New wage only for new hires?

I mean, it says “to attract and retain” but it could go either way and the line here is arguably grammatically vague.
You could argue it means:
  • “to attract and retain” those Team Members who were hired at the higher wage. Meaning we want to retain them. Not you lol. Or…
  • “to attract” new Team Members with flashy wages, and also potentially use higher raises to “…retain” those of you who decide to stay.
I just don’t see them doing wage increases for everyone at the store all of a sudden, even if the going rate in the area is a buck or two more than what they are paying the lowest paid existing (non-new and not brought in with the new higher wage) TM.

Guess we’ll have to wait and see.
 
I just don’t see them doing wage increases for everyone at the store all of a sudden, even if the going rate in the area is a buck or two more than what they are paying the lowest paid existing (non-new and not brought in with the new higher wage) TM.

Guess we’ll have to wait and see.
They did huge increases at the dc for warehouse workers and associates, every step was adjusted, we’re talking several $$ per hour. But the merits received absolutely nothing. So they could increase pay across the board, but will probably pick and choose, once again. And Target was willing to pay sign on bonuses to new hires, but gave their existing TM who carried most of the workload nothing. They advertise as coming across as supporting higher pay and benefits, but almost every recent change is for the benefit of newer hires (2019-now) while they could care less about their tenured TM.
 
I vaguely remember reading somewhere that it is illegal to pay new hires more than current employees.
Nope. It happens all the time. Perfectly legal unless there’s a local or state regulation but haven’t heard of any.

Part of why companies discourage (although it’s not legal to prohibit) discussing salaries. They don’t want you to know you make less than the new guy.
 
Back
Top