Originally Posted by whiterhino
I'm all for performance based pay. IMO, Lumping everyone into the same pay scale promotes laziness. And I know that when I took my 10% pay cut years ago that if I had dropped my performance 10%, I would have lost the other 90%. Instead I chose the attitude that I would not make more money till the owners did and low and behold, after some time, I got my pay back and then some.
public sector doesn't work like that...how do you base pay on performance of lets say teachers? Kids in Clarkston that some from a good background, stable family life, tend to have a need or desire to succeed. Kids that come from lets says Ponticrack, where they MIGHT have one parent, and I stress might, because who’s to say they are doing any parenting, anywho these kids who don't have any real desire to succeed, do you think they are going to do good at school? Is it a lack of effort on the teachers end? Should their pay suffer because they work in a district full of shit heads? How about your Police or Fire? What do those guys do that could be based on performance? How do you judge it? You are talking about paying based on performance when their performance is tangible. However try and live without them and you'll see exactly how important they are.