Comments on: LABOR: Agreements serve the public interest

By: commoncents

commoncents — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:18:06 +0000

Of course that’s what I assume. Because that’s the how the free market works. Those that are better can command more money. If not from one place who refuses to value it than from another place that does. That’s the one benefit about the employer setting compensation and benchmarking against other like entities. It helps you balance your quality and productivity against your efficiency.

And, more importantly, it prevents the inmates from running the asylum and ultimately running up your costs. As an employee I would love to work at a place where I set the compensation…and yes, I would get together with the others and set the bar. Perhaps I, personally, might set mine a bit higher than the others and lose out but you can bet that simply having the conversation would have raised the bar for the position significantly higher than the employer would have otherwise paid.

By: tree_guy

tree_guy — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 23:21:43 +0000

commoncents, you’re assuming that the highest scoring applicants are going to ask for the highest pay and the lowest scoring applicants are going to ask for the lowest pay. Yet there’s no reason to make any such assumption. I would take all the applications for qualified officers, then rank them by requested pay and let the chips fall where they may. You might get some lower rated applicants, but you might also get top rated applicants at very attractive prices. For what it’s worth we probably have people right now who only scored 70% who are employed by the government at very high pay rates. That hardly validates your POV.

By: commoncents

commoncents — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 22:02:44 +0000

i did answer. I said if they were exact same qualifications I would hire the lower paid person. However, it’s when you try to apply your hypothetical thought to the real world that it doesn’t hold water. In the civil service tests that you want to apply this criteria to, the applicants are not of equal qualifications and there are far more than 2. I’m asking you how far down the list do you want to go? How much are you willing to compromise on public safety in order to save a few bucks? If you take the top 2 and ask who will work cheaper…why not go down to 3? and ask what he will work for? He’s just as qualified..heh passed the test. Why not go down to #200? He passed, too. Of course he barely met the minimum but he passed.

That’s why I said you are missing out on the effectiveness…#200 on the list is clearly not the same level of qualifications as #1 yet are you willing to go down to his level to save 6k? Again, this is based on the fact that both people passed the test which determines qualification…ie they both qualified to be hired.

By: tree_guy

tree_guy — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 20:53:09 +0000

When people pass the test for fire or police worker have them write down on a piece of paper how much they will work for.”

That’s my EXACT quote. All the people writing down their target salary are appropriately qualified. There’s no such thing in my hypothetical such as highly qualified or moderately qualified. You’ve just come up with goofy objection in order to avoid defending your own point of view.

Would you hire the roofer with the highest price or the roofer with the lowest price? Both are appropriately qualified to replace your roof. Please answer commoncents.

By: commoncents

commoncents — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 20:37:06 +0000

Actually you said that you would take the scores of all those who passed. You are aware that 70% is considered passing for most of these exams aren’t you? You said nothing about segregating out those who were highly qualified from those who weren’t.

As for your next hypothetical…if they are equally qualified sure you will take the one who bids 10k. But, what are you to do if you rate 2 as highly qualified and they bid 20k because they know full well that they are the best in the business and everyone else missed that highly qualified status. Do you bite the bullet and take that 20k bid? or do you look maybe a little further down the list at the next tier? At what point do you draw the line? How far down do you go? How far are you willing to compromise?

By: tree_guy

tree_guy — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 20:13:39 +0000

Personally I’d rather have those at the top of the list rather than the bottom.” commoncents

I think you are really just trying to be obtuse. My previous hypothetical assumes that ALL the candidates for the position are HIGHLY qualified. For purposes of the discussion we can assume they are all the same. It sounds like you want to pay the people with the highest acceptable scores the most and the people with the lowest acceptable scores the least. If I’m going to hire a person to put a new roof on my house and I interview two roofers and they are both equally qualified, I’m going to hire the one who bids $10K and not hire the one who bids $12K. Bet you would too!

By: Bandito

Bandito — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:05:21 +0000

Let the bidding process begin. But, don’t forget, you cannot bid less than minimum wage. Yet!

By: commoncents

commoncents — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:53:11 +0000

Do you have any idea how many people pass those tests? Personally I’d rather have those at the top of the list rather than the bottom. I know, I know..you can draw a line at the top quartile. But why bother? The guy at 26% will be cheaper still….and hey he still passed the test.

Perhaps just using a modicum of thought might help you.

By: tree_guy

tree_guy — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:28:20 +0000

your approach focuses solely on cost rather than effective portion of cost-effectiveness. commoncents

Please re read my posting. I wrote that the lowest cost applicants who had PASSED THE TESTS would be hired. I didn’t include unqualified applicants in my illustration. Perhaps some instruction in reading comprehension would be beneficial to you.

By: commoncents

commoncents — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:09:12 +0000

tree_guy – your approach focuses solely on cost rather than effective portion of cost-effectiveness. Why bother with the tests? I’m sure there are plenty of folks who aren’t truly qualified who would be willing to work for cheap?