Because the next thing they’ll want is better gruel in the cafeteria and Sunday afternoons off.
Can’t it be both?
In reality, though, business is already increasing due to the publicity. His employees are quite happy (I listened to a local radio interview this morning), and I don’t see a downside in giving your employees a living wage.
At our firm we pay everyone a good deal more than we would have to based on supply and demand. We give 5 figure bonuses at the end of the year, and our employees reward us with hard work and loyalty. Mostly, however, it’s hard to justify making a real nice living and knowing that the people working for you are getting by at $40,000 per year. If I, as an owner can be well compensated and my employees (who could be paid $40,000) are being paid $80,000, I sure feel a lot better about my healthy income.
The difference is material in my opinion - especially as it relates to overall subject of the OP. So we’ll have to agree to disagree.
This is where the real issue would be.
The guy that was making $75,000 and feeling good about himself is going to start wondering why he’s only paid $5,000 more than the guy that cleans the toilets when he’s important to the business.
Sure, the secretaries and the janitors are going to have very low turnover, but the people in the $70k to $80k range are probably going to be very resentful and thinking of moving to a different job (and probably for a pay raise if they haven’t moved at all). And those guys are probably worth a lot more to the business than the receptionist who is basically interchangeable.
This is not to say I think it was necessarily a bad move by the CEO, but maybe not well thought out (unless the reporting is leaving a lot out).
You are fine to think this is a PR stunt and if it only lasts a few weeks or months, I would be inclined to agree. We’ll just have to wait and see on that. But, PR stunt or not, it immediately benefits the employees, does it not? So let’s say someone gives you $20000 dollars more for a year, does it really matter if its a PR stunt? Wouldn’t you still praise him for doing something nice?
As for failure, I really wonder how you would judge it. Say in a year, his business hasn’t grown. Does that mean its a failure for him? His employees still have the extra money, its likely that they’d still consider the experiment a success even if they didn’t get one new customer. Unless this thing completely backfires and they lose business because of it (which I will say is probably impossible), I don’t see how you can judge it to be a failure
It’s not so much that customers will stop using their services because of the CEO’s new policy, as the people that were making $72,000 would leave for someplace where the boss doesn’t think they are only worth $2k more than a janitor, and when your middle performers like that leave, the capabilities of the business would decline, causing fewer customers to want to come back.
It’s nice to think that the guy that worked his ass off to make it to $72k isn’t going to mind if someone else gets a windfall just because, but that’s not how it works in my experience.
The article says that the minimum salary will be $70k, not that everyone’s salary that was already above $70k will remain static. The implementation is also being spread out over 3 years.
Why would I give a flying fuck that someone earns less than I? I mean, I can see some jealously that another worker earns* more* but does less, sure. I cant see anyone leaving over this.
I was thinking the same thing. If I’m making $72,000 a year, I can’t imagine caring that others beneath me are making $70,000. Unless, for some reason, I thought that my future advancement was now limited because all the money is going to others. I don’t think that’s the case here.
I sure as hell do. If I am making $72000 with a required Undergrad and Grad degree to pay off, buttload of extra hours, stress, and responsibility, while the waltz in at nine out at 5, candy crush all day playing receptionist makes 70, I’m gonna be pissed.
A credit card processing company, as the name implies, processes credit card transactions for vendors. Whenever you use a credit card at a business (say, the local watering hole), the merchant (i.e. business) is charged a fee to process the payment. The processing company supplies the “swipe machines” and enables the use of different types of cards. Looking at the firm’s website, it appears that they also enable merchants to process cards through IPads (in addition to doing other things).
(This is why, by the way, that you can sometimes negotiate a lower price on merchandise by paying cash instead of using credit. YMMV, obviously.)
While I certainly don’t disagree with you (I am several months into opening my law firm, which my wife and I have poured our savings into), this CEO started this company at 19, while in college. Unless he was operating with some inheritance, I doubt he had much initial capital to invest.
Then by all means, feel free to leave. I’m sure that he won’t have any trouble replacing you.
A secretary who risks losing a $70K salary by playing candy crush all day is an idiot. I’m guessing that it would the secretaries and the janitors who’d be on their best behavior, because they know every secretary and janitor worth his or her salt is lined up at the door, waving a resume.
A small nitpick, y’all speak about the janitors but I get a feeling that *this *sort of firm has its janitorial and maintenance services and other such contracted out.
But really, come on, it’s HIS business. He can offer what compensation terms he can afford to. He can also do such things to garner positive PR as he can afford to. If he can do both at the same time, so be it. Why be put off? Because it’s showboating and there’s no realistic expectation the rest of the industry will do the same? How does that hurt us?
So it’s HIS business and I wish him well, because it’s just the polite thing to wish someone.
Right. The people who got the big boost are going to really want to Not. Blow. It.
Nice show of an opinion about the lower-tier minions, there at the end… and I get the feeling that “I’m slacking off because you raised Bud the mailboy to within 90% of what I make” is going to get a hearty laugh at your performance review.
But then what? Leave and get a job somewhere else ALSO making in the 70-80K range (because let’s be honest, this alone is not going to move the market), only now deriving a huge deal of personal emotional satisfaction that you’re getting paid a lot more than the lower-ranking people? Don’t let me stop you.
Besides, as mentioned above: How do we know this does not include raises for the other levels as well? Why the presumption that everyone under 70 goes to 70 and everyone else is stuck? Is there some information I’m missing?
I’m under the impression it’s bloody rare for nonunionized private businesses to have their salaried professional employees on a strictly tiered grid in the style of the government’s GS scale or the military’s E/W/O grades. That when Mr.“required Undergrad and Grad degree, extra hours, stress, and responsibility” signs a contract to work at his salaried position for $72K/yr, i.e. $6K/month, it’s NOT in any way pegged to “twice the total salary of the secretary” or “no less than $2K/month more than any line technician” (and indeed most often with the tacit or explicit understanding of “no asking what anyone else makes”).
Look at it logically. Those guys making more money doesn’t affect you in the least. A month ago you were doing the same thing knowing you’re making more than the guy who cleans the toilets. Now he’s making comparable money. What has changed in your job?
There’s a lot of assumptions in this thread, that the $70 is instant, that people are now all stuck on that amount forever, that there’s no possibly of raises or bonuses. Those are your assumptions, please refrain from them
Can you guys not see that its very unempathetic to derive your job satisfaction from worrying about how much other people make?
It looks to me like your logic isn’t completely sound. If I make $72k a year, but have lots of responsibility, stress and have to work late and on weekends, I would seriously consider “downgrading” to $70k for a job that has less stress, less responsibility and fewer hours. No, I wouldn’t just consider it… I would do it in a heartbeat.
It’s not just about keeping score or making the most money.
I assume the guy at $72,000 hopes to work his way up to $90,000 one day.
Then you would be competing for those “less stress, less responsibility and fewer hours” jobs with those that have actual experience in them. Do you think your pencil pushing skills translate to the jobs that everyone is fretting over?
I don’t understand the worry that others with “easier” jobs might be making close to what I make. So what? More power to them! Then maybe I wouldn’t feel like I have to contribute more to the office gift pool. 
Salary isn’t in a vacuum. Every place I’ve ever worked capped raises on the available pool. If it suddenly becomes apparent the pool is very large, and not one cent of it is coming to me, It will be very clear there is a huge difference of opinion on my value to the company. I am going to be pissed and start looking for a company that rewards people based on their contribution to the company intead of stupid PR stunts.
And I don’t believe half the people in this thread are so fucking elightened they don’t care what other people make. If your boss comes in and says This is your new “coworker”(actually my niece) she will be doing nothing at all, but make twice as much as you do". Yeah,I’m sure nobody here will resent it in the slightest.