BTW, the math doesn't add up. They claim the average salary of the employees was $48,000. So they got a $22,000 raise. If just half of the employees got a $22,000 raise, that would cost the company $1,320,000.

They state that the money to pay the employee raises came from the CEO taking pay cut from $1,000,000 to $70,000. Well it doesn't specifically say that from what I saw but it strongly implied it.

So there is $930,000 freed up to pay the raises. If the other half of the employees were only bumped up $10,000, than that is another $600,000 needed to pay the raises. So the "story" wants people to believe that the pay cut pays for the raises. While it may pay for some, it didn't pay for all of it.

If the story is true, I am not saying the guy didn't do this with good intentions. I am sure everyone on the lower end of the pay scale was thrilled. Ultimately, the people that busted their butts and were at the top end of the pay scale will feel slighted. Their option to leave is certainly there, but walking away from a company to worked hard at is not always easy. I would have to guess they were at the top end of the pay scale not solely because of longevity, but because of their work performance. They should feel slighted.

I'd have to agree though in part with Brendon that this was nothing more than a PR stunt.