I pass the Hannah test and your wife just told me you could join in. — Hanover

I was trying to let Agustino down easy. He, and you, will have to be satisfied with unrequited love.

Your web designer, your lawyer, they just want to do what's required to not get fired, they're not interested in doing a good job, and why should they be? — Pseudonym

Because then they stand a better chance of a promotion. That might not necessarily be enough of a motivation, but that's part of why I've been putting in the effort over the years. And have I gotten that promotion? No. Life's a bitch.

Because then they stand a better chance of a promotion. That might not necessarily be enough of a motivation, but that's part of why I've been putting in the effort over the years. And have I gotten that promotion? No. Life's a bitch. — Sapientia

Exactly. "you're a slave to the money then you die."

Your web designer, your lawyer, they just want to do what's required to not get fired, they're not interested in doing a good job, and why should they be? — Pseudonym

This is amatuer psychoanlysis. People have all sorts of motivations, despite your view that everyone chases dollars and strikes at shiny objects like a fish. I care only about quality.

This is amatuer psychoanlysis. People have all sorts of motivations, — Hanover

People have all sorts of motivations. This is amatuer psychoanlysis.

That is true. I would say that most people who work with me are not motivated by money (an exception is my accountant :lol: ).

Also people should note that the examples provided in the first post were merely that, examples to help discuss a deeper issue. Some of you have taken them to be the central point, and that wasn't my intention. Some of the examples provided were hyperbolic anyway, and most of them refer to how the relationship was at first, not that it continues to be that way.

Hence my question was more "Why do we have to engage with (new) people in this unserious, conflictual way?"

Because then they stand a better chance of a promotion. — Sapientia

There is no such thing as "promotion" with me. There isn't much of a hierarchy. I treat people as my equals.

There is no such thing as "promotion" with me. There isn't much of a hierarchy. I treat people as my equals. — Agustino

So you pay them the same amount as you pay yourself? :brow:

So you pay them the same amount as you pay yourself? :brow: — Sapientia

I don't pay myself. I keep most of the money in the business for development purposes and to be able to withstand shocks (run out of work, etc.). I am quite paranoid financially. I probably live on less than some of the people I work with. My personal expenses consist of food, paying for some of my grandfather's medical expenses, books and similar stuff. All my electricity, gas, telephone, internet, other subscriptions, etc. are paid via my company. I haven't bought new clothes (for example) in two years.

I don't respect money, money is just a tool to me. I pride myself on being able to control it, and not needing much of it.

That's somewhat of a superficial distinction, Agustino. If your personal expenses are paid for by your company, then that's tantamount to paying yourself. The only difference between that and paying wages is one of variability and regularity. Wages are a set amount at regular intervals and personal expenses vary and arise with less regularity.

Anyway, the point is that you don't treat your employees equally - certainly not in every respect. That's almost unheard of. Do they get their personal expenses paid for, too? Do they own equal shares in the company? I actually find your remark a little insulting. I know what you meant, but pay and opportunity should be included in any assessment of the treatment of workers. It's not all about behaviour. I would not work for any company which paid low wages and had zero opportunity of a pay rise or promotion. And, furthermore, I'd find it an affront for that company to try to justify that with stuff like, "But we'll foster a good working environment! As though we're equals!". It would have no incentive for me.

If I'm more determined, more capable, more skilled, have a stronger work ethic, and develop at a faster pace than others, then why should I be treated as the equal of others who are not my equal in these important respects? That should be rewarded with a pay rise or promotion, at least once a certain level is met.

Anyway, the point is that you don't treat your employees equally - certainly not in every respect. — Sapientia

Yes, of course not in every respect. But they are treated equally as human beings first, before anything else. I work with some of my people even at 0:00 in the night if I have to. Tell me, what man do you know of who can call one of his employee in the middle of the night if needed, and they will be there? Many of these people work for me because they've learned a lot from me (and continue to learn), and I've been kind to them - unlike pretty much any other boss around here.

Do they get their personal expenses paid for, too? — Sapientia

I would loan my people money if they need it for something urgent, yes.

Do they own equal shares in the company? — Sapientia

No of course not. I own all of it, but that's only because I must have the final call on what happens with the money. I do not want to spend the money, and I want to grow the company, because this will be key to everyone's well-being in the future. Not everyone understands this - some people, if they were in charge with equal shares would squander it.

It is like a general in the army. Yes, I head the army, just like your head heads your body. But it's not like your head will let your hand die, or will not take care of the toe, or is superior to the hand, etc. They are functioning as one unit, each one doing a particular job that it can do best - the head leading, the hand taking, and so on.

Now the hand has all the interest in the world to allow the head to lead. I don't see why you, or anyone else, wants to continue to live in this wretched society as it exists today. And if we are to change it, then we need resources, tremendous resources. How will we get them, you reckon they'll fall from Heaven above? As the saying goes, God gives you the opportunity, but you must take it yourself. Do not be like that man who, when the flood comes, and the boat comes to rescue him, says that he has faith in God and will not go on the boat. The boat is also from God.

I would not work for any company which paid low wages and had zero opportunity of a pay rise or promotion. — Sapientia

I do increase payment depending on the tasks at hand and how valuable each person is to the business as a whole. But there is no opportunity for promotion because there is no hierarchy. Promotion only exists in large organisations who have hundreds/thousands of employees, and have set up a hierarchical system to make sure that everyone controls everyone else. I don't need any such hierarchy to control ~5 people I work with. And my business model does not require many employees either.

I don't pay myself. I keep most of the money in the business for development purposes and to be able to withstand shocks (run out of work, etc.). I am quite paranoid financially. I probably live on less than some of the people I work with. My personal expenses consist of food, paying for some of my grandfather's medical expenses, books and similar stuff. All my electricity, gas, telephone, internet, other subscriptions, etc. are paid via my company — Agustino

I cannot remember if you are in the USA or not Agustino but I know back in 80' my parents company of 24 employees, not inculding them when we had the first housing crash and they were land planners and developers. My folks didn't take a pay check for 2 years because it was a choice of either paying themselves or their employees and they chose their employees. Seems noble but it backfired on them when it came to Social Security. In hind sight, they should have taken the salaries and then loaned the money back to the company. Such a simple way to achieve the same end without sacraficing their own future.

USA — ArguingWAristotleTiff

No, not in the USA.

In hind sight, they should have taken the salaries and then loaned the money back to the company. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Well, it's not so simple. It depends how big the salary to be paid to themselves would be (relative to the other salaries) and also how big taxes on salaries are. Where I operate taxes on salaries are very high... ~35% or so. So you can imagine that it's not very good to pay a salary for yourself, then loan the company with that money, and then pay the salary to employees again - you effectively pay the tax 2 times that way. And anyway, the governments in Eastern Europe are very crooked - I know people who have contributed a lot to Social Security, etc. and are left with virtually nothing now. So not the smartest thing to do here.

And inversely, people who have contributed very little to social security, and now enjoy a huge pension because... corruption :lol:

No, not in the USA. — Agustino

Kazakhstan.

In my assessment, both the problem and the solution are fundamentally about control, and my advice would be stoical in nature, as well as pragmatic. Put simply, take control. Focus less on your frustration, and focus more on doing what needs to be done. What good will bemoaning the situation do? You already know what needs to be done. Either do it, or learn to accept the less-than-ideal situation you find yourself in. — Sapientia

This is good advice.