1 2 Jump to
Offline
Seattle CEO who set firm's minimum wage to $70G says he has hit hard times
Published August 01, 2015FoxNews.com
The Seattle CEO who reaped a publicity bonanza when he boosted the salaries of his employees to a minimum of $70,000 a year says he has fallen on hard times.
Dan Price, 31, tells the New York Times that things have gotten so bad he’s been forced to rent out his house.
Only three months ago Price was generating headlines—and accusations of being a socialist -- when he announced the new salary minimum for all 120 employees at his Gravity Payments credit card processing firm. Price said he was doing it, and slashing his $1 million pay package to pay for it, to address the wealth gap.
“I’m working as hard as I ever worked to make it work,” he told the Times in a video that shows him sitting on a plastic bucket in the garage of his house. “I’m renting out my house right now to try and make ends meet myself.”
The Times article said Price’s decision ended up costing him a few customers and two of his “most valued” employees, who quit after newer employees ended up with bigger salary hikes than older ones.
“He gave raises to people who have the least skills and are the least equipped to do the job, and the ones who were taking on the most didn’t get much of a bump,” Gravity financial manager Maisey McMaster, 26, told the paper.
She said when she talked to Price about it, he treated her as if she was being selfish and only thinking about herself.
“That really hurt me,” she said. “I was talking about not only me, but about everyone in my position.”
Approaching burnout, she quit.
Grant Moran, 29, also quit, saying the new pay-scale was disconcerting
“Now the people who were just clocking in and out were making the same as me,” he told the paper. “It shackles high performers to less motivated team members.”
Price said McMaster and Moran, or even critic Rush Limbaugh, the talk show host, were not 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.
The Times said customers who left were dismayed at what Price did, viewing it as a political statement. Others left fearful Gravity would soon hike fees to pay for salary increases.
Brian Canlis, co-owner of a family restaurant, already worried about how to deal with Seattle’s new minimum wage, told Price the pay raise at Gravity “makes it harder for the rest of us.”
“It pains me to hear Brian Canlis say that,” Price said. “The last think I would ever want to do is make a client feel uncomfortable.”
The Times said Price has dozens of new clients inspired by his move but those accounts won’t start generating profits for at least another year.
Making matters worse for Price is a lawsuit his older brother filed two weeks after the pay hike announcement.
Lucas Price, who owns 30 percent of the company, accuses his brother of taking millions of dollars out of the company while denying him the benefits of his minority ownership.
The lawsuit has forced Gravity to pay mounting legal fees at a time when the new salary scale is being eaten up by profits.
“We don’t have a margin of error to pay those legal fees,” Dan Price said.
Offline
Sounds like the guy's heart was in the right place, but his approach was flawed. Pay hikes based on a percentage of current salaries/wages may have been a better idea.
Offline
Just Fred wrote:
Sounds like the guy's heart was in the right place, but his approach was flawed. Pay hikes based on a percentage of current salaries/wages may have been a better idea.
I agree with this. If you pay, say the janitor or mail room worker as much as, or close to the same as an accountant or engineer, there's going to be some animosity and hard feelings. It's his company though, and he's free to try any social experiment that he wants. I believe the results would be the same in any company though.
Last edited by The Man (8/02/2015 11:48 am)
Offline
Yea, he tried to do something good.
I feel bad that he failed.
Offline
Perhaps if Mr Price had better understood J Stcey Adams notion of equity theory of motivation this would havd not been such a disaster.
Offline
Price did seem rather naive, for a CEO.
Oh well, some of life's lessons are painful.
Offline
Just Fred wrote:
Sounds like the guy's heart was in the right place, but his approach was flawed. Pay hikes based on a percentage of current salaries/wages may have been a better idea.
Indeed. Makes me think of when I was in college, and the minimum wage raise from $5.15 to $7.25 was phased in. I worked in a store making about $6.50 an hour at the time. On that end of the pay scale, annual raises were $0.25/hour at most, so going from $5.15 to $6.50 could take 5-6 years. To meet the new minimum wage, the company just moved everyone under $7.25, up to $7.25. Suddenly people who were there for five years were making the same as someone who just started yesterday. Understandably, there were a lot of pissed off employees.
Offline
Max Power wrote:
Just Fred wrote:
Sounds like the guy's heart was in the right place, but his approach was flawed. Pay hikes based on a percentage of current salaries/wages may have been a better idea.
Indeed. Makes me think of when I was in college, and the minimum wage raise from $5.15 to $7.25 was phased in. I worked in a store making about $6.50 an hour at the time. On that end of the pay scale, annual raises were $0.25/hour at most, so going from $5.15 to $6.50 could take 5-6 years. To meet the new minimum wage, the company just moved everyone under $7.25, up to $7.25. Suddenly people who were there for five years were making the same as someone who just started yesterday. Understandably, there were a lot of pissed off employees.
I agree. He should have seen this coming.
Offline
I think we sometimes need to remind ourselves that the cost of living increases over time, too, and be careful not to become jealous of someone else's wages or salary.
For example, when I first started teaching in 1971, I signed a contract for $6,800 plus $500 to coach wrestling. Five years later, that starting salary may have been set at $10,000. My salary had been increased, too, but maybe not at the same rate as the jump from $6,800 to $10,000 over the 5 year period.
I didn't have a problem with that since what $6,800 bought in 1971 may have been about the same as what $10,000 bought in 1976.
I do agree with everyone, however, that the owner could have approached it differently so as not to create animosity among his workforce.
Last edited by Just Fred (8/05/2015 6:37 am)
Offline
Just Fred wrote:
I think we sometimes need to remind ourselves that the cost of living increases over time, too, and be careful not to become jealous of someone else's wages or salary.
For example, when I first started teaching in 1971, I signed a contract for $6,800 plus $500 to coach wrestling. Five years later, that starting salary may have been set at $10,000. My salary had been increased, too, but maybe not at the same rate as the jump from $6,800 to $10,000 over the 5 year period.
I didn't have a problem with that since what $6,800 bought in 1971 may have been about the same as what $10,000 bought in 1976.
This is true, but at the same time, seems to assume that the market rate for experienced employees hasn't increased at the same time as well.
Otherwise, let's say typical starting salary for a new, inexperienced employee is $6,800. Five years later, you're making $9,000. If market rate is now $10,000 for a new, inexperienced employee, we can assume the market rate for people with five years experience is more than $10,000. If the company is interested in retaining you as a good employee, they'll pay you the current market rate for someone with 5 years experience. Otherwise, you're probably high-tailing it out the door and going to work for the guy who *will* pay you the current market rate.
Last edited by Max Power (8/05/2015 7:52 pm)
1 2 Jump to