#because i will always always support workers demanding proper compensation from their employers

[wowitsverycool]

legitimately if you think copyright law in any way benefits individual artists over corporations you are. not a fool because that would be very mean to say about someone that's just trying to live in the hellworld nightmare fuckshow that is capitalism. but you are solely mistaken imo

[movationoemployees-blog]

What Motivates An Employee More Appraisal Or Increment?

In this article, we are going to have a look at “What motivates an employee more? Appraiser or increment” because only motivated employees would put their 100% at work. The more committed and motivated employees are, the more it helps to grow your organization. Those who often seek better opportunities may be the only ones who can be left alone.

Is the current global workforce as motivated as it should be? And what is the best way to start the progress?

Before proceeding further. First, let’s have a look at the quick definition of Performance appraisals and things you need to know about it.

When employees have goals, they are more motivated. Feedback may appear during the business day, but many organizations also have a formal process that covers the entire company i.e Performance appraisals.

Performance appraisals include observing and measuring employee performance during the assessment period, recording these observations, communicating results to the employee, and recognizing high performance when developing ways to address deficiencies. Most assessments are carried out by the supervisor, but the use of 360 degrees has many advantages.

Appraisals that are more effective provide employees with proper communication, fair hearing and evidence-based judgment. Some companies use relative rankings in which employees are compared, but this system is not suitable for all companies.

The meeting evaluating the results should be planned and performed carefully, with the superior showing empathy and support. There are some intentional and unintentional prejudices inherent in the assessments and their knowledge, the growing responsibility of the rater and training managers can be useful in dealing with some of them.

One of the common problems in the assessment is that managers give employees higher than reasonable ratings. This may be due to many reasons, such as the desire to avoid confrontation with the employee, having a very friendly personality, the desire to avoid harming the employee's chances of getting a bonus, the desire to motivate employees by giving them high marks or liking an employee as a person.

Regardless of the reason, mitigation is a problem because it makes assessments relatively useless in determining increases, bonuses or promotions. At the same time, the mitigation of penalties makes it more difficult for employees to change their behavior.

One of the ways to deal with this problem may be the use of relative rankings or at least propose to the managers of the suggested distribution. If managers are asked to rate the curve, they may be less lenient.

When a company uses the bell curve for its performance management system, it means that the performance rating of all employees is spread along the bell curve. Here, the bell curve is used to characterize employees and divide them into the best performers, average performers, and weak performers.

What's more, making managers be responsible for the ratings they give can be a good idea. For example, if managers are judged on how well they recognize different performance levels, they may be less likely to be lenient in ratings.

You can get the high quality, cost-effective HR services and solutions from Sharp Facility’s HR Services that can enable you to be conspicuous of your Senior Leadership Team and Board of Directors as they look for bottom-line results.

REASONS WHY EMPLOYEES FEEL DEMOTIVATED

1. No appreciation or sense of value

As a company, you always intend to hire the best employees. However, When these best employees are not recognized or do not receive recognition for the work done very well or the enormous efforts put into the project, they become demotivated. They lose interest and may not even want to think innovatively, do extra work, or even just perform their role with a sense of duty and energy because their boss does not seem to care about their hard work and dedication.

2. Unrealistic requirements or workload

Thinking about getting a lot of work and fast, ambitious bosses, he can impose heavy and unrealistic burdens on his employees' shoulders. Although keeping the staff at a high level is not bad at all, it becomes bad when managers cross the line, being too demanding or overloading them. Asking employees to do really impossible things or insisting that they implement projects on weekends, even if they are not sensitive to time, would invite them to low morale and reduce productivity.

 3. Micromanagement

Micromanagement can be defined as a management style characterized by a manager carefully (overly) observing and supervising the work of his employees or subordinates. The manager cannot mean any harm from his micro-management, but he can be irritating and embarrassing for his employees. The reason is that he tells them that he does not trust their judgment and contributes to the loss of motivation. Employees who are not involved in micro-management can leave because of greater freedom or, if the manager is lucky, still stay, but simply jump over.

 4. Work safety

According to a study by Human Resource Services Inc., work safety is the most important motivating factor for employees. This means that insecurity in the workplace can wreak havoc when it comes to maintaining employees. If an employee is on an exhaustive job or working in an unstable company, he can simply make the necessary efforts to maintain his salary. The rest of his energy will be spent on updating a resume, gossiping with colleagues, looking for a more stable job elsewhere and planning a jump.

 5. No progress

Most employees feel happy when there is constant learning potential in their company and they feel that they are gaining more and more knowledge and skills.

Even progress in the form of small achievements in the workplace is a motivating factor. On the other hand, if employees feel deprived of inspiration and stagnation, their enthusiasm and commitment will diminish. In addition, if an employee tries to introduce a new idea or change and has to go through a lot of bureaucracy, he will lose all the enthusiasm and enthusiasm he started with. The best way to manage your employees is to outsource HR Services.

 6. Contradictory or otherwise unpleasant co-workers

Research shows that close friendships at work result in a 50% increase in employee satisfaction, while a close friend at work increases the likelihood of getting involved seven times. So you can imagine what the result of intimidation, intimidation or otherwise unpleasant or contradictory colleagues would be.

Even if work is well paid and offers career opportunities, if there are opponents, the result will be misery and stress.

Advantages of Conducting an Employee Performance Appraisal

In addition to being able to determine the percentage increase in salary, there are several amazing benefits that result from a good assessment of employee performance.

Potential Job Promotion

In addition to cash bonuses, an employee with a flawless job can earn a promotion. Because most companies offer promotional programs, a performance review can help them eliminate the weaker employees from the program.

Compensation

Employees who do not qualify for the compensation package offered by the company are determined on the basis of performance evaluation. Often the compensation package includes a higher salary increase, incentives, and additional benefits depend on how well the employee functions in his role for a certain period of time.

Motivation

Many employers consider performance evaluation as an incentive tool that makes members of the organization make every effort to become more productive and best use their abilities to perform their daily duties.

 And because performance assessment provides a comprehensive and honest opinion on employee performance, the manager is able to determine in which areas the employee needs help. Typically, the manager will schedule training for the employee to help him improve his ability to work.

 Open communication

Performance evaluation is perceived as an excellent communication tool that can bring benefits to both the employer and the employee. If both parties are able to communicate regularly, it is even easier to build a strong employer-employee relationship and keeps both parties on the same page.

 Factors influencing the employee's Salary Increment

There are times when an employee's salary increase differs from another. This is due to the fact that the increase in salary is often based on the employee's annual basic salary. In addition, most employers use increment to determine whether to increase or deduct the employer's basic pay or to grant bonuses to deserving employees.

On the other hand, the increase is used by the employee in negotiating the increase in the monthly salary or the initial salary. Take, for example; when you apply for a specific position in the company, but the employer offers you a salary offer five percent lower than the normal pay rate, you can counter it by at least 5 percent.

Market

Income increase is not usually granted to members of the organization when the current market condition is unfavorable. Of course, when the market is not in the best condition, it can affect the company's overall financial plan, so it makes no sense to give employees a salary increase because it can make the company.

Economy - When it is economically turbulent, it will have a huge impact on the company's growth and profit. Often, employers resort to stabilizing and reducing employers to reduce expenses and keep the company afloat.

Conclusion:

The strength of employee motivation should never be underestimated. Taking the time and effort to improve employee engagement is definitely worth considering, taking into account the rewards that you will draw from this in the long run.

The appraisal season is a special type of headache for both managers and managers.

HR will insist that the assessments should concern the assessment of employee performance in relation to specific performance parameters - "key areas of results".

They argue that the appraisal aims to assess the employee's skills and competencies in relation to his role at work.

It will also include qualitative and subjective measures, including behavior, acceptability, leadership skills and potential.

The problem is that for most of us, promotion without a raise can often be meaningless. On the other hand, even a good increase is much better if it is accompanied by promotion.

In times of economic uncertainty or a slowdown in a company, this issue is crucial to the motivation and maintenance of Employee with best HR Executives.

 Moreover, Sharp Facility’s deliver high quality, cost-effective HR services, and solutions after going through your company’s business model and your department policies.

[danithebelcher]

Dear Members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions,

We are a collection of current and former career civil servants at the U.S. Department of Labor (the “Department”). We write in our capacity as private citizens to express our serious concerns about Mr. Andrew Puzder’s nomination to serve as the Secretary of Labor, and to request that the Committee vote against Mr. Puzder’s nomination. None of us has joined a letter like this one before; we feel compelled to do so now because of our serious concerns as to whether Mr. Puzder would be able or willing to serve as a conscientious steward of the statutes that the Department is charged with enforcing and the precious rights that the Department is responsible for protecting. We believe that three specific factors disqualify Mr. Puzder from serving as the head of an agency whose primary mission is to protect America’s workforce: (1) Mr. Puzder’s own business practices; (2) his derisive public comments about his restaurants’ employees and other low-wage workers; and (3) his equally troubling public comments and behavior towards women.

First, we are alarmed that Mr. Puzder has presided over a company, CKE Restaurants, whose franchises have repeatedly been found responsible by the Department for violating employment laws—namely, the Fair Labor Standards Act and Occupational Safety and Health Act. It is true that there may be worse offenders in the fast food industry. Nonetheless, conducting business in an industry where others routinely violate the law is no license for engaging in similar conduct. The Secretary of Labor should be someone who exhibits exemplary behavior as an employer, not someone for whom violations of employment laws is routine.

In the anti-discrimination context, Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr. have had more federal discrimination lawsuits brought against them since 2000, when Mr. Puzder took over, than any other major hamburger chain. At least one of these cases has resulted in a consent agreement with CKE itself, not merely with its franchisees, implicating Mr. Puzder’s failure to take the necessary steps to eliminate CKE’s discriminatory practices. Although the Department does not enforce Title VII, the Department does enforce anti-discrimination law in other contexts, such as in our review of federal contractors’ compliance with anti-discrimination mandates. The Secretary of Labor should be a leader in opposing employment discrimination, not the head of a company that is a leading defendant in discrimination lawsuits.

It is also true that many of the violations at CKE restaurants have occurred in facilities operated by franchisees rather than by CKE itself. However, our experience as the guardians of our nation’s employment laws has taught us that such violations often occur as the result of incentives or practices created by the franchisor. We were therefore unsurprised to see a recent report that CKE corporate has apparently sent a memorandum to its franchisees setting forth a company policy that workers are prohibited from speaking to the press. When franchisors wish to impose policies on franchisees and take a strong stand against violations committed by their franchisees, they have the means to do so: most franchise agreements require franchisees to comply with the law and not to generate negative publicity. We are not aware of any instances in which Mr. Puzder elected to use such provisions to curb the unlawful behavior of his franchisees. Notably, the franchisor of the world’s largest restaurant chain has done so.

Regardless of whether CKE, as a franchisor, is legally liable for the violations perpetrated by its franchisees, it has a moral obligation to use its considerable power over its franchisees to ensure that they are complying with the law. A Secretary of Labor who has experience in business could well provide a valuable perspective that would help inform the policy decisions the Department makes every day. However, such an individual should be a leader in his or her own industry in complying with the law—not someone who has benefited from violations of the law, even if formal legal structures protect him and his company from liability.

Our concerns about Mr. Puzder’s business practices are magnified by his public comments that demonstrate hostility to the laws that the Department enforces. We are particularly disturbed by Mr. Puzder’s widely publicized comment that replacing employees with automated machines would be desirable because machines are “always polite, they always upsell, they never take a vacation, they never show up late, there’s never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex, or race discrimination case.” Our concern about this comment is not the acknowledgement that work is becoming more automated—the rise of automation is a reality that it is proper, even wise, for a Secretary of Labor to acknowledge.

However, Mr. Puzder’s remarks reveal insensitivity to employees’ rights, their needs as human beings, and the importance of protections against discrimination. We fear that Mr. Puzder’s comments evince hostility to the enforcement of workers’ rights that is antithetical to the public-facing role that the Secretary of Labor must play. The Secretary of Labor is the highest public official tasked with protecting workers against employers who discriminate against them, fail to maintain a safe workplace, or deny employees statutory rights to take leave. Many of us regularly interact with workers as part of our duties, and those interactions have taught us that workers listen to what the Department’s leaders say and take cues from them when deciding whether and how to exercise their rights. Having a Secretary of Labor who has publicly complained that his own workers demand vacation, compensation for injuries, and the right not to suffer discrimination would send a terrible message to workers considering whether to turn to the Department for protection and to vindicate their rights. That message, if associated with the Secretary of Labor, would undermine the Department’s mission.

We are similarly concerned about Mr. Puzder’s comments about his restaurants’ employees as being (at varying times) either “the worst of the worst” or “the best of the worst.” We find extremely troubling Mr. Puzder’s degrading tone towards his own restaurants’ employees and other low-wage restaurant workers. No individual deserves being described as “the worst” merely because he or she is employed in a low-wage industry or lacks education or job training. Such descriptions further stigmatize a struggling subset of workers in ways that are harmful and hurtful to them and those of us who care about them. Such comments also express a lack of empathy for and understanding of the struggles and challenges faced by large numbers of vulnerable American workers. We believe that such empathy and understanding are critical qualifications in a Secretary of Labor, regardless of what policy solutions that Secretary may choose to offer to address the problems that low-wage workers face.

We are also extremely concerned about Mr. Puzder’s comments about women. Striving for equality for women in the workplace is central to the efforts of the Department. Mr. Puzder’s enthusiastic embrace of the sexualized advertisements his company has run makes us worried that Mr. Puzder is ill-fit to grapple with the subtle ways that perceptions of women in the workplace affect their everyday working experience. (One of us once heard a colleague ask, quite seriously, whether it would violate workplace rules of civility and prohibitions against sexual harassment to view Mr. Puzder’s ads on a government computer. We think the question is a good one.) Mr. Puzder has proudly embraced those sexualized advertisements. He not only said that, “I don’t have a problem with our ads,” but even went so far as to boast that his brand has taken on his own personality. Mr. Puzder unapologetically declares, “ugly ones [i.e., women] don’t sell burgers.” A nominee to become the Secretary of Labor should be ashamed of having made such a statement.

Our concerns about Mr. Puzder’s attitudes towards women are exacerbated by the allegations we have heard regarding his personal involvement in acts of domestic violence. Although Mr. Puzder’s ex-wife has subsequently withdrawn her allegations, the fact that she aired them anonymously on “The Oprah Winfrey Show”—something she would have no incentive to do if her charges were being made falsely for personal gain—gives us pause about Mr. Puzder’s personal conduct. These allegations, combined with Mr. Puzder’s sexualizing comments about the women in his commercials, make us worry that Mr. Puzder is incapable of fostering a supportive and fair workplace for the thousands of women who work at the Department and the millions of working women across our nation.

Because of his business practices and his degrading public comments about low-wage workers and women, we strongly urge the Committee to vote against Mr. Puzder’s nomination as Secretary of Labor. Our concerns about Mr. Puzder are not premised on any policy disagreements some of us may have with him. Rather, we firmly believe that this nominee has not demonstrated a sufficient commitment to, or faith in, the laws that the Department is charged with enforcing. We do not take this step lightly; we take it because America’s workers deserve better. We thank you for considering our views.