Job benefits

[Scarlett]

Personally I'd go for Flexability in hours where possible and I would also suggest that you consider paying some form of overtime (or at least time off in liue for extra hours worked).

As much as you might want to have your guys and gals in the office for there hours each week, there will be times when you all have to pull a couple of late shifts to get things done in time.

Stock-options, If you want to give them, feel free but I wouldn't really class them as a benifit, rather a bonus that may or may not pay out in the future.

Paid holiday and Pensions, Oh yes please and more of them. I know that you said that 20 Days paid holiday a year sounds a bit high but if you offer more than the legal minimum then your (prospective) Co is already offering people something worth moving jobs for. If you offer an extra days hol for staying with company for 3 years and maybe another after 5, you'll also encourage people to want to stay on.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by towny

20 days isn't considered generous in the UK, as it includes public holidays, of which there are 8 in each year.

Not only is that not considered generous, in most companies it's considered standard.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by towny

20 days isn't considered generous in the UK, as it includes public holidays, of which there are 8 in each year. That means you are only entitled to 12 days on top of what you can expect as a matter of custom.

We have 8 too, but I believe it is excluded from the 14 days. It is very subjective depending on the provincial or state legislation.

In practice many people do rather better - it's not uncommon for an employee to have 20 days paid leave, plus the eight public holday days, adding up to 28. If you get into management, you would normally have 25 + 8. In my current job I have 25 + 8 + 1 for five years' service.

I'll figure out a program. I just don't want to be forced by law to do something. It is the principle that annoys me.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by Scarlett

Personally I'd go for Flexability in hours where possible

Job sharing, telecommuting, and flexhours are nice-to-have things which I hope to make standard practice.

and I would also suggest that you consider paying some form of overtime (or at least time off in liue for extra hours worked

As much as you might want to have your guys and gals in the office for there hours each week, there will be times when you all have to pull a couple of late shifts to get things done in time.

For sure, but all my employees will be classified as management. I'm a fan of performance-based pay, not time-based. I doubt I'll pay for overtime in my current businesses. If you don't like it, leave. I will pay bonuses though.

Stock-options, If you want to give them, feel free but I wouldn't really class them as a benifit, rather a bonus that may or may not pay out in the future.

This will be standard, not a form of compensation really, since you still have to buy it. I might, as a form of compensation, issue stock to the employee. It really depends what they want.

[Xaccers]

Car and fuel allowance (beats having a company car as should you lose your job, you still have transport)
Dental insurance for definite, medical is nice but dental is morelikely to be used (hence why our penny pinching company gives us medical but not dental. ntl gave us both *sigh*)
enough pay to be able to throw a fair bit into a pension with the company adding a fair amount itself (final salary pension would be nice too)
enough job security to make it worthwhile putting money into a company pension. Lots of youngsters today don't see the point of throwing money away for a year or two if they're not going to get much of a benifit.

[MovedGoalPosts]

Originally Posted by towny

20 days isn't considered generous in the UK, as it includes public holidays, of which there are 8 in each year. That means you are only entitled to 12 days on top of what you can expect as a matter of custom.

In practice many people do rather better - it's not uncommon for an employee to have 20 days paid leave, plus the eight public holday days, adding up to 28. If you get into management, you would normally have 25 + 8. In my current job I have 25 + 8 + 1 for five years' service.

I'd go so far as to say that to 20 days paid + statutory holidays is now the absolute minimum, unless you are on short term contracts or temping. In fact 25 days is not uncommon. Better still work for a local authority, as my father did (might have changed now but I doubt it) something like 20 days basic holiday, plus flexitime of one day a month (so you made up the hours but the basic working day seemed so short you that it wwas hardly a strain), then extra holidays for time served, somthing like a day per year for first 10 years. It seemed like he was off work more than he was there!

Originally Posted by Jerrek

That greatly depends on the province/state that the employment is in. In Ontario, it is 14 days after one year of employment. (20 is a lot...) I don't plan on remaining in Ontario due to the taxes and all the crap laws (like that one). Will probably move to Texas or Oklahoma.

Just count your lucky stars that as an employer you have that flexibility. Sign up for the EU gravy train and the amount of red tape on businesses that are forced to bend over backwards it's a wonder there are any businesses.

[Jerrek]

Which is one reason why I would never live in Europe, except perhaps the UK, and then only if I'm working FOR someone. I don't want to work for someone unless it is a CEO or COO position, and I hate red tape. I'm not a slave driver, and I don't need the government to tell me the nitty gritty details.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Which is one reason why I would never live in Europe, except perhaps the UK, and then only if I'm working FOR someone. I don't want to work for someone unless it is a CEO or COO position, and I hate red tape. I'm not a slave driver, and I don't need the government to tell me the nitty gritty details.

Jerrek, it really isn't so dreadful as you think. Yes, there might be a lot more regulation here than you are used to, but we still manage to be one of the biggest economies in the world and as I have said before, there are a whole pile of factors other than the extent to which economies are regulated that have allowed the US to grow so much larger than the rest.

[Jerrek]

I refuse to deal with unions. My employees will not be unionized, ever. I'll carefully screen them to make sure I hire capitalists and not pinkos. I find those to work harder. :pp

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

I refuse to deal with unions. My employees will not be unionized, ever.

You wouldn't last 5 minutes over here

Originally Posted by Jerrek

I refuse to deal with unions. My employees will not be unionized, ever. I'll carefully screen them to make sure I hire capitalists and not pinkos. I find those to work harder. :pp

Yep, they work harder for less cash, so you get rich off their hard work. Very equitable. Once again you can't see the possibility of some middle ground in between pure Capitalism and pure Communism. You're going to come very badly unstuck if you resolve only to employ capitalists of the Ayn Rand kind. You will find, like extremists of all colours, that they are in a small minority. Most of us are normal people, and we come in varying shades of grey.

Re your point about refusing Trade Union recognition - as one of 'Thatcher's Children' I would be the first to agree with you that they can be a complete pain. My exposure to trade unions while growing up was, principally, the coal miners' strike of 1984 (led by Arthur Scargill - a real leftie). You can imagine that many middle-class people of my age (turning 31 this month!) have a very negative view of unions. But, like it or not, a properly regulated trade union movement is a democratic thing. Many employers in the UK actually prefer to deal with trade unions as it makes the whole employee relations thing a lot easier. A previous employer of mine even offered, as a benefit of employment, to pay my membership fees if I chose to join a 'professional or trade association'.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by towny

Yep, they work harder for less cash, so you get rich off their hard work.

Obviously because I don't do any work.

Very equitable. Once again you can't see the possibility of some middle ground in between pure Capitalism and pure Communism. You're going to come very badly unstuck if you resolve only to employ capitalists of the Ayn Rand kind. You will find, like extremists of all colours, that they are in a small minority. Most of us are normal people, and we come in varying shades of grey.

I don't consider Ayn Rand extremist. We would just consider her right. Middle ground for me is radical right for you. I will be sure to hire strictly from the Republican Party or Libertarian Party or equivalent. I don't expect everyone to be Ayn Rand.

Re your point about refusing Trade Union recognition - as one of 'Thatcher's Children' I would be the first to agree with you that they can be a complete pain. My exposure to trade unions while growing up was, principally, the coal miners' strike of 1984 (led by Arthur Scargill - a real leftie). You can imagine that many middle-class people of my age (turning 31 this month!) have a very negative view of unions. But, like it or not, a properly regulated trade union movement is a democratic thing. Many employers in the UK actually prefer to deal with trade unions as it makes the whole employee relations thing a lot easier. A previous employer of mine even offered, as a benefit of employment, to pay my membership fees if I chose to join a 'professional or trade association'.

I however, choose to deal with the employees themselves. I have no desire for collective bargaining. There is no more need today for unions with all the laws regarding safety and working conditions. And since this is a democratic country, like you said, I can opt not to deal with one.



I'll also do things: 10% of my net profit will go to my church. I firmly believe in giving a tithe. Significant donations will be made to several right-of-center parties and Christian charities. The work place will be very strongly oriented towards the Republican or Conservative party, with easy to use forms for employees to make contributions.

I have some other ideas too, but I need to think them through.

[ian@huth]

With all the will in the world and your refusal to deal with trade unions there will probably come a time that you do something that your entire workforce disagrees with. What will you do then if your entire workforce decide to collectively bargain with you on the issue?

[SMHarman]

However we are talking a professional service firm. I'm sure the entire workforce of Ernst and Young or PwC or Linklaters disagree with their emploers on some matters, however there is no collective bargining availible there.

Originally Posted by SMHarman

However we are talking a professional service firm. I'm sure the entire workforce of Ernst and Young or PwC or Linklaters disagree with their emploers on some matters, however there is no collective bargining availible there.

'Divide and rule' is an easier principle to implement in a large organisation like PwC than it is going to be in Jerrek's firm - which, unless he comes up with an unusually big idea is likely to number only a few employees for at least its first few years. Jerrek may not formally recognise a trade union but if his small band of wage slaves gang up on him he will be forced to recognise it. If he doesn't, he could threaten to sack them (which would be huis right), but losing your entire workforce overnight is a sure way to delay (or even prevent) delivery to your customers, and guess what happens then...