Pay differential applies to an extra or incentive pay to compensate for more difficult working conditions or to adjust to pay toward locations with high living expenses.
It is required by law for a company to maintain a soldiers position if they are called to duty.
What if these two things combine. There are several companies that will make up the employee/soldier's income with a differential. If the job salary is greater than their military salary, then the company will make up the difference. Some companies will go so far as to continue the full pay as well as continue the full coverage of benefits.
Although this is a very noble act, it can also prove to be very costly. In essence, the organization is paying a salary without the work. What if temporary help is needed? This would turn out to be even more costly.
Can there be a sense of discrimination between higher and lower positions? What if an employees position makes less as a civilian than in the military? If differential is used, then what benefits is he affored to?
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Separating and Retaining Employees
In this chapter, there was one main element that stood out to me. There was a concept that stated that organizations should develop a standardized form of discipline and that these decisions should not be left up to just managers and supervisors. I liked this concept because I've worked in places where the company morale was damaged by a lack of consistency involving disciplinary action. There were employees that were disciplined that were so contrastingly different for similar actions that it caused a clear sense of confusion concerning policy.
Should someone expect clear cut consequences for specific actions? If so, how can management derail employee gossip without violating the privacy of the employee disciplined?
Sometimes there is a double edged sword. What employees discuss and what managers handle are usually completely different. A disciplined employee that doesn't want the truth to be known may in fact embellish a story to create a belief of innocence amongst coworkers, but management has to respect the employees privacy and might have a hard time defending openly what the employee alleges.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
This was actually the basis of the interviews that I did for my paper. Employee development has always interested me because it demonstrates an investment in the employee. When a corporation is willing to dedicate funds and efforts into improving their staff it proves to me a direction that the company is headed in.
What are some of the differences between companies that focus on employee development and companies that don't? Are turnover rates related to employee development?
I think that employee development is connected to employee satisfaction. I also believe that employee satisfaction is a leading factor in turnover rates. If a company demonstrates to an employee that they want to carry in them into the future, chances are that loyalty will be returned.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
The main thing that stood out to me with training employees was the orientation piece. The initial training an employee goes through before beginning a job. I went through an orientation with a job once that lasted almost one full week. The training would last approximately 8 hours a day, and all new employees to the company would be in the same training. It was grueling and very difficult to stay focused. It seemed as though the trainer would come in each morning with the company policies in a binder and read page to page. There was no interaction, no participation, and for me, no understanding. I went through the whole orientation process and ended up leaving the company very early into my employment there. It seemed to me that that orientation set the tempo for the demeanor of the employees. No one seemed to be enthusiastic or even interested in the company, in fact, the company's employees were very distant from each other.
I compare that to another orientation that lasted the same amount of time, but took on a very different approach. In this orientation, we worked in groups, participated in activities, and were involved in many different training tactics. The orientation was much more engaging and easy to follow. There was much more camaraderie when the orientation was over, and therefor much more commitment when starting the job. I enjoyed working there and made many great friends while being there.
If orientation sets the tone for an employees experience with a company, then what is more important with orientation training, ensuring that policies and practices are taught, or generating interest and loyalty to prevent high turnover. If there should be a balance, where is it found and how is taught to not lighten any information that should be taken seriously?
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
I liked the clip from Oceans 11. I thought the correlation between putting the team of thieves together was interesting in its resemblance to putting together a team for a legitimate legal business. Finding specific talents and abilities in people that will help them accomplish a specific goal within a company can help progress move along. Being able to evaluate talent and place them in positions where they can perform best is not only good for the employee, but it will pay out greatly for the employee
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Selecting Employees and placing them in jobs.
This chapter was interesting to me because most anytime I am trained about employee selection and job placement, it usually pertains to me as the applicant. This topic as like all other topics discussed was interesting because it provides the perspective from the other side of the conversation. I have the responsibility of performing interviews in my current position, and I can honestly say that I have never received formal training on employee selection until just as recently as in the past few weeks. In looking at the employees that I have, I think that I have done well in not only selecting employees, but also in placing them in a position and with a coworker that will maximize their potential.
In reading the chapter, there was a chart that really stood out to me. Under Legal Standards for selection there was a chart that was divided between permissible questions and impermissible questions. I understand from other chapters that there are discrimination laws in place. It seems as though the permissible questions are only word adjustments. I guess I'm more of a direct shooter, and struggle at the difference between asking someone if they are at least 18 years old and just asking directly how old they are. If the job opening requires someone to be able to perform a specific task that you as an employer are fully aware that the applicant can not accomplish, is it fair to the employer to carry out the interview? Can it come across as sarcastic when an employer asks "Do you understand the job requirements?" If certain attributes are required to select and place employees appropriately, shouldn't an employer be direct about those expectations? If they teeter on the line of legal standards for selection, shouldn't the main judgement criteria be based on their ability to fulfill an employers needed task without fear of prejudiced judgement?
I still believe that unethical prejudices are wrong and should be viewed strongly, I just pose the concern that perhaps the fear of falling into this category prevents employers from being willing to ask more poignant questions. I think for an employer, selecting employees are an investment in the company, perhaps there should be some emphasis on what they can do instead of what they can not do.