Out of the Crisis.Org

[Louis Altazan]

Quite common in management is the desire to attach conditions to benefits.. For instance if an employee ask for a raise, conditions are set. If more money is paid, more work is expected. To the employer this may make total sense. They may feel if they give more they should also receive more. Further, it leaves a “back door” in the agreement. If the conditions are not met, the agreement need not be honored. This is sort of a win/win for the employer.

From the employee’s viewpoint it may be totally another matter. They may already be working at or very near their capacity in the present system. Their personal expenses have risen; The cost of utilities, the cost of fuel, etc. Now their wages no longer purchase what they once did.

A raise in pay is seen as merely keeping up, not a benefit. Being offered a raise that involves conditions they cannot [easily?] meet, may make them feel they are being wrongly penalized for factors beyond their control.

For a long time I believe this tug of war has gone on. I also feel it is at least part of the reason for the “Us against them,” mentality that pervades business. A feeling that in order for one side to gain the other must loose. This further seems to bring on a great deal of waste with CYA, deliberate reduction of effort, a great deal of argument and complaining over the inequities of the system.

Management waste effort with even more conditional programs, trying in vain to close every possible “loop hole.” Workers waste time trying figure ever more creative ways to circumvent the system. Truly a “house divided” effect. Can this be changed?

_________________
Louis Altazan
Owner/Manager AGCO Automotive Corporation
Baton Rouge, LA