3 ms·

> But that doesn't make any sense. Ostensibly, you were being paid market rate before. So were those who got a raise, but the company decided to hand out raise

> But that doesn't make any sense. Ostensibly, you were being paid market rate before. So were those who got a raise, but the company decided to hand out raises as a gift (not as a reward) to lower performers only - of course this discrimination will be frustrating.

darod 11y ago
I don't know if you can characterize the people who got a raise as a low performers. Some people's market rate may just be below 70k but that doesn't mean they don't work hard. There are plenty of blue collar workers that bust their ass everyday.
- brushfoot 11y ago
  But performance has less to do with butt-busting than with choices in what to learn/how to spend your time, don't you think? E.g., I could be working long hours manually moving data around, but if you come in and script that, you're already the higher performer. It's about where you've chosen to direct your effort vs. where I've chosen to direct mine.
mhb 11y ago
If it's frustrating to someone working at that company, why wouldn't they feel frustrated working any other place knowing that those people at their former company are still making relatively more than they should? In fact, it seems as though they would read the news every day and become inconsolably frustrated.
- lazyjones 11y ago
  > If it's frustrating to someone working at that company, why wouldn't they feel frustrated working any other place knowing that those people at their former company are still making relatively more than they should? Because the frustration came from being treated unfairly by the management, which they've cut ties with. Also, they might earn more at their new jobs now as well.
secstate 11y ago
But the problem is that discrimination is a function of perception, and that is 9/10ths of reality. What the company was trying to do was correct a perceived culture wrong that some people were compensated less because their job was perceived as less important. The reality is that those "less important" jobs frequently actually keep businesses running smoothly. Only a smoothly running business can afford to invest in strategy, thus smooth operation should be as important as strategy. That (^) right there is another "perception" and is increasingly the one reasonable people are adopting EXACTLY because of what Seth notes: "It's possible to create dignity and be successful at the same time."
- cjfont 11y ago
  But the importance of a job isn't what determines the salary of a worker, it mostly a function of supply/demand. A job may be absolutely critical to running a business, but if there's an oversupply of suitable applicants for the position, that is going to naturally drive down the compensation since there will be more applicants available willing to take a lower salary.
  - dropit_sphere 11y ago
    Live by the demand curve, die by the demand curve. The company will often have trouble when their model of the demand curve is (obviously) less precise than a worker's, and they are surprised when a worker leaves.

darod 11y ago

I don't know if you can characterize the people who got a raise as a low performers. Some people's market rate may just be below 70k but that doesn't mean they don't work hard. There are plenty of blue collar workers that bust their ass everyday.

brushfoot 11y ago
But performance has less to do with butt-busting than with choices in what to learn/how to spend your time, don't you think? E.g., I could be working long hours manually moving data around, but if you come in and script that, you're already the higher performer. It's about where you've chosen to direct your effort vs. where I've chosen to direct mine.

mhb 11y ago

If it's frustrating to someone working at that company, why wouldn't they feel frustrated working any other place knowing that those people at their former company are still making relatively more than they should? In fact, it seems as though they would read the news every day and become inconsolably frustrated.

lazyjones 11y ago
> If it's frustrating to someone working at that company, why wouldn't they feel frustrated working any other place knowing that those people at their former company are still making relatively more than they should? Because the frustration came from being treated unfairly by the management, which they've cut ties with. Also, they might earn more at their new jobs now as well.

secstate 11y ago

But the problem is that discrimination is a function of perception, and that is 9/10ths of reality. What the company was trying to do was correct a perceived culture wrong that some people were compensated less because their job was perceived as less important. The reality is that those "less important" jobs frequently actually keep businesses running smoothly. Only a smoothly running business can afford to invest in strategy, thus smooth operation should be as important as strategy. That (^) right there is another "perception" and is increasingly the one reasonable people are adopting EXACTLY because of what Seth notes: "It's possible to create dignity and be successful at the same time."

cjfont 11y ago
But the importance of a job isn't what determines the salary of a worker, it mostly a function of supply/demand. A job may be absolutely critical to running a business, but if there's an oversupply of suitable applicants for the position, that is going to naturally drive down the compensation since there will be more applicants available willing to take a lower salary.
- dropit_sphere 11y ago
  Live by the demand curve, die by the demand curve. The company will often have trouble when their model of the demand curve is (obviously) less precise than a worker's, and they are surprised when a worker leaves.