Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Business Forum' started by BizGurl, Apr 15, 2011.
Sorry Podge, not aimed at you, just used "you" generally.
Good luck with your search
Are you currently self funded or in receipt of benefits?
In reciept of benefits.
Unless the people involved have shares in the company then you may be guilty of one of the oldest con games on the planet.
Not to mention that as a start up you would seem to be a tad under funded.
You wouldn't be suggesting the Cornish Steve would be paying low and offering a management title in return to make them feel better and work harder - would you?
Honestly, I'd recommend you get out of the mainstream. I did eventually get back to your earlier messages, and I highly recommend a more creative approach. It takes more time and effort and may carry you outside your comfort zone, but what do you have to lose?
All the best with your search.
a lesser man would say 'benefits'
Time will tell, won't it?
Read the histories of Google and Amazon and others. People worked very long hours for next to nothing because they trusted the founder. For most of them, nothing was in writing. In the end, every single person involved in the startup became a millionaire. Now, I don't recommend doing things this way, because it's important to have something in writing, but you have a sad view of human nature, Earl, if you believe that everyone is on the take.
You would need to be a fool to work for less money now than was acceptable, on the vague offchance of the business owner doing the right thing later on and rewarding you for it if the venture was a success.
If anyone wants to gamble on it, I have absolutely no problem with the gamble itself - but there is no reason to rely on the business owner to do the right thing later on... have the payments clearly set out in the original employment contract then everyone knows where they stand.
carpe diem you may get hit by a No37 bus next week.
History will tell you nothing sad about it .Individual greed in the main seems to know no boundries hence why we have the NMW.IMHO
i see cornish steves point ... i suppose if you get the right workers that dont rely on money to pay every day needs, then working for less in the return for rewards IF things work out is kind of ok . we would like to think that all people are trust worthy and honest which if one is then it must be frustrating to be seen as not so just because of others abuse of such things in life.
its a tough one this because of those that use and abuse for self gain..
sometimes laws are one sided to protect the venerable ,but as we have a big society the laws arent individual .
so steve i see your point and it is a shame and tough .life is tough and never fair in always..i also doubt that this kind of thing could work across the board which is why we have a NMW and the laws we do...
its like i resent a pat down or search just because i know im dont doing anything wrong but i have to except and have those things happen because of those that do.blame the bad guys its all there fault..
take on some cash in hand workers jockey lad
A rude and completely ridiculous comment - an insult in fact to any job seeker.
We have recently recruited a new member of staff (and an apprentice, but that's another thread). We had well over 100 applications and a huge percentage went in the bin, another percentage were from good candidates but not with the experience we were looking for and of the pile we eventually ended up with 6 possibles and 2 extremely good candidates. The fact we chose one doesn't mean the others weren't worth the money ( some in fact we worth a lot more but wouldn't have stayed in the job for long), it simply means there were other candidates who matched our requirements better.
I have been unemployed once after walking out of a job, the three months of job searching in between didn't tell me I wasn't worth employing, it just meant there was someone closer to the company's needs. As I was applying for director level jobs, it certainly didn't mean I wasn't worth £5.93 an hour.
God forbid you're ever unemployed Johnny and get the same kick in the teeth you're giving out on here.
Yeh ahha. People only go to work because it gets them money. Without the money they would not work. So i don't think Steves special relationship is as he sees it....
Look, you can dress it up however you like but if someone can't find work at £5.93 an hour... then common sense should tell you that they aren't worth £5.93.
The value of absolutely anything rises and falls due to supply and demand. It doesn't matter whether the item in question is a loaf of bread, a luxury car, a new build apartment, or a persons labour. Dress it up however you like, but people in the work place are nothing more than an item to be bought and sold, liable to value fluctuations like everything else. The sooner people accept that, they sooner they'll be able to deal with it.
So 100 people apply for a job, 99 aren't worth the money?
What are you suggesting, some kind of backward auction? "I'll take the job for £5....I'll take it for £4....me £3" ..?!
And what happens to those who don't get it for £1? They work for nothing?
If people better qualified for a job than you are willing to work for £5.93 then you're not worth £5.93 are you? Or is everyone worth exactly the same?
Have you been drinking?
We advertised our role at £9 an hour. We had applicants who were worth a lot more but had obviously found themselves in desperate straits. Because they wanted the job, does that mean the others weren't worth the salary?
1 job 100 applicants - this is not unusual and does in no way suggest the 99 unsuccessful applicants should lower their sights.
Of course everyone is not worth the same -- a doctor commands a greater salary than a labourer.
If someone fails at one job application, I wouldn't say they were instantly not worth that rate, they were just beaten to that particular job.
If someone applies for hundreds of £9 jobs and fails to get any of them, its pretty clear that the market doesn't value them at £9.
If people who would normally command £15 an hour are now applying for £9 an hour jobs en masse, then yes that means that the previous £9 an hour workers are no longer worth that.
How can you say the £9/hr employee is good value for money when you can pay the £15 an hour better worker £9 to do the same job?
I agree with the rest, but on this point - because you'll expect them to be still looking for a £15ph job once they get yours.
But sadly, that may mean that such a person who honestly lists their previous salary, or better previous job may well actually REDUCE their value in the job market - they are worth even less because employers are taking a risk.
Correct. It seems so simple to me, I can't comprehend how anyone can think differently.