Common Cause

In my working years, few as they may be, I have encountered a number of different philosophies of compensation. One such encounter was with a friend at a previous employer. I was proposing that the company could get a much better result from the employees in positions similar to mine if they received more training, tools, and support. By providing these tools (software in this case) and training to use them, many unnecessary hand-offs could be avoided, which were currently resulting in miscommunications which, in turn, resulted in excessive amounts of time to complete relatively simple tasks. This training, I proposed, could significantly increase the productivity of the on-site workforce, removing much of the need for some the work that was becoming more and more dependent on outsourced labor. In return, the company would have significantly reduced costs for achieving the same amount of work at a higher quality. For this increased level of productivity and increased potential for profitability, the company should compensate those workers willing to engage in the training and increase their productivity. Everyone would win, right?

My friend suggested that the company make the training mandatory, ask for the increased productivity, but maintain pay at the same levels that they were at currently. Why pay more if you don’t have to? I countered that this would take advantage of the workers, making them feel less appreciated for their efforts, which would result in a higher turnover rate, and the company would lose its training investment. Still, this did not seem to sway his opinion. I left the company within a year, partly due to this type of attitude being systemic in the company.

A principle I believe in is cooperation. Labor and management working to a common cause with fair compensation for the labor provides a positive workplace, better productivity, more creativity, higher retention rates, and benefits for both. Labor and management opposing each other provides situations for high turnover, unionization, strikes, lockouts, and a general distrust, in which neither party benefits. Both sides need to take responsibility in order to create a better environment. Labor needs to be honest with management about work loads, high or low, and show a willingness to sacrifice some personal comfort in times of high intensity for the benefit of the company. Management needs to fairly compensate the workforce, sharing profits with those generating them, as well as maintaining a proper workload so that people are neither bored nor consistently overworked. Anyone can initiate this principle, from the top or from the bottom. Its acceptance will provide better opportunities for increasingly better promotion of combined benefits, while its denial after a genuine effort may appear as a sign to try the approach better.

The principle also applies to companies and customers. In the auto market, investment in fuel efficiency, for example, will create a product that costs more, but provides a better quality and lower operating cost to the end consumer. The company benefits because they can make a profit on a more expensive, more valuable item. The customer benefits because their overall costs of owning AND operating the vehicle are lower over the life of the car. Companies that have this long-term view of providing a good product to their customers (currently these are primarily foreign companies in the auto market) are gaining market share, and those companies that are trying either to cost-cut their way to profitability or to push higher cost vehicles, due to size only and not based on value, are doing poorly. The free market should decide which companies are providing the best value, but in the interest of maintaing domestic manufacturing jobs (see Surplus), it would seem good policy to increase CAFE standards significantly, as one example.