![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andrewduckerNews here that companies have been told that length of service is _not_ a good enough reason to pay people more.
And, I have to say, about bloody time too.
True, longer service can lead to greater levels of experience and thus better productivity and usefulness from an employee - but it doesn't have to. If someone is being more productive/useful then they should be rewarded for that - paying them for length of service is jut a lazy way to avoid thinking about someone's actual contribution.
It also biases the system against women. It's very easy to justify paying women less when you can point out they've taken a year (or two) off to raise kids - but unless that has an actual, demonstrable affect on their levels of productivity, it's irrelevant.
And, I have to say, about bloody time too.
True, longer service can lead to greater levels of experience and thus better productivity and usefulness from an employee - but it doesn't have to. If someone is being more productive/useful then they should be rewarded for that - paying them for length of service is jut a lazy way to avoid thinking about someone's actual contribution.
It also biases the system against women. It's very easy to justify paying women less when you can point out they've taken a year (or two) off to raise kids - but unless that has an actual, demonstrable affect on their levels of productivity, it's irrelevant.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-04 04:41 pm (UTC)On the other hand, if you've worked well during the year you'll get a bigger bonus - and _that_ I think, is what your reward is for year-on-year good work. If a person comes back from a career break, but is still working at the same level as someone that isn't then they should be on the same percentage - but they'll have missed out on bonuses for the intervening time.