• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Making a decision on a Minimum Wage Worker.

As a superviser/Manager what would you do?


  • Total voters
    17

DVSentinel

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
5,647
Reaction score
1,579
Location
The Republic of Texas.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
As a manager, a minimum wage position worker approaches you and asks for a raise. Worker has been in the company for three years. In the work force for 10+ years after high school. Worker has no college, no trade schooling. Worker has only held minimum wage entry level positions during his career. Has never been fired but also has never been graded by supervisor as more than adequate/average, has never been recommended for advancement to higher level/better pay and benefits position.

As the manager, what would you do?

1. Deny him the raise but allow him continued employment.
2. Recognize that he is a minimum performer, a lazy, uneducated, unmotivated, low skill useless POS and send him to unemployment opening the position to new potential workers.
3. Recognize his contributions to the company and offer him higher wages and benefits.
4. Recognize that he is a victim of an unfair and unjust society whom the evil owners of companies has oppressed and then offer him CEO wages to perform entry level work at minimum required levels.
 
A long-time worker who is competent and reliable is worth more than minimum wage. He most likely knows things and has skills or abilities that a new worker would not have. Give him a raise.
 
A long-time worker who is competent and reliable is worth more than minimum wage. He most likely knows things and has skills or abilities that a new worker would not have. Give him a raise.

Ask him where he wants to be in 5 years, and let him know that there likely won't be any promotions coming his way unless he acts like he has a bit more ambition than he currently displays....
 
As a manager, a minimum wage position worker approaches you and asks for a raise. Worker has been in the company for three years. In the work force for 10+ years after high school. Worker has no college, no trade schooling. Worker has only held minimum wage entry level positions during his career. Has never been fired but also has never been graded by supervisor as more than adequate/average, has never been recommended for advancement to higher level/better pay and benefits position.

As the manager, what would you do?

1. Deny him the raise but allow him continued employment.
2. Recognize that he is a minimum performer, a lazy, uneducated, unmotivated, low skill useless POS and send him to unemployment opening the position to new potential workers.
3. Recognize his contributions to the company and offer him higher wages and benefits.
4. Recognize that he is a victim of an unfair and unjust society whom the evil owners of companies has oppressed and then offer him CEO wages to perform entry level work at minimum required levels.

Nowhere near enough details to judge. What does the job normally pay in that company? What do similar jobs pay in other companies in the area? What is the local job market like? How is the business doing? All those have significant effects on pay rates.
 
As a manager, a minimum wage position worker approaches you and asks for a raise. Worker has been in the company for three years. In the work force for 10+ years after high school. Worker has no college, no trade schooling. Worker has only held minimum wage entry level positions during his career. Has never been fired but also has never been graded by supervisor as more than adequate/average, has never been recommended for advancement to higher level/better pay and benefits position.

As the manager, what would you do?

1. Deny him the raise but allow him continued employment.
2. Recognize that he is a minimum performer, a lazy, uneducated, unmotivated, low skill useless POS and send him to unemployment opening the position to new potential workers.
3. Recognize his contributions to the company and offer him higher wages and benefits.
4. Recognize that he is a victim of an unfair and unjust society whom the evil owners of companies has oppressed and then offer him CEO wages to perform entry level work at minimum required levels.

One of the reasons companies create defined pay scales for certain job definitions is to deal with situations just as you've created here. What we do is encourage the employee to gain more skills in other areas so they can then qualify for higher wage opportunities.

If a floor sweeper is paid X dollars, that is what they get paid. Learn how to build a floor, and you have the chance to get paid more.
 
Someone who has been with the company that long and who has not been fired deserves a minimal raise. My company has a guaranteed annual raise based on a performance review. Anyone who fails the review and doesn't qualify for a raise, also doesn't qualify to keep their job. This guy would probably get the minimum possible raise, along with a long list of improvements they need to achieve by review time next year.
 
As a manager, a minimum wage position worker approaches you and asks for a raise. Worker has been in the company for three years. In the work force for 10+ years after high school. Worker has no college, no trade schooling. Worker has only held minimum wage entry level positions during his career. Has never been fired but also has never been graded by supervisor as more than adequate/average, has never been recommended for advancement to higher level/better pay and benefits position.

As the manager, what would you do?

1. Deny him the raise but allow him continued employment.
2. Recognize that he is a minimum performer, a lazy, uneducated, unmotivated, low skill useless POS and send him to unemployment opening the position to new potential workers.
3. Recognize his contributions to the company and offer him higher wages and benefits.
4. Recognize that he is a victim of an unfair and unjust society whom the evil owners of companies has oppressed and then offer him CEO wages to perform entry level work at minimum required levels.

Bottom 10 percent go.
 
Nowhere near enough details to judge. What does the job normally pay in that company? What do similar jobs pay in other companies in the area? What is the local job market like? How is the business doing? All those have significant effects on pay rates.

And yet, "society", through lawmakers are promoting the government, instead of the manager, to force a decision through law with even less information.

What information do we, as a society really have about these workers? We know they are minimum wage. We know that for some reason, they are stuck at entry level minimum wage jobs as their career. We know that others have used these jobs as entry portals to promotion in that company or used that experience coupled with greater education to seek other careers.

BTW, if you were that manager, what other information do you feel you need to know?
 
And yet, "society", through lawmakers are promoting the government, instead of the manager, to force a decision through law with even less information.

What information do we, as a society really have about these workers? We know they are minimum wage. We know that for some reason, they are stuck at entry level minimum wage jobs as their career. We know that others have used these jobs as entry portals to promotion in that company or used that experience coupled with greater education to seek other careers.

BTW, if you were that manager, what other information do you feel you need to know?

You seem terribly confused. What is good for business is not necessarily good for society. Or good for their workers. You could make the same argument you are making about safety regulations.
 
As a manager, a minimum wage position worker approaches you and asks for a raise. Worker has been in the company for three years. In the work force for 10+ years after high school. Worker has no college, no trade schooling. Worker has only held minimum wage entry level positions during his career. Has never been fired but also has never been graded by supervisor as more than adequate/average, has never been recommended for advancement to higher level/better pay and benefits position.

As the manager, what would you do?

1. Deny him the raise but allow him continued employment.
2. Recognize that he is a minimum performer, a lazy, uneducated, unmotivated, low skill useless POS and send him to unemployment opening the position to new potential workers.
3. Recognize his contributions to the company and offer him higher wages and benefits.
4. Recognize that he is a victim of an unfair and unjust society whom the evil owners of companies has oppressed and then offer him CEO wages to perform entry level work at minimum required levels.


you missed a few choices

5. find out why he has never advanced....it is a learning disability....is it lack of self motivation.....what is the issue.....does he care that he is at the bottom (money wise we now know he does, but what about the rest)

if i cant get him to be a more valuable employee in one way or another, then it is his failure......because he will get every opportunity......whether or not he takes advantage is UP TO HIM

at that point, i tell him no to a raise, and there is the door if he doesnt like what he is making at that point......i dont dive raises just because you WANT one.....you have to EARN it here

that is the way i handle the situation
 
The OP does not indicate the profitability of the company. Therefore there is not enough info to answer.

A long term employee has an inherent value for some tasks being acceptable in performance is just that, acceptable. There are job tasks for which performance is either acceptable or not, and nothing higher or lower in value than that simple measure.

In my opinion salary should be somewhat related to the profitability of the company, not how cheap can employees be obtained.
 
As a manager, a minimum wage position worker approaches you and asks for a raise. Worker has been in the company for three years. In the work force for 10+ years after high school. Worker has no college, no trade schooling. Worker has only held minimum wage entry level positions during his career.

This **** has nothing to do with his performance at the company.It about as relevant as to what kind of car he drive, does he use Google instead of Bing, does he have red or black hair or any other irrelevant thing.It stupid to pay a guy with a college degree,trade school or experience in irrelevant jobs more money to flip burgers than say a guy with no college degree and has held only similar paying jobs.

Has never been fired but also has never been graded by supervisor as more than adequate/average, has never been recommended for advancement to higher level/better pay and benefits position.
As the manager, what would you do?


3. Recognize his contributions to the company and offer him higher wages and benefits.Maybe offer him a higher position if one is open.
 
If he is lazy, does the minimum, etc then how has he contributed?

It seems that 2 and 3 are in conflict.

If 2 is true...no. If 3 is true...yes. I believe in merit raises, I believe they lead to better productivity.
 
you missed a few choices

5. find out why he has never advanced....it is a learning disability....is it lack of self motivation.....what is the issue.....does he care that he is at the bottom (money wise we now know he does, but what about the rest)

if i cant get him to be a more valuable employee in one way or another, then it is his failure......because he will get every opportunity......whether or not he takes advantage is UP TO HIM

at that point, i tell him no to a raise, and there is the door if he doesnt like what he is making at that point......i dont dive raises just because you WANT one.....you have to EARN it here

that is the way i handle the situation

Sorry, Other was in the original poll options but somehow got lost through three attempts to get it to post.
 
#4 shows an extreme bias of the OPer.

Usually managers can't make salary decisions.

A company that pays only minimum wages and has no salary increase for an acceptable performance company either is a company that won't remain solvent or is so rotten that hopefully it doesn't.

Not knowing more and if authority, I would give him a raise noting his reliability and acceptable performance. I would not offer a promotion to a position I did not think he could perform or that others are more capable of. Giving someone a higher position isn't always best for the person anyway.
 
The OP does not indicate the profitability of the company. Therefore there is not enough info to answer.

A long term employee has an inherent value for some tasks being acceptable in performance is just that, acceptable. There are job tasks for which performance is either acceptable or not, and nothing higher or lower in value than that simple measure.

In my opinion salary should be somewhat related to the profitability of the company, not how cheap can employees be obtained.

Salary shouldn't be related to either of those things. If a company isn't profitable enough to hire someone at a competitive rate (whatever the position), they'll probably have to do without someone in that role.

And of course, if you want the best employees for any particular role, they never come cheap. If you insist on paying peanuts, you're going to get morons.
 
The OP does not indicate the profitability of the company. Therefore there is not enough info to answer.

A long term employee has an inherent value for some tasks being acceptable in performance is just that, acceptable. There are job tasks for which performance is either acceptable or not, and nothing higher or lower in value than that simple measure.

In my opinion salary should be somewhat related to the profitability of the company, not how cheap can employees be obtained.


so if a company is profitable, and the reason is other people excelled at their job, you think he deserves part of those profits too?

why? for existing? what has he done to make the company better?

sorry....but employees are worth what they bring to the table.....not what their fellow employees do
 
Interesting thread, and interesting answers to the question as well. However it seems predicated on feelings for the employee or a matter of what they "deserve", none of which is relevant to what the person makes. I know, I know, we're supposed to be compassionate and businesses are supposed to exist as a means for the employees to be happy. But that is simply not reality.

I've owned my business now for just short of 8 years. I have hired and fired many people. I've even fired a few customers. One thing I can honestly say about owning a business is that unless you actually do, you have no idea what it takes to make it work. I don't say that to sound better than others, I mean that even after 2 years of research and planning to open my shop there are still things that happen that I never anticipated. And there are a lot of expenses as well. Too many to list, too many new things that come along, new regulations, changes in procedures, vendors, market, etc. I have made mistakes in most of these, and overpaying an employee has certainly been one of them.

The fact is in any business there is a formula that determines what the employee pay will be, and any manager or owner who determines it based on feelings is either making a mistake or is in a field that is not competitive. The short story for my field and area is just over 30%. Conversely that equates to 325%. So a person making $10 an hour has to have a net production of $32.50 per hour. I don't even know what minimum wage is right now. Let's call it $7.45 an hour. In order for them to be worth what they are being paid they have to produce nearly $25 an hour NET to get that. It matters not if they have been producing that for 5 days or 5 years. The cost of employment is considerably more than what the hourly wage is as well. For each of my employees on top of their wages I have my half of FICA, uniforms, workers comp and unemployment insurance to consider. Above that there are many other static expenses, such as advertising, power, phones, heat, accounting, rent, internet, in my case subscriptions to technical information sites, taxes, compliance costs, you get the picture.

So to ask a hypothetical question about what "you" would do in itself exposes a lack of understanding of business operation (no offense to the OP).

I once worked with a guy who did oil changes in a dealership. He did some other little things, wiper blades, the occasional tire repair, but mostly oil changes. And he was GOOD. The best I had ever seen actually. He had a good attitude, he was efficient, and he was loyal. At one point he went to our manager and asked for a raise. One of the arguments he used was that he had 10 years of experience. I'll never forget what the manager said to him. He said "Billy, I like you. But you don't have 10 years of experience. There is no such thing as 10 years of experience doing what you do. What you have is 2 years of experience 5 times over. If you want to make what these guys make (meaning other techs like me) then do what they do."
 
This **** has nothing to do with his performance at the company.It about as relevant as to what kind of car he drive, does he use Google instead of Bing, does he have red or black hair or any other irrelevant thing.It stupid to pay a guy with a college degree,trade school or experience in irrelevant jobs more money to flip burgers than say a guy with no college degree and has held only similar paying jobs.




3. Recognize his contributions to the company and offer him higher wages and benefits.Maybe offer him a higher position if one is open.

It doesn't inform about his work ethic/motivations? They are not relevant indicators of his expected performance in the future and thus whether or not he should get a raise?

I know of companies that require an associates to enter management. Not a management associate, just any associate. Some of these also have a ceiling that can only be pierced by a Bachelors degree. It speaks to whether someone will take extra steps to improve themselves and become better contributers to the company. Will they go above and beyond the minimum required to remain employed.
 
Interesting thread, and interesting answers to the question as well. However it seems predicated on feelings for the employee or a matter of what they "deserve", none of which is relevant to what the person makes. I know, I know, we're supposed to be compassionate and businesses are supposed to exist as a means for the employees to be happy. But that is simply not reality.

I've owned my business now for just short of 8 years. I have hired and fired many people. I've even fired a few customers. One thing I can honestly say about owning a business is that unless you actually do, you have no idea what it takes to make it work. I don't say that to sound better than others, I mean that even after 2 years of research and planning to open my shop there are still things that happen that I never anticipated. And there are a lot of expenses as well. Too many to list, too many new things that come along, new regulations, changes in procedures, vendors, market, etc. I have made mistakes in most of these, and overpaying an employee has certainly been one of them.

The fact is in any business there is a formula that determines what the employee pay will be, and any manager or owner who determines it based on feelings is either making a mistake or is in a field that is not competitive. The short story for my field and area is just over 30%. Conversely that equates to 325%. So a person making $10 an hour has to have a net production of $32.50 per hour. I don't even know what minimum wage is right now. Let's call it $7.45 an hour. In order for them to be worth what they are being paid they have to produce nearly $25 an hour NET to get that. It matters not if they have been producing that for 5 days or 5 years. The cost of employment is considerably more than what the hourly wage is as well. For each of my employees on top of their wages I have my half of FICA, uniforms, workers comp and unemployment insurance to consider. Above that there are many other static expenses, such as advertising, power, phones, heat, accounting, rent, internet, in my case subscriptions to technical information sites, taxes, compliance costs, you get the picture.

So to ask a hypothetical question about what "you" would do in itself exposes a lack of understanding of business operation (no offense to the OP).

I once worked with a guy who did oil changes in a dealership. He did some other little things, wiper blades, the occasional tire repair, but mostly oil changes. And he was GOOD. The best I had ever seen actually. He had a good attitude, he was efficient, and he was loyal. At one point he went to our manager and asked for a raise. One of the arguments he used was that he had 10 years of experience. I'll never forget what the manager said to him. He said "Billy, I like you. But you don't have 10 years of experience. There is no such thing as 10 years of experience doing what you do. What you have is 2 years of experience 5 times over. If you want to make what these guys make (meaning other techs like me) then do what they do."


great post

and eight years and going strong is great

i have been in management for 20+ years....and i am still learning

and still making the occasional errors that cost me and the business money
 
The OP does not indicate the profitability of the company. Therefore there is not enough info to answer.

A long term employee has an inherent value for some tasks being acceptable in performance is just that, acceptable. There are job tasks for which performance is either acceptable or not, and nothing higher or lower in value than that simple measure.

In my opinion salary should be somewhat related to the profitability of the company, not how cheap can employees be obtained.

So a person doing a job as a skill level deserves greater pay for that job in a highly profitable company than the person do that same job at the same skill level in a lower profitability company?
 
As a manager, a minimum wage position worker approaches you and asks for a raise. Worker has been in the company for three years. In the work force for 10+ years after high school. Worker has no college, no trade schooling. Worker has only held minimum wage entry level positions during his career. Has never been fired but also has never been graded by supervisor as more than adequate/average, has never been recommended for advancement to higher level/better pay and benefits position.

As the manager, what would you do?

1. Deny him the raise but allow him continued employment.
2. Recognize that he is a minimum performer, a lazy, uneducated, unmotivated, low skill useless POS and send him to unemployment opening the position to new potential workers.
3. Recognize his contributions to the company and offer him higher wages and benefits.
4. Recognize that he is a victim of an unfair and unjust society whom the evil owners of companies has oppressed and then offer him CEO wages to perform entry level work at minimum required levels.
according to the right wing politics nobody is equal and some people always have to stay minimum wage workers because they are not smarter ,more intelligent etc...now cant we help them meet their basic needs as a human being ? are they sentenced to wage slavery for a lifetime ?
 
Interesting thread, and interesting answers to the question as well. However it seems predicated on feelings for the employee or a matter of what they "deserve", none of which is relevant to what the person makes. I know, I know, we're supposed to be compassionate and businesses are supposed to exist as a means for the employees to be happy. But that is simply not reality.

I've owned my business now for just short of 8 years. I have hired and fired many people. I've even fired a few customers. One thing I can honestly say about owning a business is that unless you actually do, you have no idea what it takes to make it work. I don't say that to sound better than others, I mean that even after 2 years of research and planning to open my shop there are still things that happen that I never anticipated. And there are a lot of expenses as well. Too many to list, too many new things that come along, new regulations, changes in procedures, vendors, market, etc. I have made mistakes in most of these, and overpaying an employee has certainly been one of them.

The fact is in any business there is a formula that determines what the employee pay will be, and any manager or owner who determines it based on feelings is either making a mistake or is in a field that is not competitive. The short story for my field and area is just over 30%. Conversely that equates to 325%. So a person making $10 an hour has to have a net production of $32.50 per hour. I don't even know what minimum wage is right now. Let's call it $7.45 an hour. In order for them to be worth what they are being paid they have to produce nearly $25 an hour NET to get that. It matters not if they have been producing that for 5 days or 5 years. The cost of employment is considerably more than what the hourly wage is as well. For each of my employees on top of their wages I have my half of FICA, uniforms, workers comp and unemployment insurance to consider. Above that there are many other static expenses, such as advertising, power, phones, heat, accounting, rent, internet, in my case subscriptions to technical information sites, taxes, compliance costs, you get the picture.

So to ask a hypothetical question about what "you" would do in itself exposes a lack of understanding of business operation (no offense to the OP).

I once worked with a guy who did oil changes in a dealership. He did some other little things, wiper blades, the occasional tire repair, but mostly oil changes. And he was GOOD. The best I had ever seen actually. He had a good attitude, he was efficient, and he was loyal. At one point he went to our manager and asked for a raise. One of the arguments he used was that he had 10 years of experience. I'll never forget what the manager said to him. He said "Billy, I like you. But you don't have 10 years of experience. There is no such thing as 10 years of experience doing what you do. What you have is 2 years of experience 5 times over. If you want to make what these guys make (meaning other techs like me) then do what they do."

None taken. And thanks for the real instead of "hypothetical" input. The whole idea behind the question was to change the perspective of the whole "minimum wage" debate.
 
according to the right wing politics nobody is equal and some people always have to stay minimum wage workers because they are not smarter ,more intelligent etc...now cant we help them meet their basic needs as a human being ? are they sentenced to wage slavery for a lifetime ?

As there is only a limit amount of resources available, why should we "waste" greater and greater amounts to those who do not contribute more than they consume?
 
Back
Top Bottom