3 ms·
De-sarcasming your comment, I get "Recruiting people is expensive and difficult, and maintaining company culture is important, therefore this proposal is a bad
by raldi 10y ago
De-sarcasming your comment, I get "Recruiting people is expensive and difficult, and maintaining company culture is important, therefore this proposal is a bad idea."
However, I don't see how the conclusion follows from your premise. Are you saying this idea would lead to recruiting difficulties, or that it would increase unintended turnover? Are you saying it would destroy company culture because of employee departures, or in some other way?
- stale2002 10y agoWould you want to work for a company that has this policy? I certainly wouldn't.
- sgt101 10y agoThank you for replying and debating - it's good! I think that this would increase the turnover of employees who are are not strongly motivated by reward vs. the current practice because the current practice is aimed at preventing reward from being a key issue. People join at a level that provides a lifestyle that they find liveable, they remain or try to upgrade. Those that remain are rewarded with the maintenance of their lifestyle and some small increments. If that goes then long term employees will see a decline of their lifestyle and likely will then be moved to churn. In addition the provision of reward by bonus will increase competition between employees and corrode team relationships. That's fine for sales, where team is nowhere, but ruins everything else.