20th Century Motor Company in 2015
The Seattle CEO who reaped a publicity bonanza when he boosted the salaries of his employees to a minimum of $70,000 a year says he has fallen on hard times.
Read the article. How could this be?
Read the article. How could this be?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 4.
Just love how the valuable employees left when they didn't get paid adequately! Those capitalists! Wonder what Hillary/Warren/Sanders would say about them. These greedy few made this company fail...at least three weeks earlier than it would on its own.
Overpaying is not the way to correct the plight of the poor.
"Teams are a slacker's paradise!"
Atlas Shrugged was supposed to be a warning, Not A Newspaper!
Several of his most productive quit and moved on.
Seems now EVERYONE will be getting a ZERO salary.
Yup there ya go, that is what happens when you have income equality with NO regard for the efforts involved.
Sorry, I could not stand not writing that.
I bet he voted for the presidebt. Twice.
[ “Hearing of their difficulties and those of others struggling to make ends
meet inspired him to make a dent in the country's growing income inequality.”
This is the part I don't agree with and that probably annoys people. It
sounds like he offering alms, which is demeaning. I don't agree with that. ]
From your other responses and conclusion, I have a better idea of the pragmatic basis for your support, your admiration and your ability to compartmentalize observed actions without regard for the underlying philosophy.
http://www.today.com/video/ceo-reveal...
Long answer is here: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
There wasn't any implication of intellectual dishonesty in the question. It was straightforward, unlike your responses; hence my appeal. An answer somewhere on the spectrum between "yes" and "no", with personal qualifiers, would be a direct response.
Is it correct to assume that you do not want to directly express whether you admire his wage policy and stated rationale for that decision?
I don't answer questions that have built into it the suggestion I'm intellectually dishonest.
You can read what's already out there though: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
You've known his stated rationale (nationally televised) was to do something about the "income inequality gap".
If you would prefer not to answer my previously asked question, then just say so. Again, do you admire his wage policy and his stated rationale?
It doesn't share his rationale. The NYT article said a friend told him she struggles to live on a $40k salary, and he realized some of his employees earned less than that. The article doesn't say how he got from there to a $70k floor.
Do you admire his wage policy and his stated rationale?
To compensate, they cut annual raises for current employees almost in half. At my location, current employees are being squeezed to do more without gaining overtime. Morale is dropping like an express elevator.
In December, the new starting wage will go up to $10/hr. This means that a new employee on the night shift will make 45 cents an hour more than an employee that's been there 4 years. This is not popular among current employees.
The good employees are slowly finding their way to other jobs, and their replacements are (in some cases, literally) incompetent.
People are starting to only do the bare minimum they have to not to get fired. Where once they willingly pulled together to help each other when the work load was unbalanced, now they're resentful.
Sound familiar?
Yes. That wouldn't work. He said he was setting a floor, but not saying that everyone would make the same.
"Your best employees who work hard to make the company grow are told that you value the less productive employees more than you do them"
Ideally all they should worry about is whether they are getting a good deal, not other people's pay. Their CEO announced it with cameras running and carried on about it to the media, which I think was a mistake. It alienated those workers who didn't get a raise and makes it look like a publicity stunt.
It's the statement that all of his employees makes the same that I don't admire. Your best employees who work hard to make the company grow are told that you value the less productive employees more than you do them, because those are the employees getting the big raise.
Reward increase in productivity, don't reward poor productivity in the hopes it will increase. You get what you pay for.
If I were him and wanted to try this, I'd do it without the cameras running and without it feeling like a political statement. Just talk to the people privately and say you're doing a very serious and important job and we're raising the pay to reflect that, but you need to bring your A-game for the company to afford this.
No matter what you do, it's easy to talk about and very hard to execute effectively. I admire anyone who tries it.
Load more comments...