Cyprus-Forum.com

[Pyrpolizer]

My son gets 15% bonus calculated on his annual salary. Does that mean he contributes 15% over and above of what he is obliged to?

You would have to ask his boss how the 15% is calculated. The boss should not be paying what a person contributes, what should be paid is a percentage of contribution.

So a salary plus a % of what their labour directly earned the company. It really is not that hard to calculate. It involes calculating the actual amount charged to the client the contribution he has made. It really is not rocket science. His boss should perhaps be introduced to some of the microsoft software, assuming he wants to be a fair boss.

Here are the FACTS. The person who hired him doesn't know how much the company makes. Doesn't even know the exact number of employees. The company is based abroad, and In Cyprus they only do part of the whole work. It is assumed the company makes millions and it's turnover is also in the millions. what my son does is just train others in not doing errors that would result to legal claims from 1 upto max 5 clients. Each claim may cost them from half a million to 2 million. Mistakes did happen in the past and are still happening. We are talking for humans here, not machines. They often discover mistakes by themselves and correct them before there's a legal claim.
Assuming you were the man who hired him, try calculating what salary you would pay him. And if you ever come close I will cut my throat.

In a nutshell your theory of calculating each employees contribution, and then deciding what salary to give him is practically impossible in the vast majority of cases.
This is not how companies work, neither what market researchers advice their clients of doing before setting up a company.

However, you may guess a few reasons about that 15% bonus. It's not rocket science. One of those guesses would be right I assume you know about yearly bonuses, don't you?

[Lordo]

My son gets 15% bonus calculated on his annual salary. Does that mean he contributes 15% over and above of what he is obliged to?

You would have to ask his boss how the 15% is calculated. The boss should not be paying what a person contributes, what should be paid is a percentage of contribution.

So a salary plus a % of what their labour directly earned the company. It really is not that hard to calculate. It involes calculating the actual amount charged to the client the contribution he has made. It really is not rocket science. His boss should perhaps be introduced to some of the microsoft software, assuming he wants to be a fair boss.

Here are the FACTS. The person who hired him doesn't know how much the company makes. Doesn't even know the exact number of employees. The company is based abroad, and In Cyprus they only do part of the whole work. It is assumed the company makes millions and it's turnover is also in the millions. what my son does is just train others in not doing errors that would result to legal claims from 1 upto max 5 clients. Each claim may cost them from half a million to 2 million. Mistakes did happen in the past and are still happening. We are talking for humans here, not machines. They often discover mistakes by themselves and correct them before there's a legal claim.
Assuming you were the man who hired him, try calculating what salary you would pay him. And if you ever come close I will cut my throat.

In a nutshell your theory of calculating each employees contribution, and then deciding what salary to give him is practically impossible in the vast majority of cases.
This is not how companies work, neither what market researchers advice their clients of doing before setting up a company.

However, you may guess a few reasons about that 15% bonus. It's not rocket science. One of those guesses would be right I assume you know about yearly bonuses, don't you?

You have to think about it a little. This is not a normal situation where a person performs a task and produces a product and the product is sold and a share of the profit calculated taking all other costs involved in account.

This is saving the organisation in the region of a million pounds. Then it is the percentage of saving that has to be calculated. It aint rocket science is it?

So you have a situation where a persons effort could save you millions but you pay him in hundreds. You deserve everything you get if the employee decides to drop you in it by giving incorrect information.

As to the person who does not know the information to value a service accurately is what I call a yes man. He is not hired to do a job, he is hired to do what he is told. The world is full of such asswipes and they serve to keep people in poverty very well and get a bonus for it too.

[Maximus]

You have to think about it a little. This is not a normal situation where a person performs a task and produces a product and the product is sold and a share of the profit calculated taking all other costs involved in account.

This is saving the organisation in the region of a million pounds. Then it is the percentage of saving that has to be calculated. It aint rocket science is it?

You have to think about that a lot more Bordo,

Because there is no actual fact that the employee saved the company millions of pounds.

What you are suggesting is to pay someone based on what the company might have lost, whether the company did or not.

And the person who identified this way of saving money could have been the manager or the chief financial officer or the shareholders.

So they create a job and employ someone.

But lets say that the job is not hard, it doesnt require much skill other than some attention to detail. They are just cross referencing data and the company just needs someone to monitor some other employees human errors and that saves the company a millions pounds each year.

Should that employee get 100K per year bonus on top of their salary? or should the company fire and replace the repeat offenders of these errors?

What about the cleaner that doesnt contribute to the company's earnings or savings. How to justify paying a living wage? What if they need £5000 a month to live on? What if someone else only needs £1000 to live on? What if the latter complains because they find out that the predecessors was earning £5000 per month to clean toilets?

Did you know some people earn upwards of £50,000 per year and they are broke? what about upping their salary to pay them a living wage?

[Lordo]

You have to think about it a little. This is not a normal situation where a person performs a task and produces a product and the product is sold and a share of the profit calculated taking all other costs involved in account.

This is saving the organisation in the region of a million pounds. Then it is the percentage of saving that has to be calculated. It aint rocket science is it?

You have to think about that a lot more Bordo,

Because there is no actual fact that the employee saved the company millions of pounds.

What you are suggesting is to pay someone based on what the company might have lost, whether the company did or not.

And the person who identified this way of saving money could have been the manager or the chief financial officer or the shareholders.

So they create a job and employ someone.

But lets say that the job is not hard, it doesnt require much skill other than some attention to detail. They are just cross referencing data and the company just needs someone to monitor some other employees human errors and that saves the company a millions pounds each year.

Should that employee get 100K per year bonus on top of their salary? or should the company fire and replace the repeat offenders of these errors?

What about the cleaner that doesnt contribute to the company's earnings or savings. How to justify paying a living wage? What if they need £5000 a month to live on? What if someone else only needs £1000 to live on? What if the latter complains because they find out that the predecessors was earning £5000 per month to clean toilets?

Did you know some people earn upwards of £50,000 per year and they are broke? what about upping their salary to pay them a living wage?

You clearly have not thought about it all. Now put the toilet brush down and consentrate.

If the employer did not think this was saving him money he would not be wasting his money. Yes there is no direct connection between them so the whole thing is calculated on risk and if the employee saves just one instance a month the company 1 million he is worth the wages and onus he is being paid. If a person cost 1 million to the company in any one imcident they will not be in that job by the end of the day. Companies are not charity.

I have come accross a man who earns 10,000 pounds a day. He does bugger all all day long. But when the shit hits the fan he solves it. When you employ 200,000 people and their work depends on the system working maximum of the time the man is worth 10,000 pounds per day. SO yes he does earn his money nit every day but when needed so business goes on as normal and the company makes millions a day.

Regarding a cleaner needing x amonut to live on. Pibol do not get paid individually according to their needs. They get paid a fair amount any normal human being can live on. If the cleaner needs 5000 to live on in a month, i suggest he/she visits a clinic and kick the coke habit.

If a person cannot live on 50,000 pounds per day they need to attend evening classes to learn how to live. You are runing around like a headless chicken. We are talking about paying an idividual a wage and a percentage from profit that they actually contribute to the company. And yet people like you who clean toilets also contribute to the company turnover by making people feel at ease about going to the toilet during work times. You have the attention span of a goldfish. FFS.

Clean toilets are very important. When I was at school I went to the toilet once and never again. I wonder if that held me back from learning to reach my potential.

[Londonrake]

When I was at school I went to the toilet once and never again. I wonder if that held me back from learning to reach my potential.

When I was a kid we would see who could pee highest up the wall.

Nowadays it's who can avoid getting their shoes wet.

[Pyrpolizer]

You have to think about it a little. This is not a normal situation where a person performs a task and produces a product and the product is sold and a share of the profit calculated taking all other costs involved in account.

So in your opinion a normal situation concerns manufacturing a product from raw materials. Which in fact is about 10% of all "situations". How about the remaining 90%?
Regardless give me just one example how you'd do the calculation. Let's assume an easy one, a factory that makes T-shirts.

This is saving the organisation in the region of a million pounds. Then it is the percentage of saving that has to be calculated. It aint rocket science is it?

Who said it's saving them millions? To learn how much it saves them they should stop the training and use people paid at minimum salary and then compare the outcome with the current situation. They would be stupid to do that anyway. But let's assume they tried it in the past and it proved to save them 10 million per year. Should my son and the rest of his team share 10 million per year?

So you have a situation where a persons effort could save you millions but you pay him in hundreds. You deserve everything you get if the employee decides to drop you in it by giving incorrect information.

Really??? You think a company like this would take such a risk? fyi all work is double and triple checked. It then goes to the headquarters where is also thoroughly checked. it's not unusual to hire 10 people in Cyprus and kick out 9 within weeks. That's how my son has constant supply of new blood.

As to the person who does not know the information to value a service accurately is what I call a yes man. He is not hired to do a job, he is hired to do what he is told. The world is full of such asswipes and they serve to keep people in poverty very well and get a bonus for it too.

[Maximus]

You clearly have not thought about it all. Now put the toilet brush down and consentrate.

If the employer did not think this was saving him money he would not be wasting his money. Yes there is no direct connection between them so the whole thing is calculated on risk and if the employee saves just one instance a month the company 1 million he is worth the wages and onus he is being paid. If a person cost 1 million to the company in any one imcident they will not be in that job by the end of the day. Companies are not charity.

I have come accross a man who earns 10,000 pounds a day. He does bugger all all day long. But when the shit hits the fan he solves it. When you employ 200,000 people and their work depends on the system working maximum of the time the man is worth 10,000 pounds per day. SO yes he does earn his money nit every day but when needed so business goes on as normal and the company makes millions a day.

Regarding a cleaner needing x amonut to live on. Pibol do not get paid individually according to their needs. They get paid a fair amount any normal human being can live on. If the cleaner needs 5000 to live on in a month, i suggest he/she visits a clinic and kick the coke habit.

If a person cannot live on 50,000 pounds per day they need to attend evening classes to learn how to live. You are runing around like a headless chicken. We are talking about paying an idividual a wage and a percentage from profit that they actually contribute to the company. And yet people like you who clean toilets also contribute to the company turnover by making people feel at ease about going to the toilet during work times. You have the attention span of a goldfish. FFS.

Clean toilets are very important. When I was at school I went to the toilet once and never again. I wonder if that held me back from learning to reach my potential.

Easy to come out with ideas, something else to implement them in a way that makes sense and is measurable.

The reality is, many companies do pay performance related bonuses but you seem to think that people should be paid ridiculous amounts for what they do.

I will give you an example,

A company could take 20 years to become a global brand. A lot of money could have been invested in to research and develpement. Taking it from nothing to hundreds of millions a year. Then a sales person comes in and by virtue of working for the company, writes millions of pounds worth of business. But if he had been at another company with an inferior product or service, he wouldn't write a fraction of it.

He writes that much business because he leans on the success of the company.

Is that sales person really worth as much as you might have in mind?

I doubt it.

its like standing over other peoples blood sweat and tears and expecting to get recognition for it.

[Lordo]

Every organisation has the right to make a return on their investment. Nobody said they are not allowed to do that. The point is they can make it without treating their workers like shit. A company does not become a global brand unless tey have a quality product and you cannot have a quality product without quality workers. The quality product has to be produced after it becomes a global brand. SO workers should have been paid appropriately while it was becoming a global product as well as after as it needs to ne maintained as a global product.

When did living wage or rewarded effort become a ridiculus amount of money. Were you born an idiot or did you become like that later.

Look at McD. How long did it take them to become a global product and they saw the sense of paying a living wage.

This idea that a CEO can earn 20,000 times more than a lowest paid worker is bullshit. I don't care what he has done he aint worth that much. He eats 3 meals a day and if he is lucky he goes to the toilet once and makes your life easier.

[Maximus]

its doesnt matter what you think though,

what matters is what he thinks because its his business and he employs people.

there is nothing stopping people from starting their own business and sharing their profit with the workers.

[Maximus]

Anyway, big brands usually go public, so they can be "owned" by joe public,

They want to make a return on their investment as well.

its not as easy to do what you are saying.