On April 15, 2015 at 17:35, goldenzrule said...
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.
Because you are at the lower end of the pay spectrum doen't always equate with you not working as hard (or harder than the fat cats at the top).
I'd have to agree though in part with Brendon that this was nothing more than a PR stunt.
I usually always agree with Brendon, but I think this wasn't just a PR stunt. He sounds pretty down to earth. I've read a lot of stuff locally on him, and the gal that works there that I know says he is not a materialistic guy.
He started the business in his college dorm when he was 19.
Part of the raises came from his salary, and the other portion came from the 2.2 million in profits they earned last year.
