R16 billion lost to time-wasting workers

[MickeyD]

General employee bonuses should be linked to employee performance, not company performance which is the domain of the executives. The time it is not reasonable to pay them is when the company genuinely has no money to do so. In those circumstances it should be held back and added to subsequent bonuses until such time as the company is able to pay.

It's a regular mistake companies make. Executives set unreasonable targets, then fail to reach them, so employees are not rewarded for extra effort. Neither the targets nor achieving them are under the control of anyone other than the executives. But on it goes, the executives keep setting unreasonable targets, and the employees realise there is no point doing more than the minimum to keep their job. The best people leave and the company is left with people happy to do as little as possible to take home their pay. In the right sector a company like that will even survive and those running it will blame the general employees for its failure to do better.

As a shareholder I don't expect to be held more important than the general employees of the company.

Your company should have a personal performance scheme and a company bonus scheme.

Your personal performance is measured according to your personal annual targets as per your performance contract. If you exceed these targets you are rewarded accordingly, which could include a higher salary increase than your colleagues. The benefit of this is that it is has future impact on your pension, future salary increases, etc.

Your bonus is linked to company performance. This is a once off payment that has no future impact.

Without shareholders there probably would not be a company...

 

[nthdimension]

Oh and while we are at it... WHAT ABOUT THOSE SMOKERS WHO NEED SMOKE BREAKS EVERY EFFING HOUR!!!

Every office worker should be regularly getting up and walking around a little. Most of the smokers I've known will spend their smoking time mulling over the problem they're busy working on too.

 

[PetrovH]

People should get salary increases only when they deserve it, that will motivate them to give their best at all times and not "steal" time from the employers.

 

[noxibox]

People should get salary increases only when they deserve it, that will motivate them to give their best at all times and not "steal" time from the employers.

Most people do only get increases when they deserve. An increase is getting a pay adjustment greater than inflation. Not giving an inflation adjustment is a pay decrease. Those I can tell you from experience will leave you with only employers that do the bare minimum to avoid losing their job. It never ceases to amaze us that a company that has operated that way can't understand why they're floundering.

Your company should have a personal performance scheme and a company bonus scheme.

Your personal performance is measured according to your personal annual targets as per your performance contract. If you exceed these targets you are rewarded accordingly, which could include a higher salary increase than your colleagues. The benefit of this is that it is has future impact on your pension, future salary increases, etc.

Your bonus is linked to company performance. This is a once off payment that has no future impact.

Without shareholders there probably would not be a company...

Are there a lot of companies without any employees?

Performance in most types of work is notoriously difficult to measure. We've been into a lot of companies and seen many different variations, but never anything that could reliably or consistently determine whether someone was performing above average.

Bonuses linked to company performance lead to disgruntled employees. Seen it over and over. The only time bonuses should not be paid is when the company genuinely cannot afford to pay any. The slashing should always start with the executives. Anyone who touts themselves as being justified in receiving a large salary because their decisions steer the company. It is also those at the top who set the targets, so if they set them too high it is another reason they should be first to take the hit.

An alternative scheme is profit share. If the company any profit some of it is shared amongst employees. It's not based on targets.