2 ms·
But you are not competing against competitors who might steal them away for -24%. You are competing against Walmart: -75% salary, -100% fringe benefits.
by Daniel_Newby 13y ago
But you are not competing against competitors who might steal them away for -24%. You are competing against Walmart: -75% salary, -100% fringe benefits.
- sokoloff 13y agoStill misses the value side, but even on the cost side, that's just a recipe for getting someone back in the workforce for 18 months until they re-establish their credibility and confidence and jump ship to another firm for what will be a 300% raise for them. I wouldn't blame them in the least; they'd be an idiot to keep working for me under those circumstances. Hugely helpful for the employee, but an "adequate, not spectacular" employee who works for me for 18 months isn't helping my company much overall. The first 6 months is straight negative; the next 6 is break even, and the next 6 pay back the hole we dug in the first 6. So, good for them and hopefully break even for me, except I lost 18 months of "tempo" with one of my employee spots. For a cash-strapped company, this plan might make more sense. For a profitable and growing later-stage company, I think this makes much less sense. (I work a much later stage company, so that surely colors my opinion and biases here.)