Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Personally, I’m not so sure this is going to be viable for this company, long term. This is hardly the first company to attempt generous remuneration packages. Starbucks actually has a remarkably good scheme, considering how much the market normally pays a barista. There’s even been some literature that argues that paying above market wages is actually an optimal approach for a company (you attract higher quality staff and face lower turnover), but that literature has been pretty optimistic to be honest. Almost every case study has been of a company that’s already in an exceptional circumstance (owning a key asset, or having a very powerful brand like Google). It leads me to suspect that the real relationship is a strong company then producing a generous remuneration scheme, and not a generous remuneration scheme producing a strong company.

So in this case, with a company with a completely generic product like CC processing, it seems like if there’s abnormal profits that the CEO can pass down to employees, well those abnormal profits are going to attract competition very quickly. And I can’t see this scheme lasting in the face of that competitive pressure.

That’s kind of why minimum wage laws are really important. You can’t just hope companies decide to pay above the market rate, because it’s really hard for them to do it. You need a level playing field, where everyone pays a living wage.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Because they probably went to school for years to get the degrees which got them their current salaries. Then some unskilled uneducated worker suddenly is making almost as much as they are without having done anything to earn it.

You're making things up again. When you say 'making almost as much as they are'... you have no fething clue if that's true. If someone went to school for years and is working as an IT professional in a financial company, there's every chance their pay is considerably more than $100k, possibly considerably more. It would then make no sense to describe the two as earning ‘almost as much’.

Now, that might not be the case – IT professionals might now be earning the same as the receptionist. I don’t know, but the point is that you don’t either. So stop fething making gak it up to suit the point you want to make.

 Frazzled wrote:
And if they were getting with a bonus plan, their bonus plan just went in the toilet.

Yeah, I suspect that may be the issue here - some employees had profit based bonus schemes that just got flushed with the CEO's new employee remuneration scheme.

If that's true, well then that's life. Those people are well within their rights to find work elsewhere, and the CEO is well within his rights to carry on without them. If he can find decent replacements for an amount of pay that means the company is still viable, well then carry on.

Even if its not comparable salary, a pay increase for no reason is still wrong comparatively. If someone gets a raise for no reason then everyone should get the same pay raise.

I'm not making stuff up, I can't use exact numbers because we agent given exact numbers. But given how it appears to have shaken, some people got huge pay raises and others got minimal or none. That means that quite a few people are indeed getting the same or similar pay for vastly different jobs.

Let's say I don't actually get a raise at all. Let's say my job was 100k plus benefits. I got no raise with this new policy. But the janitor and secretary did because reasons. I'd be a little pissed I didn't get a similar raise too. Especially since my work actually contributes to the company's profitability while the janitor and secretary just keep the workplace functioning, profits which are what is paying for everyone's paychecks. The janitor and secretary might be important, by they don't determine how successful the company is, they only keep it functioning, they have no bearing on its success or failure.

 Grey Templar wrote:
But the janitor and secretary did because reasons. I'd be a little pissed I didn't get a similar raise too. Especially since my work actually contributes to the company's profitability while the janitor and secretary just keep the workplace functioning, profits which are what is paying for everyone's paychecks. The janitor and secretary might be important, by they don't determine how successful the company is, they only keep it functioning, they have no bearing on its success or failure.

You really think that a company likes this hires janitors in house?? I'd be willing to bet a bit of money that they outsource that, probably because it's rolled into a lease on the building they use

Pretty much everyday, I get employment emails from headhunters and the like, showcasing this exact kind of "outsourced" work for some temp agency or another.


Ohh, and the new office PC term is "personal assistant", "secretary" has sexist undertones

Again, its for the sake of the example. Plenty of companies have in-house janitorial services. It doesn't matter if this particular one doesn't. Its about the principal of what this company did.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Even if its not comparable salary, a pay increase for no reason is still wrong comparatively. If someone gets a raise for no reason then everyone should get the same pay raise.

Meh. You clearly believe that as a self-evident principle, and while I think there’s a bit of merit to the idea the real picture is a lot more complex.

But my point is that please for the love of God stop making things up to defend your claims. Just, next time, please only give facts that you actually know to be true.

I'm not making stuff up, I can't use exact numbers because we agent given exact numbers. But given how it appears to have shaken, some people got huge pay raises and others got minimal or none. That means that quite a few people are indeed getting the same or similar pay for vastly different jobs.

Holy gak I just gave you an example showing how you can’t claim that for certain.

I mean, to really walk you through this step by step, let's say I earn $110,000. You are my secretary and earn $40,000. The CEO announces a minimum pay of $70,000 in the organisation. My wage remains the same, your pay increases 75%.

I may be pissed about that. I may even leave. This may be an issue for the company. These are all things that might be true, and valid reasons to argue against this policy. But we can also see that my pay is still more than 50% greater than yours. And so claiming our pays are now similar would be completely wrong.

Now it could be that I don’t earn $110,000. I could be on $75,000, and so our incomes could now be stated as similar.

We don’t know. And so the point is, once again, you can’t say that pays are now similar, because you have no idea if that’s true. So stop just inventing things in your head and then accepting them as true.

Reread the article.

Two of the employees were complaining that some people got huge raises while others got small or no raises. Those who only got small raises are obviously now making the same as the people who got huge raises.

Sure, those who got no raises are still making more, but that isn't the point. The point is they didn't get any raises, and these people were most likely fairly responsible for the company success.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, those who got no raises are still making more, but that isn't the point. The point is they didn't get any raises, and these people were most likely fairly responsible for the company success.

Pretty impressive forging of a narrative. Just fill in the blanks with whatever you want, I guess.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Reread the article.

Two of the employees were complaining that some people got huge raises while others got small or no raises. Those who only got small raises are obviously now making the same as the people who got huge raises.

Okay, I'm typing out my example for you for a third time. The company pays me $110,000. It pays you $40,000. You get a 75% pay raise, to the new company minimum of $70,000. I get no pay raise. Despite this I still earn 50% more than you, and so the claim that we now earn similar amounts is completely wrong.

Sure, those who got no raises are still making more, but that isn't the point. The point is they didn't get any raises, and these people were most likely fairly responsible for the company success.

The idea that you can pick apart company success or profitability and designate a bit to the IT guy, and a bit to the team leader of accounts, and a bit to the salesperson, is absurd.

You may have gun salesman who brings in massive business, but without an accounts guy making sure invoices are generated and paid, nothing that gun salesman does produces any revenue to the company. Every role supports every other role.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, but I can hire anyone to wash dishes. I can't hire just anyone to manage the business.

That makes the dishwasher much less valuable, and thus less deserving of higher pay.

Why not? A lot of people out there with management experience looking for jobs.

Because we have an open border and I have hard working illegal immigrants who will take less for the "job an American wouldn't do." Not so much for restaurant managers.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Those who only got small raises are obviously now making the same as the people who got huge raises.

Not if they were already making well over the minimum wage now paid at the company... and it is unlikely that they would be making more at a similar company either, as their jobs are likely to still be paying more or less the "market rate" for their job... otherwise I am sure they would have been paid as little as possible like everyone else who apparently "deserves it" and so would have been given a raise

 Frazzled wrote:

Your pocket book would care.

That depends on your position regarding inflation.

 Frazzled wrote:

You children would care. You wife would care (unless she left you for the janitor... )

Why, because I wouldn't be spending as much time with them? Why do you assume that working in a skilled position necessarily involves working longer hours?

Why, because I wouldn't be spending as much time with them? Why do you assume that working in a skilled position necessarily involves working longer hours?

They would care if you're getting less money than you could be.

Or they wouldn't.

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Reread the article.

Two of the employees were complaining that some people got huge raises while others got small or no raises. Those who only got small raises are obviously now making the same as the people who got huge raises.

Okay, I'm typing out my example for you for a third time. The company pays me $110,000. It pays you $40,000. You get a 75% pay raise, to the new company minimum of $70,000. I get no pay raise. Despite this I still earn 50% more than you, and so the claim that we now earn similar amounts is completely wrong.

Sure, those who got no raises are still making more, but that isn't the point. The point is they didn't get any raises, and these people were most likely fairly responsible for the company success.

The idea that you can pick apart company success or profitability and designate a bit to the IT guy, and a bit to the team leader of accounts, and a bit to the salesperson, is absurd.

You may have gun salesman who brings in massive business, but without an accounts guy making sure invoices are generated and paid, nothing that gun salesman does produces any revenue to the company. Every role supports every other role.

OK, let's add the following to your example.

I make 40k, you make 110k. There is also another guy who makes 65k.

The guy who makes 65 has been at the company for 5 years and he originally started in the same position I am in. We both basically do the same work, but he has gotten pay raises through his prior performance based raises and being with the company for the time he has.

Suddenly, both our salaries get bumped to 70k.

He gets a 7.7% raise and I get a 75% raise. So even though he has been here far longer than I have and is most certainly more experienced he is making the same amount I am. I basically got all the benefits he had to work for for free.

This type of raise is unfair to this type of person. And we know this happened at the company because some people got small raises and others got huge raises. Because we know the floor salary for the company is 70k we know the people who got small and huge raises are now getting paid the same.

Likewise, what if this guy had been making 75k instead? He would get no raise despite being with the company far longer. And as I ahvent been with the company as long I can't have contributed to their success much while that person has.


And actually, you can pick apart company profitability and figure out roughly what each individual person has contributed to company success. There are formulas and techniques for this.

 Frazzled wrote:

They would care if you're getting less money than you could be.

Even if I enjoy my job*, and the amount of money I'm making has them living an extremely comfortable lifestyle? Either way, the fact that someone else is making as much money as I am doing unskilled work does not indicate I could make more money than I presently am doing skilled work.


*I know, its weird, but sometimes people do care about the happiness of their loved ones.

I've never understood the concept of 'somebody got something I had to work hard to get more easily than me, therefore it is unfair' angle on thing. It's like saying that a National Health Service should never be brought in because children might enjoy free medicine where their parents previously had to pay, or scholarships should never be given out because other people self-fund. Just because it took you a lot of effort to acquire a livable/decent wage doesn't everyone should have to put in a considerable amount of effort to achieve the same. There are some things that for the greater societal good, are generally recognised as transcending market forces. I don't understand why some people regard a solid wage as not being one of them, both from a moral or economic perspective.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Or they wouldn't.

Oh yea.

 Ketara wrote:
I read an article the other day from a chap in a virtually identical position. His response was something along the lines of 'Rather than get mad at the fact that someone working a different job is getting paid as much as me, I'd rather get mad at the fact that the CEO of my company makes 400 times what I do for a job that isn't any harder'.

I think this line of reasoning is nonsense.

To claim that CEOs don't have "harder jobs" is, IMO, a bit ridiculous. The increased level of responsibility is enough unto itself. They may not work as many hours, but that hardly means it isn't "harder."

Further, CEOs don't just become CEOs because someone liked them. Nearly all bust their asses to become them.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I read an article the other day from a chap in a virtually identical position. His response was something along the lines of 'Rather than get mad at the fact that someone working a different job is getting paid as much as me, I'd rather get mad at the fact that the CEO of my company makes 400 times what I do for a job that isn't any harder'.

I think this line of reasoning is nonsense.

To claim that CEOs don't have "harder jobs" is, IMO, a bit ridiculous. The increased level of responsibility is enough unto itself. They may not work as many hours, but that hardly means it isn't "harder."

Further, CEOs don't just become CEOs because someone liked them. Nearly all bust their asses to become them.

That's an idealised picture of a CEO. A CEO works no harder than the people immediately below him, or indeed, the people immediately below them. There's also the fact that despite the increased 'responsibility', CEO's of big firms regularly skip from one high profile appointment to another regardless of how badly the firm itself fares underneath them. The worst that ever happens is their gigantic bonus is only ludicrously high instead of preposterously so. I'm sure most of us could accept the 'risk' inherent in that.

 CptJake wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I read an article the other day from a chap in a virtually identical position. His response was something along the lines of 'Rather than get mad at the fact that someone working a different job is getting paid as much as me, I'd rather get mad at the fact that the CEO of my company makes 400 times what I do for a job that isn't any harder'.

Seems hypocritical. Why should he give a feth what the CEO makes? Doesn't 'I should be happy with what I make and the great work I get to do' work both directions? Why care if someone makes the same as you for less work, the same work, more work? Why care if someone makes more than you? Aren't both petty ways of thinking?

One would assume it's because in the first example, you have two people putting in a day's work and receiving equivalent pay. They can buy the same clothes, eat the same food, and so forth. In the second example, you have two people putting in a days work, only one of them gets to have a private jet and dine in five star restaurants. Yet his job is not intrinsically any more difficult than that of the other two people.

It goes against what most people perceive as being 'fair'. You can't help but feel that the only reason he gets a bigger slice of the financial pie is by taking it away from everyone else. Which is somewhat true, it would easily be possible for a company to cut his wage down to the same level as everyone else's, and raise everyone's wages equally.

Sometimes (I would even say usually) 'not intrinsically more difficult' is nothing but an opinion. A dishwasher may have a harder job from a physical aspect than the manager/owner/CEO of a restaurant. Yet ensuring employee schedules are made correctly, food and other supplies are ordered/paid for and stocked correctly to limit waste/spoilage, ensuring the bills are paid and payroll goes out on time, ensuring the proper resources are put into adverts and so on may be 'easier', but the failure to do them correctly results in a business folding and all that entails. His/her time and effort just may be worth a bit more than the dishwashers' time/effort.

I suspect most folks who don't think a CEOs job is 'hard' have never really been responsible for the failure or success of an organization. Are some overpaid? Most likely. Good for them. I'm not sure how being jealous of what others have and channeling that towards desiring them to have less is a worthwhile endeavor.


Fair is where you go to get tasty fried food on a stick.

You do not think a restaurant would fold without clean dishes?

I know I can replace the dishwasher a LOT easier than I can the guy doing the other stuff I listed.

Really? How? What special skill does it take to make a schedule/know how much food to order monthly? My boss has to order house supplies monthly and food weekly for the place I work. While also maintaining clients and billing the state. Her bachelors degree is in theater.

Why do you think general education exists? Simply having a degree of any kind gives a skill set even if its not in a job that is directly applicable. And I'm sure she has job experience that also qualifies her.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why do you think general education exists? Simply having a degree of any kind gives a skill set even if its not in a job that is directly applicable. And I'm sure she has job experience that also qualifies her.

So based on what you are saying, any college graduate will do?

Seems like we have a ton of them looking for jobs right now. Probably easy to find.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why do you think general education exists? Simply having a degree of any kind gives a skill set even if its not in a job that is directly applicable. And I'm sure she has job experience that also qualifies her.

So based on what you are saying, any college graduate will do?

Seems like we have a ton of them looking for jobs right now. Probably easy to find.

If they have what is highlighted in orange, you may be on to something.

 CptJake wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why do you think general education exists? Simply having a degree of any kind gives a skill set even if its not in a job that is directly applicable. And I'm sure she has job experience that also qualifies her.

So based on what you are saying, any college graduate will do?

Seems like we have a ton of them looking for jobs right now. Probably easy to find.

If they have what is highlighted in orange, you may be on to something.

Ahh, the job experience of understanding how to make a schedule and know when food spoils. Its not like people do that every day when living their lives.

There is a difference between checking if that milk is spoiled and juggling it in bulk. Plus you have health standards to consider. Milk that is legally spoiled for restaurant use might be the same milk I keep at home for a few more days.

There is no comparison with your home fridge and a commercial kitchen.

 Frazzled wrote:

They would care if you're getting less money than you could be.

In which case I would be forced to disown the grasping little creature.

 Ketara wrote:
I've never understood the concept of 'somebody got something I had to work hard to get more easily than me, therefore it is unfair' angle on thing. It's like saying that a National Health Service should never be brought in because children might enjoy free medicine where their parents previously had to pay, or scholarships should never be given out because other people self-fund. Just because it took you a lot of effort to acquire a livable/decent wage doesn't everyone should have to put in a considerable amount of effort to achieve the same. There are some things that for the greater societal good, are generally recognised as transcending market forces. I don't understand why some people regard a solid wage as not being one of them, both from a moral or economic perspective.

+1

There are some people who are not satisfied with what they have. They want to make sure others are beneath them to feel superior about themselves.

In sports it's like a player who doesn't care as much about winning, they just want to make sure the other guy loses. Like a rivalry where it's alright if your team goes 1-15, just make sure you only beat that one other team and the season is a success.

 Grey Templar wrote:
There is a difference between checking if that milk is spoiled and juggling it in bulk. Plus you have health standards to consider. Milk that is legally spoiled for restaurant use might be the same milk I keep at home for a few more days.

There is no comparison with your home fridge and a commercial kitchen.

There is actually. Both are set by guidelines. One by you and one by whoever the heck it is that makes people throw away spoiled food. Either way, you are following some sort of preset guidelines in order to determine when the food is no longer safe to be consumed. I fail to see the difference.

Did you know that most places are not following guidelines at all when they throw out food? In fact, did you know most "sell by" and "use by" dates are completely inaccurate?

You probably fail to see the difference because you have no idea what you are talking about. And sell by dates and such are not at all what I am referring to.

There is no law that can't keep my milk till it turns green in my home fridge. But doing that in a restaurant would get you shut down.

 Grey Templar wrote:
There is a difference between checking if that milk is spoiled and juggling it in bulk. Plus you have health standards to consider. Milk that is legally spoiled for restaurant use might be the same milk I keep at home for a few more days.

There is no comparison with your home fridge and a commercial kitchen.

There is also ordering to not have excess and to not run out, being able to calculate when various items need to be re ordered. Anticipating sales based on upcoming promotions or local events and so on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarthDiggler wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I've never understood the concept of 'somebody got something I had to work hard to get more easily than me, therefore it is unfair' angle on thing. It's like saying that a National Health Service should never be brought in because children might enjoy free medicine where their parents previously had to pay, or scholarships should never be given out because other people self-fund. Just because it took you a lot of effort to acquire a livable/decent wage doesn't everyone should have to put in a considerable amount of effort to achieve the same. There are some things that for the greater societal good, are generally recognised as transcending market forces. I don't understand why some people regard a solid wage as not being one of them, both from a moral or economic perspective.

+1

There are some people who are not satisfied with what they have. They want to make sure others are beneath them to feel superior about themselves.

In sports it's like a player who doesn't care as much about winning, they just want to make sure the other guy loses. Like a rivalry where it's alright if your team goes 1-15, just make sure you only beat that one other team and the season is a success.

And yet... folks with this viewpoint then bitch about others having more than they do and claim It Isn't Fair. Being jealous the other guy won and instead of wanting to be a winner too, thinking every one should just get participation ribbons and quit keeping score.