm pretty sure racial and ethnic slurs are also forbidden by the rules of the forum, but I'll await moderator judgement on that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To add...you can also get this thing called a raise if your productivity improves.

Since we're talking about McDonalds...that's not really how it works. Same with Walmart. You get a token raise once a year...usually even if you don't deserve it...which also means that those who definitely deserve more, are treated the same as the layabouts.

It's practically a communist system in terms of merit and motivation.

Edited by bleeding heart
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we're talking about McDonalds...that's not really how it works. Same with Walmart. You get a token raise once a year...usually even if you don't deserve it...which also means that those who definitely deserve more, are treated the same as the layabouts.

It's practically a communist system in terms of merit and motivation.

That's not true.

Walmart doesn't like talking about it, but they and other retailers work on a quota system. If they have a scale with "below expectations," "meets expectations," "exceeds expectations," then the company figures out the raises within that paradigm. "Below expectation" get nothing and are usually put on some sort of performance improvement plan. "Meets expectations" will generally receive a raise around 2% (give or take 1%). "Exceeds expectations" will be above the "meets expectations" raises, typically 3%-4%. So you don't always get that token raise. I know this for a fact. But here's what I mean about the token raises. Each store is given a budget based on its sales and forecasts. During any given review cycle they will tell the store that only 5% of the reviews can be "exceeds," 10% of the reviews need to be "below" and 85% need to be in the "meet" category. So it is based on performance to some extent, but you're in competition with your coworkers for the number of "good" reviews that are predetermined. The problem amongst all of this, of course, is that there's politicking in every job. Managers play favourites, so it's not always based on actual performance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not true.

Walmart doesn't like talking about it, but they and other retailers work on a quota system. If they have a scale with "below expectations," "meets expectations," "exceeds expectations," then the company figures out the raises within that paradigm. "Below expectation" get nothing and are usually put on some sort of performance improvement plan. "Meets expectations" will generally receive a raise around 2% (give or take 1%). "Exceeds expectations" will be above the "meets expectations" raises, typically 3%-4%. So you don't always get that token raise. I know this for a fact. But here's what I mean about the token raises. Each store is given a budget based on its sales and forecasts. During any given review cycle they will tell the store that only 5% of the reviews can be "exceeds," 10% of the reviews need to be "below" and 85% need to be in the "meet" category. So it is based on performance to some extent, but you're in competition with your coworkers for the number of "good" reviews that are predetermined. The problem amongst all of this, of course, is that there's politicking in every job. Managers play favourites, so it's not always based on actual performance.

I know it for a fact too, based on my direct experience of working there for three years.

With very few exceptions, everyone got a raise yearly. (Mostly deserved, in my opinion, but not for the precise reasons they might assess it at a corporate level...and they're class warriors, the upper echelons, make no mistake.)

You could get a twenty cent, thirty cent, or fifty cent raise/hr.

fifty cent raises were exceedingly rare. Almost vanishingly rare. Not deserved? :) Please.

Twenty cents was slightly more common.

But most people got a thirty cent raise...for, as I said, wildly divergent amounts and quality of work performed.

Yes, i have no doubt managerial favouritism plays a part (and we're all human after all); but if anything, I suspect that my very good, very affable and decent manager recognized the utter futility of accurately measuring "merit" (a fool's game...a frigging joke, actually)...and so perhaps thought doling out the medium-sized raises almost uniformly was actually the fairest, most rational way to proceed.

And given that the entire framework is one of near-lunacy, I think she was right.

(I'm thinking particularly of your very good point about artifical benchmarks that are set up...it's preposterous nonsense, of course.)

During any given review cycle they will tell the store that only 5% of the reviews can be "exceeds," 10% of the reviews need to be "below" and 85% need to be in the "meet" category. So it is based on performance to some extent, but you're in competition with your coworkers for the number of "good" reviews that are predetermined. The problem amongst all of this, of course, is that there's politicking in every job.

Well, not quite: it's "the problem" only within the lunatic parameters that hve been set up.

Because to proclaim, as company policy, the 10%--85%--5% "rule" is to deterime ahead of time that "merit" is not real, but is based on profit projections.

So it's artificial.

Edited by bleeding heart
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's about right, I think.

You believe that only 90% of the population are "pukes" who aren't pulling their weight.

Yeah! And I am pulling more than mine! So I should be recognized with an official title, and maybe have the little people bow to me when they pass me on the street (not that I generally walk on the street since that's for poor people. I ride).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it for a fact too, based on my direct experience of working there for three years.

With very few exceptions, everyone got a raise yearly. (Mostly deserved, in my opinion, but not for the precise reasons they might assess it at a corporate level...and they're class warriors, the upper echelons, make no mistake.)

You could get a twenty cent, thirty cent, or fifty cent raise/hr.

fifty cent raises were exceedingly rare. Almost vanishingly rare. Not deserved? :) Please.

Twenty cents was slightly more common.

But most people got a thirty cent raise...for, as I said, wildly divergent amounts and quality of work performed.

Yes, i have no doubt managerial favouritism plays a part (and we're all human after all); but if anything, I suspect that my very good, very affable and decent manager recognized the utter futility of accurately measuring "merit" (a fool's game...a frigging joke, actually)...and so perhaps thought doling out the medium-sized raises almost uniformly was actually the fairest, most rational way to proceed.

And given that the entire framework is one of near-lunacy, I think she was right.

(I'm thinking particularly of your very good point about artifical benchmarks that are set up...it's preposterous nonsense, of course.)

Are you trying to say that the non union "meritocracy" and the individual workers "freedom" arguement is....I dunno....

Farcical?...Free Marketeering Bizarro World??

Edited by Jack Weber
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah! And I am pulling more than mine! So I should be recognized with an official title, and maybe have the little people bow to me when they pass me on the street (not that I generally walk on the street since that's for poor people. I ride).

Oh, you do have a title, but I'm afraid it so far remains unofficial, albeit universally agreed-upon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you trying to say that the non union "meritocracy" and the individual workers "freedom" arguement is....I dunno....

Farcical?...Free Marketeering Bizarro World??

Heavens, no. I have been informed, here on this board, by (at least) three different posters, that the "free market" by definition is rational, fair and based on merit.

All your critiques and attacks on such genius are tantamount to attacks on religious belief, and so are against forum rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you trying to say that the non union "meritocracy" and the individual workers "freedom" arguement is....I dunno....

Farcical?...Free Marketeering Bizarro World??

Keep in mind if you make ten dollars an hour, you need a 30 cent raise each year for your pay just to stay the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OR their hard work and ingenuity

Is it your contention that the rich produced their wealth all on their own, not by taking a cut of the labor of others? Maybe the odd inventor did that and then just sold their idea, but that's not the norm for how people get rich. Even then, that inventor benefited from the structure of our society: his education, the fact that a system exists and is maintained that makes his invention valuable, etc etc. We don't exist in isolation, but in an interdependent society.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...