the flat rate peanut butter raise thing is kinda cool, but i think it's a bit of a cop-out . like, shouldn't employees be motivated by the work they do and not just a arbitrary percentage increase? plus, what about those who are already doing amazing work but still need a raise cuz inflation is killing their purchasing power? anyway, maybe it's a way for companies to simplify things and reduce costs, i dunno . one thing's for sure tho, employees should be aware of what's going on and negotiate their own raises if they feel they're worth more
I'm all about flat-rate raises - like, who needs individual performance evaluations when a steady 3.5% is better than nothing, right? I mean, it's not like employees are just going to magically get more motivated or anything if they're guaranteed a small raise every year... but at the same time, companies don't want to take any risks and might be worried about those top performers finding better deals elsewhere . And can we talk about how confusing it is when some companies do individual raises and others just go for flat rates? Like, why not just have both? Anyway, I guess this trend will stick... or maybe not
Companies r thinkin simplify salary gives . but is 3.5% enough? seems like peanuts compared 2 inflation rates. dont get me wrong, idc how raises r given, just make sure its fair & transparent .
"The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing." - Walt Disney
I think companies are getting too comfortable with just giving out a generic raise without thinking about the impact on employees' motivation. If I'm being honest, it feels like a cop-out. Employers should be incentivizing top performers more than ever. Maybe they're trying to simplify things, but at what cost? It's all about finding that balance between rewarding hard work and not discouraging people from going above and beyond.
I'm not sure about these flat-rate "peanut butter" raises... I mean, I get that companies want to simplify things and avoid bias, but is 3.5% really enough? And what's the point of offering everyone the same raise when you've got people who are putting in way more hours or taking on extra responsibilities? It just seems like a cop-out. But at the same time, I can see why some companies would want to avoid all the drama and paperwork that comes with performance-based raises
idk why companies are all about simplicity rn they're just throwing peanuts at us instead of actually addressing the real issues like income inequality and benefits my cousin's friend works at a company that's doing this and she said it's kinda frustrating cuz she's not sure if she'll get a promotion or not anyway, i think it's cool that companies are exploring new ways to pay their employees
. like, shouldn't employees be motivated by the work they do and not just a arbitrary percentage increase? plus, what about those who are already doing amazing work but still need a raise cuz inflation is killing their purchasing power? anyway, maybe it's a way for companies to simplify things and reduce costs, i dunno 
. one thing's for sure tho, employees should be aware of what's going on and negotiate their own raises if they feel they're worth more 
- like, who needs individual performance evaluations when a steady 3.5% is better than nothing, right? 
Anyway, I guess this trend will stick... or maybe not 
compared 2 inflation rates. dont get me wrong, idc how raises r given, just make sure its fair & transparent 
.
like income inequality and benefits 
anyway, i think it's cool that companies are exploring new ways to pay their employees 