Your Universal Remote Control Center
RemoteCentral.com
Everything Else Forum - View Post
Previous section Next section Previous page Next page Up level
Up level
The following page was printed from RemoteCentral.com:

Login:
Pass:
 
 

Page 3 of 9
Topic:
OT ---Now that is a cool boss!
This thread has 122 replies. Displaying posts 31 through 45.
Post 31 made on Wednesday April 15, 2015 at 20:43
Lowhz
Senior Member
Joined:
Posts:
April 2012
1,168
On April 15, 2015 at 20:21, highfigh said...
What does he have to do with the price of oil?

He has nothing to do with the price of oil, unemployment of the stock market but when it's shitty they blame him for it. When it's good he gets no credit.
Post 32 made on Wednesday April 15, 2015 at 20:50
Mogul
Senior Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2010
1,164
My guess is that the CEO needs a political or regulatory favor from a currently installed "Progressive" politician/administration and this is his marketing "mea culpa" to garner favor.

In the absence of cronyism as competitive and financial advantage, simple economic reality dictates that if the CEO pays a substantial number of employees more than the productive value of their labor as per the marketplace for long enough, he'll eventually do damage to his business sufficient for it to fail.

I guess we'll all have to wait and see...
"Whatever is rightly done, however humble, is noble." [Sir Henry Royce]
OP | Post 33 made on Wednesday April 15, 2015 at 21:04
Mr. Stanley
Elite Member
Joined:
Posts:
January 2006
16,954
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.
"If it keeps up, man will atrophy all his limbs but the push-button finger."
Frank Lloyd Wright
Post 34 made on Wednesday April 15, 2015 at 21:25
goldenzrule
Loyal Member
Joined:
Posts:
July 2007
8,470
On April 15, 2015 at 21:04, Mr. Stanley said...
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 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.

I'm not saying the guys on the lower end don't work hard, simply that earnings should be earned. Job performance is a huge part of what someone should earn, but experience and loyalty also play a role. There is a reason people don't start at top of the range pay when entering a new field.
Post 35 made on Wednesday April 15, 2015 at 22:15
Trunk-Slammer -Supreme
Loyal Member
Joined:
Posts:
November 2003
7,454
On April 15, 2015 at 21:25, goldenzrule said...
There is a reason people don't start at top of the range pay when entering a new field.

When I was just starting out, I hated that....

All the old guys were paid a zillion times more than me, and I was the one who needed the money, what with the high cost of women.... :-)
Post 36 made on Wednesday April 15, 2015 at 22:21
edizzle
Loyal Member
Joined:
Posts:
March 2005
5,916
anybody who thinks this guy took a $930k pay cut is a moron. yes he took a salary cut, but he has other means for income. performance bonuses, incentives, perks, stock, etc. he will be just fine. it was still genius. lots of good publicity.
I love supporting product that supports me!
Post 37 made on Wednesday April 15, 2015 at 22:49
Mac Burks (39)
Elite Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2007
17,515
On April 15, 2015 at 21:04, Mr. Stanley said...
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).

"Working Hard" is a relative term. I have friends who work labor jobs that are 100X harder than what i do but they make less money. They work 40 hours a week and they get to leave work at work. While they might love the idea of trading places with me monday through friday 9-5... none of them would be willing to give up nights and weekends dealing with customers and future projects.

The wire pullers might sweat more than the trim guys but it would be difficult for me to decide who works harder. If one day my boss decided to pay the new guy the same thing he pays me i would immediately step down to wire puller so i can get some of my free time back. That or remain in my current position and resent the company and the other employees.

Anyone who says other wise is a liar or a fool.
Avid Stamp Collector - I really love 39 Cent Stamps
Post 38 made on Thursday April 16, 2015 at 00:26
BigPapa
Super Member
Joined:
Posts:
October 2005
3,139
Feel the warmth of all the cynicism and rejoice in orthodoxies rattled.
Post 39 made on Thursday April 16, 2015 at 11:45
bcf1963
Super Member
Joined:
Posts:
September 2004
2,767
The idea that people are paid for "working hard" is a very common view in society. I see this view as flawed. People aren't paid for work, they are paid for the results they achieve. I've met people in my career and personal life who work incredibly hard, but achieve very little. The compensation of such people tends to be much lower than those who achieve more. Our society also values independent thought. Someone that requires supervision and direction tends to be paid less, than someone who can recognize strategic goals, make plans that achieve those goals, with little or no supervision.

The idea that everyone in my work environment would be paid the same, is quite challenging for me to imagine working well. If less experienced colleagues with lesser skill sets get paid the same amount as myself, it means this is impacting my employers bottom line. Since only part of my compensation is my salary, and other compensation involves bonuses and stock options that depend on my companies performance, if workers are being paid more than the prevailing rate, it will negatively impact those bonuses and options. To think that everyone can get paid the same wage, and that this doesn't impact the earning potential of the high performers over the long run, seems like a shortsighted and simplistic viewpoint.

I think the tactic of bringing the wage of the earners up to some basic level is an interesting tactic, but have to agree with many others here, that this will need to change at some point, or it will impact the ability of the company to attract and keep the highest performing individuals.
Post 40 made on Thursday April 16, 2015 at 12:28
Ernie Gilman
Yes, That Ernie!
Joined:
Posts:
December 2001
30,104
bcf1963 has shown, without negative attitudes, more of the reasoning behind the conclusions that others here have decried as cynicism. Well said, Brian.
A good answer is easier with a clear question giving the make and model of everything.
"The biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." -- G. “Bernie” Shaw
Post 41 made on Thursday April 16, 2015 at 12:29
Lowhz
Senior Member
Joined:
Posts:
April 2012
1,168
On April 15, 2015 at 21:25, goldenzrule said...
I'm not saying the guys on the lower end don't work hard, simply that earnings should be earned. Job performance is a huge part of what someone should earn, but experience and loyalty also play a role. There is a reason people don't start at top of the range pay when entering a new field.

What's not to say job performance is a big part of the new pay plan? This is a business, not a charity.

I had two different kinds of professors in college: The ones that started your grades at zero and then the cool one that said on the first day "Right now everyone has an A. It's your job to maintain that grade".

Henry Ford believed in paying his mechanics an excellent wage and in return he got better results and longer term employees that cost him less in training and ramp up time.

To believe that anyone starting out a job is worth less than an old timer who has figured out how to work the system and maximize their earnings while minimizing their labor is antiquated thinking. Now YOU as a boss have to compete for better workers, not the other way around.
OP | Post 42 made on Thursday April 16, 2015 at 13:18
Mr. Stanley
Elite Member
Joined:
Posts:
January 2006
16,954
On April 16, 2015 at 00:26, BigPapa said...
Feel the warmth of all the cynicism and rejoice in orthodoxies rattled.

8>)
"If it keeps up, man will atrophy all his limbs but the push-button finger."
Frank Lloyd Wright
OP | Post 43 made on Thursday April 16, 2015 at 13:23
Mr. Stanley
Elite Member
Joined:
Posts:
January 2006
16,954
On April 15, 2015 at 22:21, edizzle said...
anybody who thinks this guy took a $930k pay cut is a moron. yes he took a salary cut, but he has other means for income. performance bonuses, incentives, perks, stock, etc. he will be just fine. it was still genius. lots of good publicity.

He stashed cash from previous years... and lives frugally so even at 70K he's good.
"If it keeps up, man will atrophy all his limbs but the push-button finger."
Frank Lloyd Wright
Post 44 made on Thursday April 16, 2015 at 13:55
jisaac
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
October 2005
20
This is an interesting study on two radically different approaches:

[Link: businessinsider.com]

Google on the other hand not only exercises their own version of "pay inequality", they openly embrace it as part of their competitive culture:

"It's hard work to have pay ranges where someone can make two or even 10 times more than someone else," he writes. "But it's much harder to watch your highest-potential and best people walk out the door. It makes you wonder which companies are really paying unfairly: the ones where the best people make far more than average, or the ones where everyone is paid the same."

Not sure who's right or wrong---but ill be watching attentively.
Post 45 made on Thursday April 16, 2015 at 14:06
BigPapa
Super Member
Joined:
Posts:
October 2005
3,139
If your salary is $1m and it is changed to $70k, by any measure that is a $930k pay cut. Any moron knows that.

And this owner is not 'paying everybody $70k.' He raised the minimum salary to $70k. As in, other employees may be able to make more than $70k. Even the biz owner, who said he'd raise his own wage back up in a year or two after they figure it out. One thing to figure out is pay equity for the higher earners now that the bottom is higher.

It's a mistake to assume that pay inequality has been removed. It hasn't.
Find in this thread:
Page 3 of 9


Jump to


Protected Feature Before you can reply to a message...
You must first register for a Remote Central user account - it's fast and free! Or, if you already have an account, please login now.

Please read the following: Unsolicited commercial advertisements are absolutely not permitted on this forum. Other private buy & sell messages should be posted to our Marketplace. For information on how to advertise your service or product click here. Remote Central reserves the right to remove or modify any post that is deemed inappropriate.

Hosting Services by ipHouse