4 ms·

Eh, I'm unconvinced that they aren't making an extremely dumb move here. Nobody is very productive during that period anyway, and this just aggravates one porti

Eh, I'm unconvinced that they aren't making an extremely dumb move here. Nobody is very productive during that period anyway, and this just aggravates one portion of the company without making everyone else much happier. Dev hiring is still tight, so this won't help them with retention & recruitment. I wouldn't be surprised that they could save money by extending this bebefit to everyone, or at bare minimum do it fairly cheaply.

MattPalmer1086 4y ago
I agree, it's probably a bad move. I remember one company I was at. We all worked hard, when it came to bonus time, everyone in dev got bonus as we hit all the deadlines. Nobody in professional services did as the sales team hadn't got new customers, although they had worked hard on existing accounts. So professional services complained it was unfair. The company decided being "unfair" was terrible, so tried to take the bonus away from dev as well. At which point pretty much all of us started looking for another job. They eventually relented and paid everyone in dev and ps the bonus.
- jollybean 4y ago
  You're missing the bigger picture. The 'bad move' is to have different packages on different teams, which is completely untenable. It will cause chaos among the ranks just as you indicate. Therefore, it has to even out one way or another. It's a big deal to give everyone else in the company an extra week off. So they pulled the bandaid. It would have been interesting for them to contemplate the extra few days, but their move put them in line with 99.9% of other companies so it's not unreasonable. They should have figured out a sneaky way to give the Slack folks something else on the down-low though.
  - MattPalmer1086 4y ago
    Oh, I agree that having different packages can cause discontent, and makes it harder overall for the company to manage. Merging companies is hard. But equally, taking away benefits, particularly ones that employees really care about, is also a recipe for discontent. I remember when IBM bought Lotus. For a long time people thought that spelled the end, as IBM had a long run of buying companies and destroying all the value in them. They tried a different approach with Lotus. As a result, the Lotus employees had significantly better benefits in some ways than the IBM employees. My friend who came from Lotus drove a Jaguar. His manager from IBM had a low end BMW, as the car allowances were different. Pension provision also different. This situation persisted right up until IBM sold Lotus stuff to HCL a couple of years back. So it is possible to merge even big companies and maintain different benefit systems. For 20 years!
  - manuelabeledo 4y ago
    > The 'bad move' is to have different packages on different teams, which is completely untenable. This already happens with compensation and other benefits, so it should be fine. I believe that Salesforce could give every single employee a handful of extra vacation days, and overall it will cost them less than what they spend in unnecessary benefits for their higher ups. Instead, it seems that they have decided to play a sort of reverse Robin Hood.
    - MattPalmer1086 4y ago
      I blame a particularly macho form of management which takes "tough" decisions regardless of the impact on their employees. Every time I have encountered this style of management (most recently in my last role), it has led to an exodus of talent, both in the short term (expected) and the longer term. Three years later, the few people I know who still work there say the culture is now irretrievably damaged. What was an attractive, fun place to work is now an unhappy place. They are struggling to recruit good people where before their reputation was an asset. But the manager concerned remains, has no doubt hit her goals of cost reduction or efficiency or whatever. And has hired more of her kind.
      - manuelabeledo 4y ago
        I can relate. My previous role was at a company acquired by a large telecom, and like clockwork, two-three years after the whole thing is in disarray, only the terrible middle management remains, and most new people are juniors who have a hard time finding seniors that would mentor them.
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        It is not tough to save money or squeeze more out of your vendor. Macho would be increasing wages and benefits, as then management would have to answer to the board with commensurate results.
        MattPalmer1086 4y ago
        I agree it's tougher to argue things the board doesn't like to hear. By "macho" I just meant that they seem to pride themselves on taking decisions which don't make them popular with people under them. Good managers can make unpopular decisions and retain the support of staff under them. I've seen people take pay cuts temporarily, work longer hours, all kinds of extra that comes with good will. Ultimately it's about respect. Good managers have it. Bad managers seem to revel in not having it.
  - MattPalmer1086 4y ago
    Totally agree they should have found a way to sweeten it for the Slack employees though.
- Simon_O_Rourke 4y ago
  I currently work in a place that hands out fairly large bonus cheques to sales reps quarterly in, and I'm not joking here, in a secret awards ceremony that devs and others hear nothing about. Only reason I've any knowledge about it at all was because I used to date someone in that department and they spilled the beans.
  - MattPalmer1086 4y ago
    I'm surprised that sales reps getting bonuses is a secret in your organisation. That's pretty much how sales are compensated everywhere. Their base salary is often only a small part of their compensation if they're any good. It's also not uncommon for the bonus amounts awarded to be private.
Griffinsauce 4y ago
> without making everyone else much happier This is actually a really good point. It probably just replaces the topic-du-jour to whine about and has no actual benefit whatsoever.

MattPalmer1086 4y ago

I agree, it's probably a bad move. I remember one company I was at. We all worked hard, when it came to bonus time, everyone in dev got bonus as we hit all the deadlines. Nobody in professional services did as the sales team hadn't got new customers, although they had worked hard on existing accounts. So professional services complained it was unfair. The company decided being "unfair" was terrible, so tried to take the bonus away from dev as well. At which point pretty much all of us started looking for another job. They eventually relented and paid everyone in dev and ps the bonus.

jollybean 4y ago
You're missing the bigger picture. The 'bad move' is to have different packages on different teams, which is completely untenable. It will cause chaos among the ranks just as you indicate. Therefore, it has to even out one way or another. It's a big deal to give everyone else in the company an extra week off. So they pulled the bandaid. It would have been interesting for them to contemplate the extra few days, but their move put them in line with 99.9% of other companies so it's not unreasonable. They should have figured out a sneaky way to give the Slack folks something else on the down-low though.
- MattPalmer1086 4y ago
  Oh, I agree that having different packages can cause discontent, and makes it harder overall for the company to manage. Merging companies is hard. But equally, taking away benefits, particularly ones that employees really care about, is also a recipe for discontent. I remember when IBM bought Lotus. For a long time people thought that spelled the end, as IBM had a long run of buying companies and destroying all the value in them. They tried a different approach with Lotus. As a result, the Lotus employees had significantly better benefits in some ways than the IBM employees. My friend who came from Lotus drove a Jaguar. His manager from IBM had a low end BMW, as the car allowances were different. Pension provision also different. This situation persisted right up until IBM sold Lotus stuff to HCL a couple of years back. So it is possible to merge even big companies and maintain different benefit systems. For 20 years!
- manuelabeledo 4y ago
  > The 'bad move' is to have different packages on different teams, which is completely untenable. This already happens with compensation and other benefits, so it should be fine. I believe that Salesforce could give every single employee a handful of extra vacation days, and overall it will cost them less than what they spend in unnecessary benefits for their higher ups. Instead, it seems that they have decided to play a sort of reverse Robin Hood.
  - MattPalmer1086 4y ago
    I blame a particularly macho form of management which takes "tough" decisions regardless of the impact on their employees. Every time I have encountered this style of management (most recently in my last role), it has led to an exodus of talent, both in the short term (expected) and the longer term. Three years later, the few people I know who still work there say the culture is now irretrievably damaged. What was an attractive, fun place to work is now an unhappy place. They are struggling to recruit good people where before their reputation was an asset. But the manager concerned remains, has no doubt hit her goals of cost reduction or efficiency or whatever. And has hired more of her kind.
    - manuelabeledo 4y ago
      I can relate. My previous role was at a company acquired by a large telecom, and like clockwork, two-three years after the whole thing is in disarray, only the terrible middle management remains, and most new people are juniors who have a hard time finding seniors that would mentor them.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      It is not tough to save money or squeeze more out of your vendor. Macho would be increasing wages and benefits, as then management would have to answer to the board with commensurate results.
      - MattPalmer1086 4y ago
        I agree it's tougher to argue things the board doesn't like to hear. By "macho" I just meant that they seem to pride themselves on taking decisions which don't make them popular with people under them. Good managers can make unpopular decisions and retain the support of staff under them. I've seen people take pay cuts temporarily, work longer hours, all kinds of extra that comes with good will. Ultimately it's about respect. Good managers have it. Bad managers seem to revel in not having it.
- MattPalmer1086 4y ago
  Totally agree they should have found a way to sweeten it for the Slack employees though.
Simon_O_Rourke 4y ago
I currently work in a place that hands out fairly large bonus cheques to sales reps quarterly in, and I'm not joking here, in a secret awards ceremony that devs and others hear nothing about. Only reason I've any knowledge about it at all was because I used to date someone in that department and they spilled the beans.
- MattPalmer1086 4y ago
  I'm surprised that sales reps getting bonuses is a secret in your organisation. That's pretty much how sales are compensated everywhere. Their base salary is often only a small part of their compensation if they're any good. It's also not uncommon for the bonus amounts awarded to be private.

Griffinsauce 4y ago

> without making everyone else much happier This is actually a really good point. It probably just replaces the topic-du-jour to whine about and has no actual benefit whatsoever.