Remember the company that instituted a $70,000 minimum wage? Problems are brewing.

[Axulus]

The New York Times reports that two of the company's "most valued" members have left the company, "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."

Maisey McMaster — once a big supporter of the plan — is one of the employees that quit. McMaster, 26, joined the company five years ago, eventually working her way up to financial manager. She put in long hours that "left little time for her husband and extended family," the Times says, but she loved the "special culture" of the place.

But while she was initially on board, helping to calculate whether the company could afford to raise salaries so drastically (the plan is a minimum of $70,000 over the course of three years), McMaster later began to have doubts.

"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 told the Times. A fairer plan, she told the paper, would give newer employees smaller increases, along with the chance to earn a more substantial raise with more experience.

Gravity's web developer, Grant Moran, 29, had similar concerns. While his own salary saw a bump — to $50,000, up from $41,000, in the first stage of the raise — he worried the new policy didn't reward work ethic. "Now the people who were just clocking in and out were making the same as me," he tells the Times. "It shackles high performers to less motivated team members."

He also didn't like that his salary was now so public, thanks to the media attention, and he worried that if he got used to the salary boost, he might never leave to pursue his ultimate goal of moving to a digital company. Like McMaster, Moran opted to leave.

But according to the Times, even employees who are "exhilarated by the raises" have new concerns, worrying that maybe their performances don't merit the money. (Arguably, this is evidence the increase is actually a good idea, potentially motivating people to achieve more.)

For his part, Price — who's also under fire from other local business owners and his brother, who says Price owes him money — stands by his plan, but doesn't begrudge his critics. "There’s no perfect way to do this and no way to handle complex workplace issues that doesn’t have any downsides or trade-offs," he tells the Times. "I came up with the best solution I could." And certainly, many of his employees agree.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ceo-raised-minimum-wage-70-212850113.html

A Seattle CEO who received widespread recognition after announcing plans to raise his credit-card-processing company’s minimum salary to $70,000 is being sued by his brother, King County Superior Court documents show.

Lucas Price, co-founder and director of Gravity Payments, accuses his brother, co-founder and CEO Dan Price, of violating Lucas’ rights as minority shareholder and breaching duties and contracts, according to court records.

The complaints were initially signed March 13 and filed April 24, 11 days after Dan Price announced the pay raises. Attorney Greg Hollon, who represents Lucas Price, said that while that announcement may play a role in the proceedings, it does not relate directly to the lawsuit.

“It was an aggregation of events over the course of years,” said Hollon about the case. Lucas Price did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/gravity-payments-ceo-sued-by-brother/

 

[Metaphor]

He also didn't like that his salary was now so public, thanks to the media attention, and he worried that if he got used to the salary boost, he might never leave to pursue his ultimate goal of moving to a digital company. Like McMaster, Moran opted to leave.

Um, what?

"I hate extra money, it makes the option of staying more attractive and I want pay to be just low enough that leaving is marginally preferable to staying".

I'd say this was 'first world problems' but first world problems are actual real annoyances. This is simply irrational and bizarre.

 

[thebeave]

Well that didn't take long. Pretty much what I predicted:

http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?4680-Dan-Price-raises-minimum-wage-at-his-company-to-70-000-a-year&p=146830&viewfull=1#post146830

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Those sound like pretty pathetic problems that the employees have. I suppose that no matter what you do, you'll feel he people who complain. If he were to offer free whores to everyone, some yokels would complain that all the Asian ones are taken by the guys who don't sleep in.

 

[Achwienichtig]

One thing the article DOES NOT SAY is that the company was unable to pay these wages sustainably.

I remember a certain person 2000 years ago talking about a similar situation. He paid all his farm hands the same daily rate regardless of how many hours they individually worked that day. What was his name again?

 

[Ford]

If he were to offer free whores to everyone, some yokels would complain that all the Asian ones are taken by the guys who don't sleep in.

No kidding! I start my day later than most of my co-workers, and by the time I get in, most of the whores(*) have already been taken. There's even been days when I have to pay for my own whore, and what with the gentrification going on in the neighborhood, I have to drive quite far to find one at all...let alone an Asian.





* Parking spaces, actually. But it's kinda the same thing, right?

 

[credoconsolans]

Sounds like the woman who sacrificed her family life for her job is feeling like a fool now.

She's resentful of the people who accepted a lesser wage and lesser position in the firm to spend time with their families...and now she feels they're being rewarded for it while people like herself who screwed their families out of their time aren't being appreciated for their sacrifice...though she sure enjoyed doing it when she was treated special and paid super big bucks.

Selfish bitch.

 

[Axulus]

He also didn't like that his salary was now so public, thanks to the media attention, and he worried that if he got used to the salary boost, he might never leave to pursue his ultimate goal of moving to a digital company. Like McMaster, Moran opted to leave.

Um, what?

"I hate extra money, it makes the option of staying more attractive and I want pay to be just low enough that leaving is marginally preferable to staying".

I'd say this was 'first world problems' but first world problems are actual real annoyances. This is simply irrational and bizarre.

Yeah, he was clearly not with the company for much longer anyway. However, I think he was afraid he would be tempted to stay just for the money while hating the job so he proactively quit before he could be tempted into that situation.

- - - Updated - - -

Those sound like pretty pathetic problems that the employees have. I suppose that no matter what you do, you'll feel he people who complain. If he were to offer free whores to everyone, some yokels would complain that all the Asian ones are taken by the guys who don't sleep in.

What if you had a policy that said "work long hours and do well at the company for five years, and you get free whores", then, after putting in your five years the boss announces "change in policy: free whores for everyone, new hires and long term employees alike!"

 

[Derec]

What if you had a policy that said "work long hours and do well at the company for five years, and you get free whores",

Munich Re did something like that, but then turned around and fired the executives who thought up this truly great incentive program.
Munich Re Unit Says Company-Paid Prostitute Party Was "Killer Fun"

 

[Rhea]

What if you had a policy that said "work long hours and do well at the company for five years, and you get free whores", then, after putting in your five years the boss announces "change in policy: free whores for everyone, new hires and long term employees alike!"

Yeah people would totally hate to miss out on what they thought was going to be their opportunity to lord it over the people they thought of as lesser beings. That is such a tragic bait and switch. Can you sue for unfair loss of schadenfreude?

 

[Achwienichtig]

Sounds like the woman who sacrificed her family life for her job is feeling like a fool now.

She's resentful of the people who accepted a lesser wage and lesser position in the firm to spend time with their families...and now she feels they're being rewarded for it while people like herself who screwed their families out of their time aren't being appreciated for their sacrifice...though she sure enjoyed doing it when she was treated special and paid super big bucks.

Selfish bitch.

Don't be too hasty to label. My wife is the bread winner in my family. She's on a career path in accounting. She will probably always make more than I do, and she hates that she can't be the stay at home parent. Absolutely hates it. Doesn't mean she doesn't love her job. She does. But it's still a sacrifice she has to make. There's nothing inherently selfish about a woman trying to get ahead in the business world.

Now, for a woman to learn the she didn't need to make that sacrifice in order to have a well paying career, wouldn't we all feel the same, at least a little? We would all take the shortcut if we knew it was there. And we'd all kick ourselves if we missed out.

I'm not saying this is rational behavior. I am saying this is normal. And it's no more selfish than any of us can be on any given day. I don't know the woman, so I can't tell you she's normal for sure, but I certainly don't have enough information to call her a selfish bitch.

 

[Axulus]

What if you had a policy that said "work long hours and do well at the company for five years, and you get free whores", then, after putting in your five years the boss announces "change in policy: free whores for everyone, new hires and long term employees alike!"

Yeah people would totally hate to miss out on what they thought was going to be their opportunity to lord it over the people they thought of as lesser beings. That is such a tragic bait and switch. Can you sue for unfair loss of schadenfreude?

New hires does not equal "lesser beings", it just means they should have to work hard and put in five years to get the whores like everyone else.

When you first started working, did you think of yourself as a lesser being just because didn't pay you close to what middle management got paid, or did you think of it as a starting pay for a starting position in a career you'd have to move on up in to get that kind of pay?

Furthermore, don't you think those who've put in 50-60 hour weeks and sacrificed their personal lives are a bit like suckers considering they could earn a comfortable living at the company with a normal 40 hour week for only a tiny cut in pay?

 

[Derec]

I remember a certain person 2000 years ago talking about a similar situation. He paid all his farm hands the same daily rate regardless of how many hours they individually worked that day. What was his name again?

That was a parable, not a description of an actual situation, and it has always struck me as rather unfair.

For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way. Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise. And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle? They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive. So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first. And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house, Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good? So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

So how is this householder supposed to get any workers for the whole day ever again? Everybody is just going to show up at the 11th hour to work from there on!

 

[Achwienichtig]

Sorry. I couldn't resist.

Matthew chap 20

1 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius[a] for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went.

“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’

7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.

“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’

8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’

9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

- - - Updated - - -

Whoops. Derek and I got the same idea at the same time.

 

[Axulus]

Sounds like the woman who sacrificed her family life for her job is feeling like a fool now.

She's resentful of the people who accepted a lesser wage and lesser position in the firm to spend time with their families...and now she feels they're being rewarded for it while people like herself who screwed their families out of their time aren't being appreciated for their sacrifice...though she sure enjoyed doing it when she was treated special and paid super big bucks.

Selfish bitch.

Uh, are you thinking ambitious career people supposed to be selfless self-sacrificing people who are immune to feeling resentment? Her reaction is perfectly understandable - starting lower level employees people are getting pay bumped up to levels near where it took her five long and hard years of work to get up to in the company.

If you worked long and hard at something to get to a certain point and then, after five years, you turn around and find out someone else less qualified than you get their on day one, wouldn't you feel a bit resentful?

 

[Achwienichtig]

That was a parable, not a description of an actual situation, and it has always struck me as rather unfair.

So how is this householder supposed to get any workers for the whole day ever again? Everybody is just going to show up at the 11th hour to work from there on!

It's not so much that it's unfair as that it's poor motivation.

 

[credoconsolans]

Sounds like the woman who sacrificed her family life for her job is feeling like a fool now.

She's resentful of the people who accepted a lesser wage and lesser position in the firm to spend time with their families...and now she feels they're being rewarded for it while people like herself who screwed their families out of their time aren't being appreciated for their sacrifice...though she sure enjoyed doing it when she was treated special and paid super big bucks.

Selfish bitch.

Uh, are you thinking ambitious career people supposed to be selfless self-sacrificing people who are immune to feeling resentment? Her reaction is perfectly understandable - starting lower level employees people are getting pay bumped up to levels near where it took her five long and hard years of work to get up to in the company.

If you worked long and hard at something to get to a certain point and then, after five years, you turn around and find out someone else less qualified than you get their on day one, wouldn't you feel a bit resentful?

Only if I thought hypocritically.

What is the woman really upset about? Money and status apparently.

She easily sacrificed time with her family for status and big bucks and now, the big bucks aren't as big comparatively anymore.

NOTHING for HER has changed except how SHE compares to her fellow employess.

Yet she's griping.

 

[credoconsolans]

Sounds like the woman who sacrificed her family life for her job is feeling like a fool now.

She's resentful of the people who accepted a lesser wage and lesser position in the firm to spend time with their families...and now she feels they're being rewarded for it while people like herself who screwed their families out of their time aren't being appreciated for their sacrifice...though she sure enjoyed doing it when she was treated special and paid super big bucks.

Selfish bitch.

Don't be too hasty to label. My wife is the bread winner in my family. She's on a career path in accounting. She will probably always make more than I do, and she hates that she can't be the stay at home parent. Absolutely hates it. Doesn't mean she doesn't love her job. She does. But it's still a sacrifice she has to make. There's nothing inherently selfish about a woman trying to get ahead in the business world.

Now, for a woman to learn the she didn't need to make that sacrifice in order to have a well paying career, wouldn't we all feel the same, at least a little? We would all take the shortcut if we knew it was there. And we'd all kick ourselves if we missed out.

I'm not saying this is rational behavior. I am saying this is normal. And it's no more selfish than any of us can be on any given day. I don't know the woman, so I can't tell you she's normal for sure, but I certainly don't have enough information to call her a selfish bitch.

Your wife loves her job and loves her family, and from what you told me, she apparently loves her job more than her family, otherwise she would be at home.

People can and have downsized incomes and standards of living to be home more often with their families because they considered them more important than money. You guys are not those people.

Take from that what you will.

One of my favorite actors came to that epiphany one night in a pub. He and his cronies were there late, drinking and playing snooker and telling each other how much they loved their wives and kids and loved spending time with them. Then suddenly the light went on in his pretty head.

"If we loved our families so much, what the fuck were we doing away from them for hours in a pub?"

He left the pub and stopped drinking.

 

[untermensche]

People quit not because they were unhappy with their own pay.

But because they resented the pay of others.

It takes a system like capitalism to warp an adult mind like that.

 

[Achwienichtig]

Don't be too hasty to label. My wife is the bread winner in my family. She's on a career path in accounting. She will probably always make more than I do, and she hates that she can't be the stay at home parent. Absolutely hates it. Doesn't mean she doesn't love her job. She does. But it's still a sacrifice she has to make. There's nothing inherently selfish about a woman trying to get ahead in the business world.

Now, for a woman to learn the she didn't need to make that sacrifice in order to have a well paying career, wouldn't we all feel the same, at least a little? We would all take the shortcut if we knew it was there. And we'd all kick ourselves if we missed out.

I'm not saying this is rational behavior. I am saying this is normal. And it's no more selfish than any of us can be on any given day. I don't know the woman, so I can't tell you she's normal for sure, but I certainly don't have enough information to call her a selfish bitch.

Your wife loves her job and loves her family, and from what you told me, she apparently loves her job more than her family, otherwise she would be at home.

People can and have downsized incomes and standards of living to be home more often with their families because they considered them more important than money. You guys are not those people.

Take from that what you will.

One of my favorite actors came to that epiphany one night in a pub. He and his cronies were there late, drinking and playing snooker and telling each other how much they loved their wives and kids and loved spending time with them. Then suddenly the light went on in his pretty head.

"If we loved our families so much, what the fuck were we doing away from them for hours in a pub?"

He left the pub and stopped drinking.

What the fuck! All he did was walk out of a fucking pub and get sober. Somehow, this guy is more noble for fucking walking out of a pub than my wife is for wanting a job that pays our bills? Look at that, guys! All a man has to do to be more noble than a business woman is walk out of a fucking pub! If that's not chauvinism, I don't know what is.

When a woman decides to work, she's being selfish! Would you ever say that of a man? Seriously!

People can't just decide not to work. That's not how the world works. There's this thing call bringing home the bacon, being a breadwinner, i.e. making money for the family. The money my wife makes is FOR THE FAMILY! We need it to pay our mortgage, pay our taxes, buy food, put gas in the car, afford the internet, buy clothes, toys, books, diapers, baby wipes, electricity, pay the car insurance, the house insurance, the health insurance, take the dog to the vet, clean the laundry, fix the mold problem in the basement, fix our deteriorating driveway, fix our roof that was leaking, pay the garbage company to collect our trash, etc. etc. etc.

And yet, my wife is selfish for making money to do all these things?

If we go by your theory, the most selfless women would be living on the streets, eating out of a garbage can, and sleeping in a cardboard box. That is, after all, the ultimate form of downsizing. At least then they wouldn't have a fucking career like only selfish bitches have.