Sounds like you needed an Apprenticeship program like my Union has . It's for 5 years during which you go to apprenticeship school ( mandantory ) and have on the job training to learn the many aspects of our trade ,at the end of the 5 years you take a final test on what you have learned and if you pass then you make a journeyman's wages . You start out at around $12.00 an hour + benefits and top out at around $30 an hour + benefits . Raises are determined once a year on how well you score on the many tests that you take in apprenticeship school , also you do not stay with one company but are moved around once a year so that you get to work with many different people and companies .

 

We went to a split wage. Those whose start is before a certain date make x amount. Those after make y amount. The problem I had with what my "brothers" agreed to, is the lower wage people never caught up to the higher wage people.

But everyone is not equal. If I am more productive in my job than you, why should you make the same amount of money that I do? I don't see that as being fair at all.

 

But you said a newbie shouldn't be making the same as a tenured employee. A company either has to pay on tenure or productivity. Which one is it? It can't be both.

We went to a split wage. Those whose start is before a certain date make x amount. Those after make y amount. The problem I had with what my "brothers" agreed to, is the lower wage people never caught up to the higher wage people.

 

Ours is like that except the lower wage people catch up.

Ours is like that except the lower wage people catch up.

 

I thought you said after 180 days you got to full wage?

I thought you said after 180 days you got to full wage?

 

Yes. That is true for the entry level iin(SGO) But for example if you are an SGO and take a bid to the Mechanic Apprenticeship you'll go from 18.00/hour to 15.00/hour if you started after 3-1-96. If you started before 3-1-96 you'll go from 18.00/hour to 16.00/hour. I started in 5/99 and my buddy started in 5/95 so during our apprenticeship he'll make more than me. After we become Class A mechanics in 4 years and once we are class A mechanics for 180 days we'll make the same amount as the longest tenured mechanic.

But you said a newbie shouldn't be making the same as a tenured employee. A company either has to pay on tenure or productivity. Which one is it? It can't be both.

 

Actually it can. I've worked with several companies over the years on their human resources software. One modification I assisted in involved a structured tier system that took into account tenure and production levels.

 

The base production hourly rate was tenure tiered, to a certain extent. New hires spent 90 days at one hourly rate, then spent the remainder of their first year at a second tier, then obtained the union negotiated hourly rate paid to all employees from 1 year on.

 

Once an employee, of any hourly rate, exceeded a base production level, they were paid piece part for everything produced over the base production. The piece part rate was the same, regardless of tenure.

I have posted a couple of times on this thread already, so I thought I would share this announcement from our company intranet. I work for a large multi-national foreign-owned company. The backdrop to this is that most of our divisions, including mine, are in a capital freeze. Thus, while we have to live with very little capital investment in an existing (profitable) facility, you can see the investment poured into Asia without batting an eye. The € to $ exchange rate is ~1.3 presently. These would have been jobs in Europe or the Americas.

 

xxxxx has opened a new manufacturing location in the Chinese city of Wujin. At the plant of the xxxxx division, 1,200 associates will produce xxxxxxxxxxx. In total, 83 million euros are invested. Just one week earlier, xxxxx had taken into operation a new manufacturing facility at Changsha. For some 87 million euros, the production capacity was doubled there. A new research and development center was also set up at the location, which belongs to the xxxxx divisions.

Actually it can. I've worked with several companies over the years on their human resources software. One modification I assisted in involved a structured tier system that took into account tenure and production levels.

 

The base production hourly rate was tenure tiered, to a certain extent. New hires spent 90 days at one hourly rate, then spent the remainder of their first year at a second tier, then obtained the union negotiated hourly rate paid to all employees from 1 year on.

 

Once an employee, of any hourly rate, exceeded a base production level, they were paid piece part for everything produced over the base production. The piece part rate was the same, regardless of tenure.

 

It would be impossible here at Corning. There is no true way to measure how productive each employee is.

It would be impossible here at Corning. There is no true way to measure how productive each employee is.

So you can screw off and it can't be measured?

So you can screw off and it can't be measured?

 

Nope. I'm speaking on the way things are structured here. There is no true way to prove or show who is more productive. I can work hard for 2 hours out of a 10 hours day and you can work hard for 10 hours out of 10 hours. At the end of the day both of our jobs meet or exceed expectations. In my 2 hours I made sure multi million dollar equipment is running properly. In your 10 hours you made tables for the break room.

 

Who is more productive?

It is really a challenge in a lot of manufacturing areas to measure individual performance fairly. If there is one operator, one piece of equipment, not so hard, but people working in teams as they often are, more difficult. Of course, the weak links eventually are discovered and managed (ie. training, coaching, move to another job etc.), but I will just about guarantee the major reason for involuntary termination of an employee is attendance, not performance.

It is really a challenge in a lot of manufacturing areas to measure individual performance fairly. If there is one operator, one piece of equipment, not so hard, but people working in teams as they often are, more difficult. Of course, the weak links eventually are discovered and managed (ie. training, coaching, move to another job etc.), but I will just about guarantee the major reason for involuntary termination of an employee is attendance, not performance.

 

By far

It is really a challenge in a lot of manufacturing areas to measure individual performance fairly. If there is one operator, one piece of equipment, not so hard, but people working in teams as they often are, more difficult. Of course, the weak links eventually are discovered and managed (ie. training, coaching, move to another job etc.), but I will just about guarantee the major reason for involuntary termination of an employee is attendance, not performance.

 

The #2 reason for involuntary termination would be disciplinary. Performance would be next.

The #2 reason for involuntary termination would be disciplinary. Performance would be next.

 

Agreed!