Who would you give a raise to?

Post Reply New Topic

LOL @ Aspie literalism.

"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

Well it's not that I interpreted it literally, I just didn't get the comment. It would've made more sense if it had something to do with redistribution.

Not a hypothetical issue for me; I am the one who decides who gets the raise in my workgroup.

Employee A seems like a goof-off. I do not pay anyone for that. Even if the quality of his work is the best, quantity is equally important.

Employee B seems to struggle and flail a lot. Paying him time-and-a-half for overtime may already be an act of compassion.

Employee C may only be an average employee, but at least he's reliable.

Here's what I've done in the real world: Announce to all that this year's raises will be contingent on the next 90 days' performance, which will be measured on both quantity and quality of work. Promptness and tardiness will be taken into account as well. Then I would take each person aside.

"Mr. A, I expect to see greater diligence in your work and and less ... <ahem> ... frivolous activity ..."

"Mr. B, we have to cut back on overtime expenses, so improving the quality of your work during regular hours is vital. I know that you're capable of greater effort, so I'm counting on you to show it..."

"Mr. C, I really need your support in this. You're going to be my go-to guy for A and B. This means that you must set the best example you can and be there to answer their questions."

"All of you, my door is open. Please come to me if you have an ideas that might directly help your efforts. But keep in mind that I can do only so much ... the rest is up to you ..."

90 days later, raises will be divided based on individual improvment, while the position of "Lead Worker" would be given to the most improved individual (a nominal title, at best, but not a real promotion).

Let's just say that it sounded like he wanted redistribution of skill, mostly kidding though.

Oh ok hahaha. Didn't occur to me since communism is associated with redistributed wealth rather than redistribution per se. In that case education should be illegal since it's a goddamn commie redistribution of knowledge rawr! Learning from others through asking questions is coercion!

I would fire person A for being a f*****g commie slacker, cut everyone's earnings and boost my own salary & bonus drastically for making excellent decisions regarding the company's future.

What if B is also the longest serving, most loyal employee and A - any day now - could quit and is only waiting for the right opportunity to get a job that pays 10X what your company could ever pay them?

If B is a liability, then what's so great about having a loyal liability? If he's not, then you should keep him as long as he's still adding a positive net value to the firm.

Uh, no, if you suddenly have 10 employees quit and B is the only one to do a bunch of essential tasks, then he is not a liability even if his productivity was less than former, short-term employees.

If you working in a payroll department as a company employee and you change fellow employee's salaries without your company's permission.You'll end up risking losing you own job & face criminal charges of fraud!

That hypothetical situation is extremely improbable. Certainly not probable enough to justify giving a raise to a single employee who is a net loss to the company at his current salary.

You could have been more charitable and interpreted the original post as "you are the guy who gets to [set the] pay the other employees".

How the hell do you get to decide what's "probable"? The OP doesn't identify the size of the company, the nature of the businesses, the number of competitors, or the turnover rate. And I really dislike it when people make generalized, ideological judgements on the basis of limited information. The correct answer to the OP is "not enough information".

It's perfectly reasonable to assume that the OP was not talking about situation where all the productive members of a firm would suddenly quit all at once without giving reasonable notice.

All the worse if employee B is still incompetent after long experience at the firm. You'd figure (s)he would learn something eventually. The risk of A quitting to go somewhere else is lessened if you show that your company values the talents (s)he brings, and one very concrete way you can do that is by giving her/him Employee B's salary. If Employee A could earn 10x as much at another firm, you have been underpaying her/him.

Show me were in the question done it say who owns the company? show me were in the question done it say who makes the decision regarding salaries?

Is your definition of charity one of, breach of confidence and theft?