http://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...aying-off-for-that-seattle-company-2015-10-25
Turns out, really really well.
Turns out, really really well.
So how's that guy/company who set wages at 70K dong?
- Thread starter qazplm
- Start date
I read that. Also read these articles.
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/249313
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/b...klash-against-the-raise-that-roared.html?_r=0
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbu...um-salaries-isnt-enough-for-gravity-payments/
Guess time will tell. While some of that sounds good not sure I would call something really really well that ends up in courts and may end the company.
so let's look at your articles:
One talks about a lawsuit but that's raised by his older brother and is based on other, long-standing issues unrelated to the wage increase, and it includes this line: 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. So why did you say your last line? If you read the article you KNOW the wage increase has NOTHING to do with the lawsuit, yet you wrote it as if it did.
Were you knowingly lying or did you not bother to read the article you cited? Or mine for that matter which also mentioned the lawsuit...and also mentioned that it had nothing to do with the wage increase.
The entrepeneur article doesn't say anything other than we don't like this idea. What was the point of that one?
The forbes article talks about the "burden" of a flood of positive emails/calls. It talks about TWO employees who have left the company...of course your other linked articles show that MORE people have decided to sign on and join the company BECAUSE of the policy. A fact the forbes article conveniently leaves out.
So thank you for linking those articles since they do nothing but reinforce that the policy he put together isn't destroying his company, it's increasing his business, enticing new hires, and will eventually increase his profits (you know that tends to happen when you almost double the number of monthly clients you have).
One talks about a lawsuit but that's raised by his older brother and is based on other, long-standing issues unrelated to the wage increase, and it includes this line: 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. So why did you say your last line? If you read the article you KNOW the wage increase has NOTHING to do with the lawsuit, yet you wrote it as if it did.
Were you knowingly lying or did you not bother to read the article you cited? Or mine for that matter which also mentioned the lawsuit...and also mentioned that it had nothing to do with the wage increase.
The entrepeneur article doesn't say anything other than we don't like this idea. What was the point of that one?
The forbes article talks about the "burden" of a flood of positive emails/calls. It talks about TWO employees who have left the company...of course your other linked articles show that MORE people have decided to sign on and join the company BECAUSE of the policy. A fact the forbes article conveniently leaves out.
So thank you for linking those articles since they do nothing but reinforce that the policy he put together isn't destroying his company, it's increasing his business, enticing new hires, and will eventually increase his profits (you know that tends to happen when you almost double the number of monthly clients you have).
None of the above allegations about what I posted are true.. And no sure was not lying. Do not confuse me with Hillary. Again, stop your projection.
The lawsuit alleges he paid himself excessive amounts before he took the wage cut. If that is true, that is disingenuous on his part at best. Also, look at what you posted. You said it is doing really, really, well. Really? So a company may go under in a lawsuit and you say it is doing really really well. Uh, ok. The salary part is irrelevant. That company has issues. Anyone that has owned one or run one would agree.
One of the articles also mentioned that the company will have issues with $70,000 minimum salary as it is implemented because processing fees companies have razor thin margins.
My main point if you go back and read my post is"that time will tell." Also added in "some of that sounds good." Hardly negative. That said, far from doing "really really well though." As of now, some of those articles indicate and other outlets allege the new customers are needed just to cover the financials from the lawsuit and salary increase. Thanks for playing.
So, again:
1. the lawsuit has nothing to do with the actual wage increases. Zero. Nada. Zip.
2. there is no evidence "the company may go under." There's a lawsuit by a disgruntled partner. Has nothing to do with the viability of the wage increases which is the whole point here.
3. the company "will have issues." Right, not that they have them now, and they have doubled their client load, but anyday now they "will have issues."
Playing is all you are doing.
1. the lawsuit has nothing to do with the actual wage increases. Zero. Nada. Zip.
2. there is no evidence "the company may go under." There's a lawsuit by a disgruntled partner. Has nothing to do with the viability of the wage increases which is the whole point here.
3. the company "will have issues." Right, not that they have them now, and they have doubled their client load, but anyday now they "will have issues."
Playing is all you are doing.
I said the company has issues. The lawsuits, and the thin margins in their area that will have to support all new hires at $70,000.
Hey, nice start up, hope the guy makes it and does well, he can run his company as he wants,-just stating that the company is doing really, really, well is just not the case right now. Could be in the future.
And while the lawsuit might have nothing to do with wage increase, it is tied to 1) How company is doing 2) If it makes it 3) The leader paying himself excessively before he takes the pay cut at best is disingenuous
Hey, nice start up, hope the guy makes it and does well, he can run his company as he wants,-just stating that the company is doing really, really, well is just not the case right now. Could be in the future.
And while the lawsuit might have nothing to do with wage increase, it is tied to 1) How company is doing 2) If it makes it 3) The leader paying himself excessively before he takes the pay cut at best is disingenuous
Agree. To each his own, but it does seem like it could be an issue going forward. Short term gains are nice, but how will they scale? Growth in client base and revenue sounds great, but at what cost? They hired 10 more peeps @ ~70k per, but is that sustainable?
With that growth sooner than later they'll be looking at a buy-out with the CEO looking pretty. Jobs lost and/or consolidated. Some of those making 70k for remedial tasks will be looking at min-wage ... even 15/hr ... jobs if they can find 'em.
