Is it good employer strategy to pay my employees just enough so that they can’t save money, so that they can never walk away from the job?

Like, there is a threshold where if they are able to save X per month, they will eventually use that against you and quit at an inopportune time?

And if that threshold falls below state mandated minimum wage, what steps can be taken to mitigate this?

  • y0kai@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    12 days ago

    No one wants to work for you because it sounds like working for you sucks. Nothing to do with money, you’re literally just asking how can you be the shittiest employer possible.

    Maybe change your attitude toward employment and treat people like they have value and they might stick around.

  • greedytacothief@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    12 days ago

    There is the old saying that “People don’t quit jobs, they quit bosses.” My advice is to go to therapy first, I think the question will sort itself out after that.

  • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    12 days ago

    It is a terrible employer strategy that all but guarantees you will have a high turnover rate as people use their off hours to find better paying work.

    It also ensures any public you have to face will consistently be interacting with a work force that could not give any less of a fuck, because you are literally not paying them enough to.

    The only conceivable way this is a good business strategy is if you are either a short term seeking nepo baby, get all your business advice from one, or are yourself a complete and utter drooling moron who has never once taken even a beginner’s course in proper employee retention.

    Do. Not. Do. This.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 days ago

      Doing this is the kind of advice Boston Consulting Group would give shortly before Citadel cellar boxes your company.

      It’s a seriously bad idea. pay shit, get shit employees. It will see OP’s company providing shit service, cost more in both turnover and having to fix the shit that their shit employees shat all over, as well as driving customers away.

      It’s also immoral.

        • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          12 days ago

          Is Walmart typically known for having highly skilled, dedicated workers?

          Or desperate folks that would leave for another opportunity without a second thought?

          I guess, “it works” but I wouldn’t say it’s REALLY working.

  • superkret@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    12 days ago

    Your best employees will be snatched away by other companies, offering them an onboarding package that takes care of the cost of moving. Your worst employees will be forced to stay with you.

  • PorradaVFR@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    12 days ago

    You’re paying for labor. If you’re the cheapest option retention will be poor, knowledge and experience will leave and your business will (and should) suffer.

    Penny wise, pound foolish.

  • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    12 days ago

    Nope, it’s a terrible one. Everyone will be constantly looking for new jobs. And would do the bate minimum to not get fired, that’s the contract you’re signing, bare minimum pay for bare minimum work.

    Regardless of what you do, it’s likely that you’ll need multiple times the amount of employees to get shit done, because one dedicated employee is worth several doing bare minimum, depending on the job some works simply won’t happen because no one gets paid enough to do them.

    Besides that you’ll suffer brain drain, i.e. anyone good enough will leave you, and they won’t accept a raise to stay because if someone offered them double their salary and you tried to match it they would immediately see the bullshit you’d put them through and know that the only way to get a better pay again would be to get a new offer from someplace else.

    Anyone bad enough that other companies don’t want would be stuck with you, but there’s a reason other companies don’t want them.

    You wouldn’t be able to pull any new talent, you’d get stuck just getting people no one else wants because they’re the only ones willing to work for that low.

      • okwhateverdude@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 days ago

        Only because they massively displaced a shitload of local business. Same with Amazon. If you have very little skills, where else are you going to work?

    • LunchMoneyThief@links.hackliberty.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 days ago

      Nobody has really answered the last part of my question. I’m not asking whether or not this is ethical, I’m asking how can I keep the employees who don’t leave in a state of perception where they think I’m ready to fire and replace them at any moment. I don’t want them to realize their position and leverage it against me.

      I’ve been thinking about holding the promise of upping wage by a dollar and to keep pushing out the date as means of helping them realize how easy their work is. I’m not going to allow non-committed hires to devour the value of my business over what amounts to easy work. They know it’s easy work.

  • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    12 days ago

    There’s an alternative strategy of making it a place they’re happy to work at. It’s more expensive, sure, but it gets you better workers instead of only the desperate.

    • CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 days ago

      Happy workers stay longer and don’t leave rotting fish in the vents right before quitting out of frustration.