Why is the worker seen as disposable and not the employer?

[Le Jacquelope]

I've just a few questions to ask about the imbalance of workers' and corporate rights.

Can a people not dispose of a miscreant company, as in forbidding it to do business in their country, and replace it with a company that will follow established rules?

Why not put equally stiff penalties on companies for getting into financial trouble, as society puts on workers? Such as huge, stiff fines for bouncing paychecks?

 

[rgraham666]

Because our society is more corporatist in nature than democratic.

In a corporatism corporations are not responsible for their actions. Their only concern is the power and status of the corporation. A corporatist society tries to balance these demands out, but it never punishes them for pursuing their primary goal.

And in a corporatism, the individual has no meaningful existence. They are member of their corporation, not citizens of society. So they can be treated as expendable resources.

And by corporation I don't just mean businesses. Unions are a corporation. Professional groups are a corporation. Political parties are a corporation. In our day to day lives these things are far more important than the individual, or even society.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

It's an interesting situation in big corporate Amercia today. You have CEO's being paid $5, $10, $100 million each year for not doing very much to keep a company running. But when a recession comes, who gets laid of so the company can "save money"? The little guy who'd been doing all the work to begin with.

What happens to the CEO? The company makes more money, so he gets a bonus in addition to his multi-million dollar salary for doing very little

They you have special cases - Halaburton.

Under Federal Law, if you sign a contract with the government, you are required to perform before you are paid. The government sends inspectors to see that the work was done and ensure the quality of the work.

Halaburton contracted with the U.S. Government in 2003 to get the oil flowing in Iraq. Thus far, not a single drop of oil has been pumped, Halaburton has done nothing, yet they have over billed $50,000,000 on their contract and demanded payment.

By simply overbilling, a normal American company would be barred from entering into any contract with the U.S. Government for five years. What did Halaburton get? We paid their over billing and their contract was renewed

 

[Liar]

Can a people not dispose of a miscreant company, as in forbidding it to do business in their country, and replace it with a company that will follow established rules?

Not sure what you mean there.

Yes, it can.

A company can dispose of a miscreant employee by not buying his services (work time). A people can dispose of a miscreant company by not buying it's products or services.

A person that doesn't follow established rules (written law) is tried and punisjed. A company that doesn't follow the law can be punished likewise. But rather than punishing the whole body of the organization, this is often done on the level of individuals, positions in the organization that bears responsibility. Consider the many employees in the company thayt have done nothing wrong, and who'd lose their jobs otherwise.

A company is not some kind of mysetrious evil being with a soul and will of it's own. It's groups of people. Individuals who pursue common goals together.

 

[xssve]

The short answer? Because labor is a variable cost, and managment is higher on the food chain.

It's an interesting situation in big corporate Amercia today. You have CEO's being paid $5, $10, $100 million each year for not doing very much to keep a company running. But when a recession comes, who gets laid of so the company can "save money"? The little guy who'd been doing all the work to begin with.

What happens to the CEO? The company makes more money, so he gets a bonus in addition to his multi-million dollar salary for doing very little

They you have special cases - Halaburton.

Under Federal Law, if you sign a contract with the government, you are required to perform before you are paid. The government sends inspectors to see that the work was done and ensure the quality of the work.

Halaburton contracted with the U.S. Government in 2003 to get the oil flowing in Iraq. Thus far, not a single drop of oil has been pumped, Halaburton has done nothing, yet they have over billed $50,000,000 on their contract and demanded payment.

By simply overbilling, a normal American company would be barred from entering into any contract with the U.S. Government for five years. What did Halaburton get? We paid their over billing and their contract was renewed

My argument is that you could kill two birds with one stone by limiting CEO compensation - in the form of stock options.

As far as I can tell, this is what screwed everything up: stock options were regulated as a form of managment compenstion on the theory that it would incentivize managers to maximize productivity.

Instead, it basically incentivizes managers to maximise stock prices, and thus leads to diseconomic behavior that benefits management and stockholders, but often screws labor - cutting variable costs - and customers as well.

Rather than maximising productivity which would theoretically result in greater volume, lower prices, etc., they are driven instead to cutting costs in an imbalanced fashion - chief among which is labor - layoffs, outsourcing, contract renegotiation, etc., and thus reaping large compensations from the the resulting rises in stock prices - stockholders don't complain becase they're making money too, and these huge managment compensations aren't actually coming out of their pockets.

So let stockholders pay them whatever they want, but make sure it comes out of their pockets, and I think you'd see not only much dimished compensation packages - for whatever that's worth - mostly psychological - but more to the point, firms actually being run as more than shells for stock speculation, i.e., compensation tied to overall market perfomance, not just stock market performance.

 

[trysail]

I highly recommend that you read John ("Jack") C. Bogle's book: The Battle For The Soul of Capitalism.

Jack Bogle was the founder of The Vanguard Group; in the world of investing, he is one of the two people (Warren Buffett being the other) whose opinions can be trusted as informed, wordly and honest.

DO NOT get me started on stock options. Damnit, it's too late; you've done it. The following is a letter that I sent to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the subject of accounting for stock options in 2002:

Financial Accounting Standards Board
401 Merritt 7
Post Office Box 5116
Norwalk, Connecticut 06856-5116

Re: Public Comment on Stock Options Expensing
File Reference No. 1102-001

Sirs and Mesdames;

As I normally have neither the time nor the inclination to engage in letter writing to standard-setting bodies, this letter is a tangible measure of the extent of my astonishment, outrage, and incredulity. Frankly, it is difficult for me to believe that the idea of not expensing options is still subject to any debate. I am left sputtering like a madman. I am dumbfounded. I am stunned. It is incredible. It is an opera bouffe.

Try as I may, I am incapable of surpassing the simple logical elegance of Warren Buffett’s question:

“If options are not an expense, what are they?”

Not one proponent of options has yet been so bold as to deny that they are, in fact, anything other than an expense. No proponent has even come close. Rather, their various flawed defenses are draped in convolutions of casuistry that make Orwellian “newspeak” seem straightforward. This question has defied any cogent answer due to the inconvenient fact that options are ABSOLUTELY and UNDENIABLY compensation. No intelligent man could believe or suggest otherwise. As awful as it is, dadgummit, when an expense is incurred, it really ought to be accounted for.

Now come the likes of John Doerr, Wick Simmons, Al Berkeley, and T.J. Rogers et al to obfuscate the issue with magical thinking. They raise fuzzy issue after fuzzy issue. When rendered in the trypot of reason, all of the arguments against expensing ultimately boil down to a simple inconsistency:

“Don’t account for the expense of options because, if you do,
the enormous cost will be seen (i.e., accounted for).”

I fervently hope the Board will decide in favor of honest and truthful accounting in this matter. Please make the recognition of all stock option expense mandatory on the income statement as of the date of grant.


Respectfully yours,
____________________________________________________
P.S., The FASB did adopt (15 years too late and after Congressional and political meddling delayed implementation) a rule that requires the expensing of the cost of options. The rule (regrettably) still permits the cost to be understated and "gamed."

 

[trysail]

I've just a few questions to ask about the imbalance of workers' and corporate rights.

Can a people not dispose of a miscreant company, as in forbidding it to do business in their country, and replace it with a company that will follow established rules?

Why not put equally stiff penalties on companies for getting into financial trouble, as society puts on workers? Such as huge, stiff fines for bouncing paychecks?

Where is Ken Lay today? Where is Jeff Skilling today?

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Yes, I've read both of John Bogle's books. His main premis, which echos my thoughts over the past six or seven years, is that America went from an agricultural ecomony to a manufacturing/service economy. At each stage the private sector added value to the economy through the production of goods and valuable services (doctors, lawyers, etc).

But the economy has again shifted toward a financial economy. The problem is money managers (Investment Houses, Mutual Funds and Banks) take more away from the economy than the add. This has been done through easy credit, deficit borrowing and imaginative profit laundering deals which enriched the money managers at the expense of the general public and economy as a whole.

Now the Federal Government is deep into the same scene. Where do you think the Trillion (with a "T") came from that GW has spent on Iraq? And who do you think is going to have to pay that debt back? I'm sure it won't be GW or any of his rich friends and family.

 

[trysail]

Now the Federal Government is deep into the same scene. Where do you think the Trillion (with a "T") came from that GW has spent on Iraq? And who do you think is going to have to pay that debt back? I'm sure it won't be GW or any of his rich friends and family.

What's a mere Trillion (with a "T") amongst friends?

U.S. Treasury debt...........................................$9,000,000,000,000
Social Security liability (estimate)..............$11,000,000,000,000
Medicare liability (estimate).......................$66,000,000,000,000
Source:https://personal.vanguard.com/VGApp...iews/news_ALL_socialsecurity_10252006_ALL.jsp

Value of entire U.S. stock market...................$16,000,000,000,000
Value of privately owned U.S. real estate.....$40,000,000,000,000

 

[Pure]

the employee is disposable, because he or she can be replaced.

he or she can be replaced because the laws were, by and large, written to suit the employers.

the laws were (and are) written generally to suit employers since the employers have lots of money to influence or 'buy' legislators.

 

[S-Des]

What's interesting to watch is the media's reaction to several thousand low-level employee lay-offs vs several hundred middle management job cuts. One sounds like a reasoned, thoughtful business decision. The other is broadcast like the company is minutes away from going belly-up.

 

[rgraham666]

Well, the middle managers are more important than the line workers.

What Jenny said about the switch to financial from manufacturing is also true. Much the same thing happened to the British Empire just a little over a century ago.

Sigh. Plus ca change and all that.

 

[Liar]

Well, the middle managers are more important than the line workers.

That's a typo and you really meant 'impotent'. Right? Right.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

What's a mere Trillion (with a "T") amongst friends?

U.S. Treasury debt...........................................$9,000,000,000,000
Social Security liability (estimate)..............$11,000,000,000,000
Medicare liability (estimate).......................$66,000,000,000,000
Source:https://personal.vanguard.com/VGApp...iews/news_ALL_socialsecurity_10252006_ALL.jsp

Value of entire U.S. stock market...................$16,000,000,000,000
Value of privately owned U.S. real estate.....$40,000,000,000,000

You assume that removing Social Security and putting people on investment based retirement accounts would be a better solution.

When those investment accounts get sold to fund one's retirement, that is when everyone finds out the real power of crushing debt.

 

[Sean]

I've always liked Marilyn French's explanation of capitalism from The Women's Room:
Capitalism is a game. Those who are best at grabbing get the most chips. Then they fix the rules so that those with the most chips get to make the rules.

Apologies if it's not verbatim, it's a long time since I read it.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Employees are disposible, in ways employers are not, for various reasons--depending on what we mean by employers.

If we mean "employers" as in "people who own the company in whole or in part", then employees are much more expendible, because they're not financially invested in the business. The choice between "get rid of the janitor" and "get rid of the owner" in times of famine is pretty damn obvious, given no extraneous circumstances like "the owner is /why/ money is lost"... even then, though, its /their/ business, not the janitors. So, oh well.

If we mean "employers" as in "management", then employees are more expendible, because presumably--and in every company I've ever worked for--management are those who have been or have experience on the labor level (can do the janitor's job) and extra training in administrative or accounting functions (maybe can do payroll and invoicing and whatnot). In that case, the employee is more expendible because it costs less money to replace them than the manager--a very "many can do the janitor's job" versus "few can do the manager's job", and demand raises the cost and the opportunity cost for a smaller available pool makes it more expensive to change management than labor.

This isn't exactly new.

I think we should be careful not to fall too far, headfirst, into the feel-good philosophy of "employees are the heart and soul of business and companies should work like perfect-little-socialist-idealistic states of commerce".

Companies aren't "evil". Corporations aren't the devil. Workers of the world aren't all angels, and their uniting doesn't guarantee joy. Money is the point. And if you can't measure it, you can't improve it. It's all numbers.

Employees are important, no doubt, and investing in them is important--but as a function of numbers. Smuckers is one of the best companies in the world to work for (they have CRAZY low turnover at their factory), they save TONS of money on turnover and training, they pay good wages, they make good profits... but let's not get hard-ons about why.

Getting hired /by/ Smuckers isn't fucking easy. They don't just warmly hug into employment every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a hardship and a tear. They have low turnover because they hire meticulously well (they're famous for their HR), they are very cautious, they pay well, and invest in their people with a strong emphasis on production goals. Its numbers.

And, not for a second, I think, should we assume they wouldn't let a janitor go, if they didn't need him and could save money (with their reputation, the backlash would hurt from any artibtrary lay-off, but that just means that "market backlash" is another metric to predict).

Anyhow...

Do the job. Get paid. Don't do the job. Don't get paid. Just because I hire you to mop floors doesn't mean you "own" the mop.

 

[sister76]

I always see my employers as being disposable.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Employees are disposible, in ways employers are not, for various reasons--depending on what we mean by employers.

If we mean "employers" as in "people who own the company in whole or in part", then employees are much more expendible, because they're not financially invested in the business. The choice between "get rid of the janitor" and "get rid of the owner" in times of famine is pretty damn obvious, given no extraneous circumstances like "the owner is /why/ money is lost"... even then, though, its /their/ business, not the janitors. So, oh well.

If we mean "employers" as in "management", then employees are more expendible, because presumably--and in every company I've ever worked for--management are those who have been or have experience on the labor level (can do the janitor's job) and extra training in administrative or accounting functions (maybe can do payroll and invoicing and whatnot). In that case, the employee is more expendible because it costs less money to replace them than the manager--a very "many can do the janitor's job" versus "few can do the manager's job", and demand raises the cost and the opportunity cost for a smaller available pool makes it more expensive to change management than labor.

Management can't manage without the workers.

That's what you've left out of the equation here - the company cannot function without the janitors - or without someone to carry out the janitorial functions.

This isn't exactly new.

I think we should be careful not to fall too far, headfirst, into the feel-good philosophy of "employees are the heart and soul of business and companies should work like perfect-little-socialist-idealistic states of commerce".

Companies aren't "evil". Corporations aren't the devil. Workers of the world aren't all angels, and their uniting doesn't guarantee joy. Money is the point. And if you can't measure it, you can't improve it. It's all numbers.

Straw man. No one said workers are all angels.

But why is it that labor unions are considered evil and not organized management, or corporate lobby groups, etc?

Employees are important, no doubt, and investing in them is important--but as a function of numbers. Smuckers is one of the best companies in the world to work for (they have CRAZY low turnover at their factory), they save TONS of money on turnover and training, they pay good wages, they make good profits... but let's not get hard-ons about why.

Getting hired /by/ Smuckers isn't fucking easy. They don't just warmly hug into employment every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a hardship and a tear. They have low turnover because they hire meticulously well (they're famous for their HR), they are very cautious, they pay well, and invest in their people with a strong emphasis on production goals. Its numbers.

And, not for a second, I think, should we assume they wouldn't let a janitor go, if they didn't need him and could save money (with their reputation, the backlash would hurt from any artibtrary lay-off, but that just means that "market backlash" is another metric to predict).

Anyhow...

Do the job. Get paid. Don't do the job. Don't get paid. Just because I hire you to mop floors doesn't mean you "own" the mop.

Let's get back to disposaibility here. If a CEO and the board of directors all die in a mini-comet impact at the golf game, why couldn't we pick the top workers and put them in charge?

Because CEOs are better?

Hardly. Lots of CEOs get million dollar retirements as their company is going down in flames. Lay & Skilling getting busted are exceptions to the rule.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Management can't manage without the workers.

That's what you've left out of the equation here - the company cannot function without the janitors - or without someone to carry out the janitorial functions.

I didn't leave anything out of any equation. The question I was answering was about "which is more expendible" where the options are "the employer" or "the employee". Given two kinds of employer, they can assume the duties of "employee" where "employee" cannot necessarily assume the duties of "the employer".

Saying "management can't manage without the workers" is only partially true. Management can definitely run a business, thus manage, without workers--given that its a business that doesn't require all that much extra labor. A friend of mine owns a gas station with his wife... they have 0 employees. They had 1 employee. They laid him off because they didn't need extra help. So, for small situations, yes... management can manage without workers, so long as they do the work as well.

For bigger situations, those with many employees--it depends on how we mean "without the workers". If we mean without ANY workers, then sure... that's a problem. By that same notion, if we mean without ANY management, then that's also a problem. But what about in part?

I used to manage hotels. Now, in a given day I had housekeepers. If I were to fire one housekeeper for poor performance, then I have other housekeepers. The day's workload might be 1/10th more difficult, and I might pitch in to take up the slack. Now, the flipside is, there's only one of me--let's say I quit. The hotel now doesn't have anyone who can make the orders, balance the audit, schedule, payroll, inventory, design the next week's ads, and manage the brand standards.

The question was about why employers are less expendible than workers (or at least how I chose to answer it). As such, how is it that I'm missing "variables"?

Straw man. No one said workers are all angels.

Not "Straw Man" (god, please don't start with the feaux-logic stuff). "Straw Man" would be if I was claiming someone was wrong or detracting from someone's argument by rationalizing down some weaker argument. I was pointing out an entirely seperate concern, hardly anything more than a caution. That's not a logical fallacy, that's commentary.

But why is it that labor unions are considered evil and not organized management, or corporate lobby groups, etc?

I hear /often/ about organized management and corporate lobbyists being "evil". Why are unions considered evil and not organized management? I have no idea. I don't see anyone making that claim, nor do I think I have /ever/ heard anyone make that claim. what are you talking about?

Let's get back to disposaibility here. If a CEO and the board of directors all die in a mini-comet impact at the golf game, why couldn't we pick the top workers and put them in charge?

We might be able to. Hypothetically, sure... many things are possible. Heck, if the corporate board died, why could we pick the Janitor in a "Good Will Hunting"-esque way? Sure. That's possible. But we have to better define what we mean by "top worker".

Do we mean the people right under the CEO-level? Middle management? Factory foreman? Shift supervisor? Line worker? Janitor? Picking "top workers" is a highly general and imprecise suggestion. "Top" as in "puts in the most hours"? "Top" as in "seems to most know what they're doing"?

Bcause CEOs are better?

CEO's might be trained and educated differently, with proficiencies and experiences more influential in the running of a company's administration.

Hardly. Lots of CEOs get million dollar retirements as their company is going down in flames. Lay & Skilling getting busted are exceptions to the rule.

Lots of CEO's also /don't/ get paid million dollar retirements and have extremely high turnover--given that their jobs are based on performance to a very high degree. But, if you want to compare "The most useless CEO's we can think of" to "the top workers we can think of"... I think you're making a false dichotomy.

Better, then, to take the average CEO--if its possible to agree on what that is--and the average worker--again, if its possible to agree on what that is... and then see which a given average company can more afford to lose.

That'd be a fair comparison.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I didn't leave anything out of any equation. The question I was answering was about "which is more expendible" where the options are "the employer" or "the employee". Given two kinds of employer, they can assume the duties of "employee" where "employee" cannot necessarily assume the duties of "the employer".

This is not an entirely accurate assumption.

Many MBA's jump right into management without ever having hardly seen the production line, much less worked in it.

Saying "management can't manage without the workers" is only partially true. Management can definitely run a business, thus manage, without workers--given that its a business that doesn't require all that much extra labor. A friend of mine owns a gas station with his wife... they have 0 employees. They had 1 employee. They laid him off because they didn't need extra help. So, for small situations, yes... management can manage without workers, so long as they do the work as well.

Of course.

On a side note, if one of them gets sick they have an entirely different set of problems.

For bigger situations, those with many employees--it depends on how we mean "without the workers". If we mean without ANY workers, then sure... that's a problem. By that same notion, if we mean without ANY management, then that's also a problem. But what about in part?

I used to manage hotels. Now, in a given day I had housekeepers. If I were to fire one housekeeper for poor performance, then I have other housekeepers. The day's workload might be 1/10th more difficult, and I might pitch in to take up the slack. Now, the flipside is, there's only one of me--let's say I quit. The hotel now doesn't have anyone who can make the orders, balance the audit, schedule, payroll, inventory, design the next week's ads, and manage the brand standards.

So there's only one of you and many of them. To keep things symmetric, if the workers go on strike, you're equally screwed.

The question was about why employers are less expendible than workers (or at least how I chose to answer it). As such, how is it that I'm missing "variables"?

Actually, you did a fairly good job in correctly muddying the issue with relevant variables.

Not "Straw Man" (god, please don't start with the feaux-logic stuff). "Straw Man" would be if I was claiming someone was wrong or detracting from someone's argument by rationalizing down some weaker argument. I was pointing out an entirely seperate concern, hardly anything more than a caution. That's not a logical fallacy, that's commentary.

Okay, I'll go with that - but it sure sounded like you were trying to bring workers down from a lofty perch they were never put on to begin with.

I hear /often/ about organized management and corporate lobbyists being "evil". Why are unions considered evil and not organized management? I have no idea. I don't see anyone making that claim, nor do I think I have /ever/ heard anyone make that claim. what are you talking about?

You've never heard about the demonization of unions? Really?
Here's one small compilation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_trade_unions
I've got more, better, in-depth condemnations of unions from right wing sources.

We might be able to. Hypothetically, sure... many things are possible. Heck, if the corporate board died, why could we pick the Janitor in a "Good Will Hunting"-esque way? Sure. That's possible. But we have to better define what we mean by "top worker".

Do we mean the people right under the CEO-level? Middle management? Factory foreman? Shift supervisor? Line worker? Janitor? Picking "top workers" is a highly general and imprecise suggestion. "Top" as in "puts in the most hours"? "Top" as in "seems to most know what they're doing"?

The most productive line worker, factory foreman or shift supervisor. The top performer among the grunts, basically.

CEO's might be trained and educated differently, with proficiencies and experiences more influential in the running of a company's administration.

I put to question the value of this "training" and why it is considered, on average, worth 300 times that of the average grunt's salary (way up from 71 times the average grunt's salary in the 1980s).

Lots of CEO's also /don't/ get paid million dollar retirements and have extremely high turnover--given that their jobs are based on performance to a very high degree. But, if you want to compare "The most useless CEO's we can think of" to "the top workers we can think of"... I think you're making a false dichotomy.

Really, now?
http://www.drudge.com/news/97989/average-ceo-salary-equals-364-workers

Better, then, to take the average CEO--if its possible to agree on what that is--and the average worker--again, if its possible to agree on what that is... and then see which a given average company can more afford to lose.

That'd be a fair comparison.

I wish we could do that. I believe that the average worker could be trained up to replace the CEO. Our workers aren't stupid.

 

[Liar]

Let's get back to disposaibility here. If a CEO and the board of directors all die in a mini-comet impact at the golf game, why couldn't we pick the top workers and put them in charge?

Because CEOs are better?

At CEO-ing, yes. It's a different set of skills.

The most productive factory floor worker has one quality that we can be sure of, that would make him a good asset as a CEO: he's obviously working hard, which is always good. But dows that mean he's equally good at economics? Project planning? Negotiation? Politics? Resource management? And any of a hundred other things that he hasn't done in his previous job. It's not a weekend course to gain those skills. It's solid education and/or years of experience.

One of the most common diseases in larger organizations is SMP, Stupid Merit Promotion. Where skilled labor rise to what is known as the Level Of Incopetence.

If worker Bob is an awesome welder, with deep and detailed knowledge of everything metal and torch, and the steadiest hand in the business, with perfect result every time, and a high production rate....what do we do? Make him head of his welding team. A nice little title and a nice little payrise. Ok, fine, now the best welder in the company doesn't have time to weld anymore. He's busy planning schedules and handling staff issues (two things he's not very good at, but he get by, since he know the people that works for him well). In return he now also have time to teach a little of his vast knowledge to the other welders, and as a whole, the welding team is slightly better off.

So now, the factory supervisor retires. The company leaders gather and say "Hey, Bob at Welding is doing a great job increasing the competence of his team. Let's make him the new supervisor." Said and done. Bob is now the head of the whole factory, with a nice little office and a nice little payrise. But now his daily job has nothing to to with welding, but with economic reports, conflict handling, subcontractor negotiations, and project/process management. Stuff that he has no training or experience in, and quite fankly does a poor job at. The company have lost an excellent welder and gained a lousy boss.

 

[Liar]

double post bleh

 

[Liar]

I wish we could do that. I believe that the average worker could be trained up to replace the CEO. Our workers aren't stupid.

But you seem to think CEOs are. Management should IMO be seen the same way that we look at expert labor. Both things take education and experience.

To to well, that is. There are quite alot of bad managers, partly due to the SMP I mentioned.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

At CEO-ing, yes. It's a different set of skills.

The most productive factory floor worker has one quality that we can be sure of, that would make him a good asset as a CEO: he's obviously working hard, which is always good. But dows that mean he's equally good at economics? Project planning? Negotiation? Politics? Resource management? And any of a hundred other things that he hasn't done in his previous job. It's not a weekend course to gain those skills. It's solid education and/or years of experience.

One of the most common diseases in larger organizations is SMP, Stupid Merit Promotion. Where skilled labor rise to what is known as the Level Of Incopetence.

If worker Bob is an awesome welder, with deep and detailed knowledge of everything metal and torch, and the steadiest hand in the business, with perfect result every time, and a high production rate....what do we do? Make him head of his welding team. A nice little title and a nice little payrise. Ok, fine, now the best welder in the company doesn't have time to weld anymore. He's busy planning schedules and handling staff issues (two things he's not very good at, but he get by, since he know the people that works for him well). In return he now also have time to teach a little of his vast knowledge to the other welders, and as a whole, the welding team is slightly better off.

So now, the factory supervisor retires. The company leaders gather and say "Hey, Bob at Welding is doing a great job increasing the competence of his team. Let's make him the new supervisor." Said and done. Bob is now the head of the whole factory, with a nice little office and a nice little payrise. But now his daily job has nothing to to with welding, but with economic reports, conflict handling, subcontractor negotiations, and project/process management. Stuff that he has no training or experience in, and quite fankly does a poor job at. The company have lost an excellent welder and gained a lousy boss.

Agreed, I see this all of the time at the company where I work.

A line worker being trainable to move up to a higher position isn't usually the problem, it's that most expect to be moved to a higher level, and thus higher paying, position. Only then will they attempt to learn the skills needed for the position, usually based on the reasoning that "I've been here the longest, I'm entitled to the next promotion." regardless of their ability to do the job. Which ties right into your SMP example except it's not always Merit that triggers stupid promotions, but Longevity.

I can't recall how many times I've interviewed an associate that applied for a position that he or she was unqualified for that not only expected to get the position because they had been there forever, but expected us to put them through school to learn the job that they were expecting to get, all the while paying them the wage for a job they have no ability to perform.

Not all workers have the ability to rise to the level of Line Supervisor, let alone corporate CEO. Sadly, some are at the top of their game plunging toilets. Normally the Janitor or assembly line worker that does manage to work his or her way up through the ranks of the company was hired in at a position that they were vastly over-skilled for in the first place or they were willing to put in long hours learning the skills required to progress beyond their current position.

Some, like myself, worked their way up from an entry level job to a position within their comfort zone. Just the right amount of responsibility for the pay involved and see any more advancement as a huge increase in stress level and responsibility with very little payoff. I make a bit more than the entry level management salary, to advance I would have to take a pay cut and take on much more responsibility than I currently have. It's just not worth it to me. I'm comfortable where I am, at least for now.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

At CEO-ing, yes. It's a different set of skills.

The most productive factory floor worker has one quality that we can be sure of, that would make him a good asset as a CEO: he's obviously working hard, which is always good. But dows that mean he's equally good at economics? Project planning? Negotiation? Politics? Resource management? And any of a hundred other things that he hasn't done in his previous job. It's not a weekend course to gain those skills. It's solid education and/or years of experience.

One of the most common diseases in larger organizations is SMP, Stupid Merit Promotion. Where skilled labor rise to what is known as the Level Of Incopetence.

If worker Bob is an awesome welder, with deep and detailed knowledge of everything metal and torch, and the steadiest hand in the business, with perfect result every time, and a high production rate....what do we do? Make him head of his welding team. A nice little title and a nice little payrise. Ok, fine, now the best welder in the company doesn't have time to weld anymore. He's busy planning schedules and handling staff issues (two things he's not very good at, but he get by, since he know the people that works for him well). In return he now also have time to teach a little of his vast knowledge to the other welders, and as a whole, the welding team is slightly better off.

So now, the factory supervisor retires. The company leaders gather and say "Hey, Bob at Welding is doing a great job increasing the competence of his team. Let's make him the new supervisor." Said and done. Bob is now the head of the whole factory, with a nice little office and a nice little payrise. But now his daily job has nothing to to with welding, but with economic reports, conflict handling, subcontractor negotiations, and project/process management. Stuff that he has no training or experience in, and quite fankly does a poor job at. The company have lost an excellent welder and gained a lousy boss.

That does happen. The universe is imperfect like that.

I've always worked around people who had better ideas than management had. I run the show here now (practically speaking) and they're my top people. But I can see where you're coming from: sometimes Generals make bad leaders. Sometimes.

I guess I haven't seen a "longevity promotion" in ages.