Pay raises for 2010

[BUYMECAR]

Originally Posted by djblade

Maybe =P

As long has Netflix's stock keeps dropping were starting to do good therefore we might get a raise lol but then again video stores are dieing ;__; Netflix's stock Drop $10 in one month

how much we may or may not end up getting paid has nothing to do with stock fluctuations. market conditions are not at all suited to reflect store operations and it doesn't work the other way around.

[zooworker]

How can they give raises when then can't even pay the vendors for supplies.....

[whineyboy]

you know honestly the raises they give are more symbolic then anything else i mean a quarter an hour, that is not enough to make real difference, but it is the thoughyt that hey you are doing a good job here some extra that is good for moral

[TheAnomaly]

I'll take a penny raise, if it means I'm making more than minimum wage. Dear Blockbuster, when I started, this wasn't a minimum wage job.

[zooworker]

Originally Posted by TheAnomaly

I'll take a penny raise, if it means I'm making more than minimum wage. Dear Blockbuster, when I started, this wasn't a minimum wage job.

Careful a penny might put you in the next tax bracket....

[BBVSlave]

If you want a raise, find another job.

[zooworker]

Beware they are getting rid of people who have long term and make a lot more than others. It's happening.

[Paradigm]

Originally Posted by zooworker

Beware they are getting rid of people who have long term and make a lot more than others. It's happening.

Zoo I almost always agree with you, but this is where I must go...wut?

The SM I work with now has worked for blockbuster for almost 15 years O_O Why would they want to fire people who are tried and proven, an hire new people, who 1. cost ridiculous amounts in training (especially a manager) and 2. would go through that whole greenness to the system.

It'd be a stupid financial decision to simply fire people based on their longevity and pay with the company...If at the very least it comes to that, I'm sure people will be offered pay decreases as opposed to simply firing and replacing them. That would be the most financially sound decision. "Look the company is in dire straits, we all want our jobs, you're getting paid too much, we need to talk about a reduction otherwise you might end up being replaced. It's just not feasible to keep someone on at your pay level" etc.

[empbal]

Originally Posted by Paradigm

Zoo I almost always agree with you, but this is where I must go...wut?

The SM I work with now has worked for blockbuster for almost 15 years O_O Why would they want to fire people who are tried and proven, an hire new people, who 1. cost ridiculous amounts in training (especially a manager) and 2. would go through that whole greenness to the system.

It'd be a stupid financial decision to simply fire people based on their longevity and pay with the company...If at the very least it comes to that, I'm sure people will be offered pay decreases as opposed to simply firing and replacing them. That would be the most financially sound decision. "Look the company is in dire straits, we all want our jobs, you're getting paid too much, we need to talk about a reduction otherwise you might end up being replaced. It's just not feasible to keep someone on at your pay level" etc.

They think they can hire someone of the same quality off the street for a lower salary and save some money. From corporate's perspective, the same amount of work gets done for less money.

Offering an option of pay decreases or firing may be more expensive because of severance and possible lawsuits. Not only that, if you're told you're going to make say $5k less per year, you're going to start feeling resentful toward your employer and not have the incentive to work as hard.

If I was your SM or DM and told you we're bringing you down to minimum wage and if you don't like that, we're firing you, you're going to be pissed off either way.

[Paradigm]

Originally Posted by empbal

They think they can hire someone of the same quality off the street for a lower salary and save some money. From corporate's perspective, the same amount of work gets done for less money.

Offering an option of pay decreases or firing may be more expensive because of severance and possible lawsuits. Not only that, if you're told you're going to make say $5k less per year, you're going to start feeling resentful toward your employer and not have the incentive to work as hard.

If I was your SM or DM and told you we're bringing you down to minimum wage and if you don't like that, we're firing you, you're going to be pissed off either way.

Well the way I look at it is from my experience: When I was rehired I had to haggle with the DM over how much I was getting paid, I told her it wasn't worth me traveling 45 minutes every day for 7.50 an hour :P She knew I was the best in sales at the other store so she worked with me. I feel like I actually get paid for my experience and ability. If you're being paid a shit-ton of money and doing absolutely nothing productive, you should have been canned ages ago.

I just don't see how it's less financially risky, for every person you fire, you're paying unemployment, hiring process, training of the newb, and depending on the position re-organizing a store. Either way you'll have some asshat crying that the DM fired him because he's <insert random colour of the rainbow here>. My old SM was fired and rehired because she claimed she was discriminated against for her weight...As if it had nothing to do with the fact she was asking people to work off the clock.

I just hate the idea that people are going to be randomly fired if they're excellent employees just because they make what they're worth. From my experience you get what you pay for, look at Wal-Mart's customer service...7.50 an hour gets you a "No, now leave me alone, I'm on break."