RE: More responsibilities, but no more $

Subject: RE: More responsibilities, but no more $
From: Paul Hanson <PHanson -at- Quintrex -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 11:36:48 -0500

I was really trying to hold back from jumping into this, but I just can't
take anymore of this stuff on my screen about this thread. I know the thread
is only a few hours long, but already I'm unimpressed with the level of
analysis going on over this dilemma.

All we have is a two line statement that if you take on more work, you'll
get more money and now, for <reasons we don't know>, something has changed.
People are advising legal counsel when <we don't know why the promise
changed>. I think about 1/2 of the posts I've read on this list have jumped
on the "find a new job because this company is not one *I* would work for."

Some alternate ideas:
<start optimism mode>
Was the offer made when the person making the offer thought a big
multi-million dollar revenue-generating contract was *probably* going to get
signed, and then wasn't?

Was the offer made by someone with the authority to even make the offer?
</end optimism mode>

I hope the original poster fills us in with some more details. Maybe this is
standard operating procedures for this company. I don't know. But I don't
think I would be fit to say it *is* the SOP if I only have two lines of
information.

Some specific comments below:

<snip>
> I'm impressed with the level of analysis going on over this dilemma.
<snip>
. . . this behavior speaks negatively to the company's basic
philosophy. Integrity is an important ingredient in the work relationship,
and where it does not exist, it undermines the basic credibility of the
company.
<snip>
<<<<From one isolated incident that we have two lines of information
about? Really?
<snip>
> The willingness to tolerate bad-faith promises signals a corporate culture
> where the ends justify the means, where workers are expendable
> commodities, and where manipulating employees unfairly to
> achieve corporate ends is an accepted business tool.
>
<<<Please, you're kidding, right? How are you able to make a
judgment on two lines of information?!?

> That said, most corporations have flaws and/or unethical executives, so I
> can still agree with those members who suggest that you evaluate the
> motivations, look for alternative compensation,
<<<I agree with the above but not the two below.
> get legal counsel, and find another job before you dump these doodoos.
>
Flames offline, please.

Paul



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

*** Deva(tm) Tools for Dreamweaver and Deva(tm) Search ***
Build Contents, Indexes, and Search for Web Sites and Help Systems
Available now at http://www.devahelp.com or info -at- devahelp -dot- com

A landmark hotel, one of America's most beautiful cities, and
three and a half days of immersion in the state of the art:
IPCC 01, Oct. 24-27 in Santa Fe. http://ieeepcs.org/2001/

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.


Previous by Author: Re: On line help documentation - looking for examples and ideas
Next by Author: RE: GIS Tech Writing
Previous by Thread: RE: More responsibilities, but no more $
Next by Thread: Re: More responsibilities, but no more $


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


Sponsored Ads