Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Col Hogan wrote:Private industry making a decision on what is best for it...it's the American way...no government forcing it to make the decision...no big brother looking over its shoulder

Chizzang wrote:"You might be making $35,000 a year right now but everyone in here will definitely be making $70,000 a year and I'm super excited about that," Dan Price, CEO of Gravity Payments in Ballard, told his employees during a recent gathering.
The announcement caught everyone off-guard. Could it be true? $70,000 is the new minimum wage in this office?
"To hear those numbers is just, 'Wow,'" said Alyssa O'Neal, who will more than double her salary. She came to Gravity from a career in the Army and is already making plans for her young family.
"House, absolutely. I have this goal of being a 21-year-old homeowner and I'm going to reach that now and I'm stoked," she said.
Price is taking a big pay cut to make the raises possible, but he says it's worth it to make his employees happy and build loyalty.
"I think this is just what everyone deserves," he told employees.
In a growing city where the cost of living is only increasing, some competitive companies are no longer waiting for employees to ask for extra benefits like a raise.
"I think you almost have to be proactive and take care of your employees," said Matt Ehrlichman, CEO of Porch, a company in Eastlake that developed an app to help people find reliable home improvement services.
While they applaud Gravity for its bold move, Porch executives say stock options could be a more valuable offering for their employees who stick around as the business grows.
"If you are trying to build a great long-term company, your employees by definition have to be with you in that journey," he said.
The Gravity raise will be phased in over the next few years, giving the company time to adjust its bottom line and employees a chance to catch their breath.





http://www.king5.com/story/money/2015/0 ... /25761421/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CAA Flagship wrote:I find this a very interesting case study. I wonder what the employees who had already worked their way up to making $70k are thinking about this.

Just three months ago, Dan Price was a progressive hero. To much fanfare, Price, CEO of Seattle-based Gravity Payments, announced he was raising the minimum salary for employees of his company to $70,000, and taking a $930,000 pay cut himself to help pay for his new minimum wage. Three months later, the experiment does not go well.

Price has had to rent out his own house to help cover his bills. In addition, the New York Times reports Gravity lost two of its most valuable employees whose departure was “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.”

But the most damaging blow to the company is internal, as some of the most valuable employees at Gravity Payments have started to leave the company. The Times reported that two employees have left directly because of the policy. One told the paper she was initially excited about the new policy, but as she thought about the details she began to get dismayed. “He gave raises to people who have the least skills and are the least equipped to do the job, and the ones who were taking on the most didn’t get much of a bump.”

She said she presented the issue to Price along with an alternative way to raise salaries, but was met with an accusation of selfishness. So she decided to quit. Another employee, on the lower-end of the former pay range, also decided to quit after thinking through the policy. “Now the people who were just clocking in and out were making the same as me,” he told the Times. “It shackles high performers to less motivated team members.”

JohnStOnge wrote:Yes. As you can imagine I tuned into Rush Limbaugh today on the long drive back from some field activity and heard about how this guy's decision has blown up in his face. And Limbaugh got to play audio of him saying this was going to blow up in the guy's face back when it first happened. Great day for Limbaugh.

Chizzang wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Yes. As you can imagine I tuned into Rush Limbaugh today on the long drive back from some field activity and heard about how this guy's decision has blown up in his face. And Limbaugh got to play audio of him saying this was going to blow up in the guy's face back when it first happened. Great day for Limbaugh.

And now for the actual facts...
Yes it has been difficult because some long time employees quit
and some significant accounts dropped

but otherwise it has been as anticipated
and they added more accounts than they lost (RUSH didn't cover that I'm guessing)
and they have a line of people wanting to get hired there to replace the people who left

Nobody said it would be easy - but as a general rule - Rush is blowing his own horn with 1/2 the facts

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

And now for the actual facts...
Yes it has been difficult because some long time employees quit
and some significant accounts dropped

but otherwise it has been as anticipated
and they added more accounts than they lost (RUSH didn't cover that I'm guessing)
and they have a line of people wanting to get hired there to replace the people who left

Nobody said it would be easy - but as a general rule - Rush is blowing his own horn with 1/2 the facts

why did those long time employees quit?

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

And now for the actual facts...
Yes it has been difficult because some long time employees quit
and some significant accounts dropped

but otherwise it has been as anticipated
and they added more accounts than they lost (RUSH didn't cover that I'm guessing)
and they have a line of people wanting to get hired there to replace the people who left

Nobody said it would be easy - but as a general rule - Rush is blowing his own horn with 1/2 the facts

why did those long time employees quit?

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
why did those long time employees quit?

Because of the inequity of rewarding entry level positions over seniority and the likelihood of finding a better job.

This is one of my biggest complaints about minimum wage increases in that it hampers raises to more deserving people who have been with me longer.

I don't know how much experienced is gained by working at this company, but I do know that

1) Everyone is replaceable

and

2) They'd be stupid at throwing away decent paying jobs without the solid chance of taking an equal if not better position elsewhere.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Because of the inequity of rewarding entry level positions over seniority and the likelihood of finding a better job.

This is one of my biggest complaints about minimum wage increases in that it hampers raises to more deserving people who have been with me longer.

I don't know how much experienced is gained by working at this company, but I do know that

1) Everyone is replaceable

and

2) They'd be stupid at throwing away decent paying jobs without the solid chance of taking an equal if not better position elsewhere.

so people think they should be paid what they are worth, and not the same as some schmuck who just shows up and collects a check?

Most of the company’s profits, $2.2 million last year, were reinvested in the company not to expand or innovate, but to cover the new minimum wage.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Most of the company’s profits, $2.2 million last year, were reinvested in the company not to expand or innovate, but to cover the new minimum wage.

CAA Flagship wrote:I find this a very interesting case study. I wonder what the employees who had already worked their way up to making $70k are thinking about this.

CAA Flagship wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:I find this a very interesting case study. I wonder what the employees who had already worked their way up to making $70k are thinking about this.

kalm wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:

Attention whore!

Chizzang wrote:Any aggressively new idea like this IS AN INVESTMENT
and also with new ideas comes some broken eggs and hard feelings

Isn't it the Republican work motto "if you don't like it then leave..."
well here you go - this is a great example in play - some folks didn't like and and left

The company invested in itself by investing in its employees
(and John and Rush Limbaugh are stunned) Go figure

Its the same as the Wal-Mart vs. Costco business strategy
They are both successful / They are both completely different ideologically speaking

CAA Flagship wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Any aggressively new idea like this IS AN INVESTMENT
and also with new ideas comes some broken eggs and hard feelings

Isn't it the Republican work motto "if you don't like it then leave..."
well here you go - this is a great example in play - some folks didn't like and and left

The company invested in itself by investing in its employees
(and John and Rush Limbaugh are stunned) Go figure

Its the same as the Wal-Mart vs. Costco business strategy
They are both successful / They are both completely different ideologically speaking

There are many good things about the "plan". 1st, you can higher the best of the best. You will be flooded with applications and you will be hiring high quality applicants. 2nd, you can demand excellence from your employees. Anheuser-Busch, at least until the buyout by Inbev, compensated it's union employees in the top 5% of all union jobs in America. Complete morats were being compensated around $48/hour (late 90's figure) (factoring in all benefits, but not overtime), and they knew they could not make that amount anywhere else. The smarter morats made sure they worked hard and did not fuck up.

The problem is that he just gave huge raises to people he hired for far less, meaning that they are not likely the "best of the best". And he clearly pissed off people that are upset that these people are making nearly as much money as they are without having put in the effort or having the responsibility that they do.
You can't give the student that busts their ass and "A" and every other student a "B", regardless of how little they studied or how bad they performed on the tests.

Chizzang wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: There are many good things about the "plan". 1st, you can higher the best of the best. You will be flooded with applications and you will be hiring high quality applicants. 2nd, you can demand excellence from your employees. Anheuser-Busch, at least until the buyout by Inbev, compensated it's union employees in the top 5% of all union jobs in America. Complete morats were being compensated around $48/hour (late 90's figure) (factoring in all benefits, but not overtime), and they knew they could not make that amount anywhere else. The smarter morats made sure they worked hard and did not fuck up.

The problem is that he just gave huge raises to people he hired for far less, meaning that they are not likely the "best of the best". And he clearly pissed off people that are upset that these people are making nearly as much money as they are without having put in the effort or having the responsibility that they do.
You can't give the student that busts their ass and "A" and every other student a "B", regardless of how little they studied or how bad they performed on the tests.

You're making assumptions about how they hired prior vs. after
And they are wrong assumptions
and he also let go of under-performing staff during that period

All you're doing is repeating the ancient business 101 text

This company and it's practices will need to be evaluated over time
but yes - the knee jerk reaction is well documented
We can all tune in to Rush and listen to him tell us how the world works



Thanks but I'll let this one play out...