Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 325 posts

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#81

Post by pcurve »

rjf72 wrote: post #19

I don't understand something from this article: "Our margins had declined and our revenue growth had stalled. ... I was becoming increasingly worried about our team and our turnover numbers. We are a people business and in some divisions we were losing 30 to 40% of our teammates within a year. My HR staff suggested that we re-think our recruiting and training – which made sense – but I thought that we could do more.…

I used to work for some of those guys (very indirectly) when they used to work at Medco as senior execs making millions. They are smart guys that don't need $$$ at this point. In their defense, operations/call center leaders are very metrics and cost-driven at most companies. 50% annual attrition rate is business as usual. Driving down call volume, average handle time, and increasing first-call-resolution are name of the games. Call centers are viewed only as cost center at most companies. This trend has been changing in the past few years, so I'm glad they are also in the right side of the fence.

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#82

Post by mercer »

Kalium wrote: post #74
locklock wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you're getting a $365k bonus you are likely already so rich that the money is only going for luxury things while for someone making $7.25 it's quite literally the difference between living in a car or not. I wonder if you could apply this to the rest of American society...

> I wonder if you could apply this to the rest of American society... At very large-scale companies, it doesn't always work as well as coud be hoped. A company ten times the size of this company may not have ten times as many extremely-highly-paid executives, but it probably has ten times as many people further down the pyramid. For example, the CEO of United Airlines is compensated $18 million-ish. There are 88,000…

What if you were to add up the income of not just the CEO, but all high level management or, say, those who make more than 500.000 a year? Honest question that I'm not sure how to answer myself, but I suspect the benefit to the lower ranks would be much more than the $200 a year.

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#83

Post by maxxxxx »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #73
maxxxxx wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“t makes no sense to me why the CEO and higher ups of the company I work at still work there. ” My theory is that they simply like their work and get satisfaction from it. They get paid a lot but they also work a lot and I can’t imagine anybody doing this to themselves if they didn’t genuinely like it.

There is a much higher rate of sociopathy among corporate executives [0]. It’s still a small rate probably, but it also likely means that some fraction of the people seeking these positions are doing so to derive sadistic pleasure from authority and power. Yes, they also want wealth, but they may persist even after money is no longer important because the position gives them power to soothe narcissistic & sociopathic…

I think doing something and then learning that you are good at it is pretty intoxicating in general. People who make it to the upper levels of a company are extremely good at playing the games you have to play and there is a lot of external validation in it too. I am just a little tech lead but I also get a kick out of my team of a few performing well. I can't even imagine how exhilarating it is to have an influence on hundreds or thousands of people and to play with millions and billions of dollars.

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#84

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

BioMeditate wrote: post #78
dhx wrote: post #67

> My HR staff suggested that we re-think our recruiting and training – which made sense – but I thought that we could do more. I thought we needed to reconsider how we supported and paid our team. Sounds like a situation right out of Yes, Minister. HR staff not being forthcoming with the obvious answer of increasing pay to lower attrition rates from 30-40% due to the attitude of the board/CEO and anticipation of thei…

I've always wondered if companies even need a HR? Especially when they are huge separate departments.

At some point every company needs someone to handle those duties. Payroll & benefits, recruiting, onboarding & offboarding, these sort of things don't just sort themselves out on the side and quickly become full time positions that require dedicated individuals.

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#85

Post by allworknoplay »

This is insane -- paying a $7.25/hr minimum wage to people you call "teammates" and expecting them to stick around is preposterous. In anything but a terrible economic downturn, minimum wage says to employees that you just want a body doing a job right at this moment, but aren't willing to invest any further in them.

Why would anyone stick around, or care to do more than the most basic job requirements? These jobs are totally disposable to employees, just as the employees are disposable to the company. If you don't want your employees to leave, don't treat them as disposable, and don't belittle them by pretending you're a team.

This guy thinks he stumbled on some grand new lesson, and it's hilariously terrible.

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#86

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

hedvig wrote: post #70
maxxxxx wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“t makes no sense to me why the CEO and higher ups of the company I work at still work there. ” My theory is that they simply like their work and get satisfaction from it. They get paid a lot but they also work a lot and I can’t imagine anybody doing this to themselves if they didn’t genuinely like it.

Because work is identity. At least in certain cultures, for better or worse.

My sibling and their significant other are those sorts of people - both made it very high up their respective professions by their early 30's, but when it's time for the Christmas get together, it's a pissing contest about "Oh, I'm only working 70 hour weeks, so I've had some relaxation the last little while." There's little identity outside of work, amassing the cash, then taking vacations with the money, and turning around and doing it all again.

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#87

Post by CalRobert »

systemtest wrote: post #60
bigred100 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah indeed. I wonder why more rich Americans don’t feel shame and embarrassment at such purchases.

Most Americans have smartphones worth about as much as a monthly salary in Europeans countries. Should people feel embarrassment about that?

I think most Americans have phones that are used, and not Apple, and not flagship. Europe is pretty divers so I don't know if you mean Greece ~€1000 or Norway ~€4000 but it still seems like a stretch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_...

When I lived in the US I thought more Europeans lived in gorgeous architecture and had excellent public transport. Living in Europe, I find a lot of people think Americans are wealthier than reality (though if they're thinking of tech salaries, they're probably right - that EU/US disparity is enormous).

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#88

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

allworknoplay wrote: post #85

This is insane -- paying a $7.25/hr minimum wage to people you call "teammates" and expecting them to stick around is preposterous. In anything but a terrible economic downturn, minimum wage says to employees that you just want a body doing a job right at this moment, but aren't willing to invest any further in them. Why would anyone stick around, or care to do more than the most basic job requirements? These jobs ar…

I was watching a sitcom called Superstore a little while ago, features the employees in a Wal-Mart like store, and the protagonist got a promotion to the head of the store. There was a whole plot line about how her wage was now in the 6 figures, and I was incredulous until I did a bit of research - Wal-Mart store managers can absolutely make that much money while their employees live in poverty.

How you could make that much and expect loyalty and sacrifice from your staff who make a fraction of that, I won't ever know.

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#89

Post by yboris »

vishnugupta wrote: post #44
locklock wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you're getting a $365k bonus you are likely already so rich that the money is only going for luxury things while for someone making $7.25 it's quite literally the difference between living in a car or not. I wonder if you could apply this to the rest of American society...

> you are likely already so rich that the money is only going for luxury things while for someone making $7.25 it's quite literally the difference between living in a car or not This is a great insight which unfortunately doesn't get much attention in the inequality debate. I'm now rich enough to be in the top 0.5% of the world. The marginal utility/value of money is so low for me that I've begun valuing my time and…

Have you heard of Giving What We Can - an international community of people who pledged to give at least 10% of their income to charities they think are most effective at helping others?

https://www.givingwhatwecan.org

I really recommend focusing on cost-effectiveness when you give, however much or however little you give. See GiveWell for amazing research!

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#90

Post by Konnstann »

EliRivers wrote: post #52
bigred100 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah indeed. I wonder why more rich Americans don’t feel shame and embarrassment at such purchases.

I understand that a popular philosophy is that they're rich because they deserve it; they're simply better people. There's no shame to be had; it's simply the natural order of things, it's morally right.

While I agree with the absurdity of rich people being "better" than the less wealthy, what makes someone "deserve" to be rich? I would argue that no one deserves to be poor, but whether or not it is morally correct to buy nice things doesn't sound to me like a debate worth having.

At what point does someone need to be ashamed of the money they make? Is anything over the $50k figure that is quoted as the maximum happiness per dollar figure considered shameful?

Post reply on HN