re: Nobody wants to work anymore

quote:

---

Kid made a business decision based on earning the very last penny he could make. Why wouldn't an employer treat the relationship any different by paying the very least penny?

---

I'm not really talking about pinching pennies. I'm saying that pay just needs to be in the range that is fair to both parties. Obviously I don't know the kid, and I don't know how he was treated for those 3 weeks, but unless those pennies are really needed then most employees are more concerned with the work environment than another percent or two. If he left for +1% then he probably would have left for -10%.

quote:

---

But I am questioning the expectation for the employer to overpay, but not the employee to accept underpayment.

---

I haven't seen anyone arguing to overpay in the last few pages that I've been in this thread. Maybe I missed some overpay talk earlier.

quote:

---

It was a response to those saying that employees aren't motivated and aren't loyal to employers because employers aren't willing to overpay them. No one has convinced me it's a good idea yet.

---

Probably because overpaying is not a good idea.

Look, I'm not the most experienced guy in hiring and managing people, but I've been on both sides of the table enough to have seen this many times: when an employee gets a raise, he feels like his pay finally matches the effort he's been putting in and will continue to put in, and when an employer gives a raise, he feels like he should get more output for the extra money. Obviously nothing is true in all cases, but I believe this one holds pretty true the majority of the time.

That, in my view, is an employer treating employees like expenses. This guy is costing me more money now, so I need more juice out of him. That is as opposed to treating the employee as an asset, where the raise is an acknowledgement of the work put in already, and an investment in continuing that level of performance. You say that leads to bankruptcy. That depends on the hard-to-quantify OJT and turnover costs, doesn't it?

I can't say how your kid was treated in that short span of time, but I think in most cases the squeeze will cause someone to jump ship before another 1%.

This is actually pretty common in most of Europe and Asia.
—exactly the OP’s point

Quit crying

Companies will invest in training employees to be experts in their field, they invest in their health with subsidized health premiums, they invest in their retirement with 401k matching, they reward efforts with discretionary, profit sharing bonuses, and many other non salary costs above and beyond merit raises and promotions. These companies exist and people exist who think they treat their employees like shite or like expenses rather than assets. It is what it is. It's better to filter out these people in the hiring process, especially given how hard it is to fire someone for poor performance in this litigious society, but I'll never lose sleep over losing someone like that to a competitor. If the grass is greener somewhere else for them, it's a win-win.

Can't believe early spent a good chunk of his night demanding for examples of good companies. What an odd hill to die on. His company must be miserable.

You expensive turds better be logged in and working. Got to make the man that dollar.

quote:

---

I'm not really talking about pinching pennies. I'm saying that pay just needs to be in the range that is fair to both parties

---

Gotcha.

quote:

---

Obviously I don't know the kid, and I don't know how he was treated for those 3 weeks, but unless those pennies are really needed then most employees are more concerned with the work environment than another percent or two. If he left for +1% then he probably would have left for -10%.

---

Nothing changed. And that's the point. Sometimes employees squeeze employers for every last quarter.

quote:

---

Look, I'm not the most experienced guy in hiring and managing people, but I've been on both sides of the table enough to have seen this many times: when an employee gets a raise, he feels like his pay finally matches the effort he's been putting in and will continue to put in, and when an employer gives a raise, he feels like he should get more output for the extra money. Obviously nothing is true in all cases, but I believe this one holds pretty true the majority of the time.

That, in my view, is an employer treating employees like expenses

---

Gotcha. I was talking about something different though. Salary negotiation as a match for an offer--rather than a promotion in duties/responsibilities for a higher salary. In my experience... matching offers rarely works out, for the reasons you mention. Even if the employer makes no demands, sometimes the worker perceives everything as a demand. My experiences is it almost always leads to a more toxic relationship.

quote:

---

This guy is costing me more money now, so I need more juice out of him.

---

I don't do that, that's what promotions/role changes are for. And let's not lose sight that the worker demanding more money, for no additional duties, is squeezing the employer for more juice.

quote:

---

That is as opposed to treating the employee as an asset, where the raise is an acknowledgement of the work put in already, and an investment in continuing that level of performance. You say that leads to bankruptcy. That depends on the hard-to-quantify OJT and turnover costs, doesn't it?

---

Partially. But as an employer, my "investment" in that worker can walk out at any time, for any reason. No strings attached. It would be foolish for an employer to forget about that.

quote:

---

No, I didn't mean they should be overpaid. I just meant they should not be underpaid. The implication was fair and honest pay.

---

Gotcha. And I should say, I actually have offered employees more than they asked for. Interestingly every time has been a female that asked for far less than the male employee they were replacing or where a male counterpart was making more than they asked for. I don't have a lot of experience to say if that's a pattern (very male-dominated industry) but it was eye-opening.

quote:

---

I guess this is where you and I have a miscommunication. You think of treating an employee as an expense in terms of dollars, whereas I mean it in terms of management style.

---

Yup! But we hashed it out.

quote:

---

Can't believe early spent a good chunk of his night demanding for examples of good companies

---

Talk about cherry picking a few posts.

quote:

---

Well yeah you have made it clear you are a quitter

---

I guess about as clear as you made it that you're a moron. Good work.

What a sad response

No wonder no one wants to hire you