You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
8 points

They have done the math.

Over the long term, it costs them almost 4-5 times as much to hire a new employee. It takes most new employees 6-12 months to become as productive as their counterparts. Add the cost of recruiting, interviewing, performance management, etc. Giving a raise by far is the cheapest option.

Long term.

But quarterly profits will always, ALWAYS, supercede any long term investments.

Why take the hit in your operating budget NOW when all you care about is making sure you’re hitting next quarter’s numbers? Hell, the employee leaving is going to lower your costs so it’s better for you in time for the shareholders’ meeting.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Their goal is to get employees who get comfortable and will stick around for that 3% raise. Hiring someone new - even at a premium - gives them another shot at getting an employee who won’t demand a big raise later.

As far as they’re concerned, someone who demands a 20% raise today will demand a 20% raise again the same time next year.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Funny: Home of the Haha

!funny@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.

Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!

Our Rules:

  1. Keep it civil. We’re all people here. Be respectful to one another.

  2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.

  3. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.


Other Communities:

Community stats

  • 5.8K

    Monthly active users

  • 962

    Posts

  • 13K

    Comments