Work and Salary Expectations

Guillo

Registered
citygirl said:
Well - not entitled to make a profit. But making money is the reason any company exists. That's why people start their own businesses - to make money. Not to simply provide jobs out of the goodness of his/her heart ;)

Exactly. Why would you expect the employees to be any different?

And if the reason for having a company goes away, the company goes away. And you keep talking about maximizing profits. Again, the vast majority of us aren't talking about multi-national businesses with huge profit margins. Most of us are small businesses, doing what we can to get by.
I sorry that you have a small business that its not able to do well. But my point is that, if you were to come to Argentina, and were able to say, pay 1/3rd of the salary you would pay in the US, you'd happily pocket the difference, you wouldn't want to pay a US salary. But now, when inflation affects the local economy, suddenly you do want to follow us practices and like a lot of people say here, cant give some outrageous 25% salary increase.
You can't have it both ways :).

I would flip this comment and direct it back to you. How do you think employees will function without jobs if the company decides to close its doors and either move elsewhere or shut down? Both sides can and will lose at this game eventually.
Yours is hardly the only company in Argentina. And you'll find that most companies are giving salaries increases of 20% or more to most or all of the employees.
And that's if you are lucky and don't have to deal with people "en convenio" (unionized). Those had a higher % of increase.
I guess they all must have a way to make ends meet.


workplace. No where does it say you are entitled to a company giving you X % raises every year or covering the cost of inflation. It's very important that you clearly delineate between your rights (to all the above mentioned things) and what you want/expect (a salary augmentation that keeps track with inflation). There is a BIG difference between those two things!

It depends on how you see it. Verbatim from the constitution text:

"El trabajo en sus diversas formas gozará de la protección de las leyes, las que asegurarán al trabajador: condiciones dignas y equitativas de labor; jornada limitada; descanso y vacaciones pagados; retribución justa; salario mínimo vital móvil; igual remuneración por igual tarea; participación en las ganancias de las empresas, con control de la producción y colaboración en la dirección; protección contra el despido arbitrario; estabilidad del empleado público; organización sindical libre y democrática, reconocida por la simple inscripción en un registro especial."


Even when its not directly part of the law, its part of the facts, specially if you intend to keep your workers happy.


 

Guillo

Registered
Citigirl, I was rereading the thread (I get revisionist at times) and found this:

citygirl said:
I am just running out of ideas. As a small company that provides outsourcing, I can't go back to my clients and demand an increase in prices of 30 or 40%. So we've taken a hit in our profits in order to provide for our employees. And yet it's not enough.
A couple of things.
Outsourcing in Argentina is a complicated deal (and its still in flux, there are some laws around that seek to kill it), but so far, all lawsuits found the client was co-responsible with the employer. What this means is that, unlike what you'd find somewhere else, the customer will pay attention to "external" resource's salary (specially if they are working in house with the customer).
Many times they will accept adjustment on prices as long as most of it ends up in the workers hand. I've seen it in several places when I worked in a Consultora.
 

TrevorCito

Registered
Guillo said:

Exactly. Why would you expect the employees to be any different?

Yes, employees work for money, nobody is arguing that they are not there for money and profit. But really, if an employee wanted to make a lot of money, why not take a risk like their employer and start their own business?

Employees are not liable if the company fails and are paid for that. If you take more risk you deserve more rewards... i.e. profits. If you take less risk, why should you expect more?
 

TrevorCito

Registered
Guillo said:

"El trabajo en sus diversas formas gozará de la protección de las leyes, las que asegurarán al trabajador: condiciones dignas y equitativas de labor; jornada limitada; descanso y vacaciones pagados; retribución justa; salario mínimo vital móvil; igual remuneración por igual tarea; participación en las ganancias de las empresas, con control de la producción y colaboración en la dirección; protección contra el despido arbitrario; estabilidad del empleado público; organización sindical libre y democrática, reconocida por la simple inscripción en un registro especial."


Really Guillermo...? Por favor, las crees vos? This quotation is just socialistic rhetoric at the cost of innovation, market forces and capitalism. It is utter rubbish. Argentina is the only country that I know that has regressed from first world country to a third world country in less than 50 years.

Like mentioned in my previous post, companies in Argentina need to choose employees that are more aligned with their values. If a company values socialistic values then hire socialistic staff. If they value capitalistic values (making money and a profit) then they need to identify and hire staff with stronger capitalistic values.
 

Guillo

Registered
TrevorCito said:
Yes, employees work for money, nobody is arguing that they are not there for money and profit. But really, if an employee wanted to make a lot of money, why not take a risk like their employer and start their own business?
Its not about "a lot of money". Its about not accepting depreciation of the salary, which is not the same. People in this thread are expecting to have employees receiving less and less every year, or perhaps only get as much as inflation and be thrilled about it.


Employees are not liable if the company fails and are paid for that. If you take more risk you deserve more rewards... i.e. profits. If you take less risk, why should you expect more?
Well, that's what I've been saying all along. The employees are not going to be picking up only the risk (financing your operation because you don't have a way to handle inflation) unless you also share the reward.
 

TrevorCito

Registered
Guillo said:
Its not about "a lot of money". Its about not accepting depreciation of the salary, which is not the same. People in this thread are expecting to have employees receiving less and less every year, or perhaps only get as much as inflation and be thrilled about it.
It's tough but that's just how it is. Employees need to suck it up or move on. They should realise that the employer, especially in Citigirls case, is not a capitalistic pig attempting to extort employees and that she and her company are not responsible for the cancerous macro and micro economic problems inherent in Argentina.
 

Guillo

Registered
TrevorCito said:
It's tough but that's just how it is. Employees need to suck it up or move on. They should realise that the employer, especially in Citigirls case, is not a capitalistic pig attempting to extort employees and that she and her company are not responsible for the cancerous macro and micro economic problems inherent in Argentina.
Well, tell that to Citigirl that was trying to keep them happy :).
If you dont care about the people working for you, then you have much less of a HR issue. I'm sure you can keep your workers salary frozen and have a high rotation of desperate people working for you. But you don't get to complain about their productivity.

You keep trying to portrait employees as socialists that are out to get rid of their employer, when its not the case. They just have another set of values and goals.
Workers WONT absorb any difference between what you want/expect/are used to in the US and what's the real situation here. Or at least, not if they have another choice.
 

jaredwb

Registered
Guillo said:
Citigirl, I was rereading the thread (I get revisionist at times) and found this:



A couple of things.
Outsourcing in Argentina is a complicated deal (and its still in flux, there are some laws around that seek to kill it), but so far, all lawsuits found the client was co-responsible with the employer. What this means is that, unlike what you'd find somewhere else, the customer will pay attention to "external" resource's salary (specially if they are working in house with the customer).
Many times they will accept adjustment on prices as long as most of it ends up in the workers hand. I've seen it in several places when I worked in a Consultora.

Sorry but you are gravely mistaken, NO company that outsources to Argentina would EVER agree to 30% increases in services (kind of defeats the purpose). If that is the case, they'll move to India or China where they can get the same service for 1/2 (or less) than they pay for here.

And I'd love to see what lawsuits have hold the external client responsible...that is a joke.
 

jaredwb

Registered
Guillo said:
Well, tell that to Citigirl that was trying to keep them happy :).
If you dont care about the people working for you, then you have much less of a HR issue. I'm sure you can keep your workers salary frozen and have a high rotation of desperate people working for you. But you don't get to complain about their productivity.

You keep trying to portrait employees as socialists that are out to get rid of their employer, when its not the case. They just have another set of values and goals.
Workers WONT absorb any difference between what you want/expect/are used to in the US and what's the real situation here. Or at least, not if they have another choice.
Guillo, I don't think they are trying to portrait all employees as socialist, just you :)

But again, with all due respect, you are completely and 100% wrong in everything you have written on this topic.

However, I can understand where you are coming from. Still, my guess is that until you get to a point in your career that you own a company or are in Sr Mgmt where you have P&L responsibilities, you will continue to live in a misguided reality. ;)
 

jaredwb

Registered
Guillo said:
Its not about "a lot of money". Its about not accepting depreciation of the salary, which is not the same. People in this thread are expecting to have employees receiving less and less every year, or perhaps only get as much as inflation and be thrilled about it.

Well, that's what I've been saying all along. The employees are not going to be picking up only the risk (financing your operation because you don't have a way to handle inflation) unless you also share the reward.
No, that is not true (again). Companies are not responsible for inflation. When was the last time you took a pay CUT. An actual cut in salary, i.e. from 5000 pesos per month, to 4000 pesos per month? My guess is NEVER. Just because you aren't getting a 30% increase does not mean you are getting less...you are getting the same. And again, unless you do something to deserve more (you, not inflation) you don't deserve more.

The only risk that employees take is losing their job because they are demanding too much money and not doing anything to deserve it. Do the workers have bank loans against the company? Do the workers have to pay all the other workers, services, taxes, etc. etc. etc. NOPE. So, what risk are you taking exactly??
 
Top