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?
Yo it’s no stupid questions, not no evil questions.
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.
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.
Pay peanuts get monkeys
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.
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.
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.
And yet it seems to work for Walmart. Or am I missing something?
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.
It sounds like you’re looking for slaves. There’s a reason slavery is illegal.
If this isn’t deliberately rage bait, there is something very wrong with you.
This isn’t actually a serious question, right?
It’s insane to think it’s genuine
I think it’s frustrated role playing.
Look at me! I’m a fancy businessman! Hur dur dur! Pay cuts for half of you and pink slips for the rest!
Gotta be flamebait.
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.
No. The best strat is to pay as much as you can and treat them as well as you can so that your best workers stay happy and stay longer. Don’t let your most cavebrained competitors beat you on talent and leave you with the underperformers nobody else wants. If you can’t afford to invest in quality then you’re already losing.
Focus less on trying to stop them leaving and more on giving them good reasons to stay.
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.
Seems to work for Walmart though
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?
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.
This is pretty good satire, and I gotta give you props for sticking to the bit, LunchMoneyThief.
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.
Happy workers stay longer and don’t leave rotting fish in the vents right before quitting out of frustration.
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?
Yes! That’s how an average slave labour company works, you hire someone, you make them work long hours so they couldn’t have 2nd job or hobby, you pay them at the minimum wage, you lower their self worth and self esteem, and you put up all the barrier of quitting that’s actually illegal but they don’t dare to even test it. It’s the best strategy to keep yourself afloat and them underwater.
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?
Yep, there’s two way of employee retention, one is pay them good and treat them good they can’t even go through the bothersome process of searching job, another one is pay them just barely enough and trap them physically and mentally, drilling the learned helplessness into their mind so it’s impossible for them to even take the first step. Of course you’ll want to take the latter option because it’s the best slave labour strategy and maximise your own return!
And if that threshold falls below state mandated minimum wage, what steps can be taken to mitigate this?
You move to another state with lax law and force your employees to move, of course! And if that’s not an option, there’s always gonna be a pizza party on friday night.
Remember, the less money you pay for your employees, the more money you pocket yourself. Get yourself a Titanic tour ticket, you earn it!
I don’t appreciate the sarcasm. Things have become tight. And after some knuckleheads couldn’t handle basic tasks in a basic industry, I have found we are able to operate with just half of the staff I used to pay. The ones who stick around know their worth.
What I’m worried about is that the remainder will also try an leave, knowing that I rely on them more than ever before. So my angle is to obfuscate the fact that I actually need them. How do I make sure they can’t read me on that?
You’re making double, dole that money out, at least part of it. I recommend off the cuff giving COL raises and improving health care a bit - improving family benefits seems to go over well. Tell everyone you know they’re working harder, and you want to recognize this. People will propose new machinery that care about the job… build a case for it and show them where you see the numbers in the long term.
Maybe it’s time to admit that you are bad at this and you should do something else besides trying to run a business. It’s clearly not your forte.
I don’t appreciate the sarcasm.
Good. That’s the point.
It’s a shaming tactic that you aren’t supposed to enjoy.
