[scriptman]

I'm not advocating what you are suggesting. I agree that workers should be paid extra for working additional hours.

I also agree with you that it's important to get an accurate read on how much an employee earned. My point is that there are some people that have an incentive to obfuscate this amount and that I can only see one unambiguous way to avoid this obfuscation.

I think the starting point in these discussions should be what someone was actually paid, not what they might have been paid. Then if that amount can be justified by unsociable hours, extra hours, or whatever, then that's fine. But if the various hours, loadings or whatever seem unreasonable then that's a different discussion.

I wouldn't even normally be interested in what someone's paid - it's not my business. However, the car manufacturing industry is a different case since there was an expectation that tax payer's money should be used to bail it out. In my opinion, tax payers deserve to know what it is that they are paying for, in detail. Particularly in the car industries case since it seemed like every time that the government tipped in more money that it was closely followed by the workers getting a pay rise.

[jackvalentine]

> I'm not advocating what you are suggesting. I agree that workers should be paid extra for working additional hours.

Ah I'm sorry if I was unclear with that one. I'm not suggesting that you think people should all be paid standard regular rates irrespective of time. I meant that if you use a lump sum "average per employee pay slip" number you're not taking in to account those details.

With full-time equivalent, if George works 60 hours for example he counts as 1.5FTE. After-hours work is harder to quantify, but usually employment agreements similarly put extra value on those hours that can be translated back to FTE.

This seems the sanest and most accurate way to figure it out. The number actual people earn per week is a misleading figure.

I think you might agree with me here, because you said "Then if that amount can be justified by unsociable hours, extra hours, or whatever, then that's fine" and FTE is exactly the way to do that!

I just came across this four corners episode from 2016 which has the quote

"According to Holden management 90% of the workers earn between 43k and 55k per year" (https://youtu.be/CIRuU8qot3s?t=33m08s)

Straight from the horses mouth, as it were. Though of course .5FTE @ $43k is $86k FTE (for example) so we're back at the problem of standardization...

[scriptman]

I see what you mean and that's a good and interesting idea.

However, I think while it would be revealing in some areas, it would mask other problems.

For instance, if you look purely at the FTE, you wouldn't see that George had worked 60 hours. That's a problem. Why did George work 60 hours? Was he really productive for all of that time or is he gaming the overtime system by deliberately doing less work within normal hours so that he has to do overtime to complete his scheduled work.

[jackvalentine]

Well that’s a different issue isn’t it :-) you’re now getting in to management effectiveness - do people really need to do 60 hour weeks or is there something severely wrong with the factory...

Definitely all related though. In this case to bring it round to the start, I am focusing on the “how much does the average worker earn” problem. I have a little experience is human resource budgeting for a small team, and my establishment was represented in FTE.

Thanks for the chat, it was interesting.