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

Related Stories

Update: $70k Salaries Didn't "Backfire"; Gravity Payments' Profits Have Doubled 34 comments

The Center for American Progress reports

In April, Dan Price, CEO of the credit card payment processor Gravity Payments, announced that he will eventually raise minimum pay for all employees to at least $70,000 a year.

[...]Six months later, the financial results are starting to come in: Price told Inc. Magazine that revenue is now growing at double the rate before the raises began and profits have also doubled since then.

On top of that, while it lost a few customers in the kerfuffle, the company's customer retention rate rose from 91 to 95 percent, and only two employees quit. Two weeks after he made the initial announcement, the company was flooded with 4,500 resumes and new customer inquiries jumped from 30 a month to 2,000 a month.

Previous: Gravity Payments: CEO Takes Cut and Makes $70k/year New Minimum Salary
All Staff Pay Raise Backfires on Credit Card Processing Firm


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: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @02:20PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @02:20PM (#217918)

    Morale: Don't announce the good you'll do in advance. Only announce it after you've done it.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 04 2015, @02:28PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 04 2015, @02:28PM (#217922) Journal

      Good advice. If this guy had just quietly passed out a little praise, and some modest raises, he would have done a whole hell of a lot more good. If, over the course of five years, he had brought all of his people up to $70k quietly, few would have noticed. Sure, the people he gave raises to would have noticed - but outsiders wouldn't have had much to talk about.

      Ehhh - drawing attention is fine for entertainers. Not so much for the rest of us.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @02:40PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @02:40PM (#217927)

        I can see he is having some rough spots.

        Mostly like others pointed out he announced it because he wanted some sort of fame for it apparently.

        I say lets see in a year how it turned out. At the moment it looks like it is not working. But that could change. He had some customers leave because they do not want to be associated to anything even slightly controversial (most businesses are like that).

        My guess is this is possible to do. But he did it too quickly and at a rate the business can not sustain. If you can not sustain then all of your workers will be out of a job. Then what?

        Not sure he can undo the damage either. As at this point if you lower the pay the people who were getting it will now leave feeling they are being ripped off.

        It is an interesting experiment. But one that is possible to ruin the whole business over. I can see why the brother sued.

        • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday August 04 2015, @07:24PM

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @07:24PM (#218046) Journal

          Was that his motivation, or did he want to set a good example? We can't know. But would that more people would try to gain attention by doing things that are good, instead of doing things that make their existential penis look larger.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Tuesday August 04 2015, @03:06PM

        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 04 2015, @03:06PM (#217938) Journal

        Getting noticed is usually a good thing for companies.

        In this case, he went against the good old American value that poor deserve to be poor.

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:44PM

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:44PM (#217995) Journal

          Getting noticed is usually a good thing for companies.
           
          It's been a good thing for Gravity Payments as well:
           
            And the publicity surrounding it has generated tangible benefits. Three months before the announcement, the firm had been adding 200 clients a month. In June, 350 signed up.
           
          Hmm, I wonder why they would bury such a germane fact at the end of the article...

          • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:44PM

            by krishnoid (1156) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:44PM (#218024)

            And the publicity surrounding it has generated tangible benefits. Three months before the announcement, the firm had been adding 200 clients a month. In June, 350 signed up.
            ...
            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 ...

            Those employees don't sound like the brightest in the bunch.

            • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @10:25PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @10:25PM (#218182)

              Those employees don't sound like the brightest in the bunch.

              moron progressives no doubt think it's unfair, but some people aren't actually 'worth' minimum wage either. some people are worse than useless employees; they literally cost money and get in the way. if those people want to improve, there are plenty of ways if they're willing to put in the effort, such as training courses or even volunteering to develop some skills while they are on welfare or after school (yes i know... liberals find it shocking that some people might actually benefit from doing something for nothing, but believe it or not you can actually gain valuable skills and experience and volunteering looks pretty good on a resume).

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @10:16AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @10:16AM (#218428)

                If a company has an employee who is not only not worth the minimum wage but also worse than useless, and keeps him, who's the moron, after all?

            • (Score: 2, Disagree) by jmorris on Wednesday August 05 2015, @12:52AM

              by jmorris (4844) on Wednesday August 05 2015, @12:52AM (#218260)

              Probably were the bright ones, i.e. they were the ones who knew they were already earning close to their fair market value, thus didn't get the big raise everyone else got because of that and figured they could earn that same market value at a less doomed company where they would not have to a) deal with the idiot boss, b) deal with sudden unemployment at some random but likely near future date and c) invest the intervening time working their way up the ladder at a less doomed company.

              At root this company is doomed. They are paying far above market prices for the biggest line item in their expenses, labor. This jackwagon of a boss is far more interested in moral preening by throwing around other people's money to buy praise for himself from people who aren't in a position to benefit either himself or the company he is responsible for managing. Nobody would be praising him if he made the equally idiotic decision that the rent on the company's HQ was 'too low' and therefore he was going to start paying the landlord double. Wages are just another supply/demand market based consensus, if you offer wages that are too low you only attract substandard talent, somewhat higher means you can be more selective from a larger pool of resumes, but too high is just wasting money, when you reach a point where paying more isn't getting enough better people or performance from the existing ones to justify the expense.

    • (Score: 2) by zugedneb on Tuesday August 04 2015, @02:48PM

      by zugedneb (4556) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @02:48PM (#217932)

      Change happens in small steps.
      Do not do things that nobody understands.
      Do not do things that is difficult to fit in a big picture...
      ...and so forth...

      --
      old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
    • (Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Tuesday August 04 2015, @10:12PM

      by wantkitteh (3362) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @10:12PM (#218171) Homepage Journal

      No amount of announcement timing would make the slightest difference in this case. You simply can't screw with an established pay grade scale system and expect everything to come up smelling of roses, no matter what your motivation. Changing the base pay rate, fine - as long as everyone above that gets a proportional pay rise along the way to prevent their seniority and authority being undermined. Anything short of that, expect egos to be hit hard and a lot of questions with the word "deserve" in to start flooding into your mailbox.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @05:15PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @05:15PM (#218651)

        Anything short of that, expect egos to be hit hard and a lot of questions with the word "deserve" in to start flooding into your mailbox.

        Those entitled pieces of shit are exactly whats wrong with the world.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @02:29PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @02:29PM (#217924)

    This is why we can't have nice things.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @03:59PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @03:59PM (#217956)

      and inflation?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @11:22PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @11:22PM (#218207)

        and inflation?

        Approximately* zero, he cut his own salary to fund it.

        *for some value of "approximately".

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @02:43PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @02:43PM (#217929)

    Only in america can an attempt at being benevolent and good can be met with such ridiculous hostility.

    And the brother, what a piece of shit

    • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @02:51PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @02:51PM (#217934)

      And the brother, what a piece of shit

      Yeah what a POS for trusting his brother not to piss away his money. What a LOOOOOSER!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:05PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:05PM (#217960)

        Yeah what a POS for trusting his brother not to piss away his money. What a LOOOOOSER!

        Yes, the poor, starving brother is now suffering because of this. What? He's not poor, starving and suffering and is in fact quite well off? He probably is a greedy POS.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:54PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:54PM (#217979)

          "hey loan me 100 bucks"
          "sure here you go"
          "I spent the money on blow and a hooker"
          "can I have my money back?"
          "No you greed fuck you have a million dollars"

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:34PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:34PM (#217991)

            More like hey I spent that $100 trying to retain our employee workforce reducing employee churn, increasing productivity, and raising the company profile. In terms of marking it was a huge success, though there were some unexpected downsides in doing something new and risky, but as a start up investor you stated you were willing to take risks for the possibility of a 10x return. Differentiation and growth is the name of the game. Now site down.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:12PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:12PM (#218005)

              And in the process I cost us our 3 top customers. But maybe these other 10 might pay off in 6 months to a year. So in the mean time can you give us a loan to float for 6 months?

              In business terms he turned a 'sure win' into a 'maybe'. With about maybe an even on prospects in return on investment due to higher costs and more churn from turnover of employees who do not feel properly compensated. With the risk of taking down the whole business.

              There is no 10x growth here. That is hockey stick talk. It never really happens in 99.999% of the businesses out there. Most businesses are built on gradual growth over the long term. Anyone telling you otherwise is selling you something. Usually for their benefit. Short term bumps like this would make other investors turn tail and run. Also making your shares in the business worth less.

              This is pretty much 101 on how to turn a million dollar business into a bankrupt one.

              He also has had 6 months to prove out his theory. In that six months he cost them a good chunk of the business. Plus put the CEO into a position where he is now dealing with renters and other monetary issues instead of running the business.

              Dont get me wrong. It is quiet the gamble. But you want them to succeed because it is 'better' somehow. But it is not a 'better' built on solid financial strength. But a "lets bet the business and everyone's job here" gamble. If I was a major investor I would be suing as well. Wouldnt expect much as the CEO has pissed away the money.

              • (Score: 4, Informative) by skullz on Tuesday August 04 2015, @07:05PM

                by skullz (2532) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @07:05PM (#218036)

                It looks like the brother is suing because he says the CEO paid himself a lot of money but didn't pass out high enough dividends and the complaint was signed a month before the wage increase. It doesn't look like the lawsuit and minimum wage issues are related.

                Where did you get lost business and renters?

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @07:39PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @07:39PM (#218058)

                  The lawsuit may be the cause of the CEO reducing his salary and paying it out to workers instead. A subtle FU to the brother who filed perhaps

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:57PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:57PM (#217981)

        We don't know what the story is between those two guys. Maybe the CEO cheated his brother out of half the company, felt some guilt about it, so decided to restore his moral balance by giving away money to his employees.

        "I'm not the bad guy here" - some movie

      • (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.

        • (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.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by fadrian on Tuesday August 04 2015, @03:07PM

      by fadrian (3194) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @03:07PM (#217939) Homepage

      Which is why the only effective way to change the market is to use regulations.

      --
      That is all.
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:14PM

        by GungnirSniper (1671) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:14PM (#217969) Journal

        Which regulations would those be? Set worker pay levels government-style?

        This bombed because he brought up the pay of the bottom people without giving everyone else a similar raise. Someone who's worked to get to the level they're at is always going to be resentful of someone handed the same money despite not providing the same value. As others have noted, doing this slowly without the fanfare would have had similar benefits without the negatives. CEOs are not supposed to make rash decisions.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:22PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:22PM (#217987)

          This bombed because he brought up the pay of the bottom people without giving everyone else a similar raise. Someone who's worked to get to the level they're at is always going to be resentful of someone handed the same money despite not providing the same value.

          Because I ain't rich enough if you aren't dirty poor.

          • (Score: 1) by hedleyroos on Tuesday August 04 2015, @08:40PM

            by hedleyroos (4974) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @08:40PM (#218098)

            1. False dichotomy.
            2. Some people are naturally competitive. Not everyone is like you.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @09:10PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @09:10PM (#218132)

            It is not about being rich or poor. It is about relative market value. The "poor" can have houses made out of gold bricks as long as those of higher market value make more in proportion to the difference in market value.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @05:18PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @05:18PM (#218653)

              Like the GP said, pure greed and schadenfreude.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by tibman on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:46PM

          by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:46PM (#217997)

          I never understood that pay part. Someone else getting a raise doesn't cheapen your pay. Maybe they didn't even earn theirs and it was a mistake on a form. Either way, good for them. It still doesn't change how much you make. The only way this could make sense is that them getting a raise means that you do not. But i do not think that is the case. Some employees simply aren't worth any more money then they are getting paid. Give them inflation bumps and that is it until their abilities and knowledge grow more.

          --
          SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:49PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:49PM (#218030)

            > Someone else getting a raise doesn't cheapen your pay.

            Conservatives lurve themselves the hierarchy.¹ One of the most popular ways for conservatives to measure their position in the hierarchy is with dollars. It isn't just the spending value of the dollars, it is the status indicated by the dollars. So, to a person who values their position in the hierarchy, this move does cheapen them. Even if they can't articulate it this way, their gut tells them that if the janitor is making nearly the same amount of money that they are, then they've been demoted to the status of janitor.

            ¹ Look at the people defending this attitude towards the company's minimum wage hike - Gugnir and Bradley13, both posters with a history of heavily conservative positions.

            • (Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Tuesday August 04 2015, @07:54PM

              by GungnirSniper (1671) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @07:54PM (#218066) Journal

              Management types do tend to be more conservative, for whatever reason.

              You're right that staff do consider compensation when comparing themselves to others, especially since that's how management looks at them. Each employee is a cost, and have to bring according value for that cost, or they won't be there long.

              I had a situation where some second line engineers found out one of the senior customer service reps was making more than they were, and they were rightfully pissed. That rep came in years earlier when we had different starting salaries, thanks to knowing our then-director from working together at a different company. Wouldn't you be upset too if you found out someone with an A+ and maybe Network+ is getting paid the same as you and your CCIE? Wouldn't a doctor be upset if they found out the nurses made the same? I don't think this is a political point so much as a human nature point.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @08:40PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @08:40PM (#218099)

                > I don't think this is a political point so much as a human nature point.

                We are all limited by our experiences. It seems like a human nature point to you because that is your nature. You will find it very difficult to understand that not everyone perceives the world the way you do.

          • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday August 04 2015, @07:31PM

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @07:31PM (#218051) Journal

            Humans are monkeys, on a basic level. We crave hierarchy to know where we stand. That's why so many want to be on the winning side of a zero-sum game. There are of course other philosophies and people who escape the primate calculus through them, but most people remain in that limbic fog. Why else would sports and war remain so popular?

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 2) by githaron on Tuesday August 04 2015, @08:59PM

            by githaron (581) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @08:59PM (#218125)

            What is hard to understand? If you spent years cultivating your skills and have a lot of responsibilities in order to make your current wage and the new low-skill guy with significantly less responsibilities comes in and immediately starts making the same or almost the same as you, you aren't going to be frustrated? It implies your additional skill and responsibility level are of little value to your company. Without some non-monetary motivator, it discourages people from taking on new responsibilities and building new skills.

            If the new "minimum wage" became the norm across the industry, you can bet that the high-skill laborers are going to demand higher wages.

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by tibman on Wednesday August 05 2015, @02:40PM

              by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 05 2015, @02:40PM (#218547)

              No, i wouldn't be frustrated. I would train the new guy up. If he wasn't fit for the job then i'd request for him to be fired. I don't use pay to compare myself to others. Pay is something i experience outside of work. While at work i use job performance to compare myself to others. I am probably a-typical though. I use to be in the army and you knew someone's pay just by looking at their collar (now center mass). Pay is no secret. Pay also does not equal responsibility or ability. Plenty of experts at the bottom and worthless idiots at the top. When your life depends on the person next to you, you will prefer someone who actually knows what they are doing over someone who is getting paid the most. If you care for your excellent co-workers instead of seeing them as competition then i am certain you will arrive at something similar.

              --
              SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
          • (Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday August 04 2015, @09:28PM

            by nitehawk214 (1304) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @09:28PM (#218143)

            Someone else getting a raise doesn't cheapen your pay.

            It does if the company has a fixed poll of dollars for raises. I was flat-out told by two former bosses at two companies that they would love to give me a higher raise, but they wanted to give at least x dollars to the entire time, and corporate only gave y thousand dollars for raises for the entire team. (Don't recall what x was, but my raise ended up being pretty terrible.)

            I told him "No problem, boss. If I am unhappy with my pay, I will let you know. With a 2 weeks notice." I followed right the hell through with that about a year later. At a huge giant evil company it does you no good to tell them early that you are looking to leave, and it gives them the excuse to fire you or make your job an even more unreasonable hell than it already is.

            At 100 employees I don't know if Gravity Payments is into the "huge evil company" and the articles do a nice job of dancing around whether or not raises were from a fixed pool, but it is kind of a necessity for a small company. There are only so many dollars to go around. Why stick around if you know you won't be getting a decent raise ever again?

            --
            "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
            • (Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday August 04 2015, @09:28PM

              by nitehawk214 (1304) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @09:28PM (#218145)

              That is "fixed pool"

              The funny thing is I originally typoed it as "fixed pull", then manage to correct it wrong.

              --
              "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @10:13PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @10:13PM (#218173)

              > Why stick around if you know you won't be getting a decent raise ever again?

              You seem to be commingling two independent concepts:

              (1) The ability to find a higher paying job somewhere else
              (2) The company's compensation policies

              With respect to (1) - people have been leaving their job for greener pastures since the invention of employment, the fact that someone can find a better paying job just means they were previously underpaid, nothing more.

              With respect to (2) - compensation is rarely so linear - would you leave if the CEO got a $10M bonus? Regardless of specifics, the only real limit on total employee compensation is revenue. If this high minimum policy produces a disproportionately large increase in revenue, would that still make you feel justified in quitting?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @02:45PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @02:45PM (#217930)

    Now we don't have to just speculate about what might happen if a company tried such-and-such; we can refer to what actually did happen.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday August 04 2015, @03:22PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @03:22PM (#217947)

      Yep. A few selfish whiners quit, and many people want to work for him.
      Good example.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:02PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:02PM (#217959)

        ...and the business fails due to bad business practice...

        A company must produce more than it consumes to be viable. Income must exceed outgo. A raise in outgo must be coupled with a raise in income (in either the short or long term). This is a classic business example where outgo was raised without raising income. The owner is trying to take the hit personally (renting out his place, taking no profits, etc.; his brother is right to sue, I would), but it does appear that, in the long term, income will be raised by these actions. As a byproduct, there is likely to be no business in the future, putting all of the "happy, $70K/year" employees out of a job.

        • (Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:59PM

          by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:59PM (#218001)

          Don't forget the part where the CEO cut his own pay from $1million to $70k. That's enough savings for 14 employees at $70k.

          --
          SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @07:01PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @07:01PM (#218034)

          If you bothered to read as much as you wrote, you will find that they have an order of magnitude more business. The only business related problems the company currently has as a consequence is trying to keep up with demand. That is a problem every capitalist should be jealous of.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Bot on Tuesday August 04 2015, @03:09PM

    by Bot (3902) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @03:09PM (#217940) Journal

    Suck money out of people in every conceivable way, and nobody bats an eye
    raise the minimum wage and everybody loses their mind.

    The system, the beast if you like, it is real.

    --
    Account abandoned.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:05PM

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:05PM (#217983) Homepage

      Raising the minimum wage is a good idea but also a stupid idea, for the reasons outlined in the article. Even more ridiculous is raising the minimum wage for some industries (fast-food) but not others.

      I've said over and over again that I don't mind raising wages, as long as we keep the middle-class intact and not use a minimum wage increase as a way to make it more palatable to gut the middle-class even further, forcing the middle-class into the lower-class, all while providing the illusion of concessions and justice ("See? We threw you a bone, we care about people!").

      But back to why raising just the minimum wage is a stupid idea: Well, for one, many people whose wages were raised thanks to the increase actually request to work less hours as a result, [breitbart.com] so they can still make the less than X dollars needed to qualify for Welfare benefits. And as from the example given in the summary, a person could bust their ass and take on responsibility to end up earning just as much as some newbie who just walked in the door, which leads to resentment and higher turnover.

      As for the guy in the article who raised the minimum wage to 70K -- he should have just allocated a percentage to everybody or otherwise implemented a more fair system, and then kept his fucking mouth shut about it -- virtue is its own reward -- and maybe had the staff sign non-disclosure paperwork if necessary.

      Whatever the magical solution is, it cannot be just to raise the minimum wage. Maybe a change in tax structure coupled with mandatory year-after-year cost of living increases or something.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by Nobuddy on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:46PM

        by Nobuddy (1626) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:46PM (#218028)

        Brietbart? Why not an article on National Enquirer or the Sun. Stories of Elvis and Bat Boy are slightly more credible than anything that comes out of that right wing lie factory.

      • (Score: 1) by lonehighway on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:58PM

        by lonehighway (956) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:58PM (#218032)

        This is another right-wing myth that just won't die. People who make this argument have never looked at just how dirt-poor you have to be to qualify for a few dollars of income support. Working a few more hours with slightly higher pay will easily boost your income over what you can get on welfare and with the bonus of not having to deal with the endless bureaucracy and stigma of being on assistance.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by Daiv on Tuesday August 04 2015, @08:47PM

        by Daiv (3940) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @08:47PM (#218108)

        Yes, and in the same article they said many restaurants closed down because of the raise in minimum wage!

        Oh wait, YOU inserted the word "many", changing the story. The article says "Some workers", "some workers", and "some workers". In fact, all three are referring to the same "some workers." The original article specifically says "several workers" at ONE place, Full Life Care, a home nursing nonprofit.

        And below that "Some long-time Seattle restaurants have closed altogether, though none of the owners publicly blamed the minimum wage law."

        Don't try to use those tired, spun excuses as something to point to. There are plenty of other, valid things to point to.

        It's a shame because I like some of the other things you said in your post.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @01:39AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @01:39AM (#218276)

        I've said over and over again that I don't mind raising wages, as long as we keep the middle-class intact....

        The average middle class wage in 1950's was $48,000. I think that's still the middle class wage. Middle-class earnings have been flat for 50 to 60 years. I think it's safe to say that the middle class has already been destroyed!

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by kaganar on Tuesday August 04 2015, @03:37PM

    by kaganar (605) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @03:37PM (#217949)
    I've heard often from people who make near the current federal minimum wage how unfair raising minimum wage is -- not because "then everything will cost more" or one of the more expected lines of reasoning. No, it's because it's unfair to have people making more than they ever made doing their past or current jobs. I forget where, but I remember reading that "studies" have found that people consider "fairness" more important than their well being. It's like altruism as a double-edged sword -- it seems to be a feature of general humanity, with the negative variants of it seeming rather stupid. Sounds like it reaches pretty far up the pay scale.
  • (Score: 3, Touché) by http on Tuesday August 04 2015, @03:46PM

    by http (1920) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @03:46PM (#217952)

    So treating people fairly after a long time of treating them unfairly is cause to quit... you Americans confuse me.

    --
    I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @03:52PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @03:52PM (#217954)

      > So treating people fairly after a long time of treating them unfairly is cause to quit... you Americans confuse me.

      Sounds like a dick move. But remember we are only getting one version of the story. For all we know those guys just found higher paying jobs (something that happens all the time in the industry) and are being bad-mouthed now that they are gone (something that happens too frequently in practically every industry).

      • (Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:08PM

        by Kromagv0 (1825) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:08PM (#217985) Homepage

        and are being bad-mouthed now that they are gone (something that happens too frequently in practically every industry).

        Hell when someone leaves where I work I always jokingly remind them that for the next 6 months everything is going to be their fault.

        --
        T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:07PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:07PM (#217962)

      No it is more or less the opposite. If you worked your arse off, and were paid more for your extra effort you would find it unfair to all of a sudden see someone else get their salary doubled for doing jack shit while you only get few more K a year. That is essentially what happened here. The people who worked their butts off to make the company successful got up and left after what they viewed as slap in the face.

      Is it wrong to expect people to earn what they get? Maybe somewhere... but it sure as hell does not feel wrong in America.

      While I admire the guy's ideals and goals as I understand them, a more equitable society where people have the opportunity to earn a decent wage. His execution is piss-poor. This is exactly the kind of shenanigans that led to the brain-drain behind the iron curtain. They tried to fight human nature with ideals, and saw the brightest of them flee like rats off a sinking ship. This guy got lucky and decided to make a mistake tried before work.

      There are certainly better ways to go about it. Rather than a 100% equal share, he could have introduced incentives to increase salary overtime to a certain minimum, and allow for more for the people who show real commitment. Instead he just said he will pay you X regardless of performance.

      Then again maybe he hated his brother and decided to run the company into the ground while looking like "good guy." In which case, bravo Sir.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:11PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:11PM (#217964)

      So treating people fairly after a long time of treating them unfairly is cause to quit... you Americans confuse me.

      Think of it this way. You have worked for 20 years, are the best at your job (objectively the best, everybody knows it and you have the metrics to prove it), and you are earning $80k. Suddenly overnight a new hire from high school is earning $70k. That's still less than you, but the kid is maybe 1/4 as productive, and moreover he hasn't had to work up through the ranks to get to your pay.

      Rationally it "shouldn't" matter, but can you honestly not understand why it matters?

      It's just like the Ultimatum Game [wikipedia.org]. It may be economically rational to accept $1, but people are emotional and irrational. I'm fully prepared to believe the best performers would leave in a more egalitarian (and less meritocratic) system.

      • (Score: 2) by SecurityGuy on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:28PM

        by SecurityGuy (1453) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:28PM (#217975)

        That's still less than you, but the kid is maybe 1/4 as productive, and moreover he hasn't had to work up through the ranks to get to your pay.

        I honestly don't care about the working up through the ranks part. I don't think people should necessarily make a lot of money because they've been doing a thing for a long time, but they absolutely should make more money for being 4x as productive. That's the real problem here, IMO.

      • (Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:53PM

        by Nobuddy (1626) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:53PM (#218031)

        Summary: "Fuck you, I got mine. Stay poor so I feel better about my paltry paycheck in comparison!"

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @08:24PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @08:24PM (#218086)

          No, in general people respect someone for earning their keep and look down on those who get it out of a sense of entitlement. At what point do you feel bothered? What if everyone in the company received a substantial raise but you, that wouldn't bother you? What if they promote people junior to you, say the guy who was the high school intern last summer, as your new boss? You really mean that as long as they didn't change your compensation, you should be happy for them and feel good about your situation? You've got to the the Homer Simpson in your workplace.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by bradley13 on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:01PM

    by bradley13 (3053) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:01PM (#217958) Homepage Journal

    All the comments criticizing the employees who felt demotivated by this are off-base. Sorry, folks, this is basic human nature.

    If you work for this company as - let's say - a network tech. You've recently finished school, and don't have a lot of experience, so $70k is a fine enough salary. Then the company needs to hire a new janitor, and hires someone with zilch education who barely even speaks the language. Because of this company policy, the janitor gets the same salary you do. Can you honestly say that wouldn't irritate the hell out of you?

    There have been enough studies to prove this. I don't recall the exact numbers, but one famous study went something like this: People were given the choice of making $150k in a neighborhood where everyone, including all their friends, earned $200k. Or they could earn $75k, with everyone around them earning $50k. Almost everyone picked the second option. People would rather be the big fish in the small pond.

    Put more politely, we want to feel valued for our knowledge and skills, and salary is the most obvious and objective way that companies show us that we are valued. Give everyone the same salary, and we are basically trying a weird form of communism (to each according to his needs). If there's no incentive, people aren't going to be motivated. Which is why human nature dooms real communism to failure.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:05PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:05PM (#217961)

      > Because of this company policy, the janitor gets the same salary you do.

      If they were really two of the company's "most valued employees" they were already making way more than $70K.

    • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:13PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:13PM (#217967)

      There are incentives other than money. For example, he could have his people competing for first dibs on conference rooms, bigger or nicer offices, parking spaces, first in line at the lunch buffet, bonus vacation time, or even simply title and prestige. That sort of competition happens all the time in civil service systems where wages basically are entirely determined by seniority and department.

      But I think the point that he missed was that if you set the minimum at $70K, that isn't also the maximum. If he really wanted to do this, and he might have reasonably done so, he'd have done better to bump the people who were at $70K before the raises to $100K or so.

      What I find particularly interesting is the customers who jumped ship because they didn't want to do business with a company that would make this kind of move. If the rates didn't change (and they didn't), and the service didn't change (and it didn't), why the heck did the customers care about internal salary decisions?

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 2) by skullz on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:34PM

        by skullz (2532) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:34PM (#217977)

        Interestingly enough it looked like they were able to talk most of their customers into signing back up again. As one guy said, let Price run his business, I'll run mine. The pizza guy passed his monthly savings by using Gravity onto his employees so he won out by building loyalty at no real cost to his business.

        Then you get the folks who get upset over cocktails who worry that they will look stingy...

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:22PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:22PM (#218011)

        I can understand believing rates would raise, and therefore they want to look now rather than when the higher rates hit. I mean, they announced rates wouldn't go up because of this, but absent any legal constraint, it's hard to take such words at face value.

      • (Score: 2) by githaron on Tuesday August 04 2015, @09:30PM

        by githaron (581) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @09:30PM (#218147)

        The companies might of canceled their contracts because they believed the cost of changeover now would be smaller than the cost of changeover later when/if something changed for the worse. Also predictability has value. When someone/something someone depends on becomes unpredictable, they tend to get worried.

    • (Score: 2) by Refugee from beyond on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:23PM

      by Refugee from beyond (2699) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:23PM (#218013)

      Then the company needs to hire a new janitor, and hires someone with zilch education who barely even speaks the language. Because of this company policy, the janitor gets the same salary you do. Can you honestly say that wouldn't irritate the hell out of you?

      He might afford some education with that money, maybe. It's not like janitors are useless people nobody needs. Or you (not necessary exactly you here) might, I dunno, work as a janitor yourself and “get the same for less.” Would you?

      --
      Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:36PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:36PM (#218020)

        Why the hell would he go to school if he ends up making the same amount after he gets out? He just spent $$$$$ on literately nothing. I very much doubt he values education already, so yes it is worthless to him. With that money he could get two cars and a boat probably, if that is what he values more.

        • (Score: 2) by Refugee from beyond on Tuesday August 04 2015, @07:52PM

          by Refugee from beyond (2699) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @07:52PM (#218065)

          Why does it bother you what he is spending his money on? Unless that's something illegal.

          --
          Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @05:25PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @05:25PM (#218655)

          Why the hell would he go to school if he ends up making the same amount after he gets out?

          If "getting a better job" is literally the only reason you can think of to go to learn anything, I pity you.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @05:18PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @05:18PM (#219163)

            That is not what I said at all. I see value in education, but I was pointing out that a janitor, who is uneducated to begin with, might not. Giving him money in hopes of him pursuing more lofty ideals will certainly backfire. It's like giving a homeless person a million dollars to get them of the streets.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:45PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:45PM (#218025)

      Because of this company policy, the janitor gets the same salary you do. Can you honestly say that wouldn't irritate the hell out of you?

      No, coz the janitor doesn't facebook and use soylentnews all day like I do ;).

      Seriously though, I actually do work but I wouldn't want to work as a janitor for the same salary. And I think given a choice very many of you for the same pay would rather have your own jobs than work as a janitor: https://libcom.org/library/it-takes-janitor-tell-tale [libcom.org]

      I'm sure some janitor jobs aren't as bad but still...

    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday August 04 2015, @07:36PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @07:36PM (#218055) Journal

      I concur that that phenomenon is well-documented. The Chicago School of Economics where I was trained cited it clearly. But then they waved their hands, Jedi-like, and moved on, never considering the implications of that zero-sum mentality. They never seriously considered the ramifications of a different consumer/actor preference set.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by K_benzoate on Tuesday August 04 2015, @10:18PM

      by K_benzoate (5036) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @10:18PM (#218177)

      Can you honestly say that wouldn't irritate the hell out of you?

      Yes, I can. Or to be more verbose, my logical, deliberately thought faculties can overrule the primitive and irrational emotional response which might cause me to feel wrongfully aggrieved. The capacity to do this is, to me, synonymous with mental adulthood--a state of being that many people, even of advanced age, do not ever achieve.

      You're making the case, a strong one, that people make irrational, petty, spiteful, emotional decisions that do not accurately reflect their reality or stated goals. Sounds like an argument against full capitalism to me. An important premise often leaned on by apologists for unrestricted capitalism is that humans can be counted on to basically act rationally in pursuing their own self-interests. That seems to not be the case. It looks like people actively sabotage their own well-being by acting like spoiled, petulant, children. Thankfully it is the saving grace and primary strength of humanity that we can externalize mental faculties like self-control and enculturate ourselves to any number of "unnatural" ways of thinking and acting.

      I have no doubt that people can be trained to not view salaries as a zero-sum game. I'm an existence proof that such a mindset is neither inevitable nor universal. And I don't think I'm a paragon of virtue and altruism.

      --
      Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
    • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 05 2015, @12:39AM

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday August 05 2015, @12:39AM (#218254)

      Oh please.

      First, if you'd rather be a janitor than an office drone getting to sit at a desk all day and spend a good portion of it goofing off on the internet, then go ahead and make the career leap.

      Second, the network tech job has a higher salary cap; that janitor will never make more than the minimum.

      Third, if you don't like the pay you're getting at this place, go work somewhere else. It's not like this place can stop being competitive with the higher-pay positions like IT. If you're getting the same or better pay at this place than at competing employers, then what does it matter what the janitor is getting paid?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @02:17AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @02:17AM (#218293)

      Can you honestly say that wouldn't irritate the hell out of you?

      Who am I to judge that the janitor's efforts are easier than mine? Just because I had the privilege of getting an "education" in a field doesn't mean he deserves less than me. This "crab mentality" is dragging us humans down.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by skullz on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:08PM

    by skullz (2532) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:08PM (#217963)

    From the article, from a customer worrying that service will start to slip: "What's their incentive to hustle if you pay them so much?"

    That right there folks is a problem I see over and over where there is a great distrust between the employer and the employees. In this case, what was their incentive to hustle before the wage increase? Did they get a bonus? I suspect that the person complaining defines hustle as "have the appearance of working hard or I'll toss you out".

    I'll bet you a dollar that the insecure customer worried about people not hustling can't define hustle for his or her own employees down to a level that can actually be measured. Even Gravity's employees were feeling insecure with their job performance, wondering if they had actually earned their pay. Actually defining work and job performance to a level that is objective is hard in itself and I have never, ever worked for a place that actually did it. But I have worked for plenty of places that paid some slob 5-10% more because he was better at the interview process or knew someone who knew someone.

    I'm elated at this entire experiment at Gravity because it is forcing many of these things into the light. Is $70k too much for someone doing mail room work? What work do they do? If you say that someone doing web development should make more than the person opening mail can you put a dollar value on what "more" is? Can you put a price on loyalty so that those who have been opening mail for 3 years are more valuable than those who have been opening mail for 3 weeks? Saying $70k is too much is meaningless if you can't define the value of the work being traded for hours of someone's life.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by SecurityGuy on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:17PM

      by SecurityGuy (1453) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:17PM (#217970)

      From the article, from a customer worrying that service will start to slip: "What's their incentive to hustle if you pay them so much?"

      Yeah, that's just stupid. Their incentive to hustle is not wanting to lose a job that pays 3x more than they can make anywhere else. They're wearing golden handcuffs.

      Is $70k too much for someone doing mail room work? What work do they do? If you say that someone doing web development should make more than the person opening mail can you put a dollar value on what "more" is?

      These things are basic supply and demand, and well understood. Lots of people are capable of doing mail room work. Market equilibrium establishes a floor price. The upper bound is the hourly cost of the people who would otherwise have to not do their jobs to manage their own mail. You hire the mailroom people to avoid that expense, so you'd never pay more than that.

      Can you put a price on loyalty so that those who have been opening mail for 3 years are more valuable than those who have been opening mail for 3 weeks?

      Sure. It's a function of how much it costs to hire a new person to open mail, what it costs to train them, and lost productivity while they're coming up to speed. Assuming, of course, that someone who has been there for 3 years is more likely to stick around than someone who has just been hired.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:33PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:33PM (#217976)

    When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.’ When those who had started about five o’clock came, each received the usual daily wage. So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage. And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, saying, ‘These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day’s burden and the heat.’ He said to one of them in reply, ‘My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? Or am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?’ -- Matthew 20:8-15

    Sounds a lot like this old parable. Too many people are envious because the company chooses to be generous. Some things just never seem to change.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:42PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:42PM (#218021)

      Another fable about Human nature. 2k years and it still is true, another 20k and it will still be true. People will continue to have the same reaction, and this fable won't magically alter Humanity. You can call it envy, call it greed, regret, whatever the heck you want. But at the end of the day these facts remain, the reaction of the laborers is a normal human reaction. Just like the reaction of the ones who took the money for one hour's work. Why aren't you asking them why do they feel entitled to full day's wage? Is that not equally asshatish? I'd say it's even more so.

      • (Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Tuesday August 04 2015, @07:24PM

        by dyingtolive (952) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @07:24PM (#218048)

        Well, I guess it depends on whether your world view accounts for the possibility that people sometimes receive things they aren't explicitly entitled to.

        I try not to get hung up on those things. I think people worry waaay too much about what everyone else is getting, and that this energy would be better spent elsewhere.

        --
        Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @10:36PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @10:36PM (#218187)

      In the Muslim version of this parable, as told in the Qu'ran, the full-day workers cut off the heads of the latecomers and then blow up the landowner and his house. Praise be to Allah.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @11:27PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @11:27PM (#218213)

        Actually, there is a Muslim version [sunnah.com] of the parable that appears in the Islamic Hadith, but it's hardly violent:

        The Prophet, peace be upon him, said, "Your example and the example of the people of the two Scriptures (i.e. Jews and Christians) is like the example of a man who employed some laborers and asked them, 'Who will work for me from morning till midday for one Qirat?' The Jews accepted and carried out the work. He then asked, Who will work for me from midday up to the `Asr prayer for one Qirat?' The Christians accepted and fulfilled the work. He then said, 'Who will work for me from the `Asr till sunset for two Qirats?' You, Muslims have accepted the offer. The Jews and the Christians got angry and said, 'Why should we work more and get lesser wages?' (Allah) said, 'Have I withheld part of your right?' They replied in the negative. He said, 'It is My Blessing, I bestow upon whomever I wish .'

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:34PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:34PM (#217990) Journal

    If this is a "backfire" the backfire me all over the place.
     
    FTArticle that is desperately trying to paint this in a bad light (buried after several pages of evidence-less hyperbole):
     
    And the publicity surrounding it has generated tangible benefits. Three months before the announcement, the firm had been adding 200 clients a month. In June, 350 signed up.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:45PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:45PM (#218027)

      A client is not the same thing as a client. You lose 10 corporate client's with 20 location each and gain 50 pizza parlors. You think you won? There is hardly enough information to say whether or not this was a net positive.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by dr zim on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:15PM

    by dr zim (748) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:15PM (#218006)

    You guys know that it's the 'Moral' of the story, not the Morale, right?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @08:46PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @08:46PM (#218106)

      > You guys know that it's the 'Moral' of the story, not the Morale, right?

      Seems to me that this story is all about employee morale.

    • (Score: 1) by Conver on Tuesday August 04 2015, @09:57PM

      by Conver (1217) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @09:57PM (#218167)
      Nicely done Dr. Zim. However, we must acknowledge that not one single SNAFU has been commited regarding the use of the words: then and than, in this post and its related comments...so far.

      Teetering on the brink of trolling as I am, may I step back from the abyss and offer my loot of the wisdom and wit of the late John Kenneth Galbraith?

      In any great organization it is far, far safer to be wrong with the majority than to be right alone.
      -John Kenneth Galbraith

      I think this is a rhetorical post, is it not?
      • (Score: 2, Funny) by dr zim on Monday August 10 2015, @02:08PM

        by dr zim (748) on Monday August 10 2015, @02:08PM (#220683)

        The whole then/than thing is just too emotionally packed for me. I just skip right over either word and pretend they don't exist.

        I can't fix everything, you know.

  • (Score: 2) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Tuesday August 04 2015, @07:45PM

    by PizzaRollPlinkett (4512) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @07:45PM (#218063)

    My question all along was whether this company would have been successful anyway. I'm not even sure what they do, or how crowded their niche is. Usually publicity stunts like this are tried when nothing else is working. I mean, the company could have paid higher salaries from day one if that was going to attract better workers and make it more successful.

    Their web site talks a lot about values and philosophy, but the "about" section doesn't tell what they actually do. That's kind of a red flag. I always look at web sites for a sentence or two that explains what a company does. If there's not one, that's trouble. They're involved with credit card and mobile payments, so they're competing with companies you've actually heard of like Stripe.

    --
    (E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)