This question is very good in looking into the character and knowledge of the person answering it.
Anyway, money is not the only way to retain people. If so, other companies can easily raise their salary to steal your employee away. Companies have to have different type of compensation policies and benefits to attract and retain their workers. Sometimes, these benefits actually cost less than raising the salary. People who have no idea how business organization work probably won't think of this.
The question is not how much the salary is. Rather, it should be whether he's worth the salary or not.
It's all about the package...not just salary alone. Increasing the salary of an unhappy worker is usually only a temporary solution.
it ALL depends on how much your workers can command in the open market.
If he can command like $200k, and you are paying him $1mil, it doesn't matter whether you increase it to $2mil or not
I dont agree. Money cannot be the only factor to retain yr workers. I had seen some companies whose workers are very loyal, 95% of them are above 15 years of service. When I ask the workers, they says their boss is very good to them. Boss not very calculative and listens to their needs. When I ask how is their pay, they say it within the market range. The boss also mention that by making their workers happy, they work better and thus produce more profits for him. Another company have their sales person changed almost every 6 months. In fact this annoys me so much that I had decided not to deal with them anymore. Reason is becos I wasted so much time getting the new sales person to know my requirements. Reason is becos the boss keep pressuring them to get imposible sales target.
In all honesty, I'm thinking of switching jobs for a higher paying one, or moving out of SG, not because of "company loyalty" or "mismanagement", but because of the rent increase here. My rent has gone up 33% and it's hurting my wallet a lot...
If u are given a high pay but treated like a dog, most will endure for a period of time until they cannot tahan anymore then they quit.
If you are given market pay but offered higher by another company who offers about the same benefits, I am sure u will be swayed.
End of the day there is no such thing as loyalty to company in this modern age. When the time comes, the boss will not hesitate to retrench you.
any boss here reply or contribute 2 this topic? if not den quite 1-sided. anyway a boss almost always hav d final say (can even dun say, even if staff leave so wad ).
to MISQUOTE JFK:
"Ask not what the country can do for you, but what they can pay you!"
Yes, i'm talking abt MPs salary..Those who dont wanna hear my ranting, can skip my post with my sincere apology....
I'm not gonna bash the MPs and others just because they are paid more than George Bush or Wen Jiabo.. Sure, MM Lee did say that no other country went through a transformation with 1-2 generation and i definitely agree. However, i think the government have to note the sacrifice the whole country went through to get this result. Also, we should not naively think that all credits goes to government as we are so dependent and interdependent these days. Any foreign affairs policies change will probably change the whole course.
Government do make mistakes or pass up opportunities (ie F1 race) etc, but how do we quantify such costs or opportunity costs. OT aside, it's the money issue that i am unhappy.
Most if not all countries do not make the politician top earner. Income can come from several sources. Salary is just one simple measurement. Steve Jobs is paid US$1 but has US$490 m shares and huge bank balances and other income that doesnt really matter how much he is paid. Bill Gates is so rich that no amount of salary is probably gonna make him feel better or worse off.
Politicians should not be highest paid simply because they give up higher salary for other things in life, like power, social status. Sure, we have hawkers that drives mercs or earn more etc in Singapore but would they be on a equal social status with a MP? Many MPs are also doing their duties part time, with lots of them still directors, CEO, doctors, professionals in their own rights. When Alan Greenspan is still FED chairman, he is deemed the most powerful man in the world and definitely he should be more well-remunerated. However, the counter arguement is that if he was not put in the same position, would he be as influencial? or maybe he will just be someone like George Soros, working in Wall Street.
Next, MP is not elected due to their skill set alone. We do not need so many doctors, lawyers and accountants in parliament if thats the case. Their job is public policy management, to represent the people who elected them. Hence to merely equate or benchmark their salary to these professions are not quite correct. Moreover, they may not be the creme de la creme in their profession in the 1st place.
If we want to benchmark, why not benchmark against other governments? Of course, we can adjust based on our GDP growth, job creation or any other quantifiable indicators and topped by variable bonus (again, some benchmarking is required).
Transparency is good, put it in another perspectively, the MPs are the managers, while the people are the BOD of a company. The BOD should decide the salary hence the least we should do is to know about it. Hence, being transparent should be a pre-requisite but not basis of arguement.
Yay, you have closed this thread indirectly! Hee hee.