The more creative the work, the higher the difference in performance. It seems to, it's unfair that people who do substantially more, are paid the same amount of money as underperformers.
Probably not. If you care a lot about the restaurant's quality (maybe it's your neighborhood place), you might offer some constructive criticism in the form of yelp reviews or feedback cards. If that fails, you'd probably reluctantly sever your relationship with the restaurant.
Why should this kind of relationship not apply to employees? The only difference being an employer should probably do more to try to get performance up before severing the relationship.
Actually, I do. I leave tips depending on the quality of food and serving.
>Why should this kind of relationship not apply to employees? The only difference being an employer should probably do more to try to get performance up before severing the relationship.
It applies to employees as well. Employees might leave for a place with a better pay, actually, I know a lot of software developers who change the job once in 2-3 years to make it more market because their employees don't think they need to pay more. If employer is doing something which is quite unique, and people need to learn this on the job and it takes a lot of time, not paying good performers is detrimental to the business.
I think they often do get shared with cooks, but not to the extent to anyhow influence the quality.
When the food is poor, I fire that restaurant.
Over time, this has a strong correlation between my (subjective) enjoyment of the food and how much money I pay the restaurant.