Show of HandsShow of Hands

Show Of Hands August 5th, 2012 12:00am

Would you want to work for a company that gave salary increases/decreases based on yearly profit/loss? (UserQ)

1 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

jstan New Jersey
08/11/12 4:47 pm

I shouldn't be affected by the idiot in the cubby next to me.

ishady 86451132020
08/09/12 1:30 am

I couldn't work in sales you gotta be a good liar and a bullshít artist. Not as bad as being a lawyer but close.

anarchy GET OFF MY LAWN
08/08/12 4:10 pm

Pinky: don't bother responding to Realistic. He/she is just trolling. Jumps in everyday, writes the same asinine line, and has never engaged in a single discussion on any comment...honestly, he/she has no idea why they believe that...just another glittering jewel of ignorance and blind Obama love.

anarchy GET OFF MY LAWN
08/08/12 4:06 pm

I'm in sales...that's EXACTLY how my pay structure works (not company-wide obviously). As my sales territory grows in profitability, so does my paycheck....until Obamacare kicks in, then I'm out of a job.

pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
08/08/12 5:02 am

FAILURE! Don't get me wrong, I'm not too keen on Romney either. I want Ron Paul to win. But you cannot bash Romney and leave Obama unscathed if you want anyone to take you seriously.

pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
08/08/12 5:00 am

@Realistic, nearly anyone voting for Obama would have to be a complete moron if they believe that he's handled the economy or foreign/domestic policy well. The only two bright spots in Obama's presidency were the sniping of Somali pirates, and the killing of Bin Laden. The rest has been an abysmal..

pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
08/08/12 4:57 am

Not company-wide profits/losses. That would base my pay on the performance of too many others. That only works well for compensating very high level executives whose job it is to ensure company-wide profitability. If pay was based solely on my profitability, then that would be fine.


08/08/12 12:02 am

Yes. This kind of system would motivate me to work harder and consistent pay increases would motivate me too. With this system one positive feeds off the other positive, and that creates a win-win situation for everybody.

buzzyboy
08/07/12 6:57 pm

If I were motivated to move my product and increase profits, therefore, my raise then yeah. But, I'm not, I'm a lazy bastard


08/07/12 12:28 am

Anyone who votes for Romney seriously does not understand politics and economics

Wert A picture of my junk
08/06/12 8:19 pm

Oh. You mean the way it should be? Absolutely.

thinker2 nc
08/06/12 8:12 pm

I'll take the salary increases when we increase profits but I don't think I could absorb a salary decrease in a bad year. Bonuses and supplemental income based on profit/loss would be fine with me.


08/06/12 5:11 pm

Then people would actually work!!!!!!!!!

yoodle Texas
08/06/12 3:54 pm

And that's how unions were born

TideGal CFL
08/06/12 3:38 pm

Not unless I had a say in the direction/ focus of the company.

teaparty Cleveland
08/06/12 12:04 pm

Too bad politicians aren't payed this way.

MasterMatt Oregon
08/06/12 11:09 am

Companies that include profit sharing usually do pretty good. I think it's a pretty good way to limit fraud, waste & abuse & give the employees a vested interest in the company doing well.


08/06/12 9:42 am

No..I can see getting paid due to how the company is doing, but life is full of stress. I seriously wouldn't want to worry about that. Having to worry about the stock market and IRAs for retirement is bad enough. id rather see Congress deal with that mess. let the public vote themselves a raise


08/06/12 9:37 am

The kicker is: Obama hired this dumbass for one of his job "czars " incredible


08/06/12 9:36 am

I would not want to work for Kodak..The dumbass CEO Perez asks the board for a bonus for executives while the company is in bankruptcy..WTF? millions of people might be out of a job and this idiot whines about a company jet, how he needs a new one when he just got one.

ladybug0
08/06/12 8:26 am

Amazing. Everyone rants and raves to hold schools accountable, but no one wants to be held accountable in their own jobs. Interesting.

ohai
08/06/12 12:35 am

I agree 100% with Danno9

danno9
08/05/12 10:40 pm

I would love for congress to get paid based on profit or loss.

silverado
08/05/12 9:49 pm

Do I want my pay to be reflected by my and my coworkers effectiveness?
HELL YES.
It's called earning your worth.
Something I see lower income, democrats, and a surprisingly large percentage of republicans seem to not understand.

prterri
08/05/12 7:03 pm

I already do. It's called a bonus program, and I've never received my bonuses. I love being good at what I do.

yorkie62
08/05/12 6:33 pm

Why would I take a decrease in wages? I never got a raise where I used to work even when we increased their income by 66%

Zod Above Pugetropolis
08/05/12 5:20 pm

Not my base salary, because I'd want to know I could make my bills even if they mismanaged the thing into a loss, but a small percentage of higher than projected profits that I was directly responsible for, as a bonus, while not necessary, would be an incentive to stay on.

Obie
08/05/12 4:46 pm

Duh I work on commission if I don't produce, I don't get a decent wage. Only people who don't have to worry about producing results (union) expect pay increases just for showing up


08/05/12 4:35 pm

and you would have to atleast be paid minimum wage

bstokosa Connecticut
08/05/12 4:35 pm

I don't want to but I do. Most small companies do, but they call it something like a merit increase.

tidford My little piece of heaven
08/05/12 4:22 pm

I love the idea of working in a slacker-free environment. It's always the most fun to work with motivated folks pulling together with a common goal.

As for cyclical income - that pretty much comes with all non-drone jobs.

yepnope Maryland
08/05/12 3:59 pm

Would you like to be out of a job when another recession hits?

Bankai In God we still trust
08/05/12 3:50 pm

If i knew that everyone in the company gave 110% then yes, otherwise no.

Nerdz Texas
08/05/12 3:31 pm

Not really -_- that could turn out disastrous

onwardwego
08/05/12 3:27 pm

Every year is too volatile, but I would interested in trying it on more like a 5-year cycle, to build in mode natural adjustment.

barbearnj Dreaming of Banff
08/05/12 3:16 pm

Raises should be based on personal performance.

honest
08/05/12 2:46 pm

I hope the people that voted "no" to having raises based on company performance here, also voted that teachers union are good. People seem to be ignorant to how this works. You either work for a company and get a raise based on performance, or a union gets you a raise.

mama3
08/05/12 1:12 pm

I already do. Well we get out usual 3% every year but our bonuses are based on profit/loss. Yes, I am lucky to get a bonus.

chrismisen atlanta
08/05/12 12:39 pm

no, unless im a higher up and actually have a say in the direction of the company.

kytoaltoky
08/05/12 12:27 pm

@FakeSound is right on the money! The problem with our economy isn't profits, it's demand. People who spend money (the bottom 50%) have less disposable income than ever. They cut back and demand goes down, so companies don't hire. It's basic econ. 101!

EarlyBird Portland
08/05/12 11:37 am

When the economy picks up, for sure! Right now, don't think so.

FakeSound Arizona
08/05/12 11:10 am

Are you kidding me? Corps are doing better than EVER right now!