Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I would blow my brains out if my company had that kind of thinking in regards to compensation. WTF?!?!?! Did Bernie Sanders come up with that idea? People are different, work habits and work ethic varies from person to person. If you give one person 5%, well, I would imagine you should give 1% to the least productive worker. If that person leaves, oh well. At least you rewarded the high performer.
But is the least productive worker really so bad that you want them to leave? How much hassle will it be to replace that person and will the new hire come at a higher wage?
No, I don't want the lowest performer to leave. But if I had to fire someone, the lowest performer would be considered. So too would the highest paid employees. Thus are the choices associated with a for-profit world. Yes, interviewing and hiring to fill an open spot costs time and money. But again, in my example, the lowest performer is still getting a raise. Remember that. That worker could have gotten nothing.