Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday August 04 2015, @02:12PM   Printer-friendly
from the unintended-consequences dept.

Earlier this year, Seattle-based Gravity Payments CEO Dan Price announced he was setting the minimum wage for his workers at $70k. About 70 of the company's 120 employees would be receiving the raises over a 3 year period and Price cut his salary from $1m to $70k to make the change happen. His reasoning: He read an article that more money for people who make less than $70k leads to increased happiness.

His plan may have backfired:

What few outsiders realised, however, was how much turmoil all the hoopla was causing at the company itself. To begin with, Gravity was simply unprepared for the onslaught of emails, Facebook posts and phone calls. The attention was thrilling, but it was also exhausting and distracting. And with so many eyes focused on the firm, some hoping to witness failure, the pressure has been intense.

More troubling, a few customers, dismayed by what they viewed as a political statement, withdrew their business. Others, anticipating a fee increase - despite repeated assurances to the contrary - also left. While dozens of new clients, inspired by Price's announcement, were signing up, those accounts will not start paying off for at least another year. To handle the flood, he has had to hire a dozen additional employees - now at a significantly higher cost - and is struggling to figure out whether more are needed without knowing for certain how long the bonanza will last.

Two of Price's most valued employees quit, 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. Some friends and associates in Seattle's close-knit entrepreneurial network were also piqued that Price's action made them look stingy in front of their own employees.

To make matters worse, Price's brother and company co-founder Lucas filed a lawsuit less than 2 weeks after the raise increase announcement, accusing his brother of violating his rights as a minority shareholder.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Nobuddy on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:43PM

    by Nobuddy (1626) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:43PM (#218022)

    Did you even bother to read the summary, or was your knee jerking too hard for that?

    All of the raises came from his own salary. Not the company, not profits, his own salary. The move lost him a few accounts from the stupid and politically motivated, but increased the company's sales tenfold.

    As a result of implimenting a change at no cost to the company whatsoever, the company is growing in leaps and bounds. In response, the minority shareholder sues for... what? Making too much money without prior notice? Unprecedented growth?

    The article is written as a hit piece, screaming the minor inconveniences while whispering the MASSIVE gains.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=2, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 05 2015, @12:35AM

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday August 05 2015, @12:35AM (#218252)

    Leaps and bounds? TFS says that the new accounts won't start paying off for a year (I guess the nature of the business is that it takes a while for a new customer to become profitable?). So as long as he can keep the place afloat for a little while, everything will be great, but the problem is that this is risky and a period of instability.