The monetary difference between equal and fair. Which do you prefer?

[Bamabuzzard]

Raises should be given in proportion to the employee's contribution to the company's overall success. Most often, that's in profit. For public companies, it's stock price, especially if measured over time.

No, it's not equal. And it's specifically designed not to be.

Want to talk about "not fair"? How do you think the top performer who busts all measures would feel about getting the same comp and raises as the clock-watcher who never leads anything, contributes new ideas, streamlines processes, etc., etc.

Pretty soon, that top performer is going to get picked off and appropriately compensated by a competitor who recognizes the value. Now how fair is that to the owners of the company he or she is leaving, regardless of whether those owners are a family or several million shareholders?

YEP! This was my department's exact words (via emails sent to the board). It makes us feel stupid for giving us the same amount of a raise as employees who literally have a fraction of the responsbility and stress our department does. We ensure payroll is right, accounts payable checks are sent out, the books are closed and reconciled each year, we prepare for and go through an external legislative audit that is publicly posted every year. That's A LOT of stress. Why should employees who don't have anywhere near that level of responsibility get the same amount of raise as my department? It's insulting.

 

[Padreruf]

Lots of good sense in these posts. As a highly educated (phd) and hard working minister I ran into "the preacher should not make more that me..." syndrome. To get a raise you had to move to another church...usually in another town and that involved relocating your family. (Obviously.)

Fortunately in my last 2 churches I had leadership that saw to the needs of the staff fairly well...since we were growing and income was growing as well this was nice.