This is so outrageous that it feels like satire.
Please tell me it’s satire.
Think of the last job you quit. Would a 5% raise change anything?
A ping pong table is an asinine thing to give, but the point of "more money doesn't make you stay" has been proven by many studies.
When you quit a job because it doesn't pay enough it's not a matter of a small raise, it's a normally a big jump in pay. Until you get to substantial raises, like 10-20k a year, you aren't really worried about the pay as much as your direct supervisor and the work load. A bump from 60k a year to 61k a year won't make you stay in a job you hate. 60k to 100k might, but that's not just a raise, that's a different class of pay.
First, there’s no mention of size of pay adjustment here. Second, sure, your point is valid, but in the context of this post, let’s not be ridiculous. This is a multiple-choice question, so sometimes you need to rank options and choose the best. No same person is more likely to stay at a company because of a ping-pong table in lieu of a better salary. Now if they’d said
An employee appreciation program, which includes such things as free meals and a recreation room with a ping pong table
that would be a different story. But as-is, it’s ridiculous.
No same person is more likely to stay at a company because of a ping-pong table in lieu of a better salary.
I can see the office wide email now:
"To all employees, there is now a pingpong table in the break room for use during your lunch break. You may not be on the clock while using it. It is not to be used from the hours of 10AM to 3PM."
but in the context of this post, let’s not be ridiculous
It says a pay raise, not new pay bracket. A 10% raise is substantial, and likely not enough to keep someone. The number one reason people leave a job is their direct supervisor.
To be absolutely clear a ping pong table won't make you stay with a job. A work place that's more relaxed and a boss that doesn't yell at you for taking 5? Maybe a workplace where you enjoy spending time with your coworkers? That'll do it. The idea is HR can to help nudge towards type of change It doesn't work and is stupid, but that's the thinking.
And there are times a small raise will keep an employee, there are times more responsibilities will keep an employee. This is a poor question in general.
1.) A 5% raise doesn’t even cover inflation.
2.) No one who is serious about wanting a pay raise to stay is asking for an 67% increase in pay.
3.) Leaving because of pay is typically because someone is offering substantially more money/better benefits for a similar position.
4.) You have it backwards you definitely worry about raises in pay, especially before you get a raise of $10-20k.
5.) As someone who has made 60k/yr a raise of 6-10k would be more than enough incentive to stay. It would easily outpace inflation and reward someone who is doing well.
This isn't me just saying stuff.
https://www.payscale.com/research-and-insights/employee-turnover-pay-raises/
The long and short of this is that getting a raise doesn't stop someone from looking for a new job or increase satisfaction with the company. Worse, if you ask for, say $10 more and hour and they give you $8 you are less happy than if you get no raise.
Paying people well is important, and people say it's a primary motivator, but it isn't as important as they think. Bad bosses, bad work environments and unsatisfying work are bigger factors than pay raises.
Hey, I read the source, can you cite your summary of
The long and short of this is that getting a raise doesn’t stop someone from looking for a new job or increase satisfaction with the company.
I dont see it anywhere.
Toxic work envionments are a problem regardless of other factors. They are also incredibly common, with bosses using personal feelings to direct business decisions, often a portion of the administration staff is required to handle inappropriate bosses or fix whatever detail is bothering them in the moment even when it's not a project priority.
Insufficient pay is a problem regardless of a functional work environment (including benefits) if a worker's healthcare doesn't cover her kid's dentistry and she can't afford it (plus food, rent! utilities, etc.) it's not going to matter how much she loves her job, as the first order of business is survival for her and her family. Undercompensated workforces are also very common.
It's not an either/or situation and HR refusing to address either is disregarding thr humanity of the workforce. And this, too, is often incredibly common. This question is a total oversimplification of labor relations and is the sort of reason we need massive reform, like general unionization.
Read the article, you're just saying stuff.
Categorically false and not supported by the article. What you described is the negotiation process for anything. If your first ask in a wage negotiation isn't higher than your target you're doing it wrong.
I never said there aren't other motivating factors to stay at a job. But saying it's not as important as people think is at best a bad faith argument. It's not up to you to decide what other people think, aside from the mountain of evidence otherwise.
Either you're being purposely obtuse, you have some disgruntled employess, or you like the taste of boots. In any case, your comments aren't contributing anything meaningful to this conversation.
Tell this to someone working 2-3 jobs. They have literally no time to live. I'd happily slap some money on the table betting that one of these people would happily enjoy one shift's amount of time to live in exchange for a fair paying job. Even if they don't enjoy that job.
Material perks matter less than pay though. I've quit jobs for either pay rises, or due to frustrations with management (work load, getting the tools to do the job, lack of respect, ...). Stuff like ping pong tables or pizza parties never entered the equation.
Until you get to substantial raises, like 10-20k a year, you aren’t really worried about the pay as much as your direct supervisor and the work load.
So if the work load doesn’t match the pay, people leave?
At the pay rates you mentioned in the last few sentences I could see your point, but if you are making say 30 - 35k per year, a raise of almost any kind would make a difference. In my last job I quit because they were not willing to give me a raise (I was asking for around 42k) which seemed fair to me because the type of work I was doing was incredibly stressful and it was having an affect on my mental health. I was breaking out in hives from stress, which was exacerbating my eczema (I have sensitive skin). I had a long talk with management about what I was going through and how I felt this job deserved more pay. I told them what it would take to keep me and they declined. Despite my work ethic and effort and willingness to go out of my way to make sure the work got done each day, they would not budge. I told them I wasn't surprised by their revolving door there and I kindly submitted my resignation. I would have stayed with the raise because I could have done a fair bit with that money, i.e. more doctor visits to manage my skin condition, put away money for the future to buy a house or replace my 20 year old vehicle, etc. I live in a low cost of living are so it would have made a significant difference in my quality of life. It's been a few months since I quit and what I do now is lower stress but it only pays the bills. The money may not matter to the extent that I can pay my bills, but I live paycheck to paycheck and I'm trying not despair; that I will find a job that helps me meet my goals and helps me to achieve a happier life style.
A 15% raise would have me consider it. But then I would tell them that I shouldn't have to threaten to leave to get it, and I'd leave to teach them a lesson.
I used to work at Walmart. For a long time I thought better pay would make the suffering worthwhile and for a while it did. But eventually the complete breakdown of management (salaried to be exact, I was an hourly supervisor) and processes due to an over focus on Online Grocery Pickup, made me even more miserable. I left for a more fulfilling job where, for a while, I was making less money (more per hour, but less due to not working a full year).
No amount of money would ever sway me to go back to retail, but if it was just a money issue, I may not have left.
During exit interview:
During the exit interview: HR: So why did you decide to leave our company?
Normal person: It's the shit pay the delusional management.
HR: Ookay. We'll mark that as a lack of a ping-pong table.
Can you imagine if HR actually addressed the reasons for leaving? It's often the money, sometimes the management but usually the money.
Take my wife's example, she changed jobs twice in a year and each jump was a 10k raise (she isn't very good at negotiating, too). My brother changed jobs like 10 times in 5 years (programmer, several were start ups that ended) and he ended up going from 80k to 180k. Most of the jumps had anything to do with work environment, and in tech most of these companies have crazy good work environments.
So do they counter offer? Do they do competitive raises? Actually yes, but our worth is usually so high that doing those just raises the competing offer. If we ever were paid our worth, we'd stay. That hasn't been the case since the 50s-- or so I'm told, anyway.
It wasn't even the case in the 50s. Giving workers what they are responsible for producing would require changing the structure of property relations. An employer cannot do it without abolishing their own role
Well, it was closer I guess? I mean, compared to the income disparity we are today.
Of course whenever there is anyone who makes money simply by owning a company, I'd agree they aren't really worth anything except maybe the effort to found said company (which isn't really the case with investors, share holders, corporations, etc). There is some value in taking the initiative and risk, just not like... hundreds times more than the employee.
Workers should be able to realize the value of what they produce in basically getting the pure profits of the firm.
Value doesn't get to the heart of the matter. Property rights to positive and negative fruits of labor do. When you consider what taking on the risk and initiative means in this context, it is really taking on the negative fruits of labor (liabilities for used-up inputs). Workers should get both the positive and negative fruits of their labor, and take the initiative
There comes a point where you, as an employee, are making enough money that how the work makes you feel starts to matter more than a 1-4% pay bump.
You’d need to be making pretty good money already though…
Even a 20% pay bump doesn’t get an employee that likes their current job if they’re already near $100k (and not in NYC or similar cost).
Under no circumstances though is the problem a ping pong table.
Money never motivates, however a lack of it will certainly demotivate.
A ping-pong table
Fucking… what. Lmao.
Before long, one of the paddles will be broken, the net will be missing, and/or all of the balls will have been lost. Management will never address any of these issues. The table will be useless, except to serve as an excuse for management not to even try to address morale problems.
“We even gave them a ping pong table and it didn’t help. I’m all out of ideas.”
I want a ping-pong table in every office!!
Management dicked around and ruined my job, is my most common reason for leaving, job security was next, pay and conditions, many companies will pay more to attract new employees than retain existing ones.
i LiKe PiZza
I'm always curious who things like the ping pong table are for. I've never been in a situation at work where a couple people got up from their desks and said hey let's go play some ping pong! And management was like Yeah you guys go play, have fun, that's what it's there for!
@WarmSoda Had a foosball table at one place. Lots of use, so much that people came in on Saturdays to finish their work. Never used it, had my work done by early Friday morning every week. Manager didn't give me a good review because I didn't come in on Saturdays. I took it right to HR, and he had to go to managers training. I left shortly afterward.
There's one in our office that gets semi regular use, but personally I'd rather not have it.
we've got a foosball table in my office, and while it obviously wouldn't make the difference between staying and not if the pay wasn't already good and the job wasn't something I liked I do enjoy getting to play foosball.
I'm at a pretty flat company though with a very laid back leadership. I've even had managers pull me out of a call in order to play foosball lol.
whenever I decide to be in the office, I think I get in one to three games during the day? something like that.
My previous job didn’t have a ping pong table.
Needless to say, I am no longer employed there.
Fucking bullshit. Fuck HR
Me when I’m stopping doing the labor I do in exchange for money because they don’t have a ping pong table at the labor factory
You know, the ping pong table being the correct answer is absolutely moronic but the explanation of the pay option is not inaccurate. I work with this data all the time and while pay is big, it's not the biggest reason, or even the reason for a majority. But again, it is certainly not behind "lack of ping pong table" as a reason people leave...
I can see other factors being important too. The ridiculous thing here is saying that it’s often not about money when it’s literally never about a ping pong table
So why did you leave
No ping pong table 😢
We're trying to reduce the numbers of hours a person has to work.
We talk about the end of paid work being mandatory for survival.
Partnerships:
/join #antiwork)