Don't Confuse Personal Expenses With Asking For Pay Raise

As a small business owner, I have to deal with many things. One of which is handling requests for raises and negotiating hourly wages.

I look for certain intagibles if I'm to part with more profits. Articulating those intagibles to the staff is difficult and an on-going process. It entails having leadership qualities; something I need to work on more.

Nonetheless, the bottom line is if I'm not happy getting more will have to be justified by the employee.

One of those intangibles I look for is no talk back. Can't stand it. And in an environment that gives to some diva behavior, there can be some of it. The other thing I want is something called "going beyond your tasks." If there's one thing I loathe more than talk back is someone saying, "it's not in my job description" or if you're unlucky enough, "my union contract says."

Wanna play that game? Fine. No problem.

Don't expect me to go the extra mile for you either.

Already the prevailing attitude is that small-businesses are cash cows in North America these days, but it's especially more apparent in Quebec where Quebecers look upon small business owners are people looking only to profit off the people.

It's all so very myopic and battling that perception is difficult. It's why I joined the CFIB but that's for another post.

Anyway.

Pay. We always want more. It's only natural. I'm open to it provided it's dealt properly by the employee. For example, don't threaten management with an "or else I'll look elsewhere" attitude. No matter how nice your bosses are (and my daycare is run like a fricken hippie compound), they don't like ultimatums. You will lose. Everyone is expendable. It's just the way it is. Unless you're Einstein and Fermi and Hawking rolled into one, you're replaceable. Remember that.

In my case, I'm only 20 months in business. Debt reduction is still a priority as it eats away capital. C'est la vie. So I don't have the flexibility I would like. If I were to go borrow more (and that's easier said than done in this market and economic environment), it would only put me in debt more and potentially further hamper or damage my chances of reducing debt. Sure, as I get more revenues I can "expand" but that's not in the plan. The plan is making the business sustainable.

I do explain this to my staff but they don't necessarily understand or care. But I have to let them know why I say no sometimes. I offer a splendid work environment in a great town. It's multicultural and free of the sterile, institutional atmosphere of a subsidized daycare. It definitely has a family oriented default setting given my staff is made up of girls of Mediterranean or Middle-Eastern heritage. Very nurturing women. The North American girls I have find it easy to adapt in such an environment. If you want to be treated like a unionized worker the private setting is not for you.

All that aside, I noticed one tactic used by employees today that I didn't really see in my experience and thought to offer my insights on that.

Notably, they talk of the increased cost of living. That they have mortgage payments, car payments, paying down student loans.

That's not leverage to be used. Here's why: We all have those things. If you feel you want more money, change jobs or industry. Go into sales. But the wages are what they are.

Services like daycare are regulated so it's not like I can reduce staff to increase payroll. Payroll taxes are ludicrous and only make things harder. I'm not producing widgets so I can't increase productivity therefore profits. I have x-amount of spots at a fixed price paid once a month. It's predictable and easy to plan around but it also makes giving things challenging - in the early going of a business.

Eventually, flexibility will come and I'll be able to save and set aside. I always have to look six months down the road.

When my educators started buying new cars, that was their decision. Not mine. You can't come and ask me to effectively subsidize your car payment. If you feel it's a lot, then there were other options - like buying second hand and not brand new. I don't know what your personal financial situation is. I don't know if you made a bad decision on your mortgage. Or if you have lavish spending habits insisting on Maui Jim sunglasses instead of Ray-Ban.

May as well tell me, "I'm thinking of upgrading to a BMW can I get more money?"

Your life is your life. Businesses are not there to pay for that. It's there to provide wages for services rendered. Period. It owes nothing else.

The concept of EARNING your stripes seems to be lost on this generation. They think because they went to school they're off the bat "worth" x-amount. One thing I learned is they're not worth it. The government set those wages. Not me. If it were up to me, it would be $2 less. Earning a degree these days is less about critical thinking skills and more about treating education as a commodity. They basically pay for what a professor lectures and not necessarily looking to offer their own ideas.

It's not because I'm a hard ass. It's what my realities reflect. I also learned that workers with no education tend to be my best ones but get paid far less. If it were up to me, it would be the reverse. Let the educated person start at the bottom as an apprentice and move up from there because they chose this profession. They should treat it with pride and strive to become masters.

This position made me think of something journalist Clarence Page on the McLaughlin Group said this morning. Basically, he made his usual 'the government must help people' (like NYT did with the utterly ridiculous case for FEMA - how is that working out anyway?)  spiel making the case that single-moms are hardworking and need government assistance.

I agree, perhaps in some cases women need a hand. But I don't share this philosophically.

Why are there so many women raising children on their own? Is it because they freely chose to? If so, that's their choice. It shouldn't be left to the state to "make whole" a personal decision. There has to be limit.

Where are the fathers? Even if you're not married, I would think the man should be helping out. Or are they buying into the increasingly nonsensical belief a man is not needed?

Maybe we should take marriage a little more seriously? If anything, economically it's a stabilizing institution. Already two-incomes are not enough for some these days, imagine just one? How did the state become the surrogate father? Are women making the calculation it's easier to have a kid and go on welfare as opposed to any other social arrangement?

These are critical questions that have to be asked. It's not enough to assume everyone is honest and hard working and deserves welfare. In any event, we know welfare fraud happens and what I'd like to know is how big or small the problem is.

Page is correct it's more pragmatic (and I suppose compassionate but I'd rather be careful here) to give assistance then it is to leave people in the streets, my concern is this shouldn't be a means to an end.

Maybe in another 20 months my views on all this will change. In fact, since I'm generally wrong about everything, that's probably a good bet.