WWYD: you realise one of your employees no longer needs his job (srs)

[r32gojirra]

Example scenario:

Your employees are required to disclose their financial affairs. This is because:

-you are providing financial assurance services and outside employment/directorships have to be disclosed including remuneration

OR

-you sell consulting services to government and the security clearance requires disclosure of all debts and assets and overall financial position

OR

-the employee just dgaf and starts turning up to work in a Lambo or some chit

Reason is not important, but the point is you have reliable information that your employee has a much more significant stream of outside income and is not financially dependent on his day-to-day job

Would this in any way impact on how you treat that employee?

Please respect srs tag

[metroins]

I have 16 full time employees. I care if they can pay their bills, if they can have good work life balance and if they are healthy.

Some don't need the job and I don't treat them any differently.

A few years ago I was partnered in a franchise and storage business and another similar business. I didn't know or care about those employees.

[DuracellBunny]

I dgaf what they do outside work, unless it affects the business.

I don't care who they vote for, who they pray to, who they fk or how much money they do/do not have, as long as they leave it at the door.

[Condo41]

I mentioned on a conference call that my wife and I went to Italy for our honeymoon and my company ceo was visibly shaken

[BigElephant]

Doesn't matter to me as long as he works hard and does his job successfully.

[TryingMen]

In on subtle brag thread


Negged

[Reserrection]

You going to envy fire him breh?

[nics1246]

I dgaf what they do outside work, unless it affects the business.

I don't care who they vote for, who they pray to, who they fk or how much money they do/do not have, as long as they leave it at the door.

100% this ^^^

[Reserrection]

There is a reason why my "boss" nor my "colleagues" have no idea how much money I make passively.

If they did, they'd probably give you a raise

[OliverHeldens]

People have different motivations for working. Most people over 40 could likely get away with decreasing the amount of work they put in, but a lot of these people legit like what they do.

I could work a lot less and still be completely fine. But I enjoy my work, and it's very fulfilling.

[Ausaric]

I’d still expect them to do a good job. I’m still paying him, unless he wants to become a volunteer. As such, he’s held to the same standards as everyone else.


That being said, I would fully expect to need to open a new position to replace him once he inevitably quits because he doesn’t need the job.


Everyone leaves jobs for different reasons.

[davik]

why dont you convert to judaism already

[r32gojirra]

There is a reason why my "boss" nor my "colleagues" have no idea how much money I make passively.

So what is that reason?



Also not sure what passive has to do with it

Anyway, per the examples in the OP, many jobs require the total remuneration package to be published in the annual financial statement and ongoing disclosure of financial status for conflict of interest/security reasons

My question is would it cause you to treat an employee differently if (for whatever reason) you knew about their financial status.

[r32gojirra]

People have different motivations for working. Most people over 40 could likely get away with decreasing the amount of work they put in, but a lot of these people legit like what they do.

I could work a lot less and still be completely fine. But I enjoy my work, and it's very fulfilling.

I figure it’s a normal distribution. A lot of people skate by on the bare minimum especially when the quality of their output is not really linked to their remuneration outcomes.

Any views on the question in the OP?

[r32gojirra]

In on subtle brag thread


Negged

Why is it a brag thread

[infinityplus1]

Tbh would take him on his work effort

But also make him shout bags on friday afternoons

[ChinkWithDink]

I only care if I am getting what I pay them for.

What would you do OP?

[r32gojirra]

I only care if I am getting what I pay them for.

What would you do OP?

I guess like most people ITT I would only consider relevant things like work performance

I’m suspicious though- people tend to consider irrelevant things

Like suppose there’s bonuses or raises to be handed out. Do you treat the guy who is mortgaged to the hilt and drowning in private school fees the same as the guy who doesn’t really “need” the extra money?

What about if it’s time to do layoffs?

I don’t trust people to be objective tbh

[DesiredUserphag]

I don't care what anyone does..... until it fucks with my work >.< then I'll annihilate them SRS

[DuracellBunny]

I guess like most people ITT I would only consider relevant things like work performance

I’m suspicious though- people tend to consider irrelevant things

Like suppose there’s bonuses or raises to be handed out. Do you treat the guy who is mortgaged to the hilt and drowning in private school fees the same as the guy who doesn’t really “need” the extra money?

What about if it’s time to do layoffs?

I don’t trust people to be objective tbh

It's a lawsuit waiting to happen. If two people do the same job and you pay one more because they have kids and need the money or they are married and you pay them more than single people etc you are going to get yourself sued.

When you only have a few employees and their jobs are all different, you can get away with a lot; but as you get more people doing the same role, somebody who gets paid less is going to shout discrimination.

[LogicalLifts]

The security clearance example is salient; some levels involve active access to accounts.

So if someone is earning 300k, and showing up to work in a Bugatti, it could indicate that the person has been compromised. Plus, in these examples many contracts prohibit other engagements, aside from e.g., landlord - this is partly why I promote landlord as a side hustle so often.

So, yes. I'm not saying that if someone "doesn't need the job" it is shady - many people with good finances don't "need" their job. But if the person is clearly in a situation above, some enhanced vigilance is required for sure.

[viccruise420]

Might talk to him about it, just a checking in kind of conversation. But moreso keep an eye on performance for any changes, specifically a decline in performance. In that case, probably have a more serious conversation.

Pretty vague question and examples. Are you concerned that because you are making money outside of your job that your boss will be bitter about it and hold resentment against you and try to cause problems?

[Sergis]

id guess id first ask myself is the employee comfortable and is the employee easily replaceable

im nothing near a ceo tho

[Unstumpable]

No it wouldn't effect the way I treat them as long as they do the job. We have a few ex military guys who retired and don't necessarily need the job. But they work hard. I mean they aren't rolling in dough, but would be able to survive without it.

[ChinkWithDink]

I guess like most people ITT I would only consider relevant things like work performance

I’m suspicious though- people tend to consider irrelevant things

Like suppose there’s bonuses or raises to be handed out. Do you treat the guy who is mortgaged to the hilt and drowning in private school fees the same as the guy who doesn’t really “need” the extra money?

What about if it’s time to do layoffs?

I don’t trust people to be objective tbh

Oh yeah some people get off on the power trip and that isn't as fun if the other person doesn't need to suffer through their bullchit. A lot more of that within people employed to be management over those managing their own business but it's definitely there sometimes too I think.

Sorta like your original question/premise but backwards, if the person making these decisions has their money on the line that they need or at least care about then they will be less likely to make other people suffer a bullchit power trip.

[r32gojirra]

The security clearance example is salient; some levels involve active access to accounts.

So if someone is earning 300k, and showing up to work in a Bugatti, it could indicate that the person has been compromised. Plus, in these examples many contracts prohibit other engagements, aside from e.g., landlord - this is partly why I promote landlord as a side hustle so often.

So, yes. I'm not saying that if someone "doesn't need the job" it is shady - many people with good finances don't "need" their job. But if the person is clearly in a situation above, some enhanced vigilance is required for sure.

Not suggesting anything shady. In fact in this example they have unprecedented access to your financial and even tax affairs and can ask you questions if something is off.

The differentiating factor is that
a) the employee has outside income that swamps his employment income and
b) the employer knows about it in some level of detail

In most jobs the employee could keep it low key but in many examples they are legally required to fully disclose

[duskbird900]

Retail can be tedious at times.

[r32gojirra]

It's a lawsuit waiting to happen. If two people do the same job and you pay one more because they have kids and need the money or they are married and you pay them more than single people etc you are going to get yourself sued.

When you only have a few employees and their jobs are all different, you can get away with a lot; but as you get more people doing the same role, somebody who gets paid less is going to shout discrimination.

I mean things like bonuses and raises are largely discretionary. If management wants to give you a raise they’ll come up with relevant reasons and if not, they won’t. They’ll make sure the documented reasons are legitimate, even if the real reasons aren’t.

[LargePeter]

Depends if it's likely that the employee may just pull the pin and leave

I've got two now who also work as carers on their days off and get around $70 an hour for 4 or 5 hours work but can't do it full time - had to gently remind one that full time employment means full time, not pick and choose - and if you want the disability support money you do it on your RDOs, not the day you chuck a sickie. Otherwise I offer them to resign and work full time as a carer, knowing theh won't get the hours to guarantee them what they make working for me

[LogicalLifts]

Not suggesting anything shady. In fact in this example they have unprecedented access to your financial and even tax affairs and can ask you questions if something is off.

The differentiating factor is that
a) the employee has outside income that swamps his employment income and
b) the employer knows about it in some level of detail

In most jobs the employee could keep it low key but in many examples they are legally required to fully disclose

In places where a person is legally required to disclose, there are reasons for it. But in the OP you make it clear that the employee is obliged to disclose their financial affairs.

If someone on 200k p.a is driving a Bugatti it might be worth checking in. This is how I would "treat" the employee differently. Enforce it.

Folks should respect financial disclosure requirements srs.