3 ms·

Think about it: how much does the lowest paid staffer make there? 25,000? 30,000? These lower-paid staff will be very loyal, because they're getting a very sign

Think about it: how much does the lowest paid staffer make there? 25,000? 30,000? These lower-paid staff will be very loyal, because they're getting a very significant and possibly life-changing raise. They're not going to quit on you, and they're not going to kill the golden goose. Recruitment has real costs. Hiring and training, and dealing with the hiring mistakes you make, all cost money. Having a happy staff saves a lot of money, time, and headaches.

albinoloverats 12y ago
> They're not going to quit on you, and they're not going to kill the golden goose. Especially if by going somewhere else they have to take a significant cut.
rhino369 12y ago
I also wonder if this company even has low paid staffers. The business I work for doesn't directly employ anyone under ~60k. Instead the kitchen staff, the cleaning people, the mail room, document processing people, etc. etc. are all contracted out.
- JTon 12y ago
  Actually, it's a significant chunk. From the article: > After Monday's announcement, anybody making less than $50,000 -- more than half of the company's 120 employees -- immediately got bumped up to at least $50,000, according to a company spokesman. The minimum will increase to $60,000 by the end of 2016 and $70,000 by the end of 2017.
Shivetya 12y ago
can we really make this assumption? if everyone is paid the same where is the incentive to do more? how is morale affected in the reverse when you know you make as much as someone else who decides to slack? while there are some benefits to increasing salary very large increases may negatively affect those already at a higher pay scale and some may dissociate effort with reward. now if you dangle the carrot out there as a truly obtainable reward for meeting fair targets, then it truly becomes incentive for both retention and reward
- officemonkey 12y ago
  >if everyone is paid the same where is the incentive to do more? how is morale affected in the reverse when you know you make as much as someone else who decides to slack? The U.S. federal government has this in spades. Lots of people making the same salary, and no incentive to do more, and no way to weed out poor performers. Yet the government bureaucracy is still able to perform, sometimes admirably. The private sector has an important tool: fire the slackers. If someone is not performing well at a higher-than-average salary: lay 'em off. Hire someone motivated to perform and make a higher-than-average salary.
cookiecaper 12y ago
If you really want to trap someone into working for you forever, pay them way more than they could make anywhere else. The goodwill and loyalty that engenders are really only minor components in keeping the person on-board; since people tend to spend (and get debt based on) however much money they make, you're essentially buying lock-in and making it so even if they want to quit and get an analogous position at a competitor, they probably won't be able to afford to do so.

albinoloverats 12y ago

> They're not going to quit on you, and they're not going to kill the golden goose. Especially if by going somewhere else they have to take a significant cut.

rhino369 12y ago

I also wonder if this company even has low paid staffers. The business I work for doesn't directly employ anyone under ~60k. Instead the kitchen staff, the cleaning people, the mail room, document processing people, etc. etc. are all contracted out.

JTon 12y ago
Actually, it's a significant chunk. From the article: > After Monday's announcement, anybody making less than $50,000 -- more than half of the company's 120 employees -- immediately got bumped up to at least $50,000, according to a company spokesman. The minimum will increase to $60,000 by the end of 2016 and $70,000 by the end of 2017.

Shivetya 12y ago

can we really make this assumption? if everyone is paid the same where is the incentive to do more? how is morale affected in the reverse when you know you make as much as someone else who decides to slack? while there are some benefits to increasing salary very large increases may negatively affect those already at a higher pay scale and some may dissociate effort with reward. now if you dangle the carrot out there as a truly obtainable reward for meeting fair targets, then it truly becomes incentive for both retention and reward

officemonkey 12y ago
>if everyone is paid the same where is the incentive to do more? how is morale affected in the reverse when you know you make as much as someone else who decides to slack? The U.S. federal government has this in spades. Lots of people making the same salary, and no incentive to do more, and no way to weed out poor performers. Yet the government bureaucracy is still able to perform, sometimes admirably. The private sector has an important tool: fire the slackers. If someone is not performing well at a higher-than-average salary: lay 'em off. Hire someone motivated to perform and make a higher-than-average salary.

cookiecaper 12y ago

If you really want to trap someone into working for you forever, pay them way more than they could make anywhere else. The goodwill and loyalty that engenders are really only minor components in keeping the person on-board; since people tend to spend (and get debt based on) however much money they make, you're essentially buying lock-in and making it so even if they want to quit and get an analogous position at a competitor, they probably won't be able to afford to do so.