RE: Re: RE: interviews and ethics

Subject: RE: Re: RE: interviews and ethics
From: Sean Brierley <seanb_us -at- yahoo -dot- com>
To: TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 13:30:21 -0700 (PDT)

As an employee, not a manager, here's the thing:

1) A minimum amount of money is critical. Below that
sum, all the happiness in the world doesn't help.

2) After that, I'd like to include my family in my
life; kids and wife. So, mandatory unpaid overtime
should be kept down.

3) Next, a little flex time would be valued. I'd like
to drop off my daughter at the bus or school in the
morning and work 9-6 instead of 8:30 to 5:30. Can that
be done? Pushing it further, how about leaving two
hours early on Wednesday to coach fourth-grade soccer
. . . and making up by staying late on Tuesdays?

4) Then, perhaps, a warm and supportive workplace
environment, with supportive continuous management and
carrots as well as sticks.

5) Training is cool. Here's how cool, I pay for it
myself if I don't get it, and it pays off. For
example, last year I was turned down for training,
this year my employer turned me down for one but met
me halfway for another training event. I paid my own
way for two training events this year, both of which
have saved me time and made me more accurate on the
job in measurable ways. It'd be cool for an employer
to support training once a year . . . or twice?

6) Extra money or a tad more vacation would be next--I
can do without the aluminium crankshaft pulley and
titanium exhaust, but being able to afford those
things would be nice.

7) In return, I'll be more productive than you ever
could imagine, doing the job of a manager plus two
employees! I'll be accurate and on-time in my
deliveray and you'll be pleased with my work.

That's my take on the money versus happiness thing,



--- Gene Kim-Eng <techpubs -at- genek -dot- com> wrote:
> ------- Original Message -------
> On
> Mon, 25 Aug 2003 11:52:29 -0700 Chuck Martin?wrote:
> >Wouldn't paying employees who may be otherwise
> happy
> >working for you closer to the going rate be far
> less
> >expensive in the long term than the high cost of
> hiring
> >somone new? (In both monetary and non-monetary
> costs.)

RE: Re: RE: interviews and ethics: From: Gene Kim-Eng

Previous by Author: Re: interview and ethics
Next by Author: RE: interview and ethics
Previous by Thread: RE: Re: RE: interviews and ethics
Next by Thread: RE: Re: RE: interviews and ethics

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads