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

IKEA's retailer's solved global 'unhappy worker' crisis by raising salaries

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 226 posts

Re: IKEA's retailer's solved global 'unhappy worker' crisis by raising salaries

#131

Post by matsemann »

CalRobert wrote: post #112
jp57 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subsidizing childcare is also "more money", but only for some workers. If the others don't notice or don't care that they're getting paid less for the same work that's great for the company. I am in favor of flexible work arrangements, and I have no idea if those have costs to the company, or how much more you'd need to pay the workers to accept the less flexible arrangements.

It's weird, in some ways, that we offer benefits. Give people the money and let them use it how they like. When I lived in California I LOVED the parking cash-out law, it meant a few thousand more a year because I rode a bike to work and didn't need a parking spot. Although, one challenge with things like childcare is that if you applied this on a society-wide level you wind up with childless people having more money…

Yup, I don't have kids myself, but like that my company offers benefits to parents. It keeps the company more diverse and more enjoyable for me as well in a sense.

> It's weird, in some ways, that we offer benefits.

In some cases it also makes economical sense. It can cost a company $1000 to give you a benefit, but to buy it yourself would cost $2000 (and the difference is even greater if the benefit isn't taxed at the same rate as cash would be).

Or the $200 the company spends on beers for me each year, many would perhaps say that they'd rather have the $200 to spend as they please. But in a sense, I get more value than $200 by getting to know my co-workers better and having a better time every day at work.

Re: IKEA's retailer's solved global 'unhappy worker' crisis by raising salaries

#132

Post by switch007 »

Iulioh wrote: post #125
switch007 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Person I quoted said good high end. I think you've interpreted good as just "looks good", based on that first minute of the video, which only talks about style. ÄPPLARYD is a cheaply made sofa that looks nice, with very poor quality fabric just like all IKEA sofas these days I'm fine with people saying it looks nice but it's tiring when people say it's "high end" and "high quality" and well made

Go on ikea and filter whatever product form higher cost to lowest

Ah ok, no specific examples then.

That's a poor heuristic that's repeated ad nauseum. The trouble is even expensive IKEA lines are mostly poor quality but they have such good marketing and styling that people refuse to believe it

But if you're happy with the most expensive IKEA products, good for you!

Re: IKEA's retailer's solved global 'unhappy worker' crisis by raising salaries

#133

Post by akira2501 »

ornornor wrote: post #81
Simulacra wrote: post #54

The world's largest nonprofit! https://www.economist.com/business/2006/05/11/flat-pack-acco...

The fact that this kind of scheme is still possible in our society gives me very little hope we’ll be able to solve any of our major, species threatening problems. But at least some of us will be filthy rich when the party stops.

> this kind of scheme is still possible

They used to be in Switzerland for the tax structure anyways. The move back to Sweden and the lax regulation was designed to repatriate the business.

> species threatening problems

The human species is facing a threatening problem? I think I know the problems you're talking about, but it seems to me, they're mostly threatening to the current social and economic order, and not to the actual species.

It's marketed as the latter by the former. It's a clever strategy. It has reformed the conversation in the light most favorable to their interests and not yours.

> some of us will be filthy rich when the party stops.

It could be worse. It could be private equity. This company at least produces _something_, and to the extent there are species threatening problems, they are spending a fair portion of their money there.

Re: IKEA's retailer's solved global 'unhappy worker' crisis by raising salaries

#134

Post by [deleted] »

idiliv wrote: post #128
akira2501 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when in reality it is more nuanced than that. More money = happy workers, unless of course, you don't give them money, but also other economic benefits that are equivalent to money. I'm not seeing the nuance.

How are flexible working hours equivalent to more money?

[deleted]

Re: IKEA's retailer's solved global 'unhappy worker' crisis by raising salaries

#135

Post by akira2501 »

idiliv wrote: post #128
akira2501 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when in reality it is more nuanced than that. More money = happy workers, unless of course, you don't give them money, but also other economic benefits that are equivalent to money. I'm not seeing the nuance.

How are flexible working hours equivalent to more money?

You can manage things in your life when they occur instead of spending money to displace them or risk losing your job because of them.

In another way, if you present a worker with the option between two jobs with the same hourly rate, one having flexible working hours and the other not, which would expect to be more likely choice? You can then measure the value of this choice by changing the hourly rates between the two until you see changes in outcome and you would be able to estimate exactly how much "more money" it appears to be "worth."

Re: IKEA's retailer's solved global 'unhappy worker' crisis by raising salaries

#136

Post by dkdbejwi383 »

idiliv wrote: post #128
akira2501 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when in reality it is more nuanced than that. More money = happy workers, unless of course, you don't give them money, but also other economic benefits that are equivalent to money. I'm not seeing the nuance.

How are flexible working hours equivalent to more money?

If you don't have to pay for child care because you can just take off the time to pick up your kids from school, you are saving money your job otherwise forced you to spend.

Being forced to commute at peak time costs more - on a retail salary the difference between a peak and off-peak ticket can mean that the first hour or two of working is essentially pointless, as you're just paying back the cost of getting there in the first place.

Having to pay an extra surcharge to visit the dentist, because you can only go on a Saturday because you need to be at work other days. Flexible working would allow you to just take the Tuesday off no problem and go when it's cheaper.

I'm sure there are lots of other examples that apply to different lifestyles.

Re: IKEA's retailer's solved global 'unhappy worker' crisis by raising salaries

#137

Post by Angostura »

notpushkin wrote: post #73
dredmorbius wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN has an 80 character title max length. The full original title is 157 characters, nearly double that. The alternatives generally suggested are to shorten the original title, omitting needless descriptives or words (e.g., counts, emotives, etc.) if possible, or barring that, to substitute alternative text, preferably from a subtitle or passage from the article (both to avoid editorialising): dang comment: https://ne…

This one is 75 characters: > IKEA solved ‘unhappy worker’ crisis by raising salaries, flexible schedules It's not really grammatically correct I think, but otherwise seems like a good compromise: we only leave out childcare subsidies, which is another monetary compensation, and do mention flexible work schedules which is a non-monetary benefit and might be crucial to IKEA's strategy.

74 characters:

Ikea improves salaries, flexible working, childcare to solve ‘unhappy worker’ crisis.

Re: IKEA's retailer's solved global 'unhappy worker' crisis by raising salaries

#138

Post by Mordisquitos »

jamesrom wrote: post #35

Doing stuff that makes people happy makes people happy. In other news, water found to be wet.

> In other news, water found to be wet.

That would indeed be newsworthy if countless businesses were to be insisting that they are trying to make their employees wet by pouring sand on them, providing them with T-shirts with the word "WET" printed on it, asking them to wish their dryness away, or (the most enlightened ones) telling their employees to go outside on cloudy days — anything except, you know, simply pouring water on them.

Re: IKEA's retailer's solved global 'unhappy worker' crisis by raising salaries

#139

Post by Iulioh »

switch007 wrote: post #132
Iulioh wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go on ikea and filter whatever product form higher cost to lowest

Ah ok, no specific examples then. That's a poor heuristic that's repeated ad nauseum. The trouble is even expensive IKEA lines are mostly poor quality but they have such good marketing and styling that people refuse to believe it But if you're happy with the most expensive IKEA products, good for you!

What answer would have satisfied you?

A breakdown of every ikea item and every specific detail for it?

Yes, i'm talking for experience and i don't really have any data to back this up, i just have a lot of bad experience with any other furniture builder and not a lot of problems with ikea

Re: IKEA's retailer's solved global 'unhappy worker' crisis by raising salaries

#140

Post by bcrosby95 »

jp57 wrote: post #7
misterbwong wrote: post #6

OP's link should really include the full title: Ikea’s boss solved the Swedish retailer’s global ‘unhappy worker’ crisis by raising salaries, introducing flexible working and subsidizing childcare Cutting it off there just makes it seem like ikea thinks "more money = happy workers" when in reality it is more nuanced than that.

Subsidizing childcare is also "more money", but only for some workers. If the others don't notice or don't care that they're getting paid less for the same work that's great for the company. I am in favor of flexible work arrangements, and I have no idea if those have costs to the company, or how much more you'd need to pay the workers to accept the less flexible arrangements.

If the childcare is on site, then it's not just money, but also time. When a place I worked at had on site child care it saved me 30 minutes per day.
Post reply on HN