Quandry
Ok, here's a small issue that I'm dealing with, and I would like some feedback on it. "Purely" hypothetical situation:
Let's say you're one of four design temps at a popular video game company. Of those design temps, two are co-ops from college, and hence even more temporary. One of those co-ops is really pushing for his suggestion for an idea that would double your productivity by in essence, doubling your work load. This would be done by requesting that the company supplies an additional computer for each design temp so that while one fix is building, you can work on another instead of having a down-time. Now the company seems perfectly fine with paying you a decent amount for your work as is, but it can be assumed that if your work load doubles, you will not be compensated any more than you already are.
This is my current dilemma. On one hand, I don't mind the idea of being mor eproductive.. it makes more sense for me to be doing something than to be doing nothing. I'm not suggesting that I'm a slacker. There's almost no question that it would benefit the company to have us do more work for the same price. On the other hand, however, we will not be getting paid more, and we won't even be getting benefits. Therefore, it's been a really hard sell on me - I'm not sure I'm 100% behind the idea. If the company expects X amount of work out of me, and I give them X amount of work, then they give me Y benefit (salary). However, if I'm now going to be doing 2X amount of work, is it wrong of me to expect 2Y benefit? Heck, I'd even take 1.5Y benefit. The point is, from a pure business negotiation standpoint, if my work load goes up, so should my pay. I realize I'm not the one that gets to call those shots, because of the demand to work in my position, but still, if I am more valuable to the company, it stand to reason that certain things should reflect that.
Granted, I am getting a nice raise next week, but I am getting this raise regardless of this new suggestion. In other words, I could remain doing the same amount of work, and get the same additional pay, it's a very reasonable X:Y ratio right now, especially considering I don't get benefits.
Some other things to consider:
-Will we get burnt-out twice as fast if we’re doing twice the work?
-Why us? If two computers would increase everyone’s productivity twice fold, then why not distribute a second computer to everyone, and not just the design temps?
-Twice the work for half the price? Great for the company.. not for the employees.
-Why not have us stay twice as long? That would double productivity too without costing the company anything else. They wouldn’t even need to supply additional computers. Obviously, this is not a very good idea, but it illustrates a dangerous counterpoint.
-Does the company even have the resources to provide additonal computers?
So what do you guys think? Right now I'm on the fence. I want what's best for the company, but I need to survive too, so I also want what's best for me. If I can all of a sudden do more work, I'm more valuable to the company because I can do more work, does that make my chances for getting hired as a regular full time employee better or worse? Is the additional productivity a product of me, or the extra computer? Let's hear it.
Let's say you're one of four design temps at a popular video game company. Of those design temps, two are co-ops from college, and hence even more temporary. One of those co-ops is really pushing for his suggestion for an idea that would double your productivity by in essence, doubling your work load. This would be done by requesting that the company supplies an additional computer for each design temp so that while one fix is building, you can work on another instead of having a down-time. Now the company seems perfectly fine with paying you a decent amount for your work as is, but it can be assumed that if your work load doubles, you will not be compensated any more than you already are.
This is my current dilemma. On one hand, I don't mind the idea of being mor eproductive.. it makes more sense for me to be doing something than to be doing nothing. I'm not suggesting that I'm a slacker. There's almost no question that it would benefit the company to have us do more work for the same price. On the other hand, however, we will not be getting paid more, and we won't even be getting benefits. Therefore, it's been a really hard sell on me - I'm not sure I'm 100% behind the idea. If the company expects X amount of work out of me, and I give them X amount of work, then they give me Y benefit (salary). However, if I'm now going to be doing 2X amount of work, is it wrong of me to expect 2Y benefit? Heck, I'd even take 1.5Y benefit. The point is, from a pure business negotiation standpoint, if my work load goes up, so should my pay. I realize I'm not the one that gets to call those shots, because of the demand to work in my position, but still, if I am more valuable to the company, it stand to reason that certain things should reflect that.
Granted, I am getting a nice raise next week, but I am getting this raise regardless of this new suggestion. In other words, I could remain doing the same amount of work, and get the same additional pay, it's a very reasonable X:Y ratio right now, especially considering I don't get benefits.
Some other things to consider:
-Will we get burnt-out twice as fast if we’re doing twice the work?
-Why us? If two computers would increase everyone’s productivity twice fold, then why not distribute a second computer to everyone, and not just the design temps?
-Twice the work for half the price? Great for the company.. not for the employees.
-Why not have us stay twice as long? That would double productivity too without costing the company anything else. They wouldn’t even need to supply additional computers. Obviously, this is not a very good idea, but it illustrates a dangerous counterpoint.
-Does the company even have the resources to provide additonal computers?
So what do you guys think? Right now I'm on the fence. I want what's best for the company, but I need to survive too, so I also want what's best for me. If I can all of a sudden do more work, I'm more valuable to the company because I can do more work, does that make my chances for getting hired as a regular full time employee better or worse? Is the additional productivity a product of me, or the extra computer? Let's hear it.