General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCompany that established $70K min wage - older employees disgruntled seeing new get same pay
More troubling, a few customers, dismayed by what they viewed as a political statement, withdrew their business. Others, anticipating a fee increase despite repeated assurances to the contrary also left. While dozens of new clients, inspired by Mr. Prices announcement, were signing up, those accounts will not start paying off for at least another year. To handle the flood, he has already had to hire a dozen additional employees now at a significantly higher cost and is struggling to figure out whether more are needed without knowing for certain how long the bonanza will last.
Two of Mr. Prices most valued employees quit, spurred in part by their view that it was unfair to double the pay of some new hires while the longest-serving staff members got small or no raises. Some friends and associates in Seattles close-knit entrepreneurial network were also piqued that Mr. Prices action made them look stingy in front of their own employees.
Then potentially the worst blow of all: Less than two weeks after the announcement, Mr. Prices older brother and Gravity co-founder, Lucas Price, citing longstanding differences, filed a lawsuit that potentially threatened the companys very existence. With legal bills quickly mounting and most of his own paycheck and last years $2.2 million in profits plowed into the salary increases, Dan Price said, We dont have a margin of error to pay those legal fees.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/business/a-company-copes-with-backlash-against-the-raise-that-roared.html?_r=0
dhol82
(9,627 posts)What a bitch.
onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)Greed and selfishness that is pervasive in this country.
Beaverhausen
(24,676 posts)from the link
And the publicity surrounding it has generated tangible benefits. Three months before the announcement, the firm had been adding 200 clients a month. In June, 350 signed up.
TexasProgresive
(12,662 posts)Matthew 20:1-16 The parable of the workers in the vineyard.
1 For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius[a] for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
3 About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right. 5 So they went.
He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?
7 Because no one has hired us, they answered.
He said to them, You also go and work in my vineyard.
8 When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.
9 The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 These who were hired last worked only one hour, they said, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.
13 But he answered one of them, I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didnt you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Dont I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?
16 So the last will be first, and the first will be last.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)"Didn't you agree to work for $75,000? . . . Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?"
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)Just old, selfish, greedy grumps!
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)but he did not consider the unintended consequences. Long-term, loyal employees had a right to be bothered by this move. He should have done this on a more gradual basis and considered basing pay on experience and how long a person had been employed and doing good work for his company.