the article says he makes $1.1million not $15
Posted on 10/25/2015 8:16:57 PM PDT by napscoordinator
A Non-producer- who is deeply alienated against self-originated taxed producers. The pimps by proxy, who have been allowed existence, by the nature of our busy and fruitful lives. The ungrateful miscreants, who need exactly what is coming, our way.
I recall the same, back in August?
Let’s see how this works out in the courtroom:
This has all the earmarks of a PR offensive for a progressive wet dream.
Yea, as long as he isn’t subsidized or bailed out by taxpayers who cares? It’s his money as the owner.
the article says he makes $1.1million not $15
>>Who wants to work with someone not happy at work. I would like to see more companies at least start doing this. <<
It is OK with you that you work 10-15 years at a company, learning all the skills needed, investing your own time at some of them and putting in 50-60 hours a week and some clerk who puts in 40 (not counting 1-1/2 hour lunches, coming in a bit late, leaving a bit early) gets the same compensation?
There might be a push from the publicity, but this is NOT a sustainable model.
The additional salary expense may be offset by what I presume is a reduced turnover rate. I don't think people realize just how expensive it can be to recruit and train employees, especially in a business sector that has a high turnover rate.
Why the high turnover rate?
Keeping employees is often less expensive than hiring new ones, even if you pay them more.
So true.
When employees wake up and want to go to work rather than dread going to work it shows in the finished product or service.
From my memory, the CEO cut his salary to do this, so their bottom line every month was the same amount... Why shouldn’t it work??
It couldn’t have been more than six months ago just the opposite type of article was published saying the company was going belly up. Wonder who’s responsible for this new version of events
You must have never run a business.
If you are running a business and you are not doing it to make money, then you should be doing something else. That's not to say there can't be other reasons for running a business but making money is the lifeblood of every business. And without it, your business will die.
Or to put it another way, which might strike closer to home, all of the people who are employed by the business owner will lose their jobs if the business owner doesn't do his job of keeping a constant eye on the bottom line.
That is not, what was going on this “company”. Your idealism is showing. Go to work, or create a business. I would like to hear from you, in 5 years.
You know, it shouldn’t be necessary to explain that on a conservative site. Sum ting wong.
It seems that eye-rolling and head-shaking are two constants in my life nowadays.
My remark was that I don't know anything about this company, but that it can be very expensive to recruit and train new employees. If a company is in an industry with a high turnover rate, the bottom line could come out better by paying a higher salary that will retain employees.
That's not idealism. That's just fact, unless your vision is a form of slavery in which employees are prohibited from leaving the company.
My son's friend, an honorary member of my family, has just taken a job in which he will be in training, full-time, for over three months. He went through a 2 month process, including numerous panel interviews and an extensive background check, before he was offered. His company has invested quite a lot in him. They'll pay him enough to keep him.
Okay, Tonto. So, you made direct comments about this specific company- although you knew nothing about it? That’s “what the hell”, that I am talking about, Kowalski. Go ahead, write back.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.