[ SECRET POST #4295 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4295 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 41 secrets from Secret Submission Post #615.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Unpopular opinions

[(Anonymous)]

Jobs should pay by productivity, not hourly wage, so all the dipshits that I work with that I have to pick up slack for would go home with no pay.

Re: Unpopular opinions

[(Anonymous)]

Hard agree.

Re: Unpopular opinions

[(Anonymous)]

But what if your job is something like being a security guard?

Re: Unpopular opinions

[(Anonymous)]

Hm, fair enough. Maybe only by work if it's something that's quantifiable?

Re: Unpopular opinions

[(Anonymous)]

Absolutely yes. Hell, I'll lie on my hour sheet as much as I can, because if I don't feel I'm giving 100% productivity, I don't deserve 100% pay...
I'm probably the only one who thinks this, but I am super passionate about my work. I might be extreme in my example, but being payed by the part is so much more effective than by the hour. (so long as you can actually be judged on such a thing;;)

Re: Unpopular opinions

[(Anonymous)]

The problem with it is that it's historically fucking great for employers and fucking awful for workers

It's incredibly anti-labo

Re: Unpopular opinions

[(Anonymous)]

labor*

Re: Unpopular opinions

[(Anonymous)]

DA

THANK YOU!

Re: Unpopular opinions

[(Anonymous)]

If you're in a job that produces something for which there is constant demand, even if it's just sales reports or whatever, and maybe for some service jobs, but I feel that there are a lot of jobs where this not only wouldn't work but would actually result in less pay for people who are already low-paid. For example, if waitstaff are already essentially working for tips, would getting paid for productivity mean *only* working for tips, or only getting paid based on the number of customers they serve? What if you get assigned a slow shift? You have to stand around for the whole shift and barely make any money because you weren't being "productive."

Re: Unpopular opinions

[(Anonymous)]

No, they really, really shouldn't. It might seem like a nice idea when you're feeling cranky about having to pick up someone's slack because in theory they'd be getting paid less and you'd be getting paid more, but that's not how it would work out in reality.

In reality, companies would set absurd productivity standards, so you could get a full day's pay...if you didn't take any breaks, didn't ever run out of supplies and have to grab more, didn't have to ask or answer any questions, and didn't miss a step for any reason, all while being the fastest and most efficient worker it's humanly possible to be. They wouldn't account for team members being absent one day and their workload shared out over the remainder of the team - it doesn't matter that you're handling your workload and a third of Becky's, you only made 80% of the standard, so you only get 80% of the wages. Have a job where you have to get input from other human beings in order to do your assigned work? Better pray you're able to get ahold of them and get the answers you need within the arbitrary small number of minutes assigned to that task, because you're certainly not getting paid for those fifteen emails it took to get everyone required to sign off.

Anything that gives corporations a chance to demand more of their workers is generally bad for the workers, because corporations only care about getting as much money as they can get for as little money as they can put out.