Both the BI article and the NYT article it cites appears to be only able to quote the same 2 people. Now I know BI has a pro company/anti-worker agenda and I know NYT can be neutral on these matters. What I can't find in either are any numbers.

So I looked at Glassdoor[0] and the trend looks like after 8/2015, when this article was published, there is a sharp uptick in employee reviews. So far it appears almost everyone is happy with the change (customers, employees, and management).

[0] https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Gravity-Payments-Reviews-E...

An employee that quits is clearly not the best employee. They were incapable of changing directions with the company.

If "the best" employee in a company quit because they were philosophically opposed to a new client's business, most would cock an eyebrow, think they were inflexible or committed, and move on. I find it extremely interesting that instead, a philosophical disagreement about cow-orkers' salaries is apparently considered very differently by some.

I would imagine the best employees quit because they thought it was unfair to be paid the same or almost the same as people who know and contribute a lot less. It would have been better to just pay everyone above the market by some percentage but this would not make for a sexy headline.

The best employees wouldn't give a shit what someone else is getting paid as long as they are being fairly compensated. You can always ask for more money, if you're as good as you claim you are you will definitely get it. I'm going to go with my gut and say this is just crabby, bitter griping from a few ex-employees.

I imagine you're correct about why they quit. I don't see why that has anything to do with what I wrote, any more than I understand the dig at companies seeking publicity. (What could possibly be next? A pop star doing drugs?)

Sounds to me like those weren't the "best employees", but rather just the most petty and jealous.

I don't think it's petty or jealous to seek employment at a place where hard work and dedication are rewarded.

That's not what they were doing, though. It absolutely is petty and jealous to quit because someone else got a raise, and now you're not making more than them.

The folks that left were the folks that built the company. The new hires came in, and promptly got a massive pay raise to match the most senior employees, even though their contributions were non existent at that time.

The CEO got really good personal PR. The new hires got huge raises. The employees that had toiled long hours and built the platform got nothing.

That's not somehow petty, nor jealous. Let's not demonize the employees that decided they were not going to be part of that company anymore - a company that showed it wasn't going to reward hard work and dedication. Most of us would have made the same choice.

You got all of this from that same article? It doesn't mention anything about long hours or toiling. All it says is they were there for a while and were mad that new hires were getting the same pay.

No one bats an eyelid when a company hires a new unicorn, 10x developer. It's equally possible that raising the salary also allowed them to hire 10x employees and the old hires were feeling threatened so left.

We work with data, if I don't feel I'm compensated fairly I write a letter complete with numbers saying what my renumeration should be. And forward that to the manager and HR.

> You got all of this from that same article

We're discussing previous articles about this company.

> No one bats an eyelid when a company hires a new unicorn, 10x developer. It's equally possible that raising the salary also allowed them to hire 10x employees and the old hires were feeling threatened so left.

That's not what happened here. No "10x developer" was hired. It was literally just a huge pay raise for the newest employees, and shafting the ones that had been there for years.

It turned from a merit-based system into one that valued everyone equally - and while this sounds great on the surface, not everyone contributes equally. Those that built the platform really felt like they got the short end of the stick. New hires, who put in none of the effort to get the startup up and running, had none of the knowledge nor domain expertise, suddenly were earning as much as the most senior engineers.

Not to mention the entire thing reeked at the time as one big PR stunt, since it didn't "just happen" one day, but rather the media was notified and it turned into a big fuss. It seems the stench had some credence given this lawsuit.

> We work with data, if I don't feel I'm compensated fairly I write a letter complete with numbers saying what my renumeration should be. And forward that to the manager and HR

This statement seems like hyperbole to me. I imagine few managers respond well to threats or begging via email about salary. Nevermind pointing to what other people get in a market for compensation is a terrible way to value yourself. You should start these discussions with how much value you bring to the table, not what others at other companies may or may not bring to theirs.

"That's not what happened here. No "10x developer" was hired. It was literally just a huge pay raise for the newest employees, and shafting the ones that had been there for years."

No, it wasn't. There was no "shafting" involved. Phrasing it that way shows that you're just as petty and jealous as those others. Someone else getting paid well does not take away from your worth.

"It turned from a merit-based system"

Payroll has almost never been a merit-based system, so any arguments about that are deeply flawed.

It is petty. If you've worked somewhere for ten years, you've already made 10 times what the new hires will have made in their first year. So for your ten years of contributions, you have ten years of back-pay that the new hires don't have a dime of.

It is entirely petty, and I will demonize those who are so caught up in what others are making to the point where they'd rather quit than work for a company where everyone is being paid well.

You know this now?

I thought it was common knowledge, since it made plenty of ripples when the news broke. Here's one article from a quick google search:

http://www.businessinsider.com/dan-price-gravity-payments-em...

Citation?