Just a quick fairness question.

[BigNBushy]

A lot of stuff going on around here (RIU Politics section) has to do with what is fair and what is not, with respect to the wealthy and the worker. Just so I can attempt to try to get a frame of reference for where everyone is coming from, play along with my following scenario. This is hypothetical, I'm sure there will be things that are incorrect, but for just sake of argument, let us gloss over the technicalities and attempt to arrive at a point.

This story is about a guy name Jim.

Jim is 40 years old, he has spent the last 20 years saving money to start a business. He has and business is going well.

The business clears, after all taxes, costs of goods, all essential services, fees and all expenses (save employment cost) are paid, the business has 1million dollars left over, and the only costs left are payment of employees and Jims take home pay.

The business is simple, Jim is an architect.

Jim has an office person, who is basically an administrative assistant, who is in the office during

business hours only, 40 hrs a week.

Jim has also hired a recent college grad who is an engineer, an essential partner to an architect, jim could not do his job without an engineer.

Jim has also hired a whiz-kid who is awesome with computers to maintain the website, and to assist jim with the computer aided aspects of his job, this position isn't essential, but it makes life easier.

Jim also has a receptionist, basically the administrative assistants assistant.

In this area, a good administrative assistant makes $20/hr (that's $41k yearly)

A recent engineer graduate makes $75k/yr for the major companies.

A good IT guy makes $60k

And a receptionist makes $12/hr (25k yearly)

So, with 1 million in profits, after paying these people

their fair market value (what most other businesses pay similar people with similar jobs) Jim will be able to realize an income of just under $800 thousand dollars.

Is Jim a fair boss?

If not why, what else should Jim do?

Edit...
Since jim is a very small business and can't get great group rates on things, he has done the following...

Jim has worked out a deal with a local health club. He has worked out a 10% discount on membership, and since they have electronic keyed entry, he will give $50 monthly if an employee uses the gym more than 12 times a month.

Jim will also agree to pay half of the health insurance premium (up to $100 on his part) each month for a health care plan, and he will also pay half of vision and dental. Jim will pay $50 monthly for add on family members.

Jim has a $20k life insurance policy on each employee, payable to whomever the employee designates.

Jim also has a great disability insrurance policy.

Jim offers 3 weeks paid vacation per year, after a year.

Jim has some really good alkaline water at work, for free.

Jim has set up a 401k where he will match 4%

And also, a Christmas bonus, probably around $2k per employee. (unless your one of those people that has problem with Christmas, then you can opt out.)

 

[echelon1k1]

What fringe benefits are his [Jim] employees receiving, if any?

 

[BigNBushy]

Well, at a firm at that size, probably not much.

I'll add that to the mix... With an edit to the post.

 

[DCobeen]

Medical insurance and 401k matching. would cost him another $50k - $80k per year.

 

[Rak on Tur']

If I was making 800k a year I would offer profit sharing and full benefits. If you have good employees it makes sense to want to keep them happy.

 

[BigNBushy]

If I was making 800k a year I would offer profit sharing and full benefits. If you have good employees it makes sense to want to keep them happy.

That was initially intended to be covered under my "technicality" clause... But those are pretty important, so I edited the post to add the things my dads company did.

 

[BigNBushy]

Someone mentioned profit sharing...

In my mind, the only one to deserve this might be the engineer.

I'm not very familiar with architect, just pulled that field out of my ass.

But if an architect needs an engineer, and it would make sence he would, having an engineer on staff that you liked might be worth adding a good perk to. But the young entry-level phone answering person does not warrant a share of profits beyond a fair wage and proper benefits.

One thing my dads business always did was a Christmas bonus. Every employee got the same, regardless of how much they were paid or otherwise. There were lean years where it wasn't much, and good years where it was very significant. But they all got the same, and I always thought that was cool. We had people maing 30 an hour or better, and girls answering a phone for 12, but they all got the same Christmas bonus.

 

[echelon1k1]

A lot of stuff going on around here (RIU Politics section) has to do with what is fair and what is not, with respect to the wealthy and the worker. Just so I can attempt to try to get a frame of reference for where everyone is coming from, play along with my following scenario. This is hypothetical, I'm sure there will be things that are incorrect, but for just sake of argument, let us gloss over the technicalities and attempt to arrive at a point.

This story is about a guy name Jim.

Jim is 40 years old, he has spent the last 20 years saving money to start a business. He has and business is going well.

The business clears, after all taxes, costs of goods, all essential services, fees and all expenses (save employment cost) are paid, the business has 1million dollars left over, and the only costs left are payment of employees and Jims take home pay.

The business is simple, Jim is an architect.

Jim has an office person, who is basically an administrative assistant, who is in the office during business hours only, 40 hrs a week.

Jim has also hired a recent college grad who is an engineer, an essential partner to an architect, jim could not do his job without an engineer.

Jim has also hired a whiz-kid who is awesome with computers to maintain the website, and to assist jim with the computer aided aspects of his job, this position isn't essential, but it makes life easier.

Jim also has a receptionist, basically the administrative assistants assistant.

In this area, a good administrative assistant makes $20/hr (that's $41k yearly)

A recent engineer graduate makes $75k/yr for the major companies.

A good IT guy makes $60k

And a receptionist makes $12/hr (25k yearly)

So, with 1 million in profits, after paying these people

their fair market value (what most other businesses pay similar people with similar jobs) Jim will be able to realize an income of just under $800 thousand dollars.

Is Jim a fair boss?

If not why, what else should Jim do?

Edit...

Since jim is a very small business and can't get great group rates on things, he has done the following...

Jim has worked out a deal with a local health club. He has worked out a 10% discount on membership, and since they have electronic keyed entry, he will give $50 monthly if an employee uses the gym more than 12 times a month.

Jim will also agree to pay half of the health insurance premium (up to $100 on his part) each month for a health care plan, and he will also pay half of vision and dental. Jim will pay $50 monthly for add on family members.

Jim has a $20k life insurance policy on each employee, payable to whomever the employee designates.

Jim also has a great disability insrurance policy.

Jim offers 3 weeks paid vacation per year, after a year.

Jim has some really good alkaline water at work, for free.

And also, a Christmas bonus, probably around $2k per employee. (unless your one of those people that has problem with Christmas, then you can opt out.)

With the additions you've added that is all standard and legally required in Australia, except health insurance & gym membership.

If i were in the US though that sounds like a great deal - for a US worker. Since Jim's business revolves around his OWN creative & technical output with the obvious relevant input from his engineer any employee working for Jim should consider themselves lucky, barring he is not an unreasonable and callous person to work for.

The only downside I could foresee is while Jim is hard at work spending a considerable amount of time onsite once the project has commenced, who is out there sourcing new work as architects have to submit bids for tender to secure a project - sometimes that can result in lost time/revenue if Jim's bid is not successful.

 

[BigNBushy]

With the additions you've added that is all standard and legally required in Australia, except health insurance & gym membership.

If i were in the US though that sounds like a great deal - for a US worker. Since Jim's business revolves around his OWN creative & technical output with the obvious relevant input from his engineer any employee working for Jim should consider themselves lucky, barring he is not an unreasonable and callous person to work for.

The only downside I could foresee is while Jim is hard at work spending a considerable amount of time onsite once the project has commenced, who is out there sourcing new work as architects have to submit bids for tender to secure a project - sometimes that can result in lost time/revenue if Jim's bid is not successful.

Remember what I said about technicalities?

Lol. This isn't meant to be a business model for a small architecture firm, rather an example of what a fair business owner who is making a killing can offer his employees and still be considered fair.

In my scenario, Jim is clearly making over half a mill a hear, and closer to 700k after the addition of those benefits, and only has one person on staff who approaches 100k.

Is that acceptable to everyone?

Jim is making 6 or 7 times as much as his highst paid employee, and making 14 times what his lowest paid employee makes, yet all are vital to his operation.

Is that fair, or is he shitty for only paying the low end phone girl 12/hr?

 

[echelon1k1]

Remember what I said about technicalities?

Lol. This isn't meant to be a business model for a small architecture firm, rather an example of what a fair business owner who is making a killing can offer his employees and still be considered fair.

In my scenario, Jim is clearly making over half a mill a hear, and closer to 700k after the addition of those benefits, and only has one person on staff who approaches 100k.

Is that acceptable to everyone?

Jim is making 6 or 7 times as much as his highst paid employer, and making 14 times what his lowest paid employee makes, yet all are vital to his operation.

Is that fair, or is he shitty for only paying the low end phone girl 12/hr?

I think what Jim is offering is fair for the US, i'll repeat what i said previously though - If i were in the US though that sounds like a great deal - for a US worker. Since Jim's business revolves around his OWN creative & technical output with the obvious relevant input from his engineer any employee working for Jim should consider themselves lucky, barring he is not an unreasonable and callous person to work for.

 

[BigNBushy]

Do Australian employees demand more? You keep saying "for a US worker."

 

[spandy]

profit share, lol.

jim sounds like a decent guy to work for. everyone was paid market value for their skill sets while receiving health and retirement benefits, jim owes them nothing more and anything more should be totally at jims descretion, regardless of his income.

jim wants to roll around in it and then burn it all, its his prerogative. if you dont like it, open you own business like jim and compete with him.

 

[Rak on Tur']

Someone mentioned profit sharing...

In my mind, the only one to deserve this might be the engineer.

I'm not very familiar with architect, just pulled that field out of my ass.

But if an architect needs an engineer, and it would make sence he would, having an engineer on staff that you liked might be worth adding a good perk to. But the young entry-level phone answering person does not warrant a share of profits beyond a fair wage and proper benefits.

One thing my dads business always did was a Christmas bonus. Every employee got the same, regardless of how much they were paid or otherwise. There were lean years where it wasn't much, and good years where it was very significant. But they all got the same, and I always thought that was cool. We had people maing 30 an hour or better, and girls answering a phone for 12, but they all got the same Christmas bonus.

For me personally I would feel a bit guilty for paying someone 12$ a hour if I was making that amount. Granted everyone is going to see it different. I look how two of my sons run their businesses and it has changed my views over the years.

But in all your example strikes me as fair for entry level pay.

 

[echelon1k1]

Do Australian employees demand more? You keep saying "for a US worker."

Here are the mandatory requirements that employers must legally abide by, in addition to insurance (Workers Compensation/Life/Accident).

1. A maximum standard working week of 38 hours for full-time employees, plus ‘reasonable’ additional hours.
2. A right to request flexible working arrangements.
3. Parental and adoption leave of 12 months (unpaid), with a right to request an additional 12 months.
4. Four weeks paid annual leave each year (pro rata).
5. Ten days paid personal/carer’s leave each year (pro rata), two days paid compassionate leave for each permissible occasion, and two days unpaid carer’s leave for each permissible occasion.
6. Community service leave for jury service or activities dealing with certain emergencies or natural disasters. This leave is unpaid except for jury service.
7. Long service leave.
8. Public holidays and the entitlement to be paid for ordinary hours on those days.
9. Notice of termination and redundancy pay.
10. The right for new employees to receive the Fair Work

In addition to the above, accrual of sick and holiday leave starts on the date your employment begins - no waiting or exclusion periods apply.

Discrimination or prejudicial treatment of any kind is illegal and employers face massive individual and corporate fines, even indictment.

Maternity leave is paid and we have even introduced paid paternity leave for the blokes as a national standard - for children born from 2011.

This ensures a competitive market for employees and employers and above average wages are the norm here.

 

[spandy]

Do Australian employees demand more? You keep saying "for a US worker."

i thought you were suppose to ask for a raise, not demand one.

demanding anything other than your rights in the work place would seem like to me the quickest way to the unemployment line.

 

[echelon1k1]

Just a quick question for all the yanks, does your employer have a right to see your medical records etc if providing healthcare?

The reason I ask because of a disturbing story out of Chicago.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/01/29/woman-files-suit-against-employer-who-fired-her-hours-after-cancer-diagnosis/

Madonia’s ordeal began last October, right after doctors told her she had stage three esophageal cancer.

Doctors sent her employers letters about her illness and her possible need for some significant time off for chemo, radiation and surgery. Less than two hours after getting that letter, Madonia says her boss called her in to the office, suggested she resign and offered to pay six months of COBRA if she signed a separation letter. Then they terminated her.

What happened to doctor/patient confidentiality?

 

[UncleBuck]

Just a quick question for all the yanks, does your employer have a right to see your medical records etc if providing healthcare?

The reason I ask because of a disturbing story out of Chicago.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/01/29/woman-files-suit-against-employer-who-fired-her-hours-after-cancer-diagnosis/



What happened to doctor/patient confidentiality?

no, employers have no right to even ask you about any medical condition whatsoever.

the person who i answered to at netflix did indeed ask me why i needed to go to the doctor shortly before i was dismissed, and i answered her. that was an illegal conversation. brought that up to the HR lady who is required to sit in at any termination procedure, and suddenly the severance they offered me doubled.

hush money is fun.

one of the other dudes they let go at the time as me taunted his boss by asking him how it felt knowing that he was gonna get the chop a week later (which then happened). we shared our stories at an unemployment party the next week, the rest of the managers they shitcanned only wished they had the balls we did.

we know the game and we're gonna play it.

netflix is lucky that no one took up my advice to fake a trip and fall on the curb that got damaged during a snow storm (more accurately, the subsequent plowing job). that was a gold mine waiting to happen.

 

[echelon1k1]

no, employers have no right to even ask you about any medical condition whatsoever.

the person who i answered to at netflix did indeed ask me why i needed to go to the doctor shortly before i was dismissed, and i answered her. that was an illegal conversation. brought that up to the HR lady who is required to sit in at any termination procedure, and suddenly the severance they offered me doubled.

hush money is fun.

one of the other dudes they let go at the time as me taunted his boss by asking him how it felt knowing that he was gonna get the chop a week later (which then happened). we shared our stories at an unemployment party the next week, the rest of the managers they shitcanned only wished they had the balls we did.

we know the game and we're gonna play it.

netflix is lucky that no one took up my advice to fake a trip and fall on the curb that got damaged during a snow storm (more accurately, the subsequent plowing job). that was a gold mine waiting to happen.

We're talking about a lady with a legitimate medical condition, who was discriminated against, humiliated, adversely affected and fired all while she had the battle of her life ahead of her.

And you are talking about faking an injury or purposely inflicting on one yourself to collect a pay day. You are a nothing but a pathetic narcissist.

 

[UncleBuck]

We're talking about a lady with a legitimate medical condition, who was discriminated against, humiliated, adversely affected and fired all while she had the battle of her life ahead of her.

And you are talking about faking an injury or purposely inflicting on one yourself to collect a pay day. You are a nothing but a pathetic narcissist.

i had a doctor's appointment to document my medical condition. no one is allowed to ask about that at the workplace.

i didn't think twice about it until i was unexpectedly pulled into a room and terminated. excuse me for having the quick thinking to bring it up in front of my manager and the HR lady for an easy 6 extra weeks of severance.

for all i know they were shit canning me because of it.

go be bitter elsewhere, champ.

 

[UncleBuck]

You claim to have been a supervisor at netflix. Do you know what duty of care is?

The following is an example of how not to do it;



For all you know they shit canned you for being shit - then you go and dry weed next to it... Go figure...

i actually did bring up the curb in management training too. and i don't think they let me go for that, unless one of the people i mentioned it to "snitched" or something. the only people i even told that to were part of the weekly poker game though, some of whom had already been shitcanned themselves.

we all knew when we were getting to the end of the line because our metrics were literally measured that way. your score for length of call or average stat were measured against others on a dot graph, with the most senior dots all falling to the far end of the graph. even way better employees than me lasted at most a year longer, only the HR lady had been there for over 5 years.

burnout and turnover is a byproduct of any call center, be it a shady telemarketing gig or the best customer service of any company during the years i was there. i hold no ill will, they were a great employer and i encourage others to apply. they have great benefits starting day one, but they are damn picky.