3 ms·

I don't understand why the idea of employee interests and shareholder interest can't be aligned? If the shareholders are invested for the long haul, surely they

I don't understand why the idea of employee interests and shareholder interest can't be aligned? If the shareholders are invested for the long haul, surely they are one in the same. Obviously this is a simplification / wishful thinking. But maybe it's what we should strive towards :)

existencebox 10y ago
Let's be straightforward about this in asserting ourselves as employees; They already ARE aligned. If you're (my employer) not paying me well compared to competitors, I will absolutely walk, and you will be saddled with finding and training/ramping up a replacement. That is a direct cost to shareholders. It is in their best interest to ensure a reasonable continuity within their workforce both from a work output standpoint and a morale/culture standpoint, as teams I've been on which have had time to establish trust and understanding for each other have been remarkably more effective than those that did not. As such, pay is one of the "easiest to pull" strings to this end. There is some mental dissonance however, as I imagine this train of thought would be "obvious" to those in power, yet we see regular evidence of wage stagnation/suppression. If we don't assume incompetence, some optimum of balancing pay and churn has been found and accepted, and if I trust that they are making a self interested decision, there may NOT be a benefit to paying more. However, I'd really like to see the numbers, because my following intuition from a long time of watching the best engineers hop from job to job is that I probably wouldn't agree with their choice of calculations.
- Zombieball 10y ago
  I agree. I imagine arguments about misalignment can be made whe you vouch to pay a 2x market rate multiple to office admins, janitors, etc. However, like you say, it has to do wonders for corporate culture! (ignoring the jealous folks who think they deserve to be paid more than a janitor. I believe I remember a few such people when I originally read this announcement)
- imron 10y ago
  > If you're (my employer) not paying me well compared to competitors, I will absolutely walk, and you will be saddled with finding and training/ramping up a replacement You are lucky to be working in an industry with a position and skillset that allows you that luxury. And yes it is a luxury, and one that many employees don't have.
  - existencebox 10y ago
    I absolutely appreciate that; it's a constant effort to reskill myself to stay relevant and I may not always be able to keep up; do not mistake my comments as ignoring that. It was primarily intended to realize that while we have this advantage, if we let our employers leverage us and do not leverage them in return, we would be letting as you say, a rare opportunity, go to waste, and in many cases result in undervaluing ourselves. I do not believe we owe companies undue charity in that respect, when it is very often not shown in return.

existencebox 10y ago

Let's be straightforward about this in asserting ourselves as employees; They already ARE aligned. If you're (my employer) not paying me well compared to competitors, I will absolutely walk, and you will be saddled with finding and training/ramping up a replacement. That is a direct cost to shareholders. It is in their best interest to ensure a reasonable continuity within their workforce both from a work output standpoint and a morale/culture standpoint, as teams I've been on which have had time to establish trust and understanding for each other have been remarkably more effective than those that did not. As such, pay is one of the "easiest to pull" strings to this end. There is some mental dissonance however, as I imagine this train of thought would be "obvious" to those in power, yet we see regular evidence of wage stagnation/suppression. If we don't assume incompetence, some optimum of balancing pay and churn has been found and accepted, and if I trust that they are making a self interested decision, there may NOT be a benefit to paying more. However, I'd really like to see the numbers, because my following intuition from a long time of watching the best engineers hop from job to job is that I probably wouldn't agree with their choice of calculations.

Zombieball 10y ago
I agree. I imagine arguments about misalignment can be made whe you vouch to pay a 2x market rate multiple to office admins, janitors, etc. However, like you say, it has to do wonders for corporate culture! (ignoring the jealous folks who think they deserve to be paid more than a janitor. I believe I remember a few such people when I originally read this announcement)
imron 10y ago
> If you're (my employer) not paying me well compared to competitors, I will absolutely walk, and you will be saddled with finding and training/ramping up a replacement You are lucky to be working in an industry with a position and skillset that allows you that luxury. And yes it is a luxury, and one that many employees don't have.
- existencebox 10y ago
  I absolutely appreciate that; it's a constant effort to reskill myself to stay relevant and I may not always be able to keep up; do not mistake my comments as ignoring that. It was primarily intended to realize that while we have this advantage, if we let our employers leverage us and do not leverage them in return, we would be letting as you say, a rare opportunity, go to waste, and in many cases result in undervaluing ourselves. I do not believe we owe companies undue charity in that respect, when it is very often not shown in return.