Daily Archives: June 24, 2012

Think tank: freedom, not pay, is best motivation

Posted: June 24, 2012 at 2:14 pm

Cash-strapped businesses should look to incentivise staff by giving them a degree of autonomy.

How do you incentivise your staff without paying them more money?

It is a question that is keeping a growing number of owners of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) awake at night as they grapple with poor growth prospects and the impact of a double-dip recession.

According to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, less than a third of SME employers are expecting to give pay rises to their employees in 2012.

For companies that have traditionally used the carrot approach of dangling the prospect of pay rises, promotions and bonuses in front of employees to spur them on, the realisation that the cupboard is bare is especially daunting.

One possible solution to the problem is to give a delayed monetary incentive in the form of share options, but that will only work if you give them to all employees, otherwise resentments will fester.

Realistically it will also only be an option for certain types of business. And if the current growth prospects for the business really are negligible, then it is debatable just how much of an incentive a tiny sliver of a future theoretical pot of gold will really be.

The good news for cash-strapped SME owners is there are many non-monetary ways to incentivise and motivate staff. The even better news is that these may well turn out to be even more effective than a pay rise would have been.

Indeed, using money as a way of motivating employees is actually not nearly as effective as people generally think.

Non-monetary factors, such as being given some autonomy over how tasks are carried out, the freedom to make decisions about issues that affect them and having achievements praised and acknowledged, have been repeatedly shown to be far more effective in motivating people. Flexible working arrangements and being given time off are equally valued.

More here:
Think tank: freedom, not pay, is best motivation

Posted in Freedom | Comments Off on Think tank: freedom, not pay, is best motivation

Catholics, Protestants rally in Oklahoma City for religious freedom

Posted: at 2:13 pm

Copyright 2010. The Associated Press. Produced by NewsOK.com All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

A religious gathering punctuated by fiery speeches and standing ovations brought Catholics and Protestants together Saturday, united against a common enemy.

Frank Cargill, Superintendent of the Oklahoma District Council of the Assemblies of God, speaks during an ecumenical rally for religious freedom at the Cox Convention Center in Oklahoma City, OK, Saturday, June 23, 2012, By Paul Hellstern, The Oklahoman

Rally for Religious Freedom speakers, including a Roman Catholic archbishop, a Pentecostal leader and a Southern Baptist pastor, said threats to religious liberty should trouble all people of faith.

The rally at the Cox Convention Center in Oklahoma City was hosted by a group of Catholic laity called St. Peter's Fellowship, and it drew about 3,200 people. Organizers said it was held in conjunction with the Fortnight For Freedom, a faith initiative born out of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' outrage over a U.S. Health and Human Services mandate that effectively requires faith-affiliated organizations to pay for contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs.

In his speech that kicked off the rally, the Most Rev. Paul S. Coakley, archbishop of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, said the broader and most troubling concern about the federal mandate is what the U.S. bishops see as the federal government's infringement on religious liberty.

The government has picked this fight, and we cannot afford to back away from it. There is simply too much at stake for us all, Coakley said.

He reminded those in attendance that the Fortnight For Freedom is a rallying cry for the faithful to pray against threats to religious freedom, to help educate others about the issues at hand and to stand with American bishops in their battle against the mandate.

The government has no business defining religion or religious entities, Coakley said, adding that the religious freedom issue is not a partisan issue.

The rest is here:
Catholics, Protestants rally in Oklahoma City for religious freedom

Posted in Freedom | Comments Off on Catholics, Protestants rally in Oklahoma City for religious freedom

Making sense of the NRA's 'loaded questions'

Posted: at 2:13 pm

Published: Sunday, June 24, 2012 at 6:30 a.m. Last Modified: Friday, June 22, 2012 at 6:52 p.m.

On June 18, the Star-Banner published an editorial, "Dishing out loaded questions," that left a lot to be desired.

As in the past, the primary purpose of the editorial appeared to be to bash the National Rifle Association. Like many liberal newspapers, the Star-Banner refers to the NRA as if it were a monster in the forest, always plotting some evil deed against the population.

The fact is, the NRA is an organization made up of people just like you and me people who put great value on our constitutional rights, specifically on the Second Amendment. The NRA has millions of members. They come from all walks of life hard-working, mostly middle-class folks who might be your neighbors. They are law-abiding people who tend to be self-sufficient and believe in individual responsibility.

That's the real "gun lobby," as the paper calls it, not the intimidating bully described in the editorial.

What the Star-Banner has never seemed to realize in the 20 years I've lived in Marion County is that, because we live so close to so many outdoor recreational venues our many lakes, rivers and the Ocala National Forest this town has more than its share of hunters, fishermen, campers and outdoorsmen. A large percentage own firearms, which they use for hunting, target shooting and, yes, self-protection.

The June 18 editorial calls a recent questionnaire sent out by the NRA to candidates for sheriff "a web of intimidation." For example, one question asks: "Do you agree that no victim of a crime should be required to surrender his life, health, safety, personal dignity, autonomy or property to a criminal, nor should a victim be required to retreat in the face of an attack from any place he or she has a right to be?" The answers are: a) "Yes, I believe the Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground' is appropriate, and victims have a right to fight back without a duty to retreat"; or b) "No, I oppose the Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground' and believe victims should surrender to criminals or retreat to avoid fighting back." The paper says: "Fight back" or "surrender to criminals" the NRA doesn't allow for a middle ground.

I say, what middle ground?

You either fight or you surrender/retreat. By the way, in many cases, turning your back on an aggressor and retreating will get you killed.

The Star-Banner has an equally jaundiced view on the rest of the questions in the document sent to the candidates. But don't we as voters have a right to know where our law-enforcement personnel, especially the sheriff himself, stand on the issue of self-defense?

Originally posted here:
Making sense of the NRA's 'loaded questions'

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Making sense of the NRA's 'loaded questions'