Is it “anti-union” to suggest that union employees who excel at their work should be paid more than their colleagues who are poorer performers? Or, must a person advocate that all union employees working at the same job should be paid the same, regardless of the quality of their work, in order to avoid the label of being anti-union?

Who decides merit? If it is 'measurable', then sure. If it is a subjective determination by a supervisor, then it is not merit but favouritism.

When does a worker lose merit pay? When they are less productive due to a work related injury? When poor management contributes to decreased productivity? When the boss says so? How do you ensure that it is fair, or do you just take the bosses word for it?

'Team' based merit pay is the worst. I have seen programs like that result in some workers pushing others into repetitive strain injuries to hit a target, and it is even worse when it is also tied to attendance and safety. Workers freaking on co-workers who take a day off to take care of a sick kid 'costing' the others merit incentives, workers who report work related injuries 'costing' the others a safety bonus, and things like that are disgusting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by slimpikins:
Who decides merit? If it is 'measurable', then sure. If it is a subjective determination by a supervisor, then it is not merit but favouritism.

---

When I was in high school, we could pretty much tell who were the shitty teachers and who were the stars. We had a civics teacher who played “film strips” for us nearly every day. It was a joke among the students. At the same school, we had a science teacher that was the Minnesota teacher of the year when I was in school…an obvious star.

Is the assessment of those two teachers measured by objective criteria? No. Yet, we are still able to differentiate between them subjectively.

The quality of my work is almost exclusively subjective. Yet, my boss sits down with me every year and she goes through a thorough performance review and measures my compensation accordingly. How good am I at problem solving and coming up with creative solutions? What have I done to help prevent problems from occurring in the first place? How well have I managed those who report to me? None of the assessment is objectively determined.

We have about ten administrative assistants in our department. It’s pretty well known among the other attorneys that mine is clearly one of the best. And, her pay reflects that, relative to the other admins. She is proactive (and doesn’t need literal instructions). Her work is nearly error free (I can be confident that written matters that go out under my name are without typos because she diligently proof reads everything she does). Everything is extremely well organized (she can find contracts, documents, correspondence that I need that may go back years very quickly). When others are have too many things to do at a given time, she freely offers to help them. She’s simply amazing. And, again, her pay reflects that. Is her performance objectively measurable? No. But, she is clearly head and shoulders above X’s performance who does the bare minimum to get by. And my secretary would be pissed if she got paid the same thing as X. It wouldn’t be fair.

quote:

---

Originally posted by slimpikins:
The other problem, and this is a whole other can of worms, is that 90% of workers feel that they are in the top 10% of workers regarding productivity and skill, an obvious impossibility. Good luck administering that one.

---

As slimpickens has pointed out, the logistics of determining merit pay might be insurmountable. Maybe the reverse would be easier. Those of us who work in the public sector are often frustrated by the numerous people who never seem to suffer any repercussions for not doing their jobs or for bad behaviour.

Edited to add: just saw your post, Sven. And you're right; we all know who the good people are. But imagine trying to negotiate merit into a union contract. And imagine if people are able to grieve not getting merit pay. I can imagine a scenario where management might give merit pay to undeserving people just to keep them off management's backs.

[ 13 July 2006: Message edited by: Sineed ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sineed:
And how would you determine merit pay for jobs that are not easily quantifiable; ie, service providers?

As slimpickens has pointed out, the logistics of determining merit pay might be insurmountable. Maybe the reverse would be easier. Those of us who work in the public sector are often frustrated by the numerous people who never seem to suffer any repercussions for not doing their jobs or for bad behaviour.

---

You were posting the same time I was...

You touched on something that I didn’t mention. It’s the flip side of rewarding excellent performance: Adverse consequences for very poor work.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sineed:
Edited to add: just saw your post, Sven. And you're right; we all know who the good people are. But imagine trying to negotiate merit into a union contract. And imagine if people are able to grieve not getting merit pay. I can imagine a scenario where management might give merit pay to undeserving people just to keep them off management's backs.

---

You’re right. It isn’t something that would be easy. Yet, it’s far from impossible. People are successfully evaluated subjectively all the time.

The list is really endless of the types of jobs that would have to be largely evaluated subjectively:

School counselor
Engineer
Teacher
Lawyer
Technical or creative writer
Carpenter
Auto mechanic

All of these jobs can be assessed subjectively. If some aspects of a job can be measured objectively, that’s all the better.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pearson:
Yes, merit pay is anti-union. That is not to say that it is a bad idea, but it is anti-union.

If you have spent any time working for powerful unions you will realize that the only criteria used in preferring one employee over another is seniority.

---

I don't see how merit pay is anti-union; just difficult to implement in a union setting. I get frustrated sometimes with how the unions in my workplace protect the incompetent people, but surely that doesn't mean unions are actively pro-incompetence.

quote:

---

But, in terms of difficultly, I’m not sure that it is any easier to determine poor work than it is to determine good work, no?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

I guess the question is: Can a union not continue to function and serve its members within the context of a merit-based pay system? If it can, then merit pay is not "anti-union". If it can't, then presumably merit pay would be "anti-union" (but, if that's truly the case, then I'd love to understand why it's not possible for a union to continue to function in the context of a merit-based compensation system).

---

Their primary role is to present a united front against arbitrary, hostile or unfair management practices.

Merit pay works for some professions, but not others. I'm not sure how it would fit mine (researcher), as some projects are 5 years long, while others are 2 weeks, and we all have widely differing skill sets that we bring to a specific team. Most of us are on several teams at once as well.

In that context, pay by job title is really the only thing what would work. It doesn't help that our management is an appalling individual, who masks incompetence through bullying and harassment - something the union goes a long way to mitigate.

In any collective agreement I have ever heard of, two employees doing the same job generally earn the same salary. There may be exceptions where there are "step rates", "increments" etc. for the first few months/years of employment. But these also are equal for two employees at the same step.

Never -- except maybe in some sweatshop environment -- are employees doing the same work paid differently because of different "quality" or "performance" or "merit". That is strictly a pay method used with managers, or with groups of workers who have opted not to be unionized or are too weak yet to have organized themselves.

To allow an employer to pay differentially based on "quality" of work would be to eliminate much of workers' ability to bargain collectively. And it is a truism that an individual worker facing a large corporation alone has no power, hence the need for unions.

So it's not "anti-union" to have differential pay based on "merit". It's anti-worker.

Can you imagine a health care system where two different dermatologists, or surgeons, or general practitioners, are paid different fees for performing exactly the same services because one is "better" than the other?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
In any collective agreement I have ever heard of, two employees doing the same job generally earn the same salary. There may be exceptions where there are "step rates", "increments" etc. for the first few months/years of employment. But these also are equal for two employees at the same step.

---

So, the teacher in my high school that was named Minnesota Teacher of the Year should get the same pay as the civic teacher that barely did the absolute minimum amount of work (and we watch “film strips” three or four days each week)?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
Sven

There is nothing in it for you, you as an individual does not matter, the collective and the greater good of work force is all that matters.

---

So, in my teacher example, how do the students benefit if potential star performers are not given an incentive to excel?

Also, if you want to look at the "collective" good, why has China realized that putting "something in it" for the farmers (where part of their production could be sold in private transactions for the personal benefit of the farmers), rather than have all production to the government for distribution, was in the best interest of the people "collectively"? Because by giving the farmers an individual incentive, production soars. Thus, benefitting the "collective" you speak of. Or, am I missing something?

[ 13 July 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

I don’t get that. Why should the star performer get compensated the same amount of money as the guy who was, basically, just sitting on his fat arse??

---

Well, I don't know about the size of your teachers' derrières, but in the industrial establishments where I work, if a worker chronically fails to hold up her end of the work, she is subject to discipline, demotion, ultimately dismissal. Everyone is required to perform. And if an employer knows enough about an employee's performance to pay "merit" pay (in your preferred scenario), they can certainly use the same knowledge to coach, train, assist, warn, discipline, terminate those who need help or those who are beyond help.

But those who meet the job standards -- even if they're not Albert Einstein -- should all be paid what the market (assisted by union strength) will bear for that type of skillset.

Using pay as an incentive can't turn a donkey into a racehorse.

You never answered my question about doctors.

Here's another one. In the supermarket, if one bunch of bananas looks better than another in the same bin, do you pay a different price? No. You just select the better one more often.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
But those who meet the job standards -- even if they're not Albert Einstein -- should all be paid what the market (assisted by union strength) will bear for that type of skillset.

---

By “job standards” you, of course, mean “minimum job standards” (i.e., what is the minimum a person can get away with doing without getting disciplined).

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Using pay as an incentive can't turn a donkey into a racehorse.

---

A donkey shouldn’t be in the job of a racehorse.

You can’t turn the average Joe or Jane into a brain surgeon. But, you can reward them for working to their highest potential and not just maintaining the “minimum job standards”.

Speaking of brain surgeons and other physicians…

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
You never answered my question about doctors.

---

The same would apply to physicians. Not all physicians are equally competent (and many are simply incompetent). In the dental field, one of my nephews told me that there were many students that he would never go see personally (or recommend others to see) because their work was so crappy (it may have met the “minimum job standards”, as it were, but he wouldn’t use them).

In my own profession (law), there are plenty of incompetent lawyers out there (it’s scary actually).

So, even professional should be held to a merit-based compensation (and most are).

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Here's another one. In the supermarket, if one bunch of bananas looks better than another in the same bin, do you pay a different price? No. You just select the better one more often.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
Sven

I was trying to be sarcastic. I agree with you statements.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
I don’t get that. Why should the star performer get compensated the same amount of money as the guy who was, basically, just sitting on his fat arse??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:

There are many situations in non-unionised environments where that sort of thing does happen, and bosses arbitrarily play favourites. And yet, these organisations continue to survive.

---

quote:

---

if a worker chronically fails to hold up her end of the work, she is subject to discipline, demotion, ultimately dismissal. Everyone is required to perform. And if an employer knows enough about an employee's performance to pay "merit" pay (in your preferred scenario), they can certainly use the same knowledge to coach, train, assist, warn, discipline, terminate those who need help or those who are beyond help.

---

quote:

---

sven wrote:Her work is nearly error free (I can be confident that written matters that go out under my name are without typos because she diligently proof reads everything she does). Everything is extremely well organized (she can find contracts, documents, correspondence that I need that may go back years very quickly). When others are have too many things to do at a given time, she freely offers to help them. She’s simply amazing. And, again, her pay reflects that. Is her performance objectively measurable? No.

---

If worker A's typing is 'nearly error free' and worker B's typing isn't, then I don't see how we're talking about something that isn't 'objectively measurable': error rates, like typing speeds (in this example) would be matters of objective fact.

Similarly, if worker A is organized enough to find files quickly and efficiently, while B struggles to locate files, this would also seem to be an objective difference, not a 'subjective' matter like reactions to A's sense of humour or to B's fashion sense.

And furthermore, as unionist suggests, it would certainly be possible to, say, help worker B improve his/her typing or filing skills if these were found to be sub-par for some reason.

The confusing use of 'subjective' and 'objective' here also leads me to wonder why Sven is claiming that this list of people would have to be evaluated on a largely 'subjective' basis:

quote:

---

School counselor
Engineer
Teacher
Lawyer
Technical or creative writer
Carpenter
Auto mechanic

---

Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm out of this "debate". Visit a place where humble working folk make their living sometime and ask if they would like to compete with each other to see who makes the most money by pleasing the boss's whims the best. Make sure to bring body armour.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
There's a big difference between merely "surviving" and "thriving"...

---

I used to work for one of those organisations, and it's thriving quite well.

I'll also reference your teacher example. What would happen if, say most of the students liked the civics class because of all the cool films and it was easy, and they disliked your business class because they had to work? In that scenario, it would sound like the lazier teacher had more "merit." The problem is that kind of thing is difficult to quantify or define objectively. I certainly remember being in school when my classmates loved certain classes and teachers because they were easy, and they disliked others because the teachers were more demanding.

[ 13 July 2006: Message edited by: Aristotleded24 ]

I've been thinking about this further and there already is recognition of merit in a couple of ways. Like unionist and I previously said, the poor workers get disciplined (though not enough in my workplace, but that's management's fault). Also, people who do a good job get promoted, so there's your merit pay. Bad employees in my workplace don't get fired, but they don't get promoted, either.

Union Alert: Texas Federation of Teachers.

It's pretty typical that the introduction of such subjects here on babble is preceded by real efforts to attack working people with schemes like this elsewhere. Here's some of the info from the Texas teachers fed.

quote:

---

Here are key points made in our letter against HB 2 on the Web site:

--Woefully inadequate funding. HB 2 would not even provide enough money to undo the more than $3 billion in education cuts last session, let alone the added $5 billion a year our schools need to comply with all the requirements and achievement goals in state law.

-- "Merit pay" instead of a teacher pay raise. HB 2 would not provide an across-the-board pay raise for teachers, which would help recruit and keep the highly qualified teachers our students require. Instead, HB 2 offers arbitrary "merit pay" schemes that would leave the vast majority of educators empty-handed despite their effective contributions to student achievement.

--Less money for students with high needs. HB 2 would shortchange funding for students with the greatest challenges to overcome, such as those with limited English proficiency and those from low-income households.

--Pay cut for support personnel. HB 2 would break the legislature's promise to restore the full $1,000 health-care supplement for all school employees that was cut last session. HB 2 actually would repeal that commitment! Instead of getting the $1,000 back, some 300,000 dedicated school employees would see another $500 chopped from the paychecks.

--Punishing success. HB 2 is filled with talk of performance incentives, but it would create a strong performance disincentive, by exempting from state quality safeguards any school or district rated "exemplary." In other words, as a "reward" for excellent achievement, teachers and their students would lose safeguards like class-size caps and planning and preparation periods that make such high achievement possible in the first place.

---

quote:

---

More than 2,000 reporters, mailers, printers and circulation workers,represented by six unions, walked out in July 1995, citing managementdemands for givebacks on healthcare and the attempt to impose a "merit pay" system after a six-year wage freeze....

"merit pay" [is a] system in which bosses would determine who deserved a raise and avoid bargaining with the union. Employees had been asked to help the company "get back on its feet" after the protracted battle to win a Joint Operating Agreement, explained striking News reporter Kate DeSmet(Extra!, 7-8/96). But when the companies continued to demand sacrifices after recording profits of $56 million for 1994, workers had had enough.

---

This crap doesn't belong in a section of babble that is set up to "discuss work and economic issues from a pro-worker point of view."

You don't address, for example, why the Minnesota Teacher of the Year should be paid the same as a teacher who did the absolute bare minimum to keep his job.

You don't address the issue of incentive. Sineed made an good comment about incentive (hard work can lead to promotions). I think that's true. It also is an argument in favor of merit pay (which I'll explore in my response to her).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sineed:
I've been thinking about this further and there already is recognition of merit in a couple of ways. Like unionist and I previously said, the poor workers get disciplined (though not enough in my workplace, but that's management's fault). Also, people who do a good job get promoted, so there's your merit pay. Bad employees in my workplace don't get fired, but they don't get promoted, either.

---

As I noted above, I think this is an excellent point, Sineed. I also think it is an argument in favor of merit pay.

Why?

The crux of the argument against merit pay is that it is either arbitrary or too subjective to measure fairly. In other words, one cannot fairly determine who should receive merit pay.

But, if you award promotions, you are making the identical decision (i.e., making a decision, albeit subjective, as to who is rewarded with a promotion).

If the employer gets to determine who is worthy of raises and more pay he/she gains power over the employees and weakens collective bargaining. This is especially true for more subjective performances. It is very easy to back up an employer's union busting/attack on labour when they can argue on subjective grounds.

As well it can turn workers in on each other rather than having them fight for control of their workplaces. As someone who's had about 25 jobs in my reasonably short existence (mostly nonunion gigs) I've got a pretty good idea about how successful employers can manipulate workers to sure up their power over them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
But, if you award promotions, you are making the identical decision (i.e., making a decision, albeit subjective, as to who is rewarded with a promotion).

Why can't the same method be used to identify those entitled to merit pay for their extra efforts? Let's say you've got someone who is worthy of promotion but there's no opening to promote that person (and not expected for a long, long time). Why not, in the mean time, pay that person something more?

---

Firstly, employers don't pay more just as a reward, but to keep an employee who may leave (market) or as a tool to increase productivity, undermine other workers, etc.

Secondly a difference between promotion and merit pay is that one is permanent, the other is not. Merit pay is a tool to undermine solidarity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by deadduck:
...a tool to increase productivity...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Well, of course it's a tool to increase productivity and performance!! And, I think that increased performance benefits, in the example teachers, students.

---

Cool. I was more or less replying to the tone you expressed. I wasn't sure if you were implying that employers might reward employees in the employees interest rather than their own. Perhaps I should be more charitable in interpreting message boards....

Cheers,

2. Why don't you give an example where "merit pay" has been introduced in situations other than acrimonious management/labour disputes, union busting situations, etc.? Your answer should be good for a laugh. What you'll find is that, unlike the coverage of a collective agreement, nothing is written down! What kind of person, knowledgeable in the law, would advise their client to stick their head in such a noose?

3. Why import management/labour relations from the U.S. anyway? They have a much lower unionization rate, density, etc. Of course, if you START from the position of hostility and antagonism to unions in general, then it makes perfect sense. But, as I noted already,

This crap doesn't belong in a section of babble that is set up to "discuss work and economic issues from a pro-worker point of view."

quote:

---

2. Why don't you give an example where "merit pay" has been introduced in situations other than acrimonious management/labour disputes, union busting situations, etc.? Your answer should be good for a laugh. What you'll find is that, unlike the coverage of a collective agreement, nothing is written down! What kind of person, knowledgeable in the law, would advise their client to stick their head in such a noose?

---

My partner's newspaper introduced merit pay for its reporters, although in a very limited way. It was done in part because not being able to reward good reporters meant that the best ones were constantly leaving. Constant turnover in any organization isn't good, either for employees or the organization. Merit pay is given without any grand announcements, so no one knows who gets it and who doesn't.

Some of my fellow teachers would coach three teams per year in addition to a full teaching load. That meant additional work for them. Other teachers left the building promptly 20 min after the last bell. Some teachers initiated school programs which augmented their class... all done in an effort to better the students' experience at school. The teachers that were innovative and dedicated received the same pay as those who counted the days to retirement. I don't see it as union busting to award some teachers for their extra hard work and dedication. It just may motivate some other teachers to take a more active role in their job. It is incentive based pay. If you only want to do the bare minimum, you get paid the minimum. Want more? Work harder and do more.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olly:

My partner's newspaper introduced merit pay for its reporters, although in a very limited way. It was done in part because not being able to reward good reporters meant that the best ones were constantly leaving. Constant turnover in any organization isn't good, either for employees or the organization. Merit pay is given without any grand announcements, so no one knows who gets it and who doesn't.

That said, the favouritism issue did arise for sure, as did the question of evaluation. Not insurmountable issues though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lucas:

I now work in an environment whereby I am rewarded for my extra efforts. As such, I will stay later some evenings when my work requires it, and come in on a Saturday or Sunday when necessary. At year end, I can receive and extra 30% of my base salary.

---

It's nice to hear that you don't have to work extra time for free.

The Canada Labour Code (similar provisions in each province) doesn't leave any choice in the matter:

quote:

---

174. When an employee is required or permitted to work in excess of the standard hours of work, the employee shall, subject to any regulations made pursuant to section 175, be paid for the overtime at a rate of wages not less than one and one-half times his regular rate of wages.

---

The "standard hours of work" are 40 hours per week and eight (8) hours in any 24-hour period. Only managers are excluded from this law. And you don't have to be unionized, either.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lucas:
Some of my fellow teachers would coach three teams per year in addition to a full teaching load. That meant additional work for them. Other teachers left the building promptly 20 min after the last bell. Some teachers initiated school programs which augmented their class... all done in an effort to better the students' experience at school. The teachers that were innovative and dedicated received the same pay as those who counted the days to retirement. I don't see it as union busting to award some teachers for their extra hard work and dedication. It just may motivate some other teachers to take a more active role in their job. It is incentive based pay. If you only want to do the bare minimum, you get paid the minimum. Want more? Work harder and do more.

---

My disillusionment of unions was sealed when I was 'asked', as a 4th year teacher, to relinquish a jr. administrative position I had earned, to a more sr. colleague. This person, who was in his last year before retirement, wanted to stay at our school. Unfortunately, the program he ran had such low enrollment by students (it was an options class) that the principal could no longer keep him in that position. Taking my jr. admin job meant he could stay there at the school. When I initially resisted, I was told that due to his senior position, he could effectively take the position from me. The principal ended up reclassifying the position, I applied as did my colleague. Merit and experience has nothing to do with it, b/c he had more years than me, the collective agreement in place meant that he got the job, despite a more qualified candidate. The position was chairing the budget committee and analyzing achievement exam results in addition to writing the school's annual report. He taught pottery and ceramics. I had a degree in business in addition to my education degree. I called the union, they spoke of the greater good and the 'big picture'... I hung up on my rep.

I quit the next year.

quote:

---

Of course, constant turnover can be eliminated by paying people fairly and treating them well, an alternative that seems to escape many of the employers I've had.

---

When you are a small paper in southern Ontario and you have to compete for employees with the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail, your capacity to do that is pretty limited.

[ 14 July 2006: Message edited by: Olly ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lucas:
Contrast that with another person in my department who makes it very clear that she dislikes staying past 5pm and how her weekends are her own and there is little chance she will come in without a direct request from our manager.

---

As for the bonuses you get for all the extra hours you work, you might want to calculate whether you'd be making more or less money if you were paid an hourly wage for that overtime instead of getting a bonus. Either you, or the company may be getting the short end of the stick. If it works out the same, then why don't they just pay an hourly wage instead of calling it a merit bonus?

RE: your story about quitting the teaching profession, let me get this straight: you were working as a teacher, and a different, better position came up. Another teacher had one year before retiring and got that position instead of you. So instead of continuing to teach for one year and then taking that new position, you decided to quit.

Either you're very impatient, or your heart wasn't in the teaching profession to begin with. Either way, you seem happy in your new postion. Plus you opened up a job for one of the many teachers college graduates scrambling to find work. So I guess it worked out well for everyone.

[ 14 July 2006: Message edited by: Secret Agent Style ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olly:

When you are a small paper in southern Ontario and you have to compete for employees with the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail, your capacity to do that is pretty limited.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Secret Agent Style:
Imagine that, someone who works to live instead of living to work! Good for her.

---

I agree. It’s good that she has a choice, and she gets compensated accordingly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Secret Agent Style:
As for the bonuses you get for all the extra hours you work, you might want to calculate whether you'd be making more or less money if you were paid an hourly wage for that overtime instead of getting a bonus. Either you, or the company may be getting the short end of the stick. If it works out the same, then why don't they just pay an hourly wage instead of calling it a merit bonus?

---

It may not be that easy to make a comparison with overtime. Often, the size of a bonus will depend on a combination of personal performance as well as company performance. The component that is tied to company performance is a calculated risk. For me, I have great confidence in my company and I’m betting that the bonuses that I earn will be significant. I wouldn’t trade getting a guaranteed overtime payment in exchange for that I believe will be a much larger financial benefit to me if the company performs as I expect it to. It’s a risk. But, it’s a rational risk. Also, I never plan on getting a bonus (I live within my base compensation and use the bonus for purely discretionary spending).

quote:

---

Originally posted by lucas:
Unionist, I am not paid for my 'overtime' outright.

---

Unless you're a manager, or unless you are subject to an "averaging agreement" which permits working excess hours in some weeks (but then you'd have to work less than 40 in others to compensate) - it sounds to me as if you are in violation of the law. As both you and your employer could be subject to prosecution if caught, I would say that caution is in order.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Secret Agent Style:

As for the bonuses you get for all the extra hours you work, you might want to calculate whether you'd be making more or less money if you were paid an hourly wage for that overtime instead of getting a bonus. Either you, or the company may be getting the short end of the stick. If it works out the same, then why don't they just pay an hourly wage instead of calling it a merit bonus?

---

The law is the law, whether you're paid an hourly or monthly or annual rate, the employer must pay at least time-and-a-half for overtime, and you can't legally contract out of it.

If lucas puts in on average an extra 8 hours per week (combination of staying late, coming in occasionally on weekends, etc.), then the legal minimum the employer must pay for that works out (what a coincidence!!) to... 30% extra.

Secret Agent, I think you read my post wrong. The sr. teacher was given my position on the leadership team as a means of allowing him to stay at the school rather than having to transfer to another school across town. He was far LESS qualified than I was, but was given the job due only to his seniority over me. He knew nothing of the position, nor how to function in the role. He had the nerve to ask me during final exam marking at the end of the year to show him how to use the spreadhseets necessary for the role. I told him to call me during the summer. I visited my parents in La Ronge for the summer and never returned his phone calls.

Secret Agent, I don't begrudge her that time at all. I do, however, feel the need to walk away when she begins griping about her bonus at year-end. She feels as though she has been short-changed because she is SURE others are getting higher bonuses than her. She is right. Unfortunately, there is a disconnect for her between those weekends she enjoys and that extra $25k at the end of the year. She will go nowhere in this compnay, and likely spend the next 10 years in the same position she is in because she lacks motivation to do anything more than just that which is asked of her. She never asks questions or seeks to expand her knowledge of our industry... just maintains the status quo. I hated the summers off when I was a teacher because I became bored easily. I am just one of those weird people who genuinely likes to work. At my company we get one flex-day per month. I have yet to take one because I like getting up and coming to work. I really enjoy my job. As well, with a family at home, I know that if I work hard and produce quality product I am better able to provide for my family. A stronger motivation is not required. I loved teaching as well, but not all the other garbage.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lucas:
The sr. teacher was given my position on the leadership team as a means of allowing him to stay at the school rather than having to transfer to another school across town. He was far LESS qualified than I was, but was given the job due only to his seniority over me.

---

The way you've told the story, it sounds like if it was a non-unionized work environment, the senior teacher would have still gotten the job, because the person doing the hiring wanted to do a favour for the teacher. People who've been at a workplace longer tend to be treated better whether there are strict seniority rules in place or not, especially if the person is one year away from retiring.

And again, there must have been other reasons for you to quit teaching altogether if you couldn't wait a measly 12 months to get the position when the older teacher would be retired. A year would have gone by quickly if you truly loved teaching.

And now that I think about it, this story has nothing to do with the topic of merit pay.

[ 14 July 2006: Message edited by: Secret Agent Style ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lucas:
I don't begrudge her that time at all. I do, however, feel the need to walk away when she begins griping about her bonus at year-end.

---

In every workplace, unionized or not, there will be slackers and keeners; people who get promotions and raises who don't deserve them, and people who get overlooked because they don't raise a fuss. It could be based on merit, favouritism, prejudice, nepotism, ignorance, indifference, or a combination of those factors. At least with union contracts and seniority there's some method to the madness. In a non-unionized workplace, everything's at the whim of the managers, who could be excellent or totally incompetant or biased.

So you can go through life with a chip on your shoulder and compare yourself to your fellow workmates (which plays right into management's hands), or you can do your job to the best of your ability and try to make the workplace operate better.

As for all the hard work and overtime you put in (possibly not being compensated properly), sure you don't mind because you love your job, but not everyone is so fortunate. They work at their job because they have to, and in a lot of cases they're unjustly overworked and underpaid. More widespread unionization would help alleviate that situation.

In Canada and the USA in general, workers should be getting more pay, longer paid vacations, more days off, better health benefits and more job stability like in many European countries and elsewhere. Instead we're turning back the clock and losing many of the gains our predecessors fought for, and in several cases literally bled and died for. Instead of standing up to the bosses and politicians, we're turning on each other and squabbling over the scraps they throw at us. Shameful.

[ 14 July 2006: Message edited by: Secret Agent Style ]

By that i mean, there seems to be an assumption that those who 'excel' or 'work harder' some how are deserving of some compensation for doing so. Particularily in this instance, within a union environment. But is that legitimate?

There are always going to be individuals that excel. So what? They are already compensated by the acknowledgement that, yes indeedy your a great little worker. But that is their choice to make. They are just as free to perform at the same level as the rest of the workforce with no penalties incurred.

But if their egos require that they receive greater compensation for what they perceive as a 'greater effort' then, by all means, go find it elsewhere.

However, to enter a union shop where equality of the worker is far more important than individual egos and 'merit' and 'incentives', and then expect to be treated as 'better' or 'superiour' goes against all that solidarity stands for.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
You don't address, for example, why the Minnesota Teacher of the Year should be paid the same as a teacher who did the absolute bare minimum to keep his job.

---

I've seen a lot of different union arrangments in a lot of different school districts, and I'd like to speak to this.

The minimum acceptable level of performance should still be acceptable. So a teacher is doing the bare minimum necessary to keep his job -- that standard ought to be high enough that his students are still making adequate progress.

It sounds like your teacher sucked and should have been fired. Merit pay wouldn't have helped that situation.

Merit pay is not incompatable with collective bargaining. When the union and the employer can agree on objective measures of excellence, then merit pay works well.

There's a philosophical question here as to whether merit pay should reflect achievement (results) or effort (time put in). Unfortunately there are some ethical problems with measuring results in teaching. The desired result is student learning. Rewarding teachers for student learning sometimes puts pressures on teachers to inflate their students' achievements, and to neglect those students that they think won't achieve. That's bad for the students. Principals are understandably wary of such schemes.

(a reply to otter's post, not vm's)

[ 14 July 2006: Message edited by: Sineed ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

1. Who decides so-called "merit"? This question was raised by slimpikins at the very beginning of this thread and Sven still hasn't properly addressed it. And no, "we could pretty much tell," is not a satisfactory answer. Nor is using an example of unrestricted authoritarian employer power (promotions, e.g.) good reason to ADD ANOTHER unrestricted power. If you can't [or won't] address this issue, dealing with the question of the establishment of objective standards, then it's pretty clear that you're indifferent to the consequences of the lack of such standards. "Merit" pay in such circumstances is simply another weapon in the employer's arsenal to destroy and annihilate solidarity among the workforce. But I'm sure you knew that.

---

I think that the essential thing to address here is the myth that merit must be objectively determined. Work can be assessed subjectively and it can be fair as long as it’s not arbitrary.

When you tip a server at a restaurant, do you tip for bad service at the same rate that you tip for superior service? If I get outstanding service at a restaurant, I will typically leave a 20% or 25% tip. Do I measure the service “objectively”? No. Does the server make sure my water glass isn’t empty or does my server not attend to my table for 15 or 20 minutes, even though the restaurant isn’t that busy? Does the server make sure my order is correct or does she forget to do several things? Is my server pleasant to interact with or is my server acting like he’s “put out” having to do his job?

If a painter paints your house, are you able to “objectively” measure the painter’s performance or do you look at the quality of their work? Was the scrapping that was done before the painting started done well so that the paint will best adhere to the surface or was the minimum amount of scrapping done so that it was merely “good enough”? Does the paint intended for the main portion of the house get on the trim or is there a nice clean line between the paint on the main siding and the paint for the trim? Is the coat of paint evenly applied or spotty? Did the work take a week to do when more skilled painters could do it in two days and maintain the same quality (i.e., was the work done efficiently)?

Let’s say that an employer has two furniture makers with the same number of years of job experience. The “fit and finish” of the work done by one of the furniture makers is clean and tight while the other furniture maker doesn’t quite get the joining parts flush, his chairs often “wobble” a little bit because the legs aren’t always consistently the same length and the finishing work is uneven. Those factors, although not “objectively” measurable, are certainly assessable subjectively, no?

The key to making a subjective assessment is to identify the critical aspects of a person’s job (a painter’s scrapping job, whether the lines are clean between different colors, the evenness of the coats of paint, the ability to do the work efficiently, etc., etc.). That is the method used by my boss when she examines and reviews my work as a lawyer. It’s completely subjective but not arbitrary. Therefore, it’s fair.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

2. Why don't you give an example where "merit pay" has been introduced in situations other than acrimonious management/labour disputes, union busting situations, etc.? Your answer should be good for a laugh. What you'll find is that, unlike the coverage of a collective agreement, nothing is written down! What kind of person, knowledgeable in the law, would advise their client to stick their head in such a noose?

---

I work in a company with 22,000 employees. We have no union. All pay decisions are based on merit. Is it always administered perfectly? Are there employees who disagree with review assessments? Sure. But, it works well. And, one measure if that is the huge number of very long-term employees we have (25, 30, 35 years of work). If people were being mistreated or treated in an arbitrary and unfair manner, we’d be constantly losing employees. Instead, the atmosphere is one where employees are respectful of each other (and by “employees” I mean from the CEO on down). Our company has an 80-year history of growth and is a wonderful place to work.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

3. Why import management/labour relations from the U.S. anyway? They have a much lower unionization rate, density, etc. Of course, if you START from the position of hostility and antagonism to unions in general, then it makes perfect sense. But, as I noted already,

This crap doesn't belong in a section of babble that is set up to "discuss work and economic issues from a pro-worker point of view."

---

You still haven’t demonstrated why merit pay equates to “hostility and antagonism to unions in general”.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

4. Sven's postings in this thread are useful in one important sense: they provide a fine example of anti-union propaganda; and eviscerating the propaganda of the boss is useful for people active in and organizing their workplace union. In fact it's useful for any worker, unionized or not. Notice how he doesn't provide a single real life example other than his own subjective workplace experience that cannot be confirmed by anyone else on this thread.

---

I’ve given you some very practical examples (and not all from my company).

[ 14 July 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by otter:
I wonder if an aspect of this debate has been over lookied?

By that i mean, there seems to be an assumption that those who 'excel' or 'work harder' some how are deserving of some compensation for doing so. Particularily in this instance, within a union environment. But is that legitimate?

There are always going to be individuals that excel. So what? They are already compensated by the acknowledgement that, yes indeedy your a great little worker. But that is their choice to make. They are just as free to perform at the same level as the rest of the workforce with no penalties incurred.

But if their egos require that they receive greater compensation for what they perceive as a 'greater effort' then, by all means, go find it elsewhere.

---

So, it’s all about “ego” and a desire to be treated “superior” to others, eh?

Let’s say two house painters work for you. One does outstanding work and your customers absolutely love the work she does. They rave about the quality of her work and they refer their friends and acquaintances to your business. In other words, she’s a very valuable employee and she contributes very directly to the success of your business.

The other painter does minimally acceptable work. His work quality, although not horrible, could greatly improve. It also takes him a lot longer to finish a job than the other painter finishes a similar job. You really don’t get much client feedback about his work, other than complaints. You also notice that you tend not to get referral business from those customers.

Now, as a matter of fairness to the first painter, shouldn’t she be paid more? Her efforts contribute to the value of the company (her efforts result in satisfied customers and those satisfied customers refer a steady flow of business to you). Shouldn’t she share is some of that benefit that you, as the employer, are reaping? Or, should she be satisfied with a simple “attagirl”? From your perspective as an employer, you want to keep the first painter happy because you don’t want to lose her and because the quality of her work is uncommon, she would be extremely difficult to replace. You’re not similarly concerned about the second painter. If he quit, you could easily find another painter to do the same level of work (or, more likely, even better work).

So, by paying merit pay, the outstanding performers personally benefit from their extra efforts (the benefits from those efforts don’t all simply accrue to the employer) and outstanding performers personally benefits the employer (they contribute to the growth and profitability of the business and you want to do something extra to make sure you keep that person).

So, merit pay has little or nothing to do with “ego” or wanting to “feel superior” to others. It just makes common sense to reward outstanding performers (in fairness to those employees because of the extra benefits the employer gets from their efforts and from a common sense perspective of the employer because you want to keep the star workers happy and in your employ).

quote:

---

Originally posted by otter:
However, to enter a union shop where equality of the worker is far more important than individual egos and 'merit' and 'incentives', and then expect to be treated as 'better' or 'superiour' goes against all that solidarity stands for.

In other words, its the wrong house to address this concept because the situation has already been addressed. Its a union shop and solidarity and common interest always trumps individual interests.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by v michel:
The minimum acceptable level of performance should still be acceptable. So a teacher is doing the bare minimum necessary to keep his job -- that standard ought to be high enough that his students are still making adequate progress.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Secret Agent Style:
In every workplace, unionized or not, there will be slackers and keeners; people who get promotions and raises who don't deserve them, and people who get overlooked because they don't raise a fuss. It could be based on merit, favouritism, prejudice, nepotism, ignorance, indifference, or a combination of those factors. At least with union contracts and seniority there's some method to the madness. In a non-unionized workplace, everything's at the whim of the managers, who could be excellent or totally incompetant or biased.

---

Well said. Worth repeating.

[ 15 July 2006: Message edited by: Aristotleded24 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by otter:

There are always going to be individuals that excel. So what? They are already compensated by the acknowledgement that, yes indeedy your a great little worker. But that is their choice to make. They are just as free to perform at the same level as the rest of the workforce with no penalties incurred.

But if their egos require that they receive greater compensation for what they perceive as a 'greater effort' then, by all means, go find it elsewhere.

---

Bravo, otter, well put. That's the point in a nutshell. When two workers do the same job for the same amount of time - to acceptable standards - they should get the same remuneration. Other rewards? "Employee of the Millennium?" "President's Award for Excellence?" Fill yer boots! By all means!

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
When two workers do the same job for the same amount of time - to acceptable standards - they should get the same remuneration. Other rewards? "Employee of the Millennium?" "President's Award for Excellence?" Fill yer boots! By all means!

---

Take a look at this example again, unionist. You are, effectively, saying that the outstanding painter should simply receive an “attagirl” for helping the company make more money. How is that “pro-employee”??? I think she should get more money in her pocket for her family. That is pro-employee.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Let’s say two house painters work for you. One does outstanding work and your customers absolutely love the work she does. They rave about the quality of her work and they refer their friends and acquaintances to your business. In other words, she’s a very valuable employee and she contributes very directly to the success of your business.

The other painter does minimally acceptable work. His work quality, although not horrible, could greatly improve. It also takes him a lot longer to finish a job than the other painter finishes a similar job. You really don’t get much client feedback about his work, other than complaints. You also notice that you tend not to get referral business from those customers.

Now, as a matter of fairness to the first painter, shouldn’t she be paid more? Her efforts contribute to the value of the company (her efforts result in satisfied customers and those satisfied customers refer a steady flow of business to you). Shouldn’t she share is some of that benefit that you, as the employer, are reaping? Or, should she be satisfied with a simple “attagirl”?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
You are, effectively, saying that the outstanding painter should simply receive an “attagirl” for helping the company make more money. How is that “pro-employee”??? I think she should get more money in her pocket for her family. That is pro-employee.

---

The outstanding worker should get less than the adequate worker, because she obviously derives deep aesthetic satisfaction from her work. A job well done is its own reward.

On a more serious note, and even though I said I wouldn't debate with you, workers are not remunerated in a capitalist society in proportion to whether or not they "help the employer make more money". This is bad economics. If it were so, the rich and the poor would change place.

Unions deliberately eliminate "performance pay" or "merit pay" or "attagirl pay" wherever possible. They do so in order to avoid competition between workers to see who can please the boss the most. They do it to avoid the "race to the bottom", as it is sometimes called. They do it because notwithstanding the fairy tales told by some posters in this thread, some workers are able to work harder than others, some get sick or injured, some have cares and responsibilites outside the workplace that others don't -- and we in the working class have recognized the value of combining our forces to protect and support everyone.

Even if that means that the occasional genius high-flying ambitious don't-give-a-shit-about-anyone-except-myself keener has to content themselves with the same wage everyone else makes. It's a small price to pay for being able to face the wealthy and powerful with a united voice.

[ 15 July 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]

I remember the idea of merit pay coming up before the OPSEU strike of 2002, causing many lively debates in my workplace. Some of us were attracted to the idea (oblivious to the right-wing union-busting ideology behind it) because we were frustrated by what we saw as the protection of bad workers by the union.

And that's still a problem. I work in health care. By the way some of you are going on, if a union member makes a medication error, the victim of that error is a noble sacrifice in the name of the greater good. After all, those who do a superior job are doing nothing more than showing up their mediocre collegues.

I have seen the harrassment of hard-working people by their lazy collegues, telling them they are betraying their brothers and sisters by being "the weakest link."

Merit pay is an idea that can't fly, I think, for reasons laid out so clearly by unionist and N. Beltov. But I'm a loyal union member because I think the union stands for more power for the workers, not entrenched mediocrity.

Edited because I can't spell

[ 15 July 2006: Message edited by: Sineed ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Unions deliberately eliminate "performance pay" or "merit pay" or "attagirl pay" wherever possible. They do so in order to avoid competition between workers to see who can please the boss the most. They do it to avoid the "race to the bottom", as it is sometimes called.]

---

Two things:

(1) I think that description is a misnomer. It's a "race to the top". Those who perform under a merit-based compensation plan get the extra rewards.

Bush aims to expand system of Merit Pay

quote:

---

Under the proposed system, to be tailored to each agency, Congress would continue to authorize an average pay raise for all employees that varies slightly by the geographic area in which they work. But the raise also would vary by occupation, reflecting labor-market realities that workers in some jobs are harder to hire and retain than are others, Johnson said. The General Schedule, the decades-old 15-grade pay system, would be replaced by broad salary ranges known as pay bands, making it easier for federal managers to offer higher starting salaries to talented newcomers and to give employees pay raises without necessarily giving them a promotion.

Gone would be within-grade increases and step increases, elements of the current system that move employees up the salary scale the longer they remain in their jobs. That money would be redirected to raises based on annual performance evaluations, but it was unclear how much of an employee's overall pay raise it would account for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Now I don't want to dismiss out-of-hand the possibility that Bush is doing this out of pro-worker motives, but I'll leave that thought with the reader.

---

Okay, okay. I know. Anything that Bush advocates must, by definition, be anti-employee. Just like anything that may favor an employer necessarily means that it's anti-employee. Now that we have that generalization out of the way...

All that Bush is doing is trying to implement the success enjoyed by the private sector with merit-based compensation plans (the private sector commonly uses pay range "bands" for each position--our company successfully uses that very same method).

I'm not the first to say such things, but thank you for giving me the opportunity to get that off my chest.

Anyhow, Dubya's strategies have been directed towards concentrating wealth in the hands of a few while leaving the vast majority of USians twisting in the wind. I would be highly suspicious of any workplace reforms suggested by him or his administration. If he did anything pro-worker, I suspect it would be by accident.

Edited because I forgot about greed

[ 15 July 2006: Message edited by: Sineed ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sineed:

Anyhow, Dubya's strategies have been directed towards concentrating wealth in the hands of a few while leaving the vast majority of USians twisting in the wind. I would be highly suspicious of any workplace reforms suggested by him or his administration. If he did anything pro-worker, I suspect it would be by accident.

---

Thanks for that, Sineed. But don't worry, Bush won't have any such accidents!

quote:

---

We all want to be treated fairly in the workplace,

---

Ah ha, i knew it. This whole debate is being perpetuated by certain people who still cling to the concept of 'fair'. Well wake up people. Fair is a myth! A myth perpetrated by those who cannot cope with reality.

Fair means that the Israeli government would stop being such an asshole and acknowledge, promote and actively help to create a Palestinian state.
Fair means that there would never have been a u.s. invasion of Iraq. Fair means there would not be any homeless in Canada or children living in abject poverty.

Add your own 'fairness' ideas to the list.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mayakovsky:

Thats your best answer? How pathetic, Is this what the left has denigrated itself to? Being better than the least? It is also important to spell 'incompetent' correctly.

---

If you want to discuss utopia where humans are perfectly rational and workplaces are 100 percent efficient and fair, you should check the Day after the revolution thread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sineed:
Is it fair for one worker to be harrassed and bullied by others because they resent her because she works harder than they do?

---

My underlying point is that there are problems with how unions deal with disputes that bear discussing, and can be done in a way that doesn't constitute wholesale union-bashing. We can always improve how we do things, no?

Also, I have a problem with the idea that people who work harder than the average are somehow betraying the union. My little anecdote was to show how I have seen this idea in action. After all, the union derives its strength from numbers and these numbers include the excellent employees. If we start excluding the good people, telling them in essence, "Go and take your chances in the private sector, ya weak link," we are doing two things: first of all, it would become a race to the bottom, as the best employees leaving would leave the somewhat less than best, who would then become the best, and so on. As well, an argument against excellence is handing the right-wing weapons with which to divide and conquer. I was willing to keep an open mind on the idea of merit pay, despite some misgivings, because of the frustrations I have experienced.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Secret Agent Style:
Your spelling flame was pathetic, especially since I only made one error. I could understand pointing out spelling mistakes if I had posted a rant full of mistakes, and I was complaining about people not being able to speak English properly or something. Do you behave like this to people in real life, or do you save it for the Internet?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sineed:
It's all very well and good to espouse the idea of "the greater good," but I work in health care. Who would you rather have looking after you? A staunchly mediocre nurse who is beloved by the union for her contributions to "the greater good," or a rebel who promotes the best possible patient care, at times pissing off the union and management alike?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Why, for our children, should we be satisfied with merely “adequate” progress? Shouldn’t we be taking reasonable steps to help ensure outstanding progress? Doing nothing about teachers who do “the bare minimum necessary” to keep their jobs will help ensure we get the former and not the latter.

---

You missed my point completely. You want all children to make outstanding progress? Fine. Define "oustanding progress," figure out how to evaluate it, and make that the minimum acceptable level of performance for teachers. Anyone doing the bare minimum necessary to keep their job will be giving their students an outstanding education.

We can't all be doing better than average. We can't all be the best teacher in the building. We can all be meeting the same performance objectives, and those performance objectives can he sky high if that's what you want.

quote:

---

Originally posted by v michel:
We can't all be doing better than average.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
I get the sense that anything that "pleases the boss" is to be avoided at all cost. I prefer to look at how employers and the employees can construct a compensation system that benefits both. A merit-based system can help do that.

---

Sven, please read what follows very closely:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Secret Agent Style:
In every workplace, unionized or not, there will be slackers and keeners; people who get promotions and raises who don't deserve them, and people who get overlooked because they don't raise a fuss. It could be based on merit, favouritism, prejudice, nepotism, ignorance, indifference, or a combination of those factors. At least with union contracts and seniority there's some method to the madness. In a non-unionized workplace, everything's at the whim of the managers, who could be excellent or totally incompetant or biased.

---

quote:

---

Is it fair for one worker to be harrassed and bullied by others because they resent her because she works harder than they do? I supported a woman under these circumstances, acting as a witness and providing written statements to management and the union.

---

What your talking about has nothing to do with "fair". This is all about power which is why the power structures of the union and management are in play.

It is truly sad just how ignorant so many human beings are to the whole concept of common interest and how it requires they suppress a portion of their own interests to achieve the interests of the community itself.

However, i do find this whole issue to be the microcosm of the macro regarding why it is so hard to achieve a civilized existence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by v michel:
You missed my point completely.

(snip)

We can't all be doing better than average. We can't all be the best teacher in the building. We can all be meeting the same performance objectives, and those performance objectives can he sky high if that's what you want.

---

Fair enough. Perhaps, with regard to teachers, my point is better stated by saying that the basic standard is too low for what is acceptable.

That being said, if you have a standard of X and a teacher meets that minimum standard (perhaps a high standard), that person should keep her or his job. But, there are still going to be a few outstanding teachers that are much better than that teacher who meets the minimum (but high) standard in nearly every school (because they work harder, are smarter, or both). On whatever scale one may design, the top performers should be rewarded.

quote:

---

Originally posted by v michel:
Wouldn't it be great if every child received an outstanding education, rather than only the students lucky enough to get the merit-pay-worthy teachers? Wouldn't it be great if all the teachers cooperated with each other, knowing that there was room for everyone to suceed, rather than hindering communication by competing with each other for a limited amount of reward? That's what collective bargaining can offer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Two things:

(1) I think that description is a misnomer. It's a "race to the top". Those who perform under a merit-based compensation plan get the extra rewards.

(2) I get the sense that anything that "pleases the boss" is to be avoided at all cost. I prefer to look at how employers and the employees can construct a compensation system that benefits both. A merit-based system can help do that.

---

One of my co-workers on a union site was a fellow who had been a merit shop foreman for many years. Like you Sven he thought that merit pay was great. He worked his butt off and he was good at his job. The long term employer he worked for however was a little short of cash and promptly screwed him out of thousands of dollars. Like many true believers in the merit shop system he suddenly understood that unions are actually a necesary instituion because if he got screwed who is safe. It in many ways comes down to trusting your bosses to be fair and not motivated by their own self interests.

A little humour.

What is the difference between a brown noser and an ass kisser?

Depth perception

I imagine that if a manager is so unprofessional as to accept drinks at a bar in return for advantageous postings... well, that speaks to the calibre of the manager and particularly to the kind of company willing to put someone like that in charge.

So far, my time in a merit based pay environment has been positive. At year end, I receive a higher bonus than some of my less motivated colleagues, and there are some folks here that receive a larger bonus than I do because of the kind of work they do. I am fine with that since I know that I could work in that group, but it is something I choose not to do. In the end, the choice is mine. There is more money there... but am I willing to put in the work to get it? Right now, no.

Again, merit pay works in some industries well and others not very well. I work in equity research and it works well. I receive a base salary and a % bonus range. The amount I capture is dependent on me. Based on the above construction anecdote, this system might not work well in that industry.

quote:

---

Perhaps in some workplaces that kind of rampant favourtism exists. But I suspect that there are many unions where similar kinds of favourtism exist as well

---

Actually that point was acknowledged and addressed in the oritinal post. But the other thing you mised was the comments on human nature

quote:

---

Merit pay is an open invitation to favouritism and corruption. There are very, very, very few humans I want to give that kind of power to.

---

And anyone that has worked in the construction and retail business can tell you there are far too many business owners that will screw their employees over every chance they get.

Usually, their employees are being paid at the market rate which means they have alternatives as to where to go and work. Therefore, if they are not treated well, they leave and find employment elsewhere - resulting in more recruiting and training costs for the company - as well as more innefficiency in the short term.

In a union environment, many situations exist, where it would be in the best interests of the company for an employee to leave. But because of the contracts, they can not get rid of them. Therefore, they do not have to treat the employees well and can do quite the opposite -they can do everything possible to try and get the employee to quit.

quote:

---

Simply put, I think unions and merit-based pay are philosophicaly incompatible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pearson:
Usually, their employees are being paid at the market rate which means they have alternatives as to where to go and work. Therefore, if they are not treated well, they leave and find employment elsewhere - resulting in more recruiting and training costs for the company - as well as more innefficiency in the short term.

---