On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
> [WS:] it is possible if you define it in terms of output rather than
> outcome. For example, you can specify that the teacher will deliver X
> hours of instruction that meet objectively defined criteria (output).
> However, if specify it by what students will learn - which btw is the
> bullshit language embedded in most American curricula - you are pretty
> much screwed.
>
> The problem is that the bullshit that they spoon feed people in
> management schools about 'accountability' 'performance evaluation' and
> 'outcomes' (I would not use the word "teach" to describe this
> gobbledygook) has sunk so deeply in the American collective psyche
> that nobody even thinks about questioning its merits, let also call it
> for what it is - bullshit that looks good only on paper. The
> management crowd that is on the receiving end of this drivel is only
> half of the problem, the academia and management gurus that supply it
> is the other half.
>
> Wojtek
>
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:30 PM, michael perelman
> <michael.perelman3 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Exactly the point! How the hell do you define merit, unless it is
>> nothing more than pleasing one's superiors.
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> [WS:] Interesting. But in the example that you quote the problem
>>> seems to lie not with pay based on one's "merits" or performance, but
>>> in including in the definition of performance factors that are outside
>>> the control of the employee. This is analogous to, say, defining
>>> teacher's merits by the achievements (no matter how measured) of
>>> his/her students. Obviously, many critical factors that affect
>>> student's performance, such as motivation, availability for
>>> instruction, background knowledge or cognitive ability are not
>>> controlled by the teacher. So the problem is not that pay is linked
>>> to merits, which would be difficult to argue against, but how merits
>>> are defined.
>>>
>>> Wojtek
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:33 AM, michael perelman
>>> <michael.perelman3 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> One of the knocks on collective bargaining is that employers should be able
>>>> to pay people what they are worth. An interesting example of this
>>>> phenomenon came in the realm of professional football. In January 2011, Pro
>>>> Bowl cornerback Nnamdi Asomugha's contract was voided because his contract
>>>> included a little-known clause allowed the team to void his contract if he
>>>> didn't achieve his not-likely-to-be-earned incentives in 2010 -- and he
>>>> didn't. One reason for his failure to earn his incentives was that he was
>>>> so effective that quarterbacks would not to pass to someone near him.
>>>> Consequently, he did not have any interceptions.
>>>> --
>>>> Michael Perelman
>>>> Economics Department
>>>> California State University
>>>> Chico, CA
>>>> 95929
>>>>
>>>> mperelman at csuchico.edu
>>>>
>>>> 530 898 5321
>>>> fax 530 898 5901
>>>> http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com
>>>> ___________________________________
>>>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>>>
>>>
>>> ___________________________________
>>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Perelman
>> Economics Department
>> California State University
>> Chico, CA
>> 95929
>>
>> 530 898 5321
>> fax 530 898 5901
>> http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com
>>
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929
530 898 5321 fax 530 898 5901 http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com