SA Politics Thread Part 10 : The GNU Has Crashed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Employees stand to lose alot more than the employers on this one.

Meddling for cheap political points, but to the detriment of the people themselves.

Politics 101 I guess.
 
MuterOfWorlds said:
Employees stand to lose alot more than the employers on this one.

Meddling for cheap political points, but to the detriment of the people themselves.

Politics 101 I guess.
Click to expand...
Don't care who wins and loses TBH. As long as market related means exactly that, and is transparent. Because it's a lie if it's based on your payslip.

It also gives me as an employee an opportunity to determine whether I should waste my time going through an interview process or not...
 
ToxicBunny said:
100% but If my ask is over budget then decline up front when I told them up front before any interviews or anything
Click to expand...

Agreed. I had this when I interviewed with FNB. They offered a salary. I said no. They were shocked. “Well your offer is lower than expected and below my current earnings”

“But we have amazing benefits that make up for it”.

Still no.
 
Mike Hoxbig said:
Don't care who wins and loses TBH. As long as market related means exactly that, and is transparent. Because it's a lie if it's based on your payslip.

It also gives me as an employee an opportunity to determine whether I should waste my time going through an interview process or not...
Click to expand...
HR for 20yrs, never has request for a payslip been used as implied for the cheap political points here by a company especially at the employment lvl implied considering the political rhetoric.

At the employment lvl implied, companies have their budgets determined in advance and its a buyers market, you dont like the offer, no problem, plenty more ppl out there.

Absolute farce for politicking.
 
Priapus said:
Agreed. I had this when I interviewed with FNB. They offered a salary. I said no. They were shocked. “Well your offer is lower than expected and below my current earnings”

“But we have amazing benefits that make up for it”.

Still no.
Click to expand...
"But the giant wall of sweets surely makes up for the lower pay!"
 
Sultan Mustafa said:
How exactly?
Click to expand...
The 'implied' problem indicates to employers that the employees have no bargaining power, hence protection needed, government interference, why would you be inclined to offer more as a result and not less.

Law of unintended consequences. This nothing but a cheap politicking stunt, manipulating ignorance if the voters, not about any intention of a meaningfully positive outcome for them.

The implied economic lvl of the avg employee "needing" this so called protection is not the price where employers are going to care about payslips, employers go by budgets and what they consider the work worth in lieu of labour supply.

If the ppl need protection, it means they have no power, if they have no power, well, what stops employers offering even less now.
 
MuterOfWorlds said:
The 'implied' problem indicates to employers that the employees have no bargaining power, hence protection needed, government interference, why would you be inclined to offer more as a result and not less.

Law of unintended consequences. This nothing but a cheap politicking stunt, manipulating ignorance if the voters, not about any intention of a meaningfully positive outcome for them.

The implied economic lvl of the avg employee "needing" this so called protection is not the price where employers are going to care about payslips, employers go by budgets and what they consider the work worth in lieu of labour supply.

If the ppl need protection, it means they have no power, if they have no power, well, what stops employers offering even less now.
Click to expand...
All too true in some ways but not others

There are skills that are scarce. Those the employee still has bargaining power
For the masses you are correct in that the employer has the power due to oversupply of cheap labour
 
Not having to submit a payslips just removes information from the employer they would need to find another way. So more tests and exams to prove your skillset, more documents that prove you were employed and creditworthy etc.

While I feel the payslip requests are pretty invasive companies will still want to vet that information another way.
 
B-1 said:
Not having to submit a payslips just removes information from the employer they would need to find another way. So more tests and exams to prove your skillset, more documents that prove you were employed and creditworthy etc.

While I feel the payslip requests are pretty invasive companies will still want to vet that information another way.
Click to expand...
They can vet I'm employed in the way I claim... But not via a payslip where they use it to base their offer off of in many ways.

And I know many people claim they don't, but my experience shows that it is exactly what companies do.
 
ToxicBunny said:
They can vet I'm employed in the way I claim... But not via a payslip where they use it to base their offer off of in many ways.

And I know many people claim they don't, but my experience shows that it is exactly what companies do.
Click to expand...

They definitely do. But underpaying someone also means they may just use the company as a stepping stone and will come in uncommitted knowing they plan to leave in a years time. That also costs the company a lot of money.

I doubt it would change lowballing though. If there are 4 candidates that would fit the position they are going to give a lower offer and see what the counters are whether they saw the payslips or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X