• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NYT: $70K minimum salary company copes with backlash

Status
Not open for further replies.
You guys might remember an earlier thread on GAF about a credit card processing CEO who made the minimum salary for his employees $70,000. According to the New York Times, he's hit some roadbumps in his plan:

There are times when Dan Price feels as if he stumbled into the middle of the street with a flag and found himself at the head of a parade.

Three months ago, Mr. Price, 31, announced he was setting a new minimum salary of $70,000 at his Seattle credit card processing firm, Gravity Payments, and slashing his own million-dollar pay package to do it. He wasn’t thinking about the current political clamor over low wages or the growing gap between rich and poor, he said. He was just thinking of the 120 people who worked for him and, let’s be honest, a bit of free publicity. The idea struck him when a friend shared her worries about paying both her rent and student loans on a $40,000 salary. He realized a lot of his own employees earned that or less.

Yet almost overnight, a decision by one small-business man in the northwestern corner of the country became a swashbuckling blow against income inequality.

What few outsiders realized, however, was how much turmoil all the hoopla was causing at the company itself. To begin with, Gravity was simply unprepared for the onslaught of emails, Facebook posts and phone calls. The attention was thrilling, but it was also exhausting and distracting. And with so many eyes focused on the firm, some hoping to witness failure, the pressure has been intense.

More troubling, a few customers, dismayed by what they viewed as a political statement, withdrew their business. Others, anticipating a fee increase — despite repeated assurances to the contrary — also left. While dozens of new clients, inspired by Mr. Price’s announcement, were signing up, those accounts will not start paying off for at least another year. To handle the flood, he has already had to hire a dozen additional employees — now at a significantly higher cost — and is struggling to figure out whether more are needed without knowing for certain how long the bonanza will last.

Two of Mr. Price’s most valued employees quit, spurred in part by their view it was unfair to double the pay of some new hires while the longest-serving staff members got small or no raises. Some friends and associates in Seattle’s close-knit entrepreneurial network were also piqued that Mr. Price’s action made them look stingy in front of their own employees.

Then potentially the worst blow of all: Less than two weeks after the announcement, Mr. Price’s older brother and Gravity co-founder, Lucas Price, citing longstanding differences, filed a lawsuit that potentially threatened the company’s very existence. With legal bills quickly mounting and most of his own paycheck and last year’s $2.2 million in profits plowed into the salary increases, Dan Price said, “We don’t have a margin of error to pay those legal fees.”

More at the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/b...se-that-roared.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

It's disheartening to hear that this most likely won't be sustainable.
 
Thats the problem with these drastic changes. The old guard will never accept it because they went their entire career on the old standard. You have to do it very slowly.
 

Two Words

Member
It's so absurd how much weight people put into other people getting money. I think the saying "Money doesn't make you happy, unless you're knowingly making more than others" holds true.
 

Cagey

Banned
While dozens of new clients, inspired by Mr. Price’s announcement, were signing up, those accounts will not start paying off for at least another year. To handle the flood, he has already had to hire a dozen additional employees — now at a significantly higher cost — and is struggling to figure out whether more are needed without knowing for certain how long the bonanza will last.

This part is a problem of his own creation: he got the desired PR from the move, which boosted his company's profile and landed new clients, and now he has to expand to handle this new business... but now he has to pay the new employees what he promised to pay which is what earned him the PR and got him the new clients.

Zero sympathy.
 

soleil

Banned
Thats the problem with these drastic changes. The old guard will never accept it because they went their entire career on the old standard. You have to do it very slowly.
And you have to be fair about it: People who either went through schooling or simply spent a number of years gaining experience do deserve a significantly higher wage, so if you're going to raise the bottom line, you need to also raise the wages of middle-earners. It's not just a matter of "fairness." It's also a matter of providing incentive for people to get higher levels of education and/or experience.

And everything should be at the cost of the people at the top.

I say this as a supporter of the $15 minimum wage.
 

watershed

Banned
So its just petty ignorant people getting upset not actual fiscal issues relating to the new pay scheme. Ideology is a powerful thing.
 
Thats the problem with these drastic changes. The old guard will never accept it because they went their entire career on the old standard. You have to do it very slowly.

Pretty much this. It can get frustrating, but doing these things slowly and steadily avoids clusterfucks like this one.
 
It's so absurd how much weight people put into other people getting money. I think the saying "Money doesn't make you happy, unless you're knowingly making more than others" holds true.

I don't know, I think many of these reactions are fair. If I'm a client and all of the sudden I need a new agency in the middle of a product launch because my service agency is hitting me with $$$ requests, my boss is going to look at me like I'm a moron for not realizing this might happen when my service agency made news for raising everyone's salaries to 70k.

Also, if I'm senior management and a receptionist is making my salary or 10k less, I'm pissed. Why do they get such a boost without the experience and training I have, and they leave early, etc.

So this is a clusterfuck and should be. I don't care what you make until you make what I make at the same company where I'm working my ass off longer than you. Then I have reason to believe I shouldn't put stock in management's judgement and my growth at said company.
 

kirblar

Member
Two of Mr. Price’s most valued employees quit, spurred in part by their view it was unfair to double the pay of some new hires while the longest-serving staff members got small or no raises. Some friends and associates in Seattle’s close-knit entrepreneurial network were also piqued that Mr. Price’s action made them look stingy in front of their own employees.
He didn't give proportional raises to his employees?

Well, that's a problem.
 

Fuchsdh

Member
This part is a problem of his own creation: he got the desired PR from the move, which boosted his company's profile and landed new clients, and now he has to expand to handle this new business... but now he has to pay the new employees what he promised to pay which is what earned him the PR and got him the new clients.

Zero sympathy.

Yep. You'd think at this point in the internet's history people would be prepared for how publicity will quickly turn sour on you.

The people withdrawing their business I could understand depending on the nature of the business... but it's a credit card processing firm? I am ignorant of the finer details of such services but I'm not sure why you particularly care what they're paying their employees, or where their politics matter to you. And if people think it's going to cost them more when you say it isn't... well, I guess they'll be footing the bill on that choice.

And you have to be fair about it: People who either went through schooling or simply spent a number of years gaining experience do deserve a significantly higher wage, so if you're going to raise the bottom line, you need to also raise the wages of middle-earners. It's not just a matter of "fairness." It's also a matter of providing incentive for people to get higher levels of education and/or experience.

And everything should be at the cost of the people at the top.

I say this as a supporter of the $15 minimum wage.

Yep. There's a middle ground between "CEOs should totally make thousands of times more than their employees, they're obviously doing thousands of times the work" and "I don't care your skills or how long you've been here, everyone gets paid the same". I think in this case the boss probably drifted too far to the latter side in trying to overcorrect for the former (sadly prevailing) sentiment.

From a hiring standpoint, it seems like you've created a market where everyone would want to get hired but the interest in staying long term if you have any ambition would lead to increased turnover as people left for other prospects.
 

Azih

Member
The company will be ok. Seattle is a big, progressive city and they'll find plenty of new customers and employees.

Yeah but it's going to take a year for those now accounts to start paying for some reason that I don't understand (credit card payments how do they work?). The Lawsuit is what's really threatening them though.
 

Kornflayx

Member
People who were with the company for years and worked their way up the corporate ladder want a higher salary than a newly hired worker? I'm surprised
 
Seems the biggest problem was the 840.000 a year in extra cost for new people, not the losing of business (you don't hire new people when losing clients, what are they going to do?).

Should have taken a look at his margins betters.
 

Melon Husk

Member
Correct. Punk ass bitch.

That new business won’t start paying off for 12 to 18 months, however, Mr. Price said, and in the meantime, he is contending with the lawsuit brought by his brother. Lucas Price owns about 30 percent of their company, although he has not actively been involved in day-to-day operations for several years. There had been tensions between the two long before the new pay plan, and Lucas is demanding that Dan buy him out for an unspecified amount, plus damages.

Lucas, who lives in Seattle, declined to be interviewed but wrote in an email: “Dan has taken millions of dollars out of the company for himself while denying me the benefits of the ownership of my shares, and otherwise favoring his own interests as the majority shareholder over my interests.” He said his complaints predated the pay raises.

Flabbergasted when the suit arrived, Dan said he was puzzled by the accusations, saying that Lucas agreed to his $1.1 million salary and bonus package, instituted for 2012.

So his brother doesn't agree with the direction he's taking the company.

Seems the biggest problem was the 840.000 a year in extra cost for new people, not the losing of business (you don't hire new people when losing clients, what are they going to do?).

Should have taken a look at his margins betters.

Company is doing fine, but he wasn't expecting a lawsuit.
 

Miracle

Member
Well look at it this way, new hires! Out with the old, in with the new. :D

Although his brother filing a lawsuit is a jerk move IMO.
 

kirblar

Member
The people withdrawing their business I could understand depending on the nature of the business... but it's a credit card processing firm? I am ignorant of the finer details of such services but I'm not sure why you particularly care what they're paying their employees, or where their politics matter to you. And if people think it's going to cost them more when you say it isn't... well, I guess they'll be footing the bill on that choice.
They're moving over likely because they have the expectation that their bills will increase despite the owner's best intentions. They're taking a bet- and I don't think they're necessarily wrong to do so.
 
It's so absurd how much weight people put into other people getting money. I think the saying "Money doesn't make you happy, unless you're knowingly making more than others" holds true.

It's not about that more than I feel its about progression. You're value in the market is being extremely undervalued vs your skill because your boss is giving huge pay imcreases ti the bottom with way less skills and experience. $70k minmum for no experience is a lot of money for what some of these positions with amount to in required skills.

It does feel like a slight when you work 10 years to get to $70k then your boss goes fuck it and gives that exact same wage as starting to someone with significantly lower skills.
 

Rad-

Member
Two of Mr. Price’s most valued employees quit, spurred in part by their view it was unfair to double the pay of some new hires while the longest-serving staff members got small or no raises. Some friends and associates in Seattle’s close-knit entrepreneurial network were also piqued that Mr. Price’s action made them look stingy in front of their own employees.

So he didn't give experienced workers raises while doing this? I would be pissed too.
 
When the employees who have been working there longer were complaining about new workers getting paid more... was that before the 70,000 boost or after.

Cause f***, I get wanting to be paid your worth, but gatdamn are we being greedy at this point.

Your getting a 70,000 dollar minimum. Chill out for a second and let the company be stable before trying to get even more out of your generous boss
 

gdt

Member
He's getting fucked by getting new business and having to hire new employees to handle the new business but paying them far more than in the past.

The increased business and paying for the new employees doesn't seem to be the main problem here.
 

hipbabboom

Huh? What did I say? Did I screw up again? :(
So unaffected parties bullied pressured him into a bad situation to force him to fail simply because he was a threat to their world views even though his views affected them in no tangible way.

Wow.
 
It's really hilarious how human perception works. Those employees didn't lose any money but because those that were beneath them were brought up they felt as if they had been brought down.
 

MJPIA

Member
Leah Brajcich, who oversees sales at Gravity, fielded complaints from several customers who accused her boss of communist or socialist sympathies that would drive up their own employees’ wages and others who felt it was a public relations stunt. A few were worried that fees would rise or service would fall off. “What’s their incentive to hustle if you pay them so much?” Ms. Brajcich said they asked. Putting in 80-hour weeks after the announcement, she called the mistrustful clients, stopping by their offices or stores, and invited them to visit Gravity to see for themselves the employees’ dedication. She said she eventually lured most back.
If she managed to lure most of these companies that made kneejerk reactions and called them communists back then she is one damn good employee.

If there was a 19th-century thinker Mr. Price drew inspiration from, it would be not Karl Marx, but Russell Conwell, the Baptist minister and Temple University founder, whose famed “Acres of Diamonds” speech fused Christianity and capitalism. “To make money honestly is to preach the Gospel,” Mr. Conwell exhorted his listeners. To get rich “is our Christian and godly duty.”

Growing up in rural southwestern Idaho, Mr. Price frequently listened to a recording of the speech on tape.

Every day he and his four brothers and one sister rose as early as 5 a.m. to recite a proverb, a psalm, a Gospel chapter and an excerpt from the Old and New Testaments. Home-schooled until he was 12 and taught to accept the Bible as the literal truth, Mr. Price also listened to the Rush Limbaugh show for three hours a day — never imagining he would one day be the subject of a rant by the host. Then it was time to help his mother with organic gardening, composting and recycling.
His experiences did reinforce an independent, contrarian streak even as he made a place for himself in the teenagers’ terrain. He formed a rock band and got a girlfriend. After their first hug at 17, her conservative Christian father demanded to know his intentions. The two were engaged, and they married four years later. (They divorced amicably in 2011.)

His parents instilled a sense of purpose. “We had a family mission” to glorify God, he said. The household was run as a “family business” with jobs and responsibilities carefully set out in charts and diagrams. “All my siblings hated it, but I thought it was cool,” Mr. Price said with a laugh.

Mr. Price is no longer so religious, but the values and faith he grew up on are “in my DNA,” he said. “It’s just something that’s part of me.”

He preached Main Street capitalism that promised to deliver good value, low prices and individual service. His success won him a shelf full of local business awards and even a chance to meet President Obama during National Small Business Week when he was just 25. Though he now has the shoulder-length hair and beard of a hipster, back then he looked like a baby-faced Donny Osmond and sounded like Alex P. Keaton, the eager beaver Republican played by Michael J. Fox on the 1980s sitcom “Family Ties.” He did not actively oppose Seattle’s minimum-wage increase, but a reason he urges other business owners to follow his lead on pay is to avoid more government regulation.
This guy is nothing like I thought he'd be, he is a giant mix of various ideas.

Mr. Price, who extolled Ms. McMaster’s talents, said he didn’t think she, Mr. Moran or even Rush Limbaugh was wrong. “There’s no perfect way to do this and no way to handle complex workplace issues that doesn’t have any downsides or trade-offs,” he said. When other entrepreneurs suggested that stock options or profit-sharing would have been a better approach, he said that’s the way capitalism works: Everyone tries to invent the best mousetrap. “I came up with the best solution I could.”

And the publicity surrounding it has generated tangible benefits. Three months before the announcement, the firm had been adding 200 clients a month. In June, 350 signed up.

That new business won’t start paying off for 12 to 18 months, however, Mr. Price said, and in the meantime, he is contending with the lawsuit brought by his brother.
There have been other ripples. Mario Zahariev, who runs Pop’s Pizza & Pasta, switched to Gravity after seeing Mr. Price on the news. When he learned his monthly processing fees would drop to $900 from $1,700, Mr. Zahariev decided, “I was not going to keep the difference for myself.” He used the savings to raise the salaries of his eight employees.
At the very least he has made waves.

I wish him and his company success.
 

Melon Husk

Member
Brothers can't get their shit together? Probably a toxic relationship from the sounds of it.
Family fighting over a business can be ugly and is often about more than just money. Dan conceded he may have previously given short shrift to Lucas’s contributions. “Who knows if I would have opportunity to build the company without him helping me out in the first couple of years?” he said.

Lucas was the best man at his wedding, and the two, close friends, often hiked, surfed and attended ballgames together. By the end, “being in business together was the worst thing for our relationship,” Dan said. After the lawsuit was filed, he said he called the rest of his family and told them to offer “unconditional love and support” to both Lucas and him. (Their younger brother Alex, 23, who also works at the company.)

This is fucked up.

Thats the problem with these drastic changes. The old guard will never accept it because they went their entire career on the old standard. You have to do it very slowly.

And this is so true. Listen to the NUMMI 2015 podcast. GM took 10 years to change their old ways, which was too long to avoid bankruptcy.
 

kirblar

Member
It's really hilarious how human perception works. Those employees didn't lose any money but because those that were beneath them were brought up they felt as if they had been brought down.
When you get promoted you take on additional responsibilities, and you get a salary increase.

If that relative margin isn't maintained when you increase the baseline, you're going to get a lot of people that are now being underpaid relative to the new standard, because you've wiped out a great deal of what they've worked to achieve through their career progression.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
I guess the lesson is that, if you're going to do something nice, don't broadcast it to the outside world.

Vindictive people hate nice things and they represent the majority, or at least make sure their voices are heard.

Exactly. The ones making 72k before the company raised its minimum wage may have been making market rate, but their skills are immediately devalued when new people hired to answer the phone are making a few thousand less.

To be fair, this probably would have bothered me a bit, too. It's pretty easy to see why people who had been working for years and felt like they worked their way up to 70k+ would be a bit miffed to see new hires with no experience getting close to the same.
 

paparazzo

Member
So he didn't give experienced workers raises while doing this? I would be pissed too.

Exactly. The ones making 72k before the company raised its minimum wage may have been making market rate, but their skills are immediately devalued when new people hired to answer the phone are making a few thousand less.
 

ISOM

Member
It's really hilarious how human perception works. Those employees didn't lose any money but because those that were beneath them were brought up they felt as if they had been brought down.

Exactly. It's a ridiculous sentiment when you think about it. Personally if I was a engineer and the assistant was now being payed the same as me, I wouldn't mind as long as they are doing their work.
 

Akronis

Member
It's really hilarious how human perception works. Those employees didn't lose any money but because those that were beneath them were brought up they felt as if they had been brought down.

This. I would have no problem with this. I'd be happy for those people. Bunch of selfish people if you ask me.
 

soleil

Banned
It's really hilarious how human perception works. Those employees didn't lose any money but because those that were beneath them were brought up they felt as if they had been brought down.
Because they spent more time getting an education and/or experience only to be paid the same as someone who didn't? That's not just perception. That's bad faith in salary pay. When you get education and/or experience because you had to in order to get a certain salary, and then the rules change and someone else gets the same salary without investing in the same education and/or experience, then it's a system that falls apart because now no one has an incentive to get educated/experienced.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to want everyone else to get paid less. It means I will want more. Either way, if I don't get it, I walk.
 
Hope he rides it out and doesn't go back on it. He sounds a bit volatile from the snippets given about him and from him in the article.

I won't pretend to know anything about business on this level, but my instinct is that there is a lot of kneejerk political reaction going on and at least from how it's described, the employees who have a problem with this do sound selfish. I don't really see how you go from being happy in your job and what you get paid, to unhappy with it when you hear others are being paid just as much but aren't as qualified, without you feeling entitled and better than other people. Good money is good money, and it isn't easy to get it. That doesn't mean you should feel like something is being taken from you when other people also get it.

It would be interesting to see what goes on in terms of job performance, employee satisfaction, the success of the business and all of these other factors as a result of that. My feeling is if I was being paid that much right in the door, I'd work relentlessly to secure a place there for a long time and move up into more engaging levels of work.
 
Two of Mr. Price’s most valued employees quit, spurred in part by their view it was unfair to double the pay of some new hires while the longest-serving staff members got small or no raises.

I'm disappointed Price didn't see this as a problem.
 

Rafterman

Banned
It's really hilarious how human perception works. Those employees didn't lose any money but because those that were beneath them were brought up they felt as if they had been brought down.

What are you talking about? If the janitor now makes the same money you make, after spending years on the job, you have been brought down. It's all well and good to want to give a minimum salary to your employees, but doing so without taking into account the years of education/experience of your long time employees is asinine.
 

Pejo

Member
Thats the problem with these drastic changes. The old guard will never accept it because they went their entire career on the old standard. You have to do it very slowly.

This is my feeling on the matter too. It's great for all the new people, but if you don't handle it gradually, it's a huge slap to the face of the people that worked their way up through the system before the bump. I know I'd be upset if a new employee that packs mailers gets paid the same salary as I get doing Server Administration.

Still sad to see it not working out for them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom