Forum menu
Because the unions object to performance related pay
Wonder Why?
I mean, TJ's here telling us that it so just so [i]unfair[/i] that heachers and nurses don't get a bonus, but when the unionista's get offered one, they turn it down... Maybe because they realise that the ones that are likely to get the bonus, are the ones who knuckle down and do their work, rather than the work shy union reps and barrack room lawyers like TJ 😉
Zulu-Eleven
I mean, TJ's here telling us that it so just so unfair that heachers and nurses don't get a bonus,
Really? where have I said that? Could you please post a quote?
This is the question I have asked that no one has answered
Why do teachers not need bonuses to motivate them to do their best at work whereas bankers need bonuses to motivate then to do their best?Why is it acceptable for bankers to not perform at their best for their basic salary but for teachers it is not?
No one has proposed a rational answer to the questions I have posed. If they have please quote them
Where is your answer to the point that different people have different motivations?
Where is you answer to privatising the health service so you can run under the same conditions as banks?
Where is your answer to privatising schools for the above?
Where is you answer to changing the structure to giving Hestor a 2 million GBP fixed salary?
Where is your answer to the suggestion that teachers and health workers are put under time and motion studies?
Where is your answer to the fact that the unions block these studies?
Where are your suggestions for solutions?
Simply not asking the questions then crying that people don't answer you questions is quite pathetic, isn't it? (Pathetic isn't an attack because I've seen TJ use it).
Please post a quote where I called someone "fool" the name calling is all from you
Previous threads. 🙄
Don - is that supposed to be an answer to the questions I have asked?
Is that supposed to be an answer to his questions?
TJ,
Within most organisations you will have set pay-grades, where most likely, in general on those pay grades people will be paid within about 5% of each other.
Now before you jump to conclusions this could be in pretty much any industry.
1. Common across all industries is that inevitably you get people who will do the bare minimum but get paid the same amount of money as some of their peers who are out to go above any beyond. This is proven to be very demotivating to those high performers. So what is the incentive to work harder? Why should the high performers continue to put that extra work in when they aren't getting any more?
2. Alongside all this, a company will have financial and strategic objectives each year to meet, whether its growth, cost savings, acquisitions, profit margin, health, safety..... you get the picture. The success of the company meeting these objectives is down to the employees and in turn would usually mean that those employees need to meet their own personal objectives in order to perform at the level that is required by the company. But what incentive is their for the employee to change their behaviours and how they work? They get paid the same either way so why not just do the bare minimum? Also, why should improve their performance for the company to earn more money when they won't see any of it themselves?
3. Alongside this, in many industries you will have specialists, outstanding performers who can turn around a companys fortunes whether it is with unique designs, new technology, outstanding financial acumen, incredible inter-personal skills, wealth of knowledge... you get the point. So how do you attract them to your company? Large salary? Maybe, but how do you guarantee that they will perform if you pay them up front? How do you guarantee that they will provide the benefits you require?
Answer to all 3 are measurable objectives / goals / milestones / results, with an incentive attached to them.
What an unusual thread 😀 😀 😀 !!!!
Why is it acceptable for bankers to not perform at their best for their basic salary but for teachers it is not?
Nobody is claiming that it is - I'll go further and say that its not acceptable - In fact I think that opinion on the thread is pretty unanimous that Teachers and Bankers and a whole myriad of other workers should have access to a performance related bonus scheme, in addition to their basic pay, to reward exceptional performance 😀
The only person arguing against this, is you TJ!
Tell me, is that because you're worried that if they introduced it for nurses, it would be the others getting the bonus, and TJ would lose out 😉
LHS I understand that However that does not explain why this motivation by bonus does not work with such people as teachers nor why its acceptable for these people ( the bonus receivers) not to do their best work for their basic salary
LHS I understand that
I don't think you do.
LHS - thats the argument for using bonuses and I understand and accept that.
It does however not answer the questions posed above.
Why do teachers not need bonuses to motivate them to do their best at work whereas bankers need bonuses to motivate then to do their best?Why is it acceptable for bankers to not perform at their best for their basic salary but for teachers it is not?
Why do teachers not need bonuses to motivate them to do their best at work whereas bankers need bonuses to motivate then to do their best?
How does different people needing different motivations NOT answer the question?
Why do teachers not need bonuses to motivate them to do their best at work whereas bankers need bonuses to motivate then to do their best?
You're arguing a straw man TJ
Teachers Bonuses, great idea! Nurses Bonuses, great idea!
[u]Teachers need bonuses to motivate them to do their best work[/u]
There, we've said it!
Bring it on, everyone's happy with the concept - us evil right wingers are more than happy for the best teachers to be rewarded accordingly.
We're all for it!
[url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/why-have-bonuses/page/4#post-3441587 ]Offered and ignored on page 4[/url], Z-11, twice infact as he's just re-read the thread.
Teachers should not have bonuses when put on bonuses pupil results go down . Bankers should not have bonuses as they make poorer investment decisions when they factor their own short term gains into their equations. Bonuses are a recipe for failure.
Employee participation and sharing in profit does work in small to medium companies.
This is like watching someone lose at monopoly.
my wife is a teacher, and she gets a bonus
more of a retention bonus than a performance bonus
but I guess performance and retention are intrinsically linked
it's a bonus all the same
The only person arguing against this, is you TJ!
No, I'm arguing against it too, I just break off to eat and play chess with my kids sometimes.
Big bonuses don't motivate - it's fact.
Go google "bonus motivation" and you'll get page after page of psychological studies telling you just that.
The reason we have big bonuses for fat cats at the top of banking and industry is because they can.
It's an emperor's new clothes situation, but fortunately some of the crowd are starting to laugh.
what constitutes a 'big' bonus?
One that is big.
Go read some of those studies I mentioned.
I struggle with long sentences.
Inicidentally, I agree. Bonus motivates and helps to deliver desired behaviours to a certain extent, after which, people only want to have a bonus that is larger than that received in the market, or that received by their peers i.e. they want to feel like they are needed more than others and therefore get more money, or they simply get greedy.
At this point the increase in the size of the bonus is not proportionate to the increase in motivation or the desired behaviour. The bonus then only serves as a measure of their worth to the company, and to retain the individual and stop them from leaving to go to a competitor.
Tootall at what grades?
We only have D grade and above here and they are all in the pot.
I think the way you lump all teachers and all bankers together is a broad brush. I warrant that some teachers would perform better if they had a bonus scheme and some bankers wouldn't perform any worse if they didn't have one.
The reason we have big bonuses for fat cats at the top of banking and industry is because they can.
Of course it is, but to say it is not a motivational factor is quite ridiculous. I think we could argue that they might not be considered as value for money, but not motivational?
I'm quite sure if I Googled for contradictory references, I could find them. Opinions are funny like that.
I quite agree that we don't need to offer these bonuses, let's just slap it on his salary and he can receive it irrespective of performance year in, year out. That would work and that would put him on an equal footing woth TJs teachers. We can then force people to use whichever bank whose catchment area they live in too, or would that be anti-competitive as all the good banks will go to Fulham and Mayfair leaving Hulme with Wonga?
Tootall - thats a part of my point. Its all so arbitrary.
if everyone shared equally in the success it may have some merit as it is it is just extra money for those who can.
Does it motivate them ...no idea I dont know any but I would hazard a guess they are greedy and avaricious so i would assume they do motivate folk.
Its all so arbitrary.
So what? Life does not follow a nice pattern and stuff happens. People live in different ways and there are many things we all don't like or agree with. You seem to take that to a new level and I have no idea what you try to achieve on here. You go blue in the face, several of us disagree or point out the shortcomings in your 'arguement' and the thread grows. None of us change our mind, you shave a few more minutes off your life and we're bemused again.
If you have a bucket of water, and you put your hand in the bucket of water, and you take your hand out of the bucket of water again, what has happened to the bucket of water? Nothing.
RPRT - which are you arguing, that bonuses don't motivate, or that [b]Big[/b] bonuses don't motivate?
TJ's argument is nothing to do with the [i]size[/i] of the bonus, He was more than clear that it was the principle of motivation, not the size of the bonus, that he disagrees with!
typically, the bonus pot is a share of the profits and is therefore variable.
schools, charities, public sector, NGOs and other not-for-profit organisations don't make profits therefore don't have a bonus pot, they operate on a fixed budget.
to create a bonus pot, you would have to take it out of payroll and therefore reduce people's base salaries (fixed pay).
He was more than clear that it was the principle of motivation, not the size of the bonus, that he disagrees with!
Not at all - I several times asked the same 2 part question which was all I was getting at.
Tootall- there were two threads on bonuses going simultaneously
the same people were on one defending bankers bonuses and on the other attacking the possibility of tube drivers getting a bonus.
It simply amused me to point out the hypocrisy of this and to watch people floundering trying to justify bonuses working and being necessary for one group and not being necessary for the other group.
So what? Life does not follow a nice pattern and stuff happens. People live in different ways and there are many things we all don't like or agree with. You seem to take that to a new level and I have no idea what you try to achieve on here. You go blue in the face, several of us disagree or point out the shortcomings in your 'arguement' and the thread grows. None of us change our mind, you shave a few more minutes off your life and we're bemused again.If you have a bucket of water, and you put your hand in the bucket of water, and you take your hand out of the bucket of water again, what has happened to the bucket of water? Nothing.
^^This^^
TJ, I've said it before, and will say it again, you should really try and walk away more often. Stop arguing. Stop trying to have the last word. It's not about right or wrong, but about the fact that I genuinely worry about the amount of time and effort you put in to this sort of thing.
So, go and have a beer. Go on, you deserve it! 🙂
the same people were on one defending bankers bonuses and on the other attacking the possibility of tube drivers getting a bonus.
tube workers were asking for an additional ALLOWANCE for working harder/ more hours.
bankers receive a BONUS for good performance (making money).
they are different things.
concern for your fellow man is one of your defining feature CPT..your humanity is , as always, humbling.
So TJ - you're coming off the fence a little?
[u]Do you agree that bonuses, in principle, act as an effective tool for motivation, or do you disagree?[/u]
No more bluster about "why one, not the other" - thats been settled, We're happy to apply the same rule to everyone.
simple question, one word answer is all thats needed.
CFH - ta but I neither put a lot of effort or time into this one.
Do you agree that bonuses, in principle, act as an effective tool for motivation, or do you disagree?
perhaps
Maybee
depends
pick one
HTH
😀
We have had posted a very good explanation of the studies that show bonuses don't work two of the many articles that suggest that teachers don't get better results when insentivized by bonuses . But nothing to demonstrate that bonuses work outside of menial repetitive tasks.
So anyone see a real point to them?
Do you agree that bonuses, in principle, act as an effective tool for motivation, or do you disagree?
[url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/why-have-bonuses/page/6#post-3443146 ]No.[/url]
[url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/why-have-bonuses/page/6#post-3443370 ]Maybe.[/url]
[url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/why-have-bonuses/page/6#post-3443153 ]Depends.[/url]
[url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/why-have-bonuses/page/7#post-3443950 ]Yes.[/url]
[url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/why-have-bonuses/page/7#post-3444003 ]Confused.[/url]
😀
So anyone see a real point to them?
yes, me, my bonus is commensurate with my in-year performance.
I used to work on a site where drivers were given a bonus for not driving their trucks into things and damaging them. Stupid to reward not bad behaviour, but it worked.
No, I'm arguing against it too, I just break off to eat and play chess with my kids sometimes.
Me too - I've been putting the kids to bed. I don't think teachers should have bonuses, and neither should bankers. In both cases the best available evidence is that it makes things worse.
For the record as TJ's brought it up again, I also disagree with tube drivers wanting a bonus for just doing their job.
I'm not sure if that adds anything at all to the argument, apart from to prove TJ wrong about us all being hypocrites (and it is always good to prove TJ wrong on these threads 😈 )
TandemJeremy - Member
Tootall at what grades?
My workplace has civil service grades G - A
all grades get a twice yearly performance review and an annual report.
The annual report results in a performance rating placing you in one of 5 categories, the top 2 categories result in a taxed financial bonus, the bonus is irrespective of grade so G bands (lowest pay scale) get the same lump sum as A bands.
It's "only" a few hundred pounds but several thousand staff are awarded it, I'm sure a FoI question could reveal the total cost to the public purse and it may even turn out to be a greater sum than a "Fat Cat" bonus.
We also get untaxed bonuses (? bonii} in the form of retail vouchers for taking on extra duties (such as first aider, fire warden, safety rep) or making a suggestion in the "suggestions box" which gets taken up by the organisation.
There is also a reward scheme for participating in a project which results in a product or service suitable for commercial development.
Add on expense payed attendance at conferences, working away allowances, and "unsocial hours" payments (on top of any overtime paid) and our branch of the public sector gets a pretty decent deal 😀
Big bonuses don't motivate - it's fact.
Personally I disagree with that. I'm on a bonus structure where I can expect 10% of my salary if I meet what's expected of me. However, the incentive is there to earn up to a 20% bonus if I really exceed my "Annual Performance Objectives" and that is a tremendous motivation for me at work to really push myself throughout the year.
So anyone see a real point to them?
As per my earlier post using the example of John Lewis, when everyone in the company gets an equal share of the bonus pot dependant on the performance of the company as a whole, then I think they can be justified.
When a few of the most senior people in the company get a huge payout and the menial staff at the bottom get nothing, then no I don't.
Loads of people keep going on about how motivating it is for the CEO, but how motivating do you think it might be for the staff on the ground floor who see their boss getting all of the bunce?
As per my earlier post using the example of John Lewis, when everyone in the company gets an equal share of the bonus pot dependant on the performance of the company as a whole, then I think they can be justified.
Goldman Sachs staff all get a share of the bonus pool as well, all dependant on the performance of the company as a whole. Much like John Lewis, the level of bonus paid is according to the position and salary of each member of staff. Some get millions. Glad to see that you agree with that.
Stupid to reward not bad behaviour, but it worked
so not stupid then as it worked