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

[Bamabuzzard]

For employees at my job to get raises and bonuses, a board has to approve it. The head guy over our district proposed a 6% raise across the board for all employees, regardless of classification. For those non fanancial folks, that means an employee would multiply their current yearly pay by 6% and that amount is added to their currently salary, to become their yearly salary moving forward. So a janitor, who makes $25,000/year, would receive a $1,500 raise in pay. Where as, a director, who is over a department of 30 people and makes $100,000/year, would get a $6,000 raise.

We've got several board members who are balking at the 6% across the board raise because they say it isn't "fair" that some employees would get a $1,500 raise while others got $6,000. Their solution is to just give everyone a $3,000 raise across the board, regardless of position classification. Depending on who you talk to, will depend on whether or not they think it is "fair" or not. Some board members have expressed that to be "fair" it needs to be "equal". Other board members say that if you do "equal" then you're being "unfair" to those with jobs that have a lot more stress and responsibility than other employees.

The can of worms is open, discuss...

 

[bamaga]

For employees at my job to get raises and bonuses, a board has to approve it. The head guy over our district proposed a 6% raise across the board for all employees, regardless of classification. For those non fanancial folks, that means an employee would multiply their current yearly pay by 6% and that amount is added to their currently salary, to become their yearly salary moving forward. So a janitor, who makes $25,000/year, would receive a $1,500 raise in pay. Where as, a director, who is over a department of 30 people and makes $100,000/year, would get a $6,000 raise.

We've got several board members who are balking at the 6% across the board raise because they say it isn't "fair" that some employees would get a $1,500 raise while others got $6,000. Their solution is to just give everyone a $3,000 raise across the board, regardless of position classification. Depending on who you talk to, will depend on whether or not they think it is "fair" or not. Some board members have expressed that to be "fair" it needs to be "equal". Other board members say that if you do "equal" then you're being "unfair" to those with jobs that have a lot more stress and responsibility than other employees.

The can of worms is open, discuss...

That was my approach to raising my kids. I never treated them the same , as they were different people, but always treated them fair. The same can be applied to workers, as they don’t do the same work. Don’t have the same headaches. 6% sounds fair. We did 5% last year and had the same complaints.
For what it’s worth, and I’m sure that was a hypothetical example, but, if you only pay the janitor $25k a year , you guys have deeper issues.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

For employees at my job to get raises and bonuses, a board has to approve it. The head guy over our district proposed a 6% raise across the board for all employees, regardless of classification. For those non fanancial folks, that means an employee would multiply their current yearly pay by 6% and that amount is added to their currently salary, to become their yearly salary moving forward. So a janitor, who makes $25,000/year, would receive a $1,500 raise in pay. Where as, a director, who is over a department of 30 people and makes $100,000/year, would get a $6,000 raise.

We've got several board members who are balking at the 6% across the board raise because they say it isn't "fair" that some employees would get a $1,500 raise while others got $6,000. Their solution is to just give everyone a $3,000 raise across the board, regardless of position classification. Depending on who you talk to, will depend on whether or not they think it is "fair" or not. Some board members have expressed that to be "fair" it needs to be "equal". Other board members say that if you do "equal" then you're being "unfair" to those with jobs that have a lot more stress and responsibility than other employees.

The can of worms is open, discuss...

What is this raises and bonuses you speak of? Sounds like crazy talk.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

That was my approach to raising my kids. I never treated them the same , as they were different people, but always treated them fair. The same can be applied to workers, as they don’t do the same work. Don’t have the same headaches. 6% sounds fair. We did 5% last year and had the same complaints.
For what it’s worth, and I’m sure that was a hypothetical example, but, if you only pay the janitor $25k a year , you guys have deeper issues.

Yes, it is a hypothetical, I have no idea what our janitors make.

 

[75thru79]

For employees at my job to get raises and bonuses, a board has to approve it. The head guy over our district proposed a 6% raise across the board for all employees, regardless of classification. For those non fanancial folks, that means an employee would multiply their current yearly pay by 6% and that amount is added to their currently salary, to become their yearly salary moving forward. So a janitor, who makes $25,000/year, would receive a $1,500 raise in pay. Where as, a director, who is over a department of 30 people and makes $100,000/year, would get a $6,000 raise.

We've got several board members who are balking at the 6% across the board raise because they say it isn't "fair" that some employees would get a $1,500 raise while others got $6,000. Their solution is to just give everyone a $3,000 raise across the board, regardless of position classification. Depending on who you talk to, will depend on whether or not they think it is "fair" or not. Some board members have expressed that to be "fair" it needs to be "equal". Other board members say that if you do "equal" then you're being "unfair" to those with jobs that have a lot more stress and responsibility than other employees.

The can of worms is open, discuss...

Why don't they just skip the whole part about raises not being fair and just decide to pay everyone in the company the exact same salary? They won't last a year after all the high performers exit the company. Ladies and Gentleman, this is exactly what the socialists being elected these days are "all in" on. If they could pass a law that said everyone should be paid the same they would.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

What is this raises and bonuses you speak of? Sounds like crazy talk.

Well, that's the point, we RARELY get raises and we also struggle finding good qualified employees when it comes to the professional level (accountants, auditors, risk managers, payroll managers, etc.). So if this is how we're giving raises when we do finally give one, then any new potential employee will go somewhere else. Because I can guarantee that our competitors aren't giving low ball raises to their professional staff.

 

[bamacpa]

Does your company do any market analysis? While my big bank employer sets an overall adjustment percentage, managers allocate their total pool based on performance and where the employee falls within the comparable salary range.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Does your company do any market analysis? While my big bank employer sets an overall adjustment percentage, managers allocate their total pool based on performance and where the employee falls within the comparable salary range.

They just started doing market analysis a couple of years ago to get back to competative with regard to professional salaries. We had fallen significantly behind in that area and it showed in the applicant pool anytime we were trying to hire a new employee. We weren't getting high quality applicants and we finally convinced several of the decision makers that it was because we had fallen way behind in compensation for those positions. And amazingly, when they adjusted the salaries for those positions, we started getting a lot better applicant pool. It's amazing how that works.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

Well, that's the point, we RARELY get raises and we also struggle finding good qualified employees when it comes to the professional level (accountants, auditors, risk managers, payroll managers, etc.). So if this is how we're giving raises when we do finally give one, then any new potential employee will go somewhere else. Because I can guarantee that our competitors aren't giving low ball raises to their professional staff.

I haven't gotten a raise since October 2022. Not even a cost of living raise and in case you haven't noticed the cost of living has gone up a lot since October 2022. My last bonus was $300 cash in December.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

I haven't gotten a raise since October 2022. Not even a cost of living raise and in case you haven't noticed the cost of living has gone up a lot since October 2022. My last bonus was $300 cash in December.

I understand, we haven't gotten a raise in ten years. They like to give out "one time" bonuses here and there to make it look like they're doing us a favor, but "one time" bonuses are just that, one time. This would be a real cost of living raise that we haven't had in ten years. So I dang sure don't want a "fixed amount" raise to take my raise from 6% to 3%. What it would also mean is employees with jobs with the most responsibility and stress would get 3% raises while employees with some of the least responsibility and stress would get 10-12% raises. What a great message to send your employees.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

I understand, we haven't gotten a raise in ten years. They like to give out "one time" bonuses here and there to make it look like they're doing us a favor, but "one time" bonuses are just that, one time. This would be a real cost of living raise that we haven't had in ten years. So I dang sure don't want a "fixed amount" raise to take my raise from 6% to 3%. What it would also mean is employees with jobs with the most responsibility and stress would get 3% raises while employees with some of the least responsibility and stress would get 10-12% raises. What a great message to send your employees.

The real great message to send is when your boss goes on great vacations, buys a new car, and makes an addition to his house, all while not giving raises. Now his house did burn down, but he added to the house when he rebuilt. One thing insurance will not pay for when disaster happens is additions. He paid for that.


I hate being close friends with the office business manager. She shares way too much with me. Things I just don't want to know.

 

[crimsonaudio]

I haven't gotten a raise since October 2022. Not even a cost of living raise and in case you haven't noticed the cost of living has gone up a lot since October 2022. My last bonus was $300 cash in December.

Try owning your own company...

 

[Its On A Slab]

It was always my experience in my 40+ years in I.T. that, the only way to increase your compensation dramatically was to turn in your notice and seek greener pastures.

The two jobs i had where I was responsible for payroll applications, I started looking to update my resume when I compared my salary with new-hires.

Why? Because, if I stayed at said employer, loyal thru the years, I would expect a 2-3% raise every year, while new-hires came in under the market average. Which always seemed to beat the Hell out of those paltry raises.

And the dirty little secret from management : They admonished anyone to share their salaries with each other.

Why? Because they didn't want you to know how much you were getting screwed by staying loyal, compliant at the same job for years.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

The real great message to send is when your boss goes on great vacations, buys a new car, and makes an addition to his house, all while not giving raises. Now his house did burn down, but he added to the house when he rebuilt. One thing insurance will not pay for when disaster happens is additions. He paid for that.


I hate being close friends with the office business manager. She shares way too much with me. Things I just don't want to know.

Yeah, when I worked for a small one owner company I ran into this a lot. The company literally made millions on top of millions per year, and the owner (which is his right) not only took a big salary from the company but took large quarterly "distributions" on top of his salary. He took A LOT of money out of the company which again, is his right. There would be a few years here and there he'd give a great Christmas bonuse, but for the most part, zero raises and Christmas bonuses that almost weren't worth giving. But it is also my right as an employee to seek better employment if I feel nothing about his behavior will ever change....so I did. LOL!

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Try owning your own company...

You haven't given yourself a raise? Man, the last performance review you gave yourself must have been lousy.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

Yeah, when I worked for a small one owner company I ran into this a lot. The company literally made millions on top of millions per year, and the owner (which is his right) not only took a big salary from the company but took large quarterly "distributions" on top of his salary. He took A LOT of money out of the company which again, is his right. There would be a few years here and there he'd give a great Christmas bonuse, but for the most part, zero raises and Christmas bonuses that almost weren't worth giving. But it is also my right as an employee to seek better employment if I feel nothing about his behavior will ever change....so I did. LOL!

I am looking currently. I might have to go do a type of work I don't enjoy. When I worked doing K-12 schools, the money was great. I got quarterly bonuses, pay raises, etc. I just hated the type of work and design. It was boring and monotonous, repetitive, and restrictive.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Try owning your own company...

Yep, it depends on which side of the equation one is on as to how they view the situation. If I'm a business owner, I'm looking at it as I have the most risk in the situation, I've invested more money, and sweat equity than anyone that I issue a paycheck to. So what I've decided to pay someone and how I've decided to handle raises and bonuses is based on what I think someone is worth to my company. What I pay myself isn't a "right or wrong" issue, but a "what I decide" issue and that's about where the discussion stops.

However, one sign to any business owner that he/she probably need to start self assessing, is when key roles in the company have high turnover and those people are easily able to go find jobs while the business owner is stuck again trying to hire the position.

I've got a friend who is as cheap as they come that owns a very successful commercial and residential contracting business. He CONSTANTLY has turnover on his project managers, which are very important people in that industry. The guy just doesn't compensate or reward well and everytime I turn around he's all bent out of shape about having to step in and "put his boots back on to fill in" while he searches for another project manager. I tell him he needs to pay those guys more and he just shakes his head and literally says "I'll let another company do that." LOL! LOL!

 

[dtgreg]

Yep, it depends on which side of the equation one is on as to how they view the situation. If I'm a business owner, I'm looking at it as I have the most risk in the situation, I've invested more money, and sweat equity than anyone that I issue a paycheck to. So what I've decided to pay someone and how I've decided to handle raises and bonuses is based on what I think someone is worth to my company. What I pay myself isn't a "right or wrong" issue, but a "what I decide" issue and that's about where the discussion stops.

However, one sign to any business owner that he/she probably need to start self assessing, is when key roles in the company have high turnover and those people are easily able to go find jobs while the business owner is stuck again trying to hire the position.

I've got a friend who is as cheap as they come that owns a very successful commercial and residential contracting business. He CONSTANTLY has turnover on his project managers, which are very important people in that industry. The guy just doesn't compensate or reward well and everytime I turn around he's all bent out of shape about having to step in and "put his boots back on to fill in" while he searches for another project manager. I tell him he needs to pay those guys more and he just shakes his head and literally says "I'll let another company do that." LOL! LOL!

Some people never get tired of being wrong.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

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.

If it were up to me, publicly-traded companies would compensate employees on the company's stock movement over a rolling three-year period versus peers in the same industry. Keeps managers of lagging companies from benefitting solely because they're in a surging industry.

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?

That's also why I'd compensate senior management of public companies mostly in stock, vesting on a rolling three-year schedule. Salaries would be good, but not great. The real chance for monetary benefit would be in the alignment of their comp to the long-term interests of the owners. To paraphrase a popular investment advisor, "Management does better when the shareholders do better."

 

[4Q Basket Case]

Yep, it depends on which side of the equation one is on as to how they view the situation. If I'm a business owner, I'm looking at it as I have the most risk in the situation, I've invested more money, and sweat equity than anyone that I issue a paycheck to. So what I've decided to pay someone and how I've decided to handle raises and bonuses is based on what I think someone is worth to my company. What I pay myself isn't a "right or wrong" issue, but a "what I decide" issue and that's about where the discussion stops.

However, one sign to any business owner that he/she probably need to start self assessing, is when key roles in the company have high turnover and those people are easily able to go find jobs while the business owner is stuck again trying to hire the position.

I've got a friend who is as cheap as they come that owns a very successful commercial and residential contracting business. He CONSTANTLY has turnover on his project managers, which are very important people in that industry. The guy just doesn't compensate or reward well and everytime I turn around he's all bent out of shape about having to step in and "put his boots back on to fill in" while he searches for another project manager. I tell him he needs to pay those guys more and he just shakes his head and literally says "I'll let another company do that." LOL! LOL!

I'd bet a bunch of money that his company would do a whole lot better if he forked out the money to have some continuity in the key positions. Once you get a reputation for always breaking in a new key customer contact, customers start to demand compensation for that in the form of lower prices.

As you have already pointed out, your friend is being penny wise and pound foolish. He also doesn't understand that, in refusing to pay market, he's made the decision that he'd rather put his boots back on than to make it so he doesn't have to.

A classic example of preferring to curse the darkness than light a candle.