Motorhomes are overpriced.....discuss............

[snowie]

Brian Kirby - 2013-03-11 7:03 PM

 

But, it seems to me we digress yet further form the point.

 

I think my original thread died some time ago; just ran out of steam and was overwhelmed by other more interesting themes that have now reached a similar state,

alan b

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2013-03-11 7:03 PM

 

rupert123 - 2013-03-11 4:04 PM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-03-11 2:26 PM

 

Why would you make such a sweeping statement about James Dysons workforce, some employees are very loyal to their companies you know. >:-)

 

Because it is true. Complete loyalty to a company does not exist, what employee with half a brain would not leave his company if offered another job with a better package if it suited them. He would not give a thought to 'does the company need me', it would be thanks very much I am off.

Which just illustrates your lack of experience I'm afraid, Henry. I don't blame you for that, but basing what sounds like a "life view", on only what you know from your own experience, is liable to give a wildly distorted outlook. In your preceding post you said, apparently without any sense of irony "however ethics and trust are not quite the same". While that is true in the narrowest, dictionary definition, sense, it is a bit difficult to see how one could trust a person one that perceived as without ethics.

 

If you employ someone to do a job, you have to be able to trust them to do it. You will of course need to monitor them until you gain that trust, and you will need to reassure yourself that they will not end up poaching your clients etc. But, you can't spend all day watching them either. If they are good, and honest, they will work well and earn your confidence and trust. You can them allocate them tasks knowing that they will carry them out conscientiously and well without supervision. You will come to trust their work ethic. They will put in the hours necessary to meet deadlines, and the effort necessary to satisfy your clients. They will see your client as their client, and work accordingly. They will, of their own volition, arrange their holidays to suit work commitments, and they will have regard to your costs in doing so. If they do not do these things, you have employed the wrong people.

 

This is not mere theory, it is the environment in which I have always worked, and reflects the attitudes of those with whom I have always worked. I am sorry if your experience has been otherwise, and I am aware there are dishonest, lazy, unmotivated people, as you seem only to have experienced. I don't know why that should have been, but it is emphatically not a basis for inferring that all who are/were employed by others are dishonest, lazy, and unmotivated, as you seem to be doing.

 

But, it seems to me we digress yet further form the point.

 

You must of worked in a very fluffy world Brian, where everyone was looking out for the company 8-)...........I have to say from my experience of being brought up above the shop.....or my time in the Navy.... or working for a bus company.........or being self employed.......or employing staff.......... have never encountered a environment you describe :-S.............Indeed I suspect if businesses operated as yours did, then I suspect we'd be called Germany (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol)

[colin]

BGD - 2013-03-11 3:32 PM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-03-11 3:26 PM

 

Why would you make such a sweeping statement about James Dysons workforce, some employees are very loyal to their companies you know. >:-)

 

 

 

Firstly, it is not their Company at all, it is a Company for whom they currently CHOOSE to work for.

 

Secondly, they are patently not "loyal" to their Company per se at all.

They are simply loyal to the pay and perks that they get in exchange for turning up (except when taking holiday, or going off sick) at a company owned by other people, funded by other people, with share capital being risked by other people.

 

 

 

Let's test your theory then: the company you work for is now making increasing trading losses, losing sales and market share to cheaper-priced competitors products. You're the MD and major shareholder.

You explain to your production employees that in order for them to help the Company to survive, you are going to have to get their agreement to cut their pay immediately by 25%, and then by a further 3% each year in future, Company sick pay is being removed so that only SSP is payable for going off sick from now on, and the Final salary based company pension scheme is being stopped with immediate effect. Accepting these cuts should, you hope, see the Company survive for another 5 years or more.

Now, let's see how very loyal to that Company those production employees are.

 

 

If you think about it for a while, you'll grasp that it really ain't that specific Company entity that employees are loyal to. It is the effort/reward bargain that it provides: the package of pay and perks that they keep receiving in exchange for not resigning.

It's really not the name above the shop at all; it's what you get for continuing to choose to keep working as an employee in that shop, rather than resigning to go work for a better effort/reward bargain in another shop.

It's really about becoming, and remaining, comfortable with your role and duties; so the effort/reward bargain gets better and better for you over time, as your job become easier for you to do, whilst you get more pay as time rolls along for doing the same job.

 

 

Sounds like what many UK companies have done over the last few years, including the one I worked for. We all took a 10% pay cut, the last pay increase had been about 10 years previous, some like myself voluntarily reduced hours, we then started slipping back on pay dates, myself I ended up 6 months behind. At one stage the owner slipped (again) into depression and hardly left his house for several months whilst we struggled to keep going.

But there you go, just the usual bolshy British workers.

[snowie]

colin - 2013-03-11 8:37 PM

 

 

Sounds like what many UK companies have done over the last few years, including the one I worked for. We all took a 10% pay cut, the last pay increase had been about 10 years previous, some like myself voluntarily reduced hours, we then started slipping back on pay dates, myself I ended up 6 months behind. At one stage the owner slipped (again) into depression and hardly left his house for several months whilst we struggled to keep going.

But there you go, just the usual bolshy British workers.

 

 

Well, this is definitely my last contribution on this threads. On the thread: as it has developed.

 

I really do believe that there are thousands of businesses in the UK, and worldwide probably millions, that are "marginal". They are run by people who have no real business skill, but have ended up "in business" for the best of reasons. Because they think they have a chance of "making a go of it". In some cases they employ people,often they pay low wages; because they employ people who have no skills. But they don't see that if they invest in people they have a better chance of advancing their business. Often their workforce have no "loyalty". Right up to the last moment these bosses take the lion's share of the proceeds of the business; (because they take the risks; right up to the point when the business fails. They move on, and their staff look for a new job.

Some people run "marginal" businesses for years, without harming anyone, and they provide for their families; I respect that.

 

For years before the banking crash businesses used to be supported by the banks, the banks made money out of marginal businesses, a lot of money, with little risk. They don't do that anymore. Maybe some "marginal" businesses have been done a favour; been saved from themselves.

 

Not everyone can be an entrepreneur, be self-employed, employ people. I respect those who can, and those who have integrity I admire.

 

The private sector will play a big part in our survival, in our return to prosperity. But it will be "good" businesses that create a lasting prosperity, businesses with integrity.

 

Just an opinion, you understand

alan b

[Brian Kirby]

pelmetman - 2013-03-11 7:17 PM...............You must of worked in a very fluffy world Brian, where everyone was looking out for the company 8-)...........I have to say from my experience of being brought up above the shop.....or my time in the Navy.... or working for a bus company.........or being self employed.......or employing staff.......... have never encountered a environment you describe :-S.............Indeed I suspect if businesses operated as yours did, then I suspect we'd be called Germany (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol)

I'll agree that I have probably been lucky with my colleagues. Not just my immediate work colleagues, but colleagues from other firms and practises with whom I have collaborated on various projects. Large construction projects are very demanding, and cannot afford coasters. Those who don't pull their weight get sorted, or shifted. Clients who are spending tens of millions on projects expect total commitment, and are quick to say if they don't think they're getting it.

 

Those who remain know their jobs and what is expected of them. They become a team to get a job done, and if you slip behind, the others soon let you know! But, it is not, and cannot be, dog eat dog, because if it were, it couldn't work. That is where the trust is critical, between individuals, companies, and employer (the client - the chap who is paying) and contractors (principals and/or directors and their employees). A climate of mutual suspicion, I can say from experience, is completely corrosive. I have seen it, and it doesn't work.

 

That doesn't mean the process is perfect, or error free, but the relationships mean errors have to be admitted early and collectively overcome. Errors will be discovered eventually, so early declaration is by far the best, and cheapest, way out. Putting errors right costs money, but concealing them until the cost of rectification has escalated costs reputations, and can cost jobs as well. You'll get roasted for costing your employer, or the client money, but that is as nothing to what you'll get if you damage someone's professional reputation! It is those reputations for honesty and trustworthy conduct that get the participants their next jobs. I call that ethics, others may not.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Back to the original post if you think they are over priced just don't buy one. >:-) A load of argumentative old farts for the most part, and a ex-pat singing in Spanish bars, and a self confessed ( do everything he can to avoid paying tax) geezer on here pontificating for ever and a day won't bring the prices down. >:-)

[Guest pelmetman]

1footinthegrave - 2013-03-11 11:58 PM

 

Back to the original post if you think they are over priced just don't buy one. >:-) A load of argumentative old farts for the most part, and a ex-pat singing in Spanish bars, and a self confessed ( do everything he can to avoid paying tax) geezer on here pontificating for ever and a day won't bring the prices down. >:-)

 

Talking as a middle aged fart :D............to a more aged ed fart >:-)..............no point in earning anymore than one needs ;-) ................unless you like financing incompetence *-)

[rupert123]

1footinthegrave - 2013-03-11 4:27 PM

 

rupert123 - 2013-03-11 4:04 PM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-03-11 2:26 PM

 

Why would you make such a sweeping statement about James Dysons workforce, some employees are very loyal to their companies you know. >:-)

 

Because it is true. Complete loyalty to a company does not exist, what employee with half a brain would not leave his company if offered another job with a better package if it suited them. He would not give a thought to 'does the company need me', it would be thanks very much I am off.

 

No it's not true, you just say it is, and at the end of the day a company, or even someone who employs just one person is reliant on that employee giving of their best, that's a major part of success for any venture. Both my wife and I did just that before we retired, and made extremely good profits for our employers, we were very much appreciated as being loyal and hard working. The likes of Richard Branson would be nowhere without a good workforce, conversely neither would his employees have a job but for him, so it is very much a two way street, to say otherwise quite frankly is an insult to employees who every day are committed to their job, and loyal to their employer, and try in most cases do the very best they can. Unlike the public sector where it seems no one is accountable to anyone.

 

I really do wish you would read what people say and not just pick up bits or put your own interpretation on it. I never ever said an employee should not give of their best, i never ever said an employee should not be appreciated, i never ever said you did not need a good workforce, I never ever said it is not a two way street. WHAT I DID SAY IS NO EMPLOYEE IS EVER COMPLETELY LOYAL. Please go back and read my post properly.

[rupert123]

Brian Kirby - 2013-03-11 7:03 PM

 

rupert123 - 2013-03-11 4:04 PM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-03-11 2:26 PM

 

Why would you make such a sweeping statement about James Dysons workforce, some employees are very loyal to their companies you know. >:-)

 

Because it is true. Complete loyalty to a company does not exist, what employee with half a brain would not leave his company if offered another job with a better package if it suited them. He would not give a thought to 'does the company need me', it would be thanks very much I am off.

Which just illustrates your lack of experience I'm afraid, Henry. I don't blame you for that, but basing what sounds like a "life view", on only what you know from your own experience, is liable to give a wildly distorted outlook. In your preceding post you said, apparently without any sense of irony "however ethics and trust are not quite the same". While that is true in the narrowest, dictionary definition, sense, it is a bit difficult to see how one could trust a person one that perceived as without ethics.

 

If you employ someone to do a job, you have to be able to trust them to do it. You will of course need to monitor them until you gain that trust, and you will need to reassure yourself that they will not end up poaching your clients etc. But, you can't spend all day watching them either. If they are good, and honest, they will work well and earn your confidence and trust. You can them allocate them tasks knowing that they will carry them out conscientiously and well without supervision. You will come to trust their work ethic. They will put in the hours necessary to meet deadlines, and the effort necessary to satisfy your clients. They will see your client as their client, and work accordingly. They will, of their own volition, arrange their holidays to suit work commitments, and they will have regard to your costs in doing so. If they do not do these things, you have employed the wrong people.

 

This is not mere theory, it is the environment in which I have always worked, and reflects the attitudes of those with whom I have always worked. I am sorry if your experience has been otherwise, and I am aware there are dishonest, lazy, unmotivated people, as you seem only to have experienced. I don't know why that should have been, but it is emphatically not a basis for inferring that all who are/were employed by others are dishonest, lazy, and unmotivated, as you seem to be doing.

 

But, it seems to me we digress yet further form the point.

 

Brian you are weird and like Onefoot put your own interpretation on what others say. Exactly when did i mention people being dishonest, lazy, and unmotivated, although a hell of a lot are. As for my lack of experience I would suggest it is a hell of a lot more varied than yours, although to be fair you avoid saying what this is so I cannot be certain of this but with your 'one eyed' view of the world i suspect you have spent most of your working life doing the same job largely for the same company, a typical smug employee with no real experience. I employed about 20 people when I was in Suffolk and had the car spares business, although not many it gave me a good indication of loyalty and they had none. This is not to say they were not good employees, most were, it is not to say they were not honest, they were, it is not to say they did not do their best for the company, they did. However as soon as a better offer came along they were off. I had no problem with this because in the same situation i would have done the same, it was awkward at times but we got over it. We will never have the same view, unless you have had complete responsibility for the company, big or small, you cannot possibly have a clue about it.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

I can only say both my wife and I were very loyal employees in our last position before retirement and then we were put out to grass, perhaps our loyalty was misguided, but I've always put job satisfaction above better pay, perhaps we're odd balls. ;-)

 

But motor-homes are overpriced for us as we did settle for lower pay from them than may have otherwise been the case, and it took many years to save for our first second hand van, but we felt highly valued by our employers, and that counted for a lot. :-) It's not always about money.

[rupert123]

1footinthegrave - 2013-03-12 11:58 AM

 

I can only say both my wife and I were very loyal employees in our last position before retirement and then we were put out to grass, perhaps our loyalty was misguided, but I've always put job satisfaction above better pay, perhaps we're odd balls. ;-)

 

But motor-homes are overpriced for us as we did settle for lower pay from them than may have otherwise been the case, and it took many years to save for our first second hand van, but we felt highly valued by our employers, and that counted for a lot. :-) It's not always about money.

 

Completely agree but i never said it was, it is about the whole package you are offered. Have not a clue if motorhomes are overpriced but I suspect not. It is a very competitive scene now and every maker must be trying to cut costs while trying to produce a decent package.

[Brian Kirby]

rupert123 - 2013-03-12 10:00 AM....................Brian you are weird and like Onefoot put your own interpretation on what others say.

But what else can one do? I react to what others write, as I understand it. Do we not all?

 

Exactly when did i mention people being dishonest, lazy, and unmotivated, although a hell of a lot are.

You did not, in so many words, but it seemed to me the clear implication of what you wrote, bearing in mind the context. However, from what follows, it seem not so far from your view.

 

As for my lack of experience I would suggest it is a hell of a lot more varied than yours, although to be fair you avoid saying what this is so I cannot be certain of this but with your 'one eyed' view of the world i suspect you have spent most of your working life doing the same job largely for the same company, a typical smug employee with no real experience.

You are right, it is indeed more varied than mine, but also more transient. I have stayed within my own field, because it is what I trained for. It was a career within which it was essential to keep up to date as legislation and practise changed. It took a huge investment in time to qualify for, it was interesting, varied, and challenging, so why would I suddenly change track? But, that does not equate to it being the same job for the same company. That assumption is wrong, because it has been many jobs for many employers. It is only the essence of the work that has remained more or less constant.

 

I employed about 20 people when I was in Suffolk and had the car spares business, although not many it gave me a good indication of loyalty and they had none. This is not to say they were not good employees, most were, it is not to say they were not honest, they were, it is not to say they did not do their best for the company, they did. However as soon as a better offer came along they were off. I had no problem with this because in the same situation i would have done the same, it was awkward at times but we got over it.

But, what you describe is the nature of business, is it not? Firms may favour others with their business, but they will only do so while the relationship is beneficial. If the benefit ceases to exist, it is likely the business will go elsewhere, or at least that alternative sources will be tried out.

 

When times get hard, even the best employer is liable to make staff redundant. The staff know that. It is at times inevitable. So, employees will do exactly what their employers do every day. They will follow the money. You pay someone to do a job. They do the job in exchange for their pay. It is the same as any business transaction.

 

The true measure of loyalty is not the suicidal version Bruce cites, of being meekly prepared to take indefinite pay and benefits cuts. That would be foolish, because the probability is that the firm in his illustration is terminally crippled: holed below the waterline. Do employers really want to employ fools? Volunteering to go down with the ship, because you like it and the captain, may be noble and romantic, but it is not really very sensible. Far better to leave the ship to founder empty, and allow it to slip quietly beneath the waves.

We will never have the same view, unless you have had complete responsibility for the company, big or small, you cannot possibly have a clue about it.

And there's the rub. I have not been in that position, though during my career I have met and spoken to many who were, which I think I has given me that clue, although clearly not that experience. But then, you have not done what I have done, so you lack my insights. Even so, if we put your "one eye" together with mine, we should find we have perfect binocular vision, should we not? :-)

[rupert123]

A truce Brian, as I said we will never agree on this and as I know i am right (lol) will not press my correct points any more. Incidently i do not know how long your training was but mine was five years, not including classroom time, and once finished i packed in after my two years with BP so some do waste all their training and divert. Why, because I get bored easily I guess and need a new challange, some can grind away in the same job for years but i just could not. I forgot one thing i did, operate a ski holiday chalet in the French alps for ten seasons, did this in the winter when operating hotel/restaurant, which was only open during the summer season. Hotel made good money, ski holidays did not but I loved it and my curent skiing partner was a client from those days. That reminds me, must get packed off to the alps again in a couple of days, then when I get back will have to sort a van out and arrange the summer, hard work this being retired lark.

[Mel B]

pelmetman - 2013-03-12 7:54 AM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-03-11 11:58 PM

 

Back to the original post if you think they are over priced just don't buy one. >:-) A load of argumentative old farts for the most part, and a ex-pat singing in Spanish bars, and a self confessed ( do everything he can to avoid paying tax) geezer on here pontificating for ever and a day won't bring the prices down. >:-)

 

Talking as a middle aged fart :D............to a more aged ed fart >:-)..............no point in earning anymore than one needs ;-) ................unless you like financing incompetence *-)

 

Totally agree Dave, that's why we 'retired' when we did, no kids to pass our property etc on to so what's the point in earning more than we'll ever spend?

 

We were both loyal to our employer for over 30 years, through thick and thin but were fortunate to be able to be 'let go' with a nest egg, which was unexpected, but a very nice surprise. Having talked to some former colleagues recently we know we definitely made the right decision to leave when we did as it isn't the same place now, very unsettled and lots of concerned people. :-(

[Mel B]

rupert123 - 2013-03-12 9:44 PM

 

... hard work this being retired lark.

 

Tell me about it! 8-) Sometimes I wish I was employed again so I could have a rest!!!! (lol)

[Brian Kirby]

I'm impressed Henry. Mine took 7 years minimum, but it took me 8 because I changed colleges half way through!

 

Never a dull moment, always something different, always somewhere different. You start with blank paper, and end up with some kind of building, or you start with some kind of building and end up with a better one or a different one. At least, thats the theory! The fun bit is between the plank paper and the end product, and that can take years! Lots of laughs, and occasional tears, along the way.

 

I'm not claiming right or wrong on either side; it's just that life has taught us different lessons, from which we have drawn different conclusions. And so we should have! :-) What is it they say, "how did I ever find the time for work?" :-D

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Brian Kirby - 2013-03-12 10:34 PM

 

I'm impressed Henry. Mine took 7 years minimum, but it took me 8 because I changed colleges half way through!

 

What is it they say, "how did I ever find the time for work?" :-D

 

Probably because you spend most of your time on here,once again seeking to impress. >:-)

 

[Brian Kirby]

1footinthegrave - 2013-03-13 8:38 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2013-03-12 10:34 PM

 

I'm impressed Henry. Mine took 7 years minimum, but it took me 8 because I changed colleges half way through!

 

What is it they say, "how did I ever find the time for work?" :-D

 

Probably because you spend most of your time on here,once again seeking to impress. >:-)

Do try to stop taking everything so personally. I'm sorry if it disappoints, but I never have you in mind when posting. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Brian Kirby - 2013-03-13 3:41 PM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-03-13 8:38 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2013-03-12 10:34 PM

 

I'm impressed Henry. Mine took 7 years minimum, but it took me 8 because I changed colleges half way through!

 

What is it they say, "how did I ever find the time for work?" :-D

 

Probably because you spend most of your time on here,once again seeking to impress. >:-)

Do try to stop taking everything so personally. I'm sorry if it disappoints, but I never have you in mind when posting. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

Nothing personal at all................but it mostly seems the only person you have in mind is yourself in your seemingly unshakable belief of being an expert in most things known to man, and can't wait to share it with us all.

 

You obviously did not see the irony in your statement " how did I ever find the time for work", well if you've replaced work with trawling the internet, it's hardly a surprise, + I thought it amusing how you and Rupert123 were trying to out do each other in the life experience stakes, I was not at all surprised you did not let him have the last word though, a bridge too far eh.

;-)

[Brian Kirby]

Whereas, I think all Henry and I were trying to do, was to explore for common ground between us. (On this, Henry can speak for himself! :-)) We saw the same issue from widely differing standpoints. We explained to each other why. We explored the differences. We have agreed, by and large, to disagree. Where's the sin in that? It was civilised discussion, was it not?

 

Where is this desire to "outdo" each other? Where is this desire to impress? In short, what on earth is your problem? Is it that we could do all that without resorting to the kind of spite laden bile you usually descend to, as evidenced in your above post? Are you quite sure the world really is as you see it? Or might the fault just be in your way of seeing?

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

If you were back in school you'd be described as a big head, In truth you probably don't see it, but reading through many of your posts that is how you come across, and as I come across as a White supremacist, and racist according to you. >:-)

[Guest Peter James]

Back to topic.

Motorhomes, like everything else, are looking overpriced.

Because we measure them against the value of the pound.

And the value of the pound is falling