3 ms·
Hiring more people means less money at the end of the year for that annual bonus. So you’re kinda making that choice, even if you shift the problem to managemen
by laichzeit0 6y ago
Hiring more people means less money at the end of the year for that annual bonus. So you’re kinda making that choice, even if you shift the problem to management.
- redisman 6y agoGreat I’ll take the work life balance over an imaginary bonus then. And if you can’t keep up in compensation then I’ll look for another job
- esoterica 6y agoBonuses aren’t imaginary. In some industries like finance they are like 90% of your comp.
- frongpik 6y agoLess money for the manager's bonus. For line workers, the bonus is more or less fixed.
- jeromegv 6y agoWow, so the solution is for workers to do as much work as possible to "help" management hiring less employees? Do you think that when they save money, they set it aside for employees bonus? Or may be employee compensation is driven by supply and demand and has nothing to do with you working overtime all year long...
- esoterica 6y agoA lot of finance firms have a “you eat what you kill” model where the compensation pool is a direct function of how much money the desk makes. So if you hire more people to do the same amount of work then yeah, the bonus pool gets divided more ways and each person makes less money.
- arrosenberg 6y agoSure, but finance is the exact last place we want to look for sustainable, value-producing business models.
- jakear 6y agoTo be fair legal shops often have the same policy. (Bonus = your billed hours/total billed hours * surplus)
- legulere 6y agoIncompetent management are even worse for the bottom line of the company.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]