• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Seattle CEO who set his company's minimum wage at $70K/year falls on hard times.

He "fell on hard times" because a couple of his employees were a bunch of vindictive, jealous assholes. Some customers whined despite no increase in fees. Another business whined that the competition was too stiff.

Oh, and he got "dozens" of new clients out of the deal that cost him "a few" customers.

Did you even read the article?
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
He "fell on hard times" because a couple of his employees were a bunch of vindictive, jealous assholes. Some customers whined despite no increase in fees. Another business whined that the competition was too stiff.

Oh, and he got "dozens" of new clients out of the deal that cost him "a few" customers.

Did you even read the article?
Click to expand...

Sure I read the article. Did you?
 
not surprising that fox is pissed about a guy deciding to pay his workers a generous salary. if he goes out of business, i'm sure that they'll highlight that story, too.
 
The Man said:
Sure I read the article. Did you?
Click to expand...

Yes. These "hard times" are:

Losing "a couple" good people. Who quit because they were given a raise, but other people got a bigger raise and that's just not fair. What a bunch of whiners.
Losing "a few" customers.

And he gained "dozens" of customers.

Hard times, eh?
 
Deuce said:
Yes. These "hard times" are:

Losing "a couple" good people. Who quit because they were given a raise, but other people got a bigger raise and that's just not fair. What a bunch of whiners.
Losing "a few" customers.

And he gained "dozens" of customers.

Hard times, eh?
Click to expand...

So you didn't read the entire article.
 
Deuce said:
He "fell on hard times" because a couple of his employees were a bunch of vindictive, jealous assholes. Some customers whined despite no increase in fees. Another business whined that the competition was too stiff.

Oh, and he got "dozens" of new clients out of the deal that cost him "a few" customers.

Did you even read the article?
Click to expand...
:lamo

Geeezus you are dedicated to your schtick, arent you?

Grant Moran, 29, also quit, saying the new pay-scale was disconcerting

“Now the people who were just clocking in and out were making the same as me,” he told the paper. “It shackles high performers to less motivated team members.”

Price said McMaster and Moran, or even critic Rush Limbaugh, the talk show host, were not wrong.
 
VanceMack said:
:lamo

Geeezus you are dedicated to your schtick, arent you?

Grant Moran, 29, also quit, saying the new pay-scale was disconcerting

“Now the people who were just clocking in and out were making the same as me,” he told the paper. “It shackles high performers to less motivated team members.”

Price said McMaster and Moran, or even critic Rush Limbaugh, the talk show host, were not wrong.
Click to expand...

That's a solvable issue. Fire the less-motivated ones. That salary will attract plenty of candidates.
 
Deuce said:
That's a solvable issue. Fire the less-motivated ones. That salary will attract plenty of candidates.
Click to expand...

Brilliant. So, for a number of months these new hires will be just as worthless as the fired ones, and money will be burned through as they learn if these new hires are worth keeping or not.

Great solution. :roll:
 
Deuce said:
That's a solvable issue. Fire the less-motivated ones. That salary will attract plenty of candidates.
Click to expand...

Didn't work out so hot...did it? What it boils down to is those already making more were rewarded less and that caused problems. Shocking...I know.
 
ocean515 said:
Brilliant. So, for a number of months these new hires will be just as worthless as the fired ones, and money will be burned through as they learn if these new hires are worth keeping or not.

Great solution. :roll:
Click to expand...

Firing bad employees is a bad idea: a conservative, 2015.
 
The Man said:
Well who didn't see this one coming?
Seattle CEO who set firm's minimum wage to $70G says he has hit hard times | Fox News
Click to expand...

The only story here is whether he violated his obligation to his brother, and or any other owners. If he hasn't, then maybe his concept will work or maybe it won't. As a small employer, I can't imagine he can keep everybody happy if they're all making the same, or that a competitor doesn't undercut his prices. But if he manages to pull it off, no reason everybody shouldn't admire him.
 
VanceMack said:
Didn't work out so hot...did it? What it boils down to is those already making more were rewarded less and that caused problems. Shocking...I know.
Click to expand...

Dozens of new customers. :shrug:
 
Deuce said:
Dozens of new customers. :shrug:
Click to expand...
The article is not an accounting of a man who made 70k the baseline wage for all his employees and thrived. It's about that man and his current dire straights...that man that previously was very successful and current is struggling and has lost his most valued assets.
 
Deuce said:
Firing bad employees is a bad idea: a conservative, 2015.
Click to expand...

Gee, is that what you got from my post?

Fire employees who aren't worth their pay so you can hire more employee who will need months to learn their jobs, and may prove equally worthless. Recommendation of ProgLib, 2015

Better Plan - Fire employees who weren't worth the windfall, and hire new employees at a lower rate and then provide pay raises to those who prove their worth. Saves money, and rewards effort. Business Owner Solution, 2015
 
Lol well Another nail in the coffin for Socialism :p it's sad
 
ocean515 said:
Gee, is that what you got from my post?

Fire employees who aren't worth their pay so you can hire more employee who will need months to learn their jobs, and may prove equally worthless. Recommendation of ProgLib, 2015

Better Plan - Fire employees who weren't worth the windfall, and hire new employees at a lower rate and then provide pay raises to those who prove their worth. Saves money, and rewards effort. Business Owner Solution, 2015
Click to expand...

Even better solution- Don't artificially inflate wages on jobs that aren't worth 70k a year. Run the business like a business and not a social experiment.
 
Read the NYT linked article in the article posted and, well this thread shows what political side people are on. It sounds like the reason they are "struggling," is unexpected legal fees from the lawsuit and the delay in revenues from the new accounts. Again from how it was talked about/explained in the article, it sounds like once the revenues roll in from the new clients in a year or so, they'll be fine (even better if the lawsuit gets dealt with or tossed).
 
Deuce said:
Yes. These "hard times" are:

Losing "a couple" good people. Who quit because they were given a raise, but other people got a bigger raise and that's just not fair. What a bunch of whiners.
Losing "a few" customers.

And he gained "dozens" of customers.

Hard times, eh?
Click to expand...
Two of the best performers, according to the article. If you get paid the same as a jobber, why bother? Or if you get a 3% bump while they're getting 20%+, time to start looking. It was obvious that mediocrity was being rewarded more than its due, hence time to bail. Profitable customers could see the writing on the wall, and bailed as well. They picked up new customers, but ones that won't be profitable for a year according to the CEO.

I mean, sure, you have to give the guy credit for putting his money where his mouth is, but it's ultimately wrong-headed and rewards mediocrity.
 
VanceMack said:
Even better solution- Don't artificially inflate wages on jobs that aren't worth 70k a year. Run the business like a business and not a social experiment.
Click to expand...

Agreed. There is a reason businesses through the ages have set pay scales they way they have.
 
ocean515 said:
Agreed. There is a reason businesses through the ages have set pay scales they way they have.
Click to expand...
Why would you pay more than the job is worth? Conversely, why would you accept less than the job is worth? We see the fallout of that here: the CEO made the political decision to personally do something about income inequality. Ok, fine, his company, he can do whatever he likes, though apparently the other stakeholders aren't happy about how he's running things. However, the upshot is that his best talent is leaving and profitable customers are leaving. I mean, sure, the "good" publicity may eventually pay off, but they're going to find it difficult to find good talent, and those against his politics (workers & customers) have a reason to stay away. So, he'll attract more jobbers as employees, and customers who put such silly notions as more important than good bysiness practices.
 
ocean515 said:
Gee, is that what you got from my post?

Fire employees who aren't worth their pay so you can hire more employee who will need months to learn their jobs, and may prove equally worthless. Recommendation of ProgLib, 2015

Better Plan - Fire employees who weren't worth the windfall, and hire new employees at a lower rate and then provide pay raises to those who prove their worth. Saves money, and rewards effort. Business Owner Solution, 2015
Click to expand...

New employees might be useless? Welcome to every hiring decision ever. Business owner. Right.
 
Citizen.Seven said:
Why would you pay more than the job is worth? Conversely, why would you accept less than the job is worth? We see the fallout of that here: the CEO made the political decision to personally do something about income inequality. Ok, fine, his company, he can do whatever he likes, though apparently the other stakeholders aren't happy about how he's running things. However, the upshot is that his best talent is leaving and profitable customers are leaving. I mean, sure, the "good" publicity may eventually pay off, but they're going to find it difficult to find good talent, and those against his politics (workers & customers) have a reason to stay away. So, he'll attract more jobbers as employees, and customers who put such silly notions as more important than good bysiness practices.
Click to expand...

I don't know enough about the business to know whether it requires employees who can command more than 70k in the marketplace. If he only needs a few, he might be able to a few who share his vision and are willing to work for less than they could make elsewhere, without giving them an ownership interest. Otherwise, if he's paying significantly more than market rates for most of his employees, he could insist on high performance levels, and a low level of disruptive personal behavior if they wanted to hold onto their jobs. If he does succeed it would be interesting to see whether he was able to pull it off without having to replace many of his current employees making more than market rate for their services.
 
Citizen.Seven said:
Why would you pay more than the job is worth? Conversely, why would you accept less than the job is worth? We see the fallout of that here: the CEO made the political decision to personally do something about income inequality. Ok, fine, his company, he can do whatever he likes, though apparently the other stakeholders aren't happy about how he's running things. However, the upshot is that his best talent is leaving and profitable customers are leaving. I mean, sure, the "good" publicity may eventually pay off, but they're going to find it difficult to find good talent, and those against his politics (workers & customers) have a reason to stay away. So, he'll attract more jobbers as employees, and customers who put such silly notions as more important than good bysiness practices.
Click to expand...

I certainly wouldn't pay more to someone than the job they are doing is worth. I agree that it's the CEO's company so if he wants to make poor decisions that could put everybody out of a job, that is his decision.

The most telling result of this story is the jubilation that ran through the MSM as it sought to promote what is likely a very poor decision, and which I'm sure they will not follow up on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom