Question: How to Calculate Just Pay for Work
Question: How to Calculate Just Pay for Work
How would one actually calculate the full "fruit of labor" in work that includes several people doing different tasks?
How to calculate between people doing the same task producing physical items seems easy. Add in customer service, sales, and development, and it seems easier to focus on what other groups pay for those skills, which is not what I want.
It also seems looking at the difference between having the role, and not. However some skills are mandatory, just less involved.
Feel free to simplify, but different tasks is a must.
and it seems easier to focus on what other groups pay for those skills, which is not what I want.
The problem is that the skills have different worth and that said worth is different given the skill set. This isn't what you want to hear, but cost to replace is a good metric for this. This includes the quality of the work.
TL;DR Impossible, you can't just split all the money among the employees.
If you want to be fair in this you need to include all the expenses any business has and also reduce that by some multiple, no business can spend all it makes and survive for long.
Businesses have the same risks and problems as people do, with ironically, additional problems and risks brought on by the people themselves, such as embezzlement and theft.
You have to include or calculate for holding back profits to stay in the bank to get the company through a recession, natural disasters, or unforeseen circumstances on the downside, or to buy new production facilities and equipment on the upside.
There is almost always debt service on real estate or existing equipment.
There are lots of costs any business has and must provide for such as defending against frivolous lawsuits, patent trolls, and grifters, as well as the usual ones such as advertising, complying with government regulations, taxes.
For retail and manufacturing, supplies and enough inventory takes up a lot of capital and also financing to make it work.
This is such a non-argument. Of course a business needs to take care of its expenses to survive, and then some. The question is how to appropriately distribute the budget for worker's pay.
No CEO can work 300x as hard as the other workers.
Sure, and then how do we split the amount of profit available for salaries equitably?
I've tried to say that employee wages aren't anything close to what one sees on their paycheck. And been buried for it.
Unemployment insurance, worker's comp insurance, taxes, benefits (even if minor), all adds up to roughly double one's hourly rate.
Lemmy: "Fuck you! BILLIONAIRES!"
Fine smart ass. Go start and run a business. Be my guest.
I think market based mechanisms for calculating pay would be very hard to get away from.
That said, Mondragon (worker cooperative) has a base pay rate and then all positions are assigned a multiplier to determine an individual's compensation.
You are correct, some amount of market compensation will be necessary. If only for setting floors.
Mondragon looks interesting.
Just?
Like divide profit by a weighted hours worked average for all employees?
Weighted by hours worked is okay, but seems unfair if all hours are not generally interchangeable. In a restaurant think rush hour versus a lull.
I also don't like weighed by salary, as the highest paid already get more.
Weighting the different kinds of hours could work, but I have no idea how to weight them.
Personally, I'd start at the minimum required to live in the immediate area around the job site and go up from there based on merit/difficulty of the task/importance of task. But then again, I'm not a business person.
what other groups pay for those skills, which is not what I want.
Why not, and what would be your 'just' criteria instead?
A totally different kind of 'just' approach would be to find out what your workers need for living, and pay them that.
A totally different kind of ‘just’ approach would be to find out what your workers need for living, and pay them that.
Thank you for offering this one. It falls into the "things I don't and shouldn't control."
If workers learn they can be paid more by having higher expenses, they will have higher expenses. I also should not be combing through their expenses and judging them to avoid manipulation.
I didn't mean money that they spend for fun. Not at all.
I meant real needs. This means a different (very unusual) point of view regarding salary.
For example, businesses are already required to spend extra money if there is a worker with special needs = disabilities. The company must provide a special chair in the office, extra tools, whatever. Such a person might also have more extra needs with his normal expenses for living.
Don't forget the cost of lower and higher education in your "need for living" calculation!
Also, you'll still need a system to determine what products and services are valuable for society.
Copying the poor answers of the past does not advance society. I want to image a great company, not more of the same.
Several people doing different tasks
Are you able to expand on the scale and nuance here?
- Is it in a chain where one persons tasks gives the input to the next persons task? factory line style?
- How large are the tasks and then roles to fulfill them? IE at a subway (bake bread initially, prepare sandwich on demand) vs a software project (months long work, tasks could potentially months long and need many subtasks)
Some example questions for what I mean
I am looking for a general answer, so no.
I was hoping to tap knowledge I don't have, but though common. I mean many of us work or own businesses.
There are a bunch of approaches but one I like is to have everyone vote on the relative pay for each role except their own, so customer service doesn't vote on customer service pay ratio but votes on everything else. Once you have agreed upon relative pay you then take the total budget for pay and divide it among the whole staff according to those ratios. Nobody will vote for the CEO to make 300 times what someone else makes but they will vote for higher pay for jobs they don't want to have to hire again for, say shitty jobs or complex jobs. This means the hardest to hire for are retained, the ones who make work easier for others are retained, and the ones who are making life hard for others get reduced. It also means nobody will have to feel that they didn't have a fair shake, they got to vote and voice their opinion but the group has voted. Also, who really feels OK paying someone a pittance? Exactly the type of people who will be pushed out of this type of structure.
That is brilliant. Does it have a name?
No idea, but I put it together from ideas around algorithmic decision making and anarchistic thought. Design a society where you would be happy to be dropped in as a random person and you can't have massive power and wealth imbalances. As soon as you get rid of the idea that you will be on top you gain the drive for equality and fairness.
If nobody wants to do a job then people will pay more to not have to do it. In that way people getting paid to do shitty jobs at least get well compensated and that makes the job more attractive, leading to it being less shitty.
At my company management pay is a fraction of the hourly cost of employees for standard time and materials work.
So management makes less than the hourly workers? That is cool, and uncommon.
You can choose whatever process you like. When a market exists then you're still competing with the market. If a market doesn't exist then there's no competition. Either way it doesn't matter what process you choose.
The market rate will be one of many floors.
Add in customer service, sales, and development, and it seems easier to focus on what other groups pay for those skills, which is not what I want.
Why not? Why not value the work based on what others are willing to pay for it?