-73

Is it good employer strategy to pay my employees just enough so that they can't save money, so that they can never walk away from the job?

Like, there is a threshold where if they are able to save X per month, they will eventually use that against you and quit at an inopportune time?

And if that threshold falls below state mandated minimum wage, what steps can be taken to mitigate this?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Fuckfuckmyfuckingass@lemmy.world 65 points 1 month ago

Yo it's no stupid questions, not no evil questions.

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 41 points 1 month ago

It is a terrible employer strategy that all but guarantees you will have a high turnover rate as people use their off hours to find better paying work.

It also ensures any public you have to face will consistently be interacting with a work force that could not give any less of a fuck, because you are literally not paying them enough to.

The only conceivable way this is a good business strategy is if you are either a short term seeking nepo baby, get all your business advice from one, or are yourself a complete and utter drooling moron who has never once taken even a beginner's course in proper employee retention.

Do. Not. Do. This.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Doing this is the kind of advice Boston Consulting Group would give shortly before Citadel cellar boxes your company.

It's a seriously bad idea. pay shit, get shit employees. It will see OP's company providing shit service, cost more in both turnover and having to fix the shit that their shit employees shat all over, as well as driving customers away.

It's also immoral.

[-] andrewta@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

And yet it seems to work for Walmart. Or am I missing something?

[-] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Is Walmart typically known for having highly skilled, dedicated workers?

Or desperate folks that would leave for another opportunity without a second thought?

I guess, "it works" but I wouldn't say it's REALLY working.

[-] superkret@feddit.org 33 points 1 month ago

Your best employees will be snatched away by other companies, offering them an onboarding package that takes care of the cost of moving. Your worst employees will be forced to stay with you.

[-] sun_is_ra@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

Thank you. This is the right answer.

Every emplooyer's dream is to provide less pay. Not because of some evil thinking but every penny they dont spend on an empoyee is a profit.

During covid I was desperate for a job and when asked how much salary I expect I gave low figure and was hired. One year later another company offered me 3x my salary. When I told my company am quitting they nade counter offer of 4xc I still said no and left.

[-] PorradaVFR@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago

You’re paying for labor. If you’re the cheapest option retention will be poor, knowledge and experience will leave and your business will (and should) suffer.

Penny wise, pound foolish.

[-] Olap@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago

Pay peanuts get monkeys

[-] greedytacothief@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago

There is the old saying that "People don't quit jobs, they quit bosses." My advice is to go to therapy first, I think the question will sort itself out after that.

[-] waz@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

It sounds like you're looking for slaves. There's a reason slavery is illegal.

If this isn't deliberately rage bait, there is something very wrong with you.

[-] TootSweet@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

This isn't actually a serious question, right?

[-] treadful@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 month ago

Gotta be flamebait.

[-] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

I think it's frustrated role playing.

Look at me! I'm a fancy businessman! Hur dur dur! Pay cuts for half of you and pink slips for the rest!

[-] Noodle07@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

It's insane to think it's genuine

[-] bear@lemmynsfw.com 14 points 1 month ago

No. The best strat is to pay as much as you can and treat them as well as you can so that your best workers stay happy and stay longer. Don't let your most cavebrained competitors beat you on talent and leave you with the underperformers nobody else wants. If you can't afford to invest in quality then you're already losing.

[-] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 3 points 1 month ago

Honestly the top 75% as an average is a good target. You want some all stars and you want some regular players. What’s really important is to have respect from top to bottom that everyone is important. An all-star is never a prima dona… the opposite in fact, because they’re paid more to lead and to improve and guide others.

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 month ago

No, their anxiety will be through the roof and they'll do a shitty job - all the actually good people will jump ship anyways.

The best strategy is to pay above market rate to attract talent and offer options to reinforce everyone's investment in seeing the company succeed.

[-] Olap@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

No, maslows hierarchy of needs mandates a lack of savings equating with a lack of stability at lower tiers and hence your employees will fail to function at higher levels. So you need to pay more than minimum rates in every role, everywhere, if you want to actually have people and not worried as fuck drones.

Now, how much more depends on local factors - but here's a quick rule: if they add value to your business pass on about 25% of that profit from that individual. Finding a profit for a person can be challening, this is why you get a HR person and accountants.

[-] derekabutton@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Wait so are employees lucky if they get 25% of the money they earn their employer beyond their cost to the employer?

That is, if I cost 100k including benefits and support staff costs and my work directly generates 200k profit over all costs, does that mean that the business should pass 50k to me and take the remaining 150k in order to follow the quick rule?

[-] Olap@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Yup, welcome to capitalism!

[-] trxxruraxvr@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The money they earn is income, not pure profit. The business usually has other expenses that have to be covered. In that case 25% is usually not a bad deal.

[-] derekabutton@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I attempted to clarify that I understood that the income of the employee is not part of the profit

25% is a terrible deal and that was my point

[-] lemming741@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago
[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

There’s an alternative strategy of making it a place they’re happy to work at. It’s more expensive, sure, but it gets you better workers instead of only the desperate.

[-] CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Happy workers stay longer and don't leave rotting fish in the vents right before quitting out of frustration.

[-] Nibodhika@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

Nope, it's a terrible one. Everyone will be constantly looking for new jobs. And would do the bate minimum to not get fired, that's the contract you're signing, bare minimum pay for bare minimum work.

Regardless of what you do, it's likely that you'll need multiple times the amount of employees to get shit done, because one dedicated employee is worth several doing bare minimum, depending on the job some works simply won't happen because no one gets paid enough to do them.

Besides that you'll suffer brain drain, i.e. anyone good enough will leave you, and they won't accept a raise to stay because if someone offered them double their salary and you tried to match it they would immediately see the bullshit you'd put them through and know that the only way to get a better pay again would be to get a new offer from someplace else.

Anyone bad enough that other companies don't want would be stuck with you, but there's a reason other companies don't want them.

You wouldn't be able to pull any new talent, you'd get stuck just getting people no one else wants because they're the only ones willing to work for that low.

[-] andrewta@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Seems to work for Walmart though

[-] okwhateverdude@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Only because they massively displaced a shitload of local business. Same with Amazon. If you have very little skills, where else are you going to work?

[-] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 8 points 1 month ago

If your strategy as an employer is how to keep your people in indentured servitude, that makes you a cunt. Be a good boss - help your employees achieve their goals and get to the next step in their career. That will help you attract newer talent when you need it.

[-] Ziggurat@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago

This is why, minimal wage should be high enough that people can live. It's not normal, that in many western nation, a minimum wage worker cannot afford rent in non social housing and it still poor enough to be eligible to welfare program as soon as they have kids

[-] kikutwo@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Rule 1: No stupid questions.

[-] andrewta@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Every question in the group is a stupid question. That's the point of the group.

We just aren't allowed to belittle people for it. We can't treat them as if it's a dumb question. We have to answer their question if responding.

[-] y0kai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 month ago

No one wants to work for you because it sounds like working for you sucks. Nothing to do with money, you're literally just asking how can you be the shittiest employer possible.

Maybe change your attitude toward employment and treat people like they have value and they might stick around.

[-] adespoton@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago

To me it sounds more like they have a dying business and want to hide this fact from the employees for as long as possible.

I worked for one of these once. And one of my skills is in retaining co-workers. Eventually we ended up with a bad credit rating, nobody would invest in the company, and the company couldn’t afford to keep the lights on AND pay its debts. It made/sold a great product that the market wanted, but some bad years racked up bad debt that the owners couldn’t get out from under.

So, eventually those of us who were left just wrote our own pink slips, got the owner to sign them, and nobody went back to work the next day. Owner sold off everything of value to cover as much debt as possible and declared bankruptcy.

Then they partnered with someone else and started a new debt-free company and hired back a lot of the same employees (it WAS a fun place to work when we weren’t having to worry about if we were going to be paid that month).

I went somewhere else instead, where my starting wage was 3x what I’d been getting at the other place, with options for bonuses and raises.

[-] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Is it good employer strategy to pay my employees just enough so that they can't save money, so that they can never walk away from the job?

Yes! That's how an average slave labour company works, you hire someone, you make them work long hours so they couldn't have 2nd job or hobby, you pay them at the minimum wage, you lower their self worth and self esteem, and you put up all the barrier of quitting that's actually illegal but they don't dare to even test it. It's the best strategy to keep yourself afloat and them underwater.

Like, there is a threshold where if they are able to save X per month, they will eventually use that against you and quit at an inopportune time?

Yep, there's two way of employee retention, one is pay them good and treat them good they can't even go through the bothersome process of searching job, another one is pay them just barely enough and trap them physically and mentally, drilling the learned helplessness into their mind so it's impossible for them to even take the first step. Of course you'll want to take the latter option because it's the best slave labour strategy and maximise your own return!

And if that threshold falls below state mandated minimum wage, what steps can be taken to mitigate this?

You move to another state with lax law and force your employees to move, of course! And if that's not an option, there's always gonna be a pizza party on friday night.

Remember, the less money you pay for your employees, the more money you pocket yourself. Get yourself a Titanic tour ticket, you earn it!

[-] andrewta@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

Let's look at Walmart and see if this strategy works. Yup seems to work.

[-] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 3 points 1 month ago

I read it from the masterpiece book, How To Be A Slave Owner by Jeff Bezos

[-] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 5 points 1 month ago

There really is a risk, as an employer, that your employee makes so much money they want to work less. Which I solve by complimenting their work/life balance and this gets me hard workers that don’t burn out.

Sorry, I meant to say “no one wants yo work any more.” Apologies.

[-] Myro@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago

Good strategy is to pay me just enough so that I get too lazy to look for another job. If I can't save, I'm out ASAP.

[-] DrownedRats@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Focus less on trying to stop them leaving and more on giving them good reasons to stay.

this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2024
-73 points (13.1% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35681 readers
940 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS