For those of you who in management...

Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

12/20/2005 02:46:12 PM · #51

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

Flash, seriously...your style of debate (be wordy, belittle, repeat) does nothing for me.

There was no intent on my part to belittle anyone. The repitition was due to repeated challenges of a settled (in my mind) fact. Your question:

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

did they receive an extra week of vacation for each extra week's worth of increased wages that were offered?

is answered with a - no. The reason the answer is no (it is not an equal division), has been stated repeatedly.

Good luck with your negotiations.

CEJ

Canon EOS-40D

12/20/2005 03:12:13 PM · #52

Originally posted by Flash:

is required to have someone else do the work that is not being done.

Nice lists...but doesn't address your original statement. An employer IS NOT required, as you stated, to replace an employee when they are not there. Yes, as I stated, I do have other people perform tasks if needed, but I am not required to do so. There is no law or rule or generally accepted practice that says this. Your statement just doesn't make any sense.

For example, in the plant I am in now I have two metallizers out this week. That means their machines are down - no production. I do not have anyone running their machines. Sure, I would like to have the production level higher, but I am not required to get someone to run their machines just because they are out.

Message edited by author 2005-12-20 15:13:48.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

12/20/2005 03:13:38 PM · #53

Originally posted by Flash:

So you would be willing to allow each of those 29 employees to exchange their raise for an exact equivalent of time off, as per their current wage rate?

Nope, because if I keep giving people more vacation time every year eventually theyâ��d never have to come into work and they'd still get paid.

thatcloudthere

Canon EOS-1D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

12/20/2005 03:56:54 PM · #54

Originally posted by Alienyst:

For example, in the plant I am in now I have two metallizers out this week. That means their machines are down - no production. I do not have anyone running their machines. Sure, I would like to have the production level higher, but I am not required to get someone to run their machines just because they are out.

Well, in Flash's defense this is a bad example. Here, you are paying for the workers to be out of the plant and your production is down. This is clearly costing you money...not against the law, but certainly not going to please the shareholders!

My point was that the output of many Managers is not measured on a day to day basis (unlike your metallizers)...rather, their output is measured in the long term and is a result of their planning, implementation and analysis.

Edit: dsyelixa

Message edited by author 2005-12-20 15:57:57.

CEJ

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

12/20/2005 04:01:36 PM · #55

I disagree. It was not used for an example of the cost of someone being out. I was referring ONLY to the statement he made that a boss is required to replace a worker who is out.

No shareholders - private company.

thatcloudthere

Canon EOS-1D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

12/20/2005 04:06:36 PM · #56

Originally posted by Alienyst:

I don't think he meant it was required by law...I think he meant it was required in order for the company to avoid loss, no matter who the owner is.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

12/20/2005 04:06:54 PM · #57

Originally posted by Alienyst:

Originally posted by Flash:
is required to have someone else do the work that is not being done.

Nice lists...but doesn't address your original statement. An employer IS NOT required, as you stated, to replace an employee when they are not there. Yes, as I stated, I do have other people perform tasks if needed, but I am not required to do so. There is no law or rule or generally accepted practice that says this. Your statement just doesn't make any sense.

For example, in the plant I am in now I have two metallizers out this week. That means their machines are down - no production. I do not have anyone running their machines. Sure, I would like to have the production level higher, but I am not required to get someone to run their machines just because they are out.

You either have too many employees or not enough customer schedule. Either your other machines are making additional production to compensate for the machines that are down, or you are over capacitated. Regardless, the law or rule that says you must compensate for absent employees is your customer's needs and basic business models. You are correct that you do not have to physically place another employee at the station of an absent employee, but even in the janatorial example, when the cleaning does take place, it will require more water/soap/vacumn electricity/etc. But to claim that you have zero business costs associated with the absence of 2 employees, except for their wages, is not accurate. At the very least is the reduced profits from not having the product to sell. This "loss" must be included into the "cost" of the absences. If you are making up their lost production by working other machines overtime, then that cost is in addition to the wages paid the absent employees. Even if you are not paying overtime, but increasing the workload on the remaining machines, then the additional wear and subsequent maintenance upcoming, will ultimately increase the price of the cost of the absent employees to more than their time off wages.

thatcloudthere

Canon EOS-1D

12/20/2005 04:08:46 PM · #58

Flash, on that I agree with you...as I stated below.

I still feel that there is a difference when an employee is used as a machine (to use Vonnegut's terminology) or as a 'Manager'.

Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

12/20/2005 04:37:53 PM · #59

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

Flash, on that I agree with you...as I stated below.

I still feel that there is a difference when an employee is used as a machine (to use Vonnegut's terminology) or as a 'Manager'.

I understand that you feel there is a difference. I manage the quality systems of a small factory of a large international corporation. I have salary engineers that report to me and hourly personel that report to them. I report to at least 3 managers (clasified and unclassified) and must provide updates at daily and weekly meetings. When I am absent (long seniority = 5 weeks/year plus I purchase another week = 6 weeks vacation), someone must present the information that I normally present. Someone must respond to customer complaints in my absence. Some one must make decisions on systems problems while I'm absent. Yes I prepare ahead of time and get as much done as possible. Yes I put in long hours before and after vacation to get caught up. Yes I delegate decision making and signature authority to those that are key in my orrganization. But the cost to the company, for my absence, is more than the wage they are paying me while I'm on vacation. Either we pay because of an audit finding that got overlooked and a subsequent quality problem wasn't caught as soon as it might have been. Or we pay, because an oversight occurred because the person covering had their own responsibilities to attend to. Or we pay because another person reporting out at a meeting mis-understood a portion of the presentation. Or we pay because part of the presentation wasn't shown thus a notification to other decision makers was postponed which ultimately cost us money due to the "wait" factor.

Is my (or any managers) pressence required for a company to stay in business - of course not. Can the company and my group manage without me. They better be able to, if I've done my job. Do they accomplish what is needed in my absence. Absolutely. However, the companies cost of my vacation is more than just my wages. Which is why when I purchase a extra weeks vacation, it costs me more than the wages that I would have earned for that week. Which is directly to your original post.

Message edited by author 2005-12-20 16:39:00.

CEJ

Canon EOS-40D

12/20/2005 04:51:33 PM · #60

Originally posted by Flash:

Well...all of those conclusions are wrong.