Gravity Payments: $70k minimum wage (1 Viewer)

[roadkill1292]

You know, I re-read that article (The Blaze! ) and I still don't see what particular operational problems the company is having outside of the family ownership dispute. They've won some new customers (had to hire new people) and lost a few who worried prematurely that prices might be going up or that they were turning "communist." Two people have left because they can't handle the equal salaries all around. If you're making an above market salary, there's no foundation for believing that this isn't a good thing "because the secretaries and janitors are sucking up my future raises."

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Maybe they left to go to a company with potential to earn more money. They just made the logical conclusion that paying new people and less productive workers 70K, it was putting a cap on their earning potential.

That would be the logical conclusion if the raise pool was simply being re-distributed. But that's not what happened here. The money for the raise to 70K came from the CEO's salary. There was an extra 930k put into the raise pool that wasn't there before.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

You know, I re-read that article (The Blaze! ) and I still don't see what particular operational problems the company is having outside of the family ownership dispute. They've won some new customers (had to hire new people) and lost a few who worried prematurely that prices might be going up or that they were turning "communist." Two people have left because they can't handle the equal salaries all around. If you're making an above market salary, there's no foundation for believing that this isn't a good thing "because the secretaries and janitors are sucking up my future raises."

Well yea, when they tried to pass off "had to hire new employees to handle all the new clients they were getting" as a negative early on the article, you could pretty much tell which way they'd be pushing it.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

You know, I re-read that article (The Blaze! ) and I still don't see what particular operational problems the company is having outside of the family ownership dispute. They've won some new customers (had to hire new people) and lost a few who worried prematurely that prices might be going up or that they were turning "communist." Two people have left because they can't handle the equal salaries all around. If you're making an above market salary, there's no foundation for believing that this isn't a good thing "because the secretaries and janitors are sucking up my future raises."

Well yea, when a conservative founded website tried to pass off "had to hire new employees to handle all the new clients they were getting" as a negative early on the article, you could pretty much tell which way they'd be pushing it.

The Blaze isn't a credible source for anything.

The Seattle Times is.

Or, perhaps more accurtely, the Blaze has clear political bias that would make a neutral reader question the spin of this article. The Seattle Times has a less extreme political bias, in the opposite direction.

The factual reporting in the Blaze article came directly from this Seattle Times piece.

 

[roadkill1292]

You know, I re-read that article (The Blaze! ) and I still don't see what particular operational problems the company is having outside of the family ownership dispute. They've won some new customers (had to hire new people) and lost a few who worried prematurely that prices might be going up or that they were turning "communist." Two people have left because they can't handle the equal salaries all around. If you're making an above market salary, there's no foundation for believing that this isn't a good thing "because the secretaries and janitors are sucking up my future raises."

Well yea, when a conservative founded website tried to pass off "had to hire new employees to handle all the new clients they were getting" as a negative early on the article, you could pretty much tell which way they'd be pushing it.

The Blaze isn't a credible source for anything.

The Seattle Times is.

Or, perhaps more accurtely, the Blaze has clear political bias that would make a neutral reader question the spin of this article. The Seattle Times has a less extreme political bias, in the opposite direction.

The factual reporting in the Blaze article came directly from this Seattle Times piece.

The Seattle Times story adds very little, though it does a better job emphasizing that much, if not most, of the difficulties have been caused by the attention the company has attracted by the new policy, not because of massive resistance from the upper level employees. If they are able to maintain a competitive place in the market, they will probably attract more new customers by the compensation policies than they will lose existing ones because of some poorly thought out philosophical disagreement.

In fact, I was slightly amused by the web developer who worried about his potential "growth" being inhibited because he was "shackled" by an above market salary.