I’m not missing the point…my point is if you’re paying someone lets say 50K and they want 60K, but you can hire someone for 40K but it’ll cost you 25K to get them to the same level as the other person…it’s better to just give the 50K guy his 10K raise. Unless Mr. 50K is a huge asshole, then maybe you pay more to get new ideas…
My only question is was this looked at or did they just stamp the yes on the request?
Maybe easier was the wrong word…better I think would fit more appropriately
Goddamn I hate our local and State government. Fukin public employee unions and their pet politicians are ruining what could be a great place to live.
Maybe not missing the point, but surely not seeing the big picture. Even if it costs you 25k, which seems stupidly high to “train” an executive level person who should already have executive experience, year one you’ve “lost” 5k. By year two you’re already ahead.
Sure, the guy you hired may want a raise, but he’ll know that his predecessor tried the “give me more money or I quit” route and was told, “don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out”, so more than likely he’ll be more reasonable. Besides, you’re assuming that Mr 50k will really quit if he doesn’t get his raise. Chances are he won’t, because when he starts shopping other jobs he’ll quickly realize he’ll need to make 40k more to make up for the benefits he’s getting at the state job. And, if you give him a 10k raise this year, you know damn well that next year he’s going to try the same exact thing.
Hmm… Well there’s some fuel for my fire… Never thought of it that way. Thanks for the insight Joe :tup:
Alt-Tabs back to resume