As much as employers complain of the difficulty finding nice employees, few have embraced a formula that assures success. The greater the difficulty finding nice employees in your industry, or positive positions within that industry, the greater the necessity to view the relationship as a partnership. With these employees observe the Golden Rule, treat them as you expect to be treated. In case you extend this principle to compensation, weighing what you’d hope to get in their positions at the expense of a number of your profits, you’ll see the issue disappear.
But aren’t employees with skill sets more common entitled to their share of the Golden Rule, partially setting issues of compensation aside. After all, the complaint that nice employees are scarce extends throughout the economy. Shouldn’t the relationship between employer and worker be similar to that of customer and supplier? It’s an even exchange, work for pay. Do they unthinkingly accept that the employer has something people need, jobs, therefore their position is superior. If this is truly the way things are, then employers ought to cease complaining about difficulty finding nice employees. It would logically follow from this that there is an overabundance of nice employees. But employers need nice employees as much as people need jobs. So let’s cease the fiction that they’re practically performing an act of charity when they make a hire.
But this reality of mutual need is blurred before you even summit a resume’. Ads often state, drug check necessary. There's public owner reasons for a number of this, depending on the industry, and the Government has viewed this as an element of its war on drugs for some time. However, often the employer will force you to take a drug screen as a condition of employment without justification. If nothing in your past indicates drug use or abuse, drug screens ought to be reserved for behaviors on the job that indicate a feasible issue. But what of the training costs you ask. They don’t need to devote those resources to somebody only to find out months later they or he is a drug abuser. Ok. I’ll accept that without argument..
But you, the worker, has probably left a job to accept this new position. In keeping with my thesis that the relationship is mutually imperative to each party, wouldn’t it be nice in case you knew before leaving your current job that the boss wouldn’t be subject to fits of erratic outbursts. The results of the check select whether or not the employer wishes you on the team, wouldn’t a neat sample provided by the boss make an employment offer more beautiful? You could put your mind at ease over mercurial behavior that would make your work life miserable. Besides, a boss with psychological issues can generate more havoc in your life than the reverse.
But aren’t employees with skill sets more common entitled to their share of the Golden Rule, partially setting issues of compensation aside. After all, the complaint that nice employees are scarce extends throughout the economy. Shouldn’t the relationship between employer and worker be similar to that of customer and supplier? It’s an even exchange, work for pay. Do they unthinkingly accept that the employer has something people need, jobs, therefore their position is superior. If this is truly the way things are, then employers ought to cease complaining about difficulty finding nice employees. It would logically follow from this that there is an overabundance of nice employees. But employers need nice employees as much as people need jobs. So let’s cease the fiction that they’re practically performing an act of charity when they make a hire.
But this reality of mutual need is blurred before you even summit a resume’. Ads often state, drug check necessary. There's public owner reasons for a number of this, depending on the industry, and the Government has viewed this as an element of its war on drugs for some time. However, often the employer will force you to take a drug screen as a condition of employment without justification. If nothing in your past indicates drug use or abuse, drug screens ought to be reserved for behaviors on the job that indicate a feasible issue. But what of the training costs you ask. They don’t need to devote those resources to somebody only to find out months later they or he is a drug abuser. Ok. I’ll accept that without argument..
But you, the worker, has probably left a job to accept this new position. In keeping with my thesis that the relationship is mutually imperative to each party, wouldn’t it be nice in case you knew before leaving your current job that the boss wouldn’t be subject to fits of erratic outbursts. The results of the check select whether or not the employer wishes you on the team, wouldn’t a neat sample provided by the boss make an employment offer more beautiful? You could put your mind at ease over mercurial behavior that would make your work life miserable. Besides, a boss with psychological issues can generate more havoc in your life than the reverse.
No comments:
Post a Comment