Boss who put everyone on $70K a year

[denislawsbackheel]

Like who? It’s been the same in every big company I’ve worked for, I’m a beneficiary of it.

Which big companies can you name that have implemented anything around reducing the gap between their employees and senior management and then the leadership?

richersounds
Jonathan Richer has given the company to the employees.

 

[Blue Mist]

richersounds
Jonathan Richer has given the company to the employees.

FC Rags of Manchester, they have given football back to the people. They have kept the money for themselves though.

 

[meltonblue]

So, a couple of successful examples of when people have implemented something similar to the OP then? Good! Hopefully more will, like I said :)

 

[pirate]

If we take the data presented at face value this has clearly been a success by any measure. I can see as others have said reasons why this might not work in the longer term or for all companies. It does interest me though how personally hostile some people are to this - almost wishing it to fail in order to prop up their own cherished views. Sort of like remainers hoping brexit falls on its arse despite living in the country where it's happening.

i think you will find most remainers are hoping the country thrives, but are fearful that it will fall on its arse

 

[Wafty Cranker]

Why scan it, argue the point you're not versed in without context, to type up something that's not accurate?

IF you read it, you'll see the market share for the company has gone up!!

All companies can do it relative to what the profit margin is as companies need the workers to make their profit margin.

It's not a one man band, it's a company.

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but it didn't say the market share has gone up. The article didn't really manage to link the company growth to the change, it simply says 'He thinks it is why Gravity is making more money than ever.' Hardly compelling is it.

I'd argue the company has grown in orders processed/headcount despite of the changes, not because of them. I don't think you can look at this company in isolation. You'd need to look at the market it operates to see if that is growing and what similar companies have done performance wise in a similar time frame. My suspicion is that it was in a sector that was growing anyway, within a market where it doesn't have that much competition. It's clearly not operating on slim profit margins. In other industries there is no way you'd get it through.

 

[Blue Mist]

So, a couple of successful examples of when people have implemented something similar to the OP then? Good! Hopefully more will, like I said :)

That point is also made by the boss of the company. He said he believed others would follow suit but sadly they didn't. That is because they are capitalists, it is there company, they are the ones taking the risks and normally I would argue in their favour (within reason) this bloke worked out that he could be generous to his employees even though it meant him taking less. Sadly it hasn't taken off.

 

[Bigga]

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but it didn't say the market share has gone up. The article didn't really manage to link the company growth to the change, it simply says 'He thinks it is why Gravity is making more money than ever.' Hardly compelling is it.

I'd argue the company has grown in orders processed/headcount despite of the changes, not because of them. I don't think you can look at this company in isolation. You'd need to look at the market it operates to see if that is growing and what similar companies have done performance wise in a similar time frame. My suspicion is that it was in a sector that was growing anyway, within a market where it doesn't have that much competition. It's clearly not operating on slim profit margins. In other industries there is no way you'd get it through.

Excuse me, you may decide what this means is different to what I interpret...

Since then, Gravity has transformed.

The headcount has doubled and the value of payments that the company processes has gone from $3.8bn a year to $10.2bn.

That sounds like they've employed more people and the market share has grown.

So, let me clarify, that the happiness in the company tends to create better output for growth.

In my opinion.

 

[Wafty Cranker]

That point is also made by the boss of the company. He said he believed others would follow suit but sadly they didn't. That is because they are capitalists, it is there company, they are the ones taking the risks and normally I would argue in their favour (within reason) this bloke worked out that he could be generous to his employees even though it meant him taking less. Sadly it hasn't taken off.

There are so many reasons why it's not taken off! I wouldn't even agree that John Lewis have done is similar to what the guy has done in the article. From my understanding John Lewis operate a profit share scheme, so in some way it's link to performance. I can get behind that, but I'd struggle to get behind what the bloke has done in this article. I'd have probably left if I worked there.

If you want to help your employees, given them opportunity to grow, and invest in training etc. Doubling salaries for low paid workers is such a bad way to go about it. In the article in mentions the company had a tense 5 months. I bet those staff on over inflated wages were absolutely shitting it. It's all very well saying the staff have been able to buy homes closer to the office. They'd have all been fucked if the company went under. They wouldn't have been able to find another job on the same salary. good look paying that new mortgage when you're back on your regular salary.

 

[bobmcfc]

Honestly I think that's a bit naive. Pretty much all decent company leaders realise this already and behave accordingly.

70k was the minimum wage according to the article. He’d have employees on far more according to their skill.

 

[Blue Mist]

There are so many reasons why it's not taken off! I wouldn't even agree that John Lewis have done is similar to what the guy has done in the article. From my understanding John Lewis operate a profit share scheme, so in some way it's link to performance. I can get behind that, but I'd struggle to get behind what the bloke has done in this article. I'd have probably left if I worked there.

If you want to help your employees, given them opportunity to grow, and invest in training etc. Doubling salaries for low paid workers is such a bad way to go about it. In the article in mentions the company had a tense 5 months. I bet those staff on over inflated wages were absolutely shitting it. It's all very well saying the staff have been able to buy homes closer to the office. They'd have all been fucked if the company went under. They wouldn't have been able to find another job on the same salary. good look paying that new mortgage when you're back on your regular salary.

There is so much wrong with your post.
Staff wouldn't have been able to find another job on that salary - Of course they wouldn't, no one else was paying anything like that so go to your first point that you would probably have left if you worked there ! Why ? because the people 'under you' are now earning more ? The article states that problems for management dropped as a result and they were able to take more time off, holidays etc. and they had a far better life than previous. It really is hard to take any negative out of this. The 5 tense months were when the financial crisis hit the U.S. and crippled the economy but they were robust enough to survive and thrive. I fully accept that not every company can do this, further staff training is very beneficial and I am sure they had that. The fact is once they were free from worries over debt they worked better and harder.