Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sounds a lot like what happened at the nursing home my mom worked at. There were women who worked there for 20 years. Would get normal raises. Suddenly the nursing home raised the minimum pay and the new people were making nearly as much as the ones working there for 20 years.
Exactly... what message is this sending across to "loyal" workers?
"Well, times have changed. Your loyalty is great, thanks, but counts for naught."
Again, having a minimum wage ceiling is important because it allows people to earn a "living wage", but this is then assuming that somehow all these workers who've been there for years haven't struggled to make ends meet or made sacrifices in other ways to stay in these jobs. Sure we can say "then go find another job" but it's not always a simple matter.
Why not give some of the senior workers who have performed above their levels (per evaluations) equitable BACK-PAY whenever minimum wages are raised, on top of the normal raises?
Sure, it gets expensive, not saying these are feasible, only what's equitable based on good faith investment on employees' part in their employers i.e. "loyalty".
P.S. I'm sure new people are immediately as efficient and effective as employees who've worked there 5+ years, don't need additional training and mentoring, don't need resources to get them up to speed or acclimated... wait they do? Then pay those experienced employees EXTRA for having to train the new employees since this is part of the discrepancy of why more experienced workers are not worth the same as someone who just got hired.
Exactly... what message is this sending across to "loyal" workers?
"Well, times have changed. Your loyalty is great, thanks, but counts for naught."
Again, having a minimum wage ceiling is important because it allows people to earn a "living wage", but this is then assuming that somehow all these workers who've been there for years haven't struggled to make ends meet or made sacrifices in other ways to stay in these jobs. Sure we can say "then go find another job" but it's not always a simple matter.
Why not give some of the senior workers who have performed above their levels (per evaluations) equitable BACK-PAY whenever minimum wages are raised, on top of the normal raises?
Sure, it gets expensive, not saying these are feasible, only what's equitable based on good faith investment on employees' part in their employers i.e. "loyalty".
P.S. I'm sure new people are immediately as efficient and effective as employees who've worked there 5+ years, don't need additional training and mentoring, don't need resources to get them up to speed or acclimated... wait they do? Then pay those experienced employees EXTRA for having to train the new employees since this is part of the discrepancy of why more experienced workers are not worth the same as someone who just got hired.
Im going to nit pick here but minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage.
my ex-boss did not became multi-millionair by doing charity though. He hired his share of graduates, but more employees = more expenses. While provided free lunches he got more worked hours for free in return.
Im going to nit pick here but minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage.
You're right, of course, but this is how politicians justify raising minimum wage: "We have to pay our workers a living wage, this is why we need to raise minimum wage."
You're right, of course, but this is how politicians justify raising minimum wage: "We have to pay our workers a living wage, this is why we need to raise minimum wage."
What else are they going to do ? They passed laws that made it more profitable to ship the work overseas. The more they get themselves involved in "business" the worse our country becomes.
Quitting because someone else gets paid more seems a lot like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
This happens all the time in Silicon Valley. Once a company reaches a certain size you have to pay entry level employees a lot more than you used to, otherwise it's impossible to hire them. However there's a lot of churn in these companies.
Particularly since one of the women who was upset and quit, was in favor of the idea initially and changed her mind three days into the change.
1. His brother is suing the company, which I’m guessing is related to this PR stunt.
2. He lost two employees, who were pissed that people with less talent were making the same amount of money.
How is this socialist? The people who were making over $70k never got much of a bump vs. the entry level employees.
It may have been his call, but anyone with half a brain should have known this would never work.
I hope he appears on Shark Tank
This is the case already in most places. In the casinos, you got a small percentage raise each year, but the starting wage went up faster...if you were there 18 years in the same position, new people starting made close to what you got (this doesn't apply to the workers who were union, but non-union, yes). The casinos are about as capitalist as you can get.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
