Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Jubilee and Olympic security - jobseekers working for free

Chicken_George

War Hero
Slightly off tack but, why is it workers have a pay cut to motivate them, ie earn the same by doing overtime.
Yet CEOs, COOs, CFOs etc, get a massive pay rise to motivate them, now I may not be the sharpest tool in the box but isn't this an oxymoron situation.

Just asking.

CG
 
Slightly off tack but, why is it workers have a pay cut to motivate them, ie earn the same by doing overtime.
Yet CEOs, COOs, CFOs etc, get a massive pay rise to motivate them, now I may not be the sharpest tool in the box but isn't this an oxymoron situation.

Just asking.

CG

Your question is based on a flawed presumption that every C** receives a payrise (and second presumption is that the increase is 'massive') to motivate them.

Some do - especially those whom the media cherry pick. Many more don't, they receive stock options. In many companies, salary and performance targets are set by the Board. Those targets may seem arbitrary, or incomprehensible to lower-level employees, but - usually - the reasoning behind them in sound. For example, increase revenue/growth/profits. In short, manage the entire company. Often a far trickier job than producing xyz component, taking calls, fixing issues, managing a team, running a department, and so on.*

Which is different to the HR crap about being motivated by a pay cut. That is bad management.

*I'm defending the principle, not the all-too-often flawed real world. I'll give two examples. HP's Carly Fiorina, under who's stewardship HP's stock value halved and whom gutted the companies core R&D to cut costs, and Global Crossing's John Legere, under who's stewardship the company successfully came out of Ch11 protection. In the later case, he earned $3million a year in salary plus options, but I doubt anyone begrudged him a penny of his salary given the option was no job at all if GX did go bankrupt.
 
However, I'm sure everyone will giggle at the following. In 2007, BSkyB claimed £708m from EDS, claiming that EDS failed to meet contractual service levels, not just from incompetence, but also from fraud and deceit:

"During the BSkyB case, it was shown that a [EDS] Managing Director had obtained a degree over the Internet. Lawyers for Sky were able to demonstrate that the process for awarding the degree claimed would give a degree to a dog, and that the mark attained by the dog was higher than that of the HP executive, who was questioned on his expertise and integrity."
 

hogg

Old-Salt

PBUH

LE
However, I'm sure everyone will giggle at the following. In 2007, BSkyB claimed £708m from EDS, claiming that EDS failed to meet contractual service levels, not just from incompetence, but also from fraud and deceit:

"During the BSkyB case, it was shown that a [EDS] Managing Director had obtained a degree over the Internet. Lawyers for Sky were able to demonstrate that the process for awarding the degree claimed would give a degree to a dog, and that the mark attained by the dog was higher than that of the HP executive, who was questioned on his expertise and integrity."

Joe Galloway - head of the EDS CRM practice based at Canary Wharf IIRC
 

BugzDaMick

Old-Salt
OK - let me ask you a question. (And I'm NOT having a crack at your expense).

When you quote for your translation services, do you pitch your quote for the maximum you think you can get from your client, or do you say "I'm going to be socially responsible, I'll actually ask for 25% less so my client can pay his employees more."

If you're anything like the great majority of us, you'll charge as much as you think the market will bear.

We're all great at saying the other guy should cut his costs/moderate his demands, but as soon as it comes to ourselves, we start to look out for number one. And that (unfortunately) is human nature...

Wordsmith
[My bold in your post]Obviously I'm not like the great majority, since I haven't changed my prices in years. They're more or less "set" by the industry anyway and at the moment are between 20 and 25 cents per word. I charge 14 cents per word. I've been in the industry so long that I've achieved a reputation for accuracy and reliability. As such I receive much more work than I'm inclined to do myself, which I then pass on to other translators who I know and trust. I also sometimes do translations for free if the person concerned can't pay for it. In principle, I could earn a whole lot more, but I get enough and I like to share out the rest of the work so that colleagues can also make a living.

A far greater hazard is agencies that don't pay, or don't pay the agreed amount. They are then entered on a blacklist that all professional translators subscribe to. The problem is that someone, somewhere first has to forego payment for their services before we can tag the culprit.

MsG
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
Obviously I'm not like the great majority, since I haven't changed my prices in years. They're more or less "set" by the industry anyway and at the moment are between 20 and 25 cents per word. I charge 14 cents per word. I've been in the industry so long that I've achieved a reputation for accuracy and reliability. As such I receive much more work than I'm inclined to do myself, which I then pass on to other translators who I know and trust. I also sometimes do translations for free if the person concerned can't pay for it. In principle, I could earn a whole lot more, but I get enough and I like to share out the rest of the work so that colleagues can also make a living.

In that case I take my hat off to you - you do practice what you preach. Which is rare...

Wordsmith
 
Stop using the ever increasingly distorted acceptions to the general rule as a defence and explain to the class why multi nationals should have the wage bill subsidised by the tax payer?

1) Because leaving people to languish on the dole for most of their lives is an appalling waste (it does tend to turn them into life long Labour voters though). Read some of the comments from the people who actually worked at the Jubilee event, rather than the outrage from Guardianista class warriors, and tell me why the workers were wrong to be happy to have the jobs they were given.

2) The long term unemployed are frequently unable to contribute anything useful in the workplace, hence there is no reason for employers to take them on and pay them. To change that, they need work experience. It's the old vicious circle. Can't get a job without experience. Can't get experience without a job. A small amount of "seed" money from the government can break that circle. That's about as good an example of Labour's "investing in jobs" mantra that I can think of, and considerably better than chucking billions at the public sector to take the unemployed on as five-a-day fruit and veg coordinators.

I don't recall many lefties complaining in 2009 when an increasingly desperate Gordon Brown offered a £2,500 bung for any employer taking somebody off the dole. Nothing wrong with subsidising the wage bills of multinationals when the Prime Mentalist suggested it, was there?
 

Buzz

LE
1) Because leaving people to languish on the dole for most of their lives is an appalling waste (it does tend to turn them into life long Labour voters though). Read some of the comments from the people who actually worked at the Jubilee event, rather than the outrage from Guardianista class warriors, and tell me why the workers were wrong to be happy to have the jobs they were given.

2) The long term unemployed are frequently unable to contribute anything useful in the workplace, hence there is no reason for employers to take them on and pay them. To change that, they need work experience. It's the old vicious circle. Can't get a job without experience. Can't get experience without a job. A small amount of "seed" money from the government can break that circle. That's about as good an example of Labour's "investing in jobs" mantra that I can think of, and considerably better than chucking billions at the public sector to take the unemployed on as five-a-day fruit and veg coordinators.

I don't recall many lefties complaining in 2009 when an increasingly desperate Gordon Brown offered a £2,500 bung for any employer taking somebody off the dole. Nothing wrong with subsidising the wage bills of multinationals when the Prime Mentalist suggested it, was there?
I suggest you watch this.

BBC One - Panorama, The Great Apprentice Scandal

Then get back to us.
 
I suggest you watch this.

BBC One - Panorama, The Great Apprentice Scandal

Then get back to us.

No answers to my questions buzz?

Don't try to change the subject. None of the people involved were apprentices.

Answer my questions if you can. Why should people be prevented from volunteering for this work if they want it when it's OK for other unemployed people to volunteer for an unpaid, six month internship with the Guardian.

Let me guess:-

Unpaid work for evil capitalists: Bad
Unpaid work for champagne socialists: Good
 
Answer my questions if you can. Why should people be prevented from volunteering for this work if they want it when it's OK for other unemployed people to volunteer for an unpaid, six month internship with the Guardian.

I would enforce the principle of a minimum wage in both cases.
 
Its a nice little scam if you can get into the "training" nearly a billion quid gone out in contracts for work fare
 
Its a nice little scam if you can get into the "training" nearly a billion quid gone out in contracts for work fare

Most training companies were set up under Labour Government initiatives and are funded by public money. Their purpose is to try to give persistent unemployed an improved skill set with which to tackle the job market. However the calibre of person who seems to get sent on these courses are very often the least employable because they don't want to be employed and they don't want to be on courses because it interferes with their 'black' job.

However, in my experience, most of the training companies try very hard to educate and upskill their 'clients'. They also work very hard to obtain grants with a view to making it easier for employers to take on new staff. The hardest part of taking on a new employee is finding out if they're going to be any good, especially if you're taking a gamble on expanding. By subsiding the first few weeks salary it makes it much easier to take a risk. Equally work placement can tell you a lot about whether a candidate is worth risking or not.

I don't say these companies are all wonderful, clearly they're not but they aren't as bad as many paint them. People should be prepared to give up a little of their time for little or no compensation if it means they make themselves attractive to an employer. Employing someone is always a risk. You can spend a fortune in recruiting costs and salaries only to find, 2-3 months down the line that you're losing money on the deal. Fine for a big company but not so good for a small employer.
 

Buzz

LE
No answers to my questions buzz?

Don't try to change the subject. None of the people involved were apprentices.

Answer my questions if you can. Why should people be prevented from volunteering for this work if they want it when it's OK for other unemployed people to volunteer for an unpaid, six month internship with the Guardian.

Let me guess:-

Unpaid work for evil capitalists: Bad
Unpaid work for champagne socialists: Good
You had your answers many many posts ago.

The unemployed are not just the feckless these days it's people who found them self on the wrong side of redundancy come the down turn.

You suggesting they should be used as free unskilled labour is quite frankly a bit soviet, slightly animal farm, you seem to think that losing a job has somehow tainted them and made them someone to blame.
 

slick

LE
By subsiding the first few weeks salary it makes it much easier to take a risk.
The garage trade down here has taken a real beating in the last year or so, I`ve been in and out of two or three jobs where the hours have been cut to ridiculous levels. Just before last christmas I found myself out of work again so looked in a different direction.
I applied to a cleaning company which advertised a full time job, got to the interview stage but something didn`t seem right. The company wanted me to do a work trial for two weeks which I didn`t have a problem with. When I approached my job advisor to arrange it, she would only agree to a work trial for three days. When I enquired why, she told me that companies had started taking advantage of the work trials to fulfil short term contracts or tie up loose ends when they suddenly lose staff.
I did the three day trial anyway and upon completion was told that I could have the job but they could only provide fifteen hours a week in work. I didn`t take the job, and my job advisor put the company on a blacklist of some kind, because they lied in the original advert.
From the conversation I had with my job advisor it would seem that it is getting more commonplace for employers to take the piss when work trials or similar schemes are available, to the point where the jobcentre and training organisations are sceptical particularly when a full time job is offered.
Luckily, since then, after volunteering for another organisation for a short period, I found out that I may be offered a full time job within a couple of weeks. :)
 
The garage trade down here has taken a real beating in the last year or so, I`ve been in and out of two or three jobs where the hours have been cut to ridiculous levels. Just before last christmas I found myself out of work again so looked in a different direction.
I applied to a cleaning company which advertised a full time job, got to the interview stage but something didn`t seem right. The company wanted me to do a work trial for two weeks which I didn`t have a problem with. When I approached my job advisor to arrange it, she would only agree to a work trial for three days. When I enquired why, she told me that companies had started taking advantage of the work trials to fulfil short term contracts or tie up loose ends when they suddenly lose staff.
I did the three day trial anyway and upon completion was told that I could have the job but they could only provide fifteen hours a week in work. I didn`t take the job, and my job advisor put the company on a blacklist of some kind, because they lied in the original advert.
From the conversation I had with my job advisor it would seem that it is getting more commonplace for employers to take the piss when work trials or similar schemes are available, to the point where the jobcentre and training organisations are sceptical particularly when a full time job is offered.
Luckily, since then, after volunteering for another organisation for a short period, I found out that I may be offered a full time job within a couple of weeks. :)

I really hope you're successful.

Unfortunately there is truth in both our statements. You are a guy who wants to work and is willing to work and is willing to sell yourself I am a guy who wants employees and is willing to take a risk on employing someone. Somewhere along the line we have both been burned, probably because employer equals neither good nor bad and neither does employee. There are just as many employees willing to exploit as there are employers.
 

Latest Threads

Top