The 'Nasty Party' - Disabled people not worth the NMW

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Typical Tory ideology. Pay people as little as possible and if they are disabled and have got something wrong with them and their output is not quite as high then tell them that you'll give them a job but they're not worth as much as an able bodied person so they won't be paid as much.

Works wonders for their self-esteem doesn't it.

There's a lad who works on the checkout at Asda who only has one arm and he even asks the customers if they want a hand to pack. He's not quite as fast as the other checkout operators but I'm just glad that he has a job and is treated in same way as everyone else. I'm sure Asda can bear the cost and I'm sure the customers don't mind one little bit and are happy that the lad has made the effort.

Well done Adsa.

Great for that guy.

Now let me tell you something as a disabled person who is not as productive as non disabled people.  I have a major problem with being given a job just because I am disabled when I do not perform as well as others and I have real issues about being paid the same amount as someone who does more than me.

You talk self esteem - well let me tell you about self esteem for a disabled person - and I am not alone in this just about every disabled person I speak to feels the same.  Nothing but nothing kicks your self esteem into the gutter than knowing you are getting allowances made because you are disabled.  Self esteem is being rewarded for what you are and what you do not being compensated because you cant do.

I would rather take 75% wage and 25% benefit top up for doing 75% of the work than I would be paid 100% wage for doing 75% of the work.  If I do 75% work and get 75% wage I know I am being paid for my value and that my society is protecting with the benefit top up to allow me a "normal" life.  If I get paid 100% for doing 75% I feel like a fraud and know I am getting paid more than my worth because people pity me.

I dont want make work.  I dont want pity.  I dont want to be paid more for doing less than some other guy who is working his tits off just because I have problems.  I dont know of a disabled person that does want these things.

We want to be considered for jobs on our merits - not turned down because of false beliefs and not given it just because of the disability.
We want to be paid what we are worth - and if we find that by switching jobs we can hit 100% then we expect 100% wage.  If we move to a more difficult job we expect the pay rise that goes with it.  It we work where there are bonuses we expect our share - our earned share.
We do not want to spend our lives sat around on benefits doing nothing.
We do not want to be put in jobs knowing people around us are thinking "hes a bit slow but its good they gave him a job" because that is not being treated like everyone else that is being pitied and treated like a freak show.

victorisnotamused wrote:you are all (those who agree with this) either insane, twisted ar maliciously cruel. You probably also think that disabled people ought to be "put down"

lets get this straight....MINIMUM wags is EXACTLY that...the minimum ANYONE should be paid. (and even then its not a "living wage") REGARDLESS.

(actually minimum wage is a con to allow "backdoor subsidy" to commercial interests)

you talk about how they "do less"...so bledy what?

oh dear this is going to impact (VERY) (SLIGHTLY) (IN A MINSCULE MANNER) on the empoyers profit margin....BOO HOO how sickeningly sad......

Meanwhile said  "employer (read exploiter) is paying 80% of his staff about 1/3rd of their true value. The subsidy THEN comes because the state (thats you and me btw) has to pay "working " benefits to top up this miserable pittance to a reasonable level.

BETTER that they put a tax on ALL imports to offset slave labour rates abroad, and enforced sensible wage levels here...

It wouldnt cost any ,more.......BECAUSE YOU ARE ALREADY PAYING THAT DIFFERENCE...in the tax used to provide the top up working benefits....

yes your goods would be dearer....but VAT could be reduced and so on.....

more goods would be sold (becasue more people would have more money)


ANYONE suggesting that the disabled should "get any less" than that basic pittance should be stood against the nearest brick wall, and shot, along with all the other disgusting R/W (and I use this term advisedly ) "hitlerists" (since I am by politic both R/W in somethings and L/W in others I seem to get labelled a "Nazi". However try all you want you mental midgets...nazism DOES NOT define "the third position" so shove it)


Not withsatnding YOUR position Sphinx...at least YOU determine that they should still recieve payment, if only from the govt.....But seriously...not worth minimum wage...oh come on.....

victorisnotamused wrote:the problem then becomes what is "enough" for a given person to live on.

firstly many disabled have extra living costs, be it they need a taxi rather than driving or using a bus, extra modifications around the home (which may or may not be a "one time" cost)
and many others often difficult to quantify costs...specialist clothing etc....

add to that regional differences in prices
and it can become a pond of iniquity when we talk about government setting such levels....

as to "universal credit...its a con....a lie and a twist

I always thought disability payments were to ENABLE and give as much independance as possible...(aren't they)
(or are they a "sop" to the concience of the greedy?)

Universal credit does NOTHING of the sort....not when it stops if your PARTNER has an income over a certain level, or savings over a certain level....

what are they reying to do here.....pauperise the disabled?   force them to spend all but a teardrop of savings before they become "worth helping"?
force them to become DEPENDANT on their partner  (so much for "independance payments") please dear...can I have a couple of quid for a snack........

great.......

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Typical Tory ideology. Pay people as little as possible and if they are disabled and have got something wrong with them and their output is not quite as high then tell them that you'll give them a job but they're not worth as much as an able bodied person so they won't be paid as much.

Works wonders for their self-esteem doesn't it.

There's a lad who works on the checkout at Asda who only has one arm and he even asks the customers if they want a hand to pack. He's not quite as fast as the other checkout operators but I'm just glad that he has a job and is treated in same way as everyone else. I'm sure Asda can bear the cost and I'm sure the customers don't mind one little bit and are happy that the lad has made the effort.

Well done Adsa.

Great for that guy.

Now let me tell you something as a disabled person who is not as productive as non disabled people.  I have a major problem with being given a job just because I am disabled when I do not perform as well as others and I have real issues about being paid the same amount as someone who does more than me.
Do you have a major problem if you are denied a job, based on the fact you are disabled? You see plenty of people are who are disabled or even have conditions that do not classify them as disabled ar e discrminated but will certainly affect their performance compared to somebody who is able.
Define "more"?

You talk self esteem - well let me tell you about self esteem for a disabled person - and I am not alone in this just about every disabled person I speak to feels the same.  Nothing but nothing kicks your self esteem into the gutter than knowing you are getting allowances made because you are disabled.  Self esteem is being rewarded for what you are and what you do not being compensated because you cant do.
I don't think anyone has said otheriwse

I would rather take 75% wage and 25% benefit top up for doing 75% of the work than I would be paid 100% wage for doing 75% of the work.  If I do 75% work and get 75% wage I know I am being paid for my value and that my society is protecting with the benefit top up to allow me a "normal" life.  If I get paid 100% for doing 75% I feel like a fraud and know I am getting paid more than my worth because people pity me.

I dont want make work.  I dont want pity.  I dont want to be paid more for doing less than some other guy who is working his tits off just because I have problems.  I dont know of a disabled person that does want these things.

We want to be considered for jobs on our merits - not turned down because of false beliefs and not given it just because of the disability.
We want to be paid what we are worth - and if we find that by switching jobs we can hit 100% then we expect 100% wage.  If we move to a more difficult job we expect the pay rise that goes with it.  It we work where there are bonuses we expect our share - our earned share.
We do not want to spend our lives sat around on benefits doing nothing.
We do not want to be put in jobs knowing people around us are thinking "hes a bit slow but its good they gave him a job" because that is not being treated like everyone else that is being pitied and treated like a freak show.

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

What if a non disabled person has a productivity rate of 200 units in an 8 hour shift and a disabled person can only manage 150?
If the disabled person says they want to work and are willing to accept 75% of the wage of the non disabled person.

Typical Tory ideology. Pay people as little as possible and if they are disabled and have got something wrong with them and their output is not quite as high then tell them that you'll give them a job but they're not worth as much as an able bodied person so they won't be paid as much.

Works wonders for their self-esteem doesn't it.

There's a lad who works on the checkout at Asda who only has one arm and he even asks the customers if they want a hand to pack. He's not quite as fast as the other checkout operators but I'm just glad that he has a job and is treated in same way as everyone else. I'm sure Asda can bear the cost and I'm sure the customers don't mind one little bit and are happy that the lad has made the effort.

Well done Adsa.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Typical Tory ideology. Pay people as little as possible and if they are disabled and have got something wrong with them and their output is not quite as high then tell them that you'll give them a job but they're not worth as much as an able bodied person so they won't be paid as much.

Works wonders for their self-esteem doesn't it.

There's a lad who works on the checkout at Asda who only has one arm and he even asks the customers if they want a hand to pack. He's not quite as fast as the other checkout operators but I'm just glad that he has a job and is treated in same way as everyone else. I'm sure Asda can bear the cost and I'm sure the customers don't mind one little bit and are happy that the lad has made the effort.

Well done Adsa.

Do they pay this lad less because he's not as fast as others? I should hope not, but that's what Sphinx appears to be advocating.

Raggamuffin wrote:All these targets are stupid anyway, it's just greed. It shouldn't be about how fast someone is. Well if they're fast, that's great, but it's not all that counts. That could put anyone under pressure anyway if they're being watched to see how fast they are. No wonder there's so much work-related stress around these days.

Brasidas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:All these targets are stupid anyway, it's just greed. It shouldn't be about how fast someone is. Well if they're fast, that's great, but it's not all that counts. That could put anyone under pressure anyway if they're being watched to see how fast they are. No wonder there's so much work-related stress around these days.

All companies have targets, but they are normally based on what is achievable off a reasonable view point on the capabilities of all staff, where all factors that make for a good employee may as well be thrown out of the window to base this solely on performance. I mean the best employee may turn up late and go sick and overall they are the best performer on the day but one of the most unreliable employees, where poor Jack lets call him, turns up for work every day, and even though he cannot match the unreliable employee, is discriminated against based solely on the fact he has only one arm. IT is nothing short of the worst inequality you will come across, where many factors that make for a good employee are being sidelined to base it only on productivity.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


All companies have targets, but they are normally based on what is achievable off a reasonable view point on the capabilities of all staff, where all factors that make for a good employee may as well be thrown out of the window to base this solely on performance. I mean the best employee may turn up late and go sick and overall they are the best performer on the day but one of the most unreliable employees, where poor Jack lets call him, turns up for work every day, and even though he cannot match the unreliable employee, is discriminated against based solely on the fact he has only one arm. IT is nothing short of the worst inequality you will come across, where many factors that make for a good employee are being sidelined to base it only on productivity.

Well yes, there have to be targets of course, but all this obsessing about how fast someone is is absurd. In my job we all know that some people are good at some things and maybe not so good at other things. What you do is make the most of people's skills - which are usually the things they enjoy as well. I see no sense in people being miserable at work because they're treated like robots.

Brasidas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well yes, there have to be targets of course, but all this obsessing about how fast someone is is absurd. In my job we all know that some people are good at some things and maybe not so good at other things. What you do is make the most of people's skills - which are usually the things they enjoy as well. I see no sense in people being miserable at work because they're treated like robots.

I agree it is obsessing and it actually in many cases produces mistakes. A friend who is a manager at Tesco's for example have a performance target that there is only ever one person queuing, or they fail, their OTIF measures. It allows for mistakes, items get dropped and smashed, and scanning errors, all of which then actually cost more time. Now place this into this scenario here. The best employee, goes sick once a week, is always late and has poor people skills, but never has their till with more than one person queuing, and is thus benefited off this one aspect ignoring all others. Where others who all fail to have only one queuing, are brilliant with the customers in a friendly manner, always on time and never sic are receiving a lesser wage than the person who is for all intents and purposes a poor employee, who benefits solely because he is the only one that hits the targets. It is such a flawed view and as seen absurd to base such a view on how to pay people

Raggamuffin wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

I agree it is obsessing and it actually in many cases produces mistakes. A friend who is a manager at Tesco's for example have a performance target that there is only ever one person queuing, or they fail, their OTIF measures. It allows for mistakes, items get dropped and smashed, and scanning errors, all of which then actually cost more time. Now place this into this scenario here. The best employee, goes sick once a week, is always late and has poor people skills, but never has their till with more than one person queuing, and is thus benefited off this one aspect ignoring all others. Where others who all fail to have only one queuing, are brilliant with the customers in a friendly manner, always on time and never sic are receiving a lesser wage than the person who is for all intents and purposes a poor employee, who benefits solely because he is the only one that hits the targets. It is such a flawed view and as seen absurd to base such a view on how to pay people

Well I think that target's silly anyway. How can an employee control how many customers go to their till or how much they buy?

sphinx wrote:What she is advocating is people stop pitying the disabled and treating them they are too delicate to be able to manage without allowances.

What everyone else is doing is building their own scenarios around my words with have nothing to do with what I am actually talking about.

Freud talked about opening dialogue with disabled people - something you lot seem to have no clue about as you all seem far more interested in telling the disabled what should be done for them than you do in listening to what they want done for them.

Freud talked about groups within the definition of disabled.  You talk about the disabled as a homogeneous group.  

I repeat what I have put elsewhere (possibly on another board)
His words were crass and unfortunate but he was reacting to an unexpected question in a fringe brainstorming session not giving an announcement on policy.  His crude wording may be offensive but it indicates that he at least has the capacity to listen to people and hear what they say and the guts to shine the light of debate onto a subject which too many people rule off limits.

sphinx wrote:What she is advocating is people stop pitying the disabled and treating them they are too delicate to be able to manage without allowances.

What everyone else is doing is building their own scenarios around my words with have nothing to do with what I am actually talking about.

Freud talked about opening dialogue with disabled people - something you lot seem to have no clue about as you all seem far more interested in telling the disabled what should be done for them than you do in listening to what they want done for them.

Freud talked about groups within the definition of disabled.  You talk about the disabled as a homogeneous group.  

I repeat what I have put elsewhere (possibly on another board)
His words were crass and unfortunate but he was reacting to an unexpected question in a fringe brainstorming session not giving an announcement on policy.  His crude wording may be offensive but it indicates that he at least has the capacity to listen to people and hear what they say and the guts to shine the light of debate onto a subject which too many people rule off limits.

Brasidas wrote:

sphinx wrote:What she is advocating is people stop pitying the disabled and treating them they are too delicate to be able to manage without allowances.

What everyone else is doing is building their own scenarios around my words with have nothing to do with what I am actually talking about.

Freud talked about opening dialogue with disabled people - something you lot seem to have no clue about as you all seem far more interested in telling the disabled what should be done for them than you do in listening to what they want done for them.

Freud talked about groups within the definition of disabled.  You talk about the disabled as a homogeneous group.  

I repeat what I have put elsewhere (possibly on another board)
His words were crass and unfortunate but he was reacting to an unexpected question in a fringe brainstorming session not giving an announcement on policy.  His crude wording may be offensive but it indicates that he at least has the capacity to listen to people and hear what they say and the guts to shine the light of debate onto a subject which too many people rule off limits.

You are deflecting the main point here again trying to use the fact disabled people are wrongly stigmatized to further a really appalling discriminating view point on pay. Are you now going back on your claims of pay you have argued adamantly on this thread?
I have not seen anyone disagree on the view of stigmas and pitying the disabled.
In fact you are making a mockery of this point using the "victims argument" on how people pity, that is a contradiction using them as a point to further your true argument on discriminating pay.

sphinx wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


You are deflecting the main point here again trying to use the fact disabled people are wrongly stigmatized to further a really appalling discriminating view point on pay. Are you now going back on your claims of pay you have argued adamantly on this thread?
I have not seen anyone disagree on the view of stigmas and pitying the disabled.
In fact you are making a mockery of this point using the "victims argument" on how people pity, that is a contradiction using them as a point to further your true argument on discriminating pay.

No I am not going back on point of pay.

It is you who has built scenarios around my description of a unit of work and thrown in the possibility of going faster resulting in lower quality and more mistakes - that is your construct not mine.

The only discrimination on pay I want to see is on ability.

So when I say 200 units of work in 8 hours please accept that is 200 perfect quality units.  So if we leave disability out of it  and Tommy does 200 but Timmy does 150 can you explain to me why Timmy should get the same reward as Tommy.  Neither are disabled in any way - or maybe Tommy is disabled but Timmy isnt.   Why should they be paid the same?

victorisnotamused wrote:the main point here is that MINIMUM wage is exactly that

The MINIMUM anyone should get....regardless

(the fact it should be scrapped and a better way instituted is atm irrelevant)

sphinx wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:the main point here is that MINIMUM wage is exactly that

The MINIMUM anyone should get....regardless

(the fact it should be scrapped and a better way instituted is atm irrelevant)

My question is why should 2 people who produced different quantities of the same thing  be paid the same amount.

Brasidas wrote:

sphinx wrote:

No I am not going back on point of pay.

It is you who has built scenarios around my description of a unit of work and thrown in the possibility of going faster resulting in lower quality and more mistakes - that is your construct not mine.

The only discrimination on pay I want to see is on ability.

So when I say 200 units of work in 8 hours please accept that is 200 perfect quality units.  So if we leave disability out of it  and Tommy does 200 but Timmy does 150 can you explain to me why Timmy should get the same reward as Tommy.  Neither are disabled in any way - or maybe Tommy is disabled but Timmy isnt.   Why should they be paid the same?

No I have shown far more than that where your whole concept is built around productivity, where as yet you have failed to even address these points and just keep repeating the views of someone who has little knowledge of the working environment today.
Tommy is doing some other wok that takes him away,and thus because his productivity ls less now loses out even though he was asked to help in something else.
You really have a very naive understanding of the working environment.
Can of worms.

sphinx wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:the main point here is that MINIMUM wage is exactly that

The MINIMUM anyone should get....regardless

(the fact it should be scrapped and a better way instituted is atm irrelevant)

My question is why should 2 people who produced different quantities of the same thing  be paid the same amount.

sphinx wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

No I have shown far more than that where your whole concept is built around productivity, where as yet you have failed to even address these points and just keep repeating the views of someone who has little knowledge of the working environment today.
Tommy is doing some other wok that takes him away,and thus because his productivity ls less now loses out even though he was asked to help in something else.
You really have a very naive understanding of the working environment.
Can of worms.

So you cannot answer without changing the scenario.

Timmy and Tommy are identical and under identical conditions. Neither is disabled. Or both are disabled in exactly the same way.  Neither is sick.  Or both are sick in exactly the same way.  In 8 hours Tommy does 200 units of work and Timmy does 150.  Neither is called away.  The units of work are identical.  There is no difference anywhere except in the amount of work units done.
Why should Timmy get the same reward as Tommy.

sphinx wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

No I have shown far more than that where your whole concept is built around productivity, where as yet you have failed to even address these points and just keep repeating the views of someone who has little knowledge of the working environment today.
Tommy is doing some other wok that takes him away,and thus because his productivity ls less now loses out even though he was asked to help in something else.
You really have a very naive understanding of the working environment.
Can of worms.

So you cannot answer without changing the scenario.

Timmy and Tommy are identical and under identical conditions. Neither is disabled. Or both are disabled in exactly the same way.  Neither is sick.  Or both are sick in exactly the same way.  In 8 hours Tommy does 200 units of work and Timmy does 150.  Neither is called away.  The units of work are identical.  There is no difference anywhere except in the amount of work units done.
Why should Timmy get the same reward as Tommy.

victorisnotamused wrote:

sphinx wrote:

So you cannot answer without changing the scenario.

Timmy and Tommy are identical and under identical conditions. Neither is disabled. Or both are disabled in exactly the same way.  Neither is sick.  Or both are sick in exactly the same way.  In 8 hours Tommy does 200 units of work and Timmy does 150.  Neither is called away.  The units of work are identical.  There is no difference anywhere except in the amount of work units done.
Why should Timmy get the same reward as Tommy.

that kind of scenario actually has no bearing on the issue....

either timmy needs retraining or he is slacking.......sort it....

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:

My question is why should 2 people who produced different quantities of the same thing  be paid the same amount.

If a job is based on how much someone produces, it's often based on piece work anyway, so the person who produced more would get more. However, the person who produced less still needs to get minimum wage. You're talking as if everyone in minimum wage jobs stands there producing the same thing over and over again. There are many jobs which are not like that and have a variety of duties.

Brasidas wrote:

sphinx wrote:

So you cannot answer without changing the scenario.

Timmy and Tommy are identical and under identical conditions. Neither is disabled. Or both are disabled in exactly the same way.  Neither is sick.  Or both are sick in exactly the same way.  In 8 hours Tommy does 200 units of work and Timmy does 150.  Neither is called away.  The units of work are identical.  There is no difference anywhere except in the amount of work units done.
Why should Timmy get the same reward as Tommy.

This will help you understand where you are going wrong and have changed the last post to use your view here:



I have recently started a new role, again as a Demand planner and have been helping the warehouse manager in the organisation of his area.
He has a team of eight, of which 6 are packers and pickers of products shipped in from China and from the production area, which covers, anything from fans, to air ducts, to central heating you name it. Now every month they list how many daily each of the six pick and pack orders. Now on average two do slightly more (10 more jobs lets say a week)  than the other four, though not on every month, but in 10 of the months, but overall for the year they have done a hundred jobs or units more. They all help together with deliveries, so this has little affect on who produces more, but have to also pick and pack orders to customers, all based in the UK.

Question 1 Do you think these two because they have picked and packed more orders on average should get more pay?

Question 2 If yes, what have you failed to factor in?

victorisnotamused wrote:

sphinx wrote:

So you cannot answer without changing the scenario.

Timmy and Tommy are identical and under identical conditions. Neither is disabled. Or both are disabled in exactly the same way.  Neither is sick.  Or both are sick in exactly the same way.  In 8 hours Tommy does 200 units of work and Timmy does 150.  Neither is called away.  The units of work are identical.  There is no difference anywhere except in the amount of work units done.
Why should Timmy get the same reward as Tommy.

that kind of scenario actually has no bearing on the issue....

either timmy needs retraining or he is slacking.......sort it....

Brasidas wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


This will help you understand where you are going wrong and have changed the last post to use your view here:



I have recently started a new role, again as a Demand planner and have been helping the warehouse manager in the organisation of his area.
He has a team of eight, of which 6 are packers and pickers of products shipped in from China and from the production area, which covers, anything from fans, to air ducts, to central heating you name it. Now every month they list how many daily each of the six pick and pack orders. Now on average two do slightly more (10 more jobs lets say a week)  than the other four, though not on every month, but in 10 of the months, but overall for the year they have done a hundred jobs or units more. They all help together with deliveries, so this has little affect on who produces more, but have to also pick and pack orders to customers, all based in the UK.

Question 1 Do you think these two because they have picked and packed more orders on average should get more pay?

Question 2 If yes, what have you failed to factor in?

In your own time Sphinx, lets see how much you really know about the work industry and what it is really like..

sphinx wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


In your own time Sphinx, lets see how much you really know about the work industry and what it is really like..

Again you are trying to avoid my point by filling in my scenario with a different one of your own creating.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If a job is based on how much someone produces, it's often based on piece work anyway, so the person who produced more would get more. However, the person who produced less still needs to get minimum wage. You're talking as if everyone in minimum wage jobs stands there producing the same thing over and over again. There are many jobs which are not like that and have a variety of duties.

At least you have started to think about it.

However I am not talking about just production work - I am saying that whatever the job is for theoretical purposes we can call the result units of work.  I do not define what a unit of work is (it could be cold calling 10 numbers, 5 minutes of watching a screen, one document typed, 15 minutes of standing still, one idea sketched out, 1% of a project completed)
Whatever that unit is if you have 2 people doing identical units (even if each unit is different from the others the same person has done) why should they get the same reward if one completes more than the other?  Forget minimum wage

You cannot take it out of the equation




for a minimum stop imagining different types of work

again you cannot do this since rarelky if ever is there that equivalence

and concentrate on why 2 people should get the same reward if one has done more than the other.

Brasidas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well I think that target's silly anyway. How can an employee control how many customers go to their till or how much they buy?

Exactly, but this was just an example really to prove the absurd view point here. There was a post I put on here once where people think a que is quicker and go onto it and in fact it is slower, there maybe something in that and again you are right it is a silly factor to put such a target on and as seen many situations can allow for an unfair situation, based on which tills people go to and how much shopping they are buying.

Brasidas wrote:The flaw is you might as well take the bench mark of the best employee and pay all else less, in your view, even though many will still give the same 100% to the job, but are unable due to many different circumstances be able to achieve the ridiculous bench mark you are proposing.

Brasidas wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Again you are trying to avoid my point by filling in my scenario with a different one of your own creating.

No I am going to prove what you do not have the first clue what you are talking about here, so stop avoiding and answer the question, because your view to identical jobs, is not really much of a reality, but I am giving you 6 workers all pickers and packers (they all do the same job and have the same tasks and job description, who organize orders for customers and you have all the details, two stand out above the rest for the year and each year for the last 5 years.
Now your view is those who do more, should get paid more.

Answer the questions

sphinx wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


No I am going to prove what you do not have the first clue what you are talking about here, so stop avoiding and answer the question, because your view to identical jobs, is not really much of a reality, but I am giving you 6 workers all pickers and packers (they all do the same job and have the same tasks and job description, who organize orders for customers and you have all the details, two stand out above the rest for the year and each year for the last 5 years.
Now your view is those who do more, should get paid more.

Answer the questions

Hon seeing as I asked my question first it would seem that you do not have a clue and are avoiding answering my question.

Whenever you are faced with a hard absolute choice you panic like a chicken with its head cut of and retreat to "proving" that absolutes don't exist and using that as what you think is an answer.

I am not going to childishly demand you "answer the question" because it is patently obvious you are unable to do so and obviously your own ego needs to see you are winning every debate - even if to do so means you deliberately pretend you do not understand other peoples points because their points make the conclusions too nasty for your preferred disney existence.

Brasidas wrote:

sphinx wrote:

So you cannot answer without changing the scenario.

Timmy and Tommy are identical and under identical conditions. Neither is disabled. Or both are disabled in exactly the same way.  Neither is sick.  Or both are sick in exactly the same way.  In 8 hours Tommy does 200 units of work and Timmy does 150.  Neither is called away.  The units of work are identical.  There is no difference anywhere except in the amount of work units done.
Why should Timmy get the same reward as Tommy.

This will help you understand where you are going wrong and have changed the last post to use your view here:



I have recently started a new role, again as a Demand planner and have been helping the warehouse manager in the organisation of his area.
He has a team of eight, of which 6 are packers and pickers of products shipped in from China and from the production area, which covers, anything from fans, to air ducts, to central heating you name it. Now every month they list how many daily each of the six pick and pack orders. Now on average two do slightly more (10 more jobs lets say a week)  than the other four, though not on every month, but in 10 of the months, but overall for the year they have done a hundred jobs or units more. They all help together with deliveries, so this has little affect on who produces more, but have to also pick and pack orders to customers, all based in the UK.

Question 1 Do you think these two because they have picked and packed more orders on average should get more pay?

Question 2 If yes, what have you failed to factor in?

Brasidas wrote:Quill I am not suggesting at all the bench mark should be set to the best performing employee, where again many factors may play a part in why this has happened.
My questions to sphinx is actually very relevant here as I was asked to break down exactly whey they had done more customer orders over the last 5 years and saw many patterns I expected, none of which were down to performance, but chance.

Original Quill wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


This will help you understand where you are going wrong and have changed the last post to use your view here:



I have recently started a new role, again as a Demand planner and have been helping the warehouse manager in the organisation of his area.
He has a team of eight, of which 6 are packers and pickers of products shipped in from China and from the production area, which covers, anything from fans, to air ducts, to central heating you name it. Now every month they list how many daily each of the six pick and pack orders. Now on average two do slightly more (10 more jobs lets say a week)  than the other four, though not on every month, but in 10 of the months, but overall for the year they have done a hundred jobs or units more. They all help together with deliveries, so this has little affect on who produces more, but have to also pick and pack orders to customers, all based in the UK.

Question 1 Do you think these two because they have picked and packed more orders on average should get more pay?

Question 2 If yes, what have you failed to factor in?

Xlnt scenario.  It goes back t o what factors you have included in the analysis.  Are they proper signs?

Original Quill wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Quill I am not suggesting at all the bench mark should be set to the best performing employee, where again many factors may play a part in why this has happened.
My questions to sphinx is actually very relevant here as I was asked to break down exactly whey they had done more customer orders over the last 5 years and saw many patterns I expected, none of which were down to performance, but chance.

I understand completely.  I am just rephrasing the question, not giving answers...nor putting words in your mouth.  It's more about understanding the way to think about it (the analysis) than the answer.

Brasidas wrote:we both know she is looking at this two simplistically.

Original Quill wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Exactly, but this was just an example really to prove the absurd view point here. There was a post I put on here once where people think a que is quicker and go onto it and in fact it is slower, there maybe something in that and again you are right it is a silly factor to put such a target on and as seen many situations can allow for an unfair situation, based on which tills people go to and how much shopping they are buying.

It’s a good example.  (And Raggs, don’t argue with examples, but with the point.)  One cannot reduce a multifarious job down to single bits of criteria, and still have a complete and meaningful assessment.  That is what all "targets" are…reduction of a whole down to representative signal parts.  We have to deal with this in polling frequently: to reduce people to blue eyes, or red hair, or Tory or Labour, is not to present the whole person, but some reduced or representative portion.  The trick to targets for the employer, then, is relevance.  When I say “signal” I mean a ‘sign’ of the whole…one must get the right signal.  The signs to which you reduce something must be relevant.

Brasidas wrote:The flaw is you might as well take the bench mark of the best employee and pay all else less, in your view, even though many will still give the same 100% to the job, but are unable due to many different circumstances be able to achieve the ridiculous bench mark you are proposing.

This is the equity argument.  On the one hand we have distributive equality, where the measure is arbitrary, and on the other hand we have proportional equality…where the measure depends on incorporating the differences between people.  We’ve discussed this before.  Remember?  The horse race?  Does the horse already having the head start have an unfair advantage?

The question you are asking Didge is, is the bench mark fair?  And that depends upon what you are trying to accomplish.  Is it fair to take your bench mark from the best employee?  Actually, that’s tempting.  But it depends upon what you want out of employees.

The polarity in this case is merit vs. ability.  Do you want to set up a pure meritocracy, or do you want to reward people for giving their all, whatever that may be.  In a purely business sense, the meritocracy makes sense.  When we employ a commission compensation system for salesmen, that’s what we are doing.  But there is a certain lack of humaneness about a meritocracy.  You’ll get a great deal more loyalty from a more humane system.

Ultimately, it’s what best fits the needs of the enterprise, whatever that may be.  A really great football player is fine with the meritocracy as it pays him the best; but his loyalty is fleeting, as he will be playing for the opposing team just around the corner.  On the other hand, a slow but friendly checkout clerk at the market may be less tempting; but she will always be there as long as she isn’t penalized on the merit scale.  What is good for the overall enterprise?  What are you trying to accomplish?

Raggs wrote:Why shouldn't I argue re examples? Didge said that it actually happens, and I think it's a stupid way to monitor someone.

sphinx wrote:So as far as you lot are concerned disabled people can do just as good just as much as non disabled people - and there is no difference between them in the employers eyes.  Or if there is the employer is just discriminating without reason.