29th November 2009, 10:56 PM
however returning to the minima, I do think that a responsive minima is a good idea in principle, but i do not see a fair outlook in terms of retaining regular employment having such a responsive sysytem in place.
this is as was and probably always will be when it comes to field staff, but what of office or senior staff with greater responsibilities and a greater need for stability.
those field staff of today are the long term management of tomorrow so.............
what they get used to will be the status quo of tommorrow.
how about a series of developmental pay scale bands.
a very complex notion indeed.
intellectual property rights included as sub banding.
its very dangerous and experimental, but why should we remain a static system to 5yr plans?
if we want stability what risks are we going to face, but if we want more money are we willing to face that other much starker instability if we get used to the monies associated with those comparable salaries?
if we often ask what do we do for society and people often ask what can we bring to society?
we cannot simply answer that we are pointless and meaningless.
the heritage position in the national identity debate, can only justify so much, but a salary system with greater renumeration benifits must not be a glass floor or plank for us to blindly follow to the precipis.
we need a heritage sector that can also act as an experimental ground for other developing industries, that can use low investitue and low returns as a basis for building business plans.
if we fear the alternatives of not working in our industry, why not make the industry into a series of models for developmental industries and other major employers so as to build a conscientious patform from a foundation of knowing whom we affect as opposed to a distanced and isolated corporate giant perspective.
we must look at the risks and take the chance, for if we do nothing and wait for further changes, what could we take to future employers. I am talking about a serious skill for working with responsive business plans, within a structured system.
I won't lie to you on this, its scary, its un-nerving but if you could take a small industry and multiply that experience into any other industry the returns and long term veiw would be considerably less confining to one destination and a reckless youth.
we could take our own futures into our own hands and take the risk.
Advisedly though i would stipulate, that for the senior staff and the lack of any safety net, this maybe unwise or even reckless.
so here i ask the Digger forum what do you say of a new breed of experience and responsibility to our own destinies?
would you risk it all in one pitch and toss of the die?
:face-huh:
this is as was and probably always will be when it comes to field staff, but what of office or senior staff with greater responsibilities and a greater need for stability.
those field staff of today are the long term management of tomorrow so.............
what they get used to will be the status quo of tommorrow.
how about a series of developmental pay scale bands.
a very complex notion indeed.
intellectual property rights included as sub banding.
its very dangerous and experimental, but why should we remain a static system to 5yr plans?
if we want stability what risks are we going to face, but if we want more money are we willing to face that other much starker instability if we get used to the monies associated with those comparable salaries?
if we often ask what do we do for society and people often ask what can we bring to society?
we cannot simply answer that we are pointless and meaningless.
the heritage position in the national identity debate, can only justify so much, but a salary system with greater renumeration benifits must not be a glass floor or plank for us to blindly follow to the precipis.
we need a heritage sector that can also act as an experimental ground for other developing industries, that can use low investitue and low returns as a basis for building business plans.
if we fear the alternatives of not working in our industry, why not make the industry into a series of models for developmental industries and other major employers so as to build a conscientious patform from a foundation of knowing whom we affect as opposed to a distanced and isolated corporate giant perspective.
we must look at the risks and take the chance, for if we do nothing and wait for further changes, what could we take to future employers. I am talking about a serious skill for working with responsive business plans, within a structured system.
I won't lie to you on this, its scary, its un-nerving but if you could take a small industry and multiply that experience into any other industry the returns and long term veiw would be considerably less confining to one destination and a reckless youth.
we could take our own futures into our own hands and take the risk.
Advisedly though i would stipulate, that for the senior staff and the lack of any safety net, this maybe unwise or even reckless.
so here i ask the Digger forum what do you say of a new breed of experience and responsibility to our own destinies?
would you risk it all in one pitch and toss of the die?
:face-huh:
txt is
Mike
Mike