Not saying I would, but if everyone did that, we would have zero or very low unemployment. It could be a kind of internship to build someones skills or at least further their experience, and then they could move on when another job presented itself. This would be timeboxed for say 3-6 months and could be done once a decade and still have enough employees to give every job seeker a shot. For those that wouldn't want to ultimately lose the money, perhaps a deal could be made that once they get a job, they give 10% or the equivalent back to you. Saving Changes...
Enrique CavalittoRetired| RetiredLa Plata Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
We give away a portion of our salaries in the form of taxes, that the Administration then uses to provide support to the unemployed.
A job is not a gift, but an agreement between a worker and a company. In the proposed scenario, the main benefit would be for the company, that would receive the work contribution of another worker at no cost.
...
1 reply by Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
Apr 06, 2018 6:26 PM
Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
...
Fair point Enrique, however I have to disagree that the main benefit would be for the company. The main benefit would be for the person who gets the job. The purpose of the timebox is not only to ensure they have a job, but to gain skills, mentoring, coaching perhaps even training (if it was free or low cost) that was driven by the persons need to develop professionally, so a system would be in place that ensured the program was geared for the benefit of the employee more than the company because it is not the company who is paying for them yet they receive some benefit.
Saving Changes...
Drew CraigSr. Agile & Product Coach| VanguardPhiladelphia, Pa, United States
I contribute/give back to society in other ways; through taxes, assistance, donations, etc., and working with others to maximize their potential and provide them opportunities for growth.
...
1 reply by Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
Apr 06, 2018 6:31 PM
Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
...
That's great Andrew and some people do this and it is valuable and worthwhile. As with the previous post, I think taxes doesn't really pay into it. Yes they can be used for some training programs, but we as taxpayers have no control over that, whereas we have direct control over how this 10%$ would be used. Donations is certainly a good thing, but like taxes we have very little control how it is used. Granted some of things you mentioned does have a similar outcome as my suggestion. Just a disclaimer, I am not advocating this practice, but I am interested to know how people respond and why :-)
I like the concept and I had done this in the past, but my experience was not so good. The person who was hired never showed any commitment after getting the job, and was ultimately laid off.
It is a very nice thought - If there is a structured program and I know fair opportunities are being given without any bias, yes, I would sacrifice 10%.
Yes it would need to be regulated in some fashion Rami. Saving Changes...
We give away a portion of our salaries in the form of taxes, that the Administration then uses to provide support to the unemployed.
A job is not a gift, but an agreement between a worker and a company. In the proposed scenario, the main benefit would be for the company, that would receive the work contribution of another worker at no cost.
Fair point Enrique, however I have to disagree that the main benefit would be for the company. The main benefit would be for the person who gets the job. The purpose of the timebox is not only to ensure they have a job, but to gain skills, mentoring, coaching perhaps even training (if it was free or low cost) that was driven by the persons need to develop professionally, so a system would be in place that ensured the program was geared for the benefit of the employee more than the company because it is not the company who is paying for them yet they receive some benefit. Saving Changes...
I contribute/give back to society in other ways; through taxes, assistance, donations, etc., and working with others to maximize their potential and provide them opportunities for growth.
That's great Andrew and some people do this and it is valuable and worthwhile. As with the previous post, I think taxes doesn't really pay into it. Yes they can be used for some training programs, but we as taxpayers have no control over that, whereas we have direct control over how this 10%$ would be used. Donations is certainly a good thing, but like taxes we have very little control how it is used. Granted some of things you mentioned does have a similar outcome as my suggestion. Just a disclaimer, I am not advocating this practice, but I am interested to know how people respond and why :-)
...
1 reply by Drew Craig
Apr 07, 2018 8:59 AM
Drew Craig
...
The services that went were funded by taxes provided the programs to get me out of unemployment and allow me to reinvent my career. Our donations are direct donations like time, delivering clothes, and delivering unused items.
The only way I can afford to give away additional money is if there is savings elsewhere. What is important is funding our children's college funding. If I take 10% of my salary, its going to my kids tuition fund :)
Dinah, Vincent, Kevin, that's great. I am surprised to be honest so many actually would support this idea :-) Saving Changes...
George LewisProgram/Project Manager| DXC Technology CompanyHeredia, Costa Rica
Very interesting question, if this person is a family member, maybe.. if the job to be done is required for me to success in my job, maybe, if I'm going to get fired if this additional person is not hired, maybe. Will there be bias in their job, if I don't have to see him/she everyday in the hall and remember of my 10% salary cut, maybe :)
And most of all, if my salary is 1000, giving a 100 would be a sacrifice, but, if your salary is 10.000 getting a 1.000 cut, would make you definitely wonder... so, again, maybe.
As my teacher would say: IT DEPENDS :) Saving Changes...
George LewisProgram/Project Manager| DXC Technology CompanyHeredia, Costa Rica
Sante, I must say, it is a very interesting thought, are they articles and research on this? or it is just your idea?
...
1 reply by Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
Apr 06, 2018 8:50 PM
Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
...
Hi George, I haven't yet researched the literature on this, but I would venture to say there hasn't been a study done on it. Regarding your other comments, the amount would need to be capped, or else as you said a millionaire salary would be paying a lot to hire someone. I think family couldn't be factored in due to bias and favoritism. There are many factors to consider which is why there would need to be an optimal framework, and this would undoubtedly be contentious.
Sante, I must say, it is a very interesting thought, are they articles and research on this? or it is just your idea?
Hi George, I haven't yet researched the literature on this, but I would venture to say there hasn't been a study done on it. Regarding your other comments, the amount would need to be capped, or else as you said a millionaire salary would be paying a lot to hire someone. I think family couldn't be factored in due to bias and favoritism. There are many factors to consider which is why there would need to be an optimal framework, and this would undoubtedly be contentious. Saving Changes...
