Great advice, this is really what I'd like to do... propose that I have an offer that I don't really want, but the money is better - hoping that they can match it, since the offer proves my worth
If an employee comes and says she or he has a better off I let them take it. If they're looking, they're looking, and I want people who want to work with us.
I am not at all unhappy if someone comes and asks for a raise. I believe everyone is paid fairly, but if there's a mistake, well I'm glad to find out and fix it. But I'm happy to explain why the pay people are getting is probably fair.
I use hiring info to keep abreast of salaries: if candidates seem to need more than I had planned to offer then I level the appropriate employees up as well. I.e. you don't have to try to get a new job just to get a raise. It means people are paid fairly (e.g. your company's cap on raises is stupid). Apparently publishing everybody's pay adds stress for some reason, but I try to set the pay as if they were published -- so if someone does find out they won't be surprised ("Woah, Jane gets 20% more than me? Crap, I guess she is the one we all go to when we are having trouble finding the right algorithm; I should pick up my game").
Note that there is nothing wrong with looking around at other company's hiring pages, linkedin etc; it's no different from keeping your other skills up to snuff (learning new technologies or whatever). I just don't like being presented with what's essentially an ultimatum -- it means the asker isn't really thinking about the issue.
If they're looking, they're looking, and I want people who want to work with us.
And what do you think motivates people to work for you? Why not pay them nothing and only take people who are willing to work for nothing?
If your SaaS provider raises prices do you pay to move to a new SaaS provider when it is cheaper to just pay the new rate vs paying to move to a new provider? Why do you think your employees should be held to a different standard from any other vendor you do business with?
You manage a team to get work done. If someone is too expensive compared to your alternatives then sure let them go. Letting them go when they offer what you want at a price you are willing to pay is just crippling yourself for no reason. Even if you only retain someone for an extra year or two that can be a big chunk of their total tenure and that further reduces hiring and on boarding costs.
I use hiring info to keep abreast of salaries: if candidates seem to need more than I had planned to offer then I level the appropriate employees up as well. I.e. you don't have to try to get a new job just to get a raise. It means people are paid fairly (e.g. your company's cap on raises is stupid).
It's awesome that you do this even if it's not economically rational. I think you are a unicorn both in that you do this and that you manage somewhere that allows you to have that policy.
However hidden in that statement is "the appropriate employees." Odds are all your inappropriate employees are going to have to get an outside offer. If that churn is cheaper than the alternative then sure it's totally rational.
I don't know why you consider it economically irrational to pay people this way.
And by "appropriate people" I mean if I discover our analog EEs are being paid less than market I bring them up; just because front end javascript jockeys are in demand and their price is going up doesn't imply that marketing people are also underpaid.
You appear from this one message to be extremely cynical. I'm sorry.
Read the post carefully. I am not looking. But every time I have a drink or lunch with a friend, they make me offers that are hard to resist, with specific amounts way above what I'm currently making. Again, I am not looking, but the market is telling me what my fair price should be. My loyalty to my employer is still 100%.
If an employee comes and says she or he has a better off I let them take it. If they're looking, they're looking, and I want people who want to work with us.
I am not at all unhappy if someone comes and asks for a raise. I believe everyone is paid fairly, but if there's a mistake, well I'm glad to find out and fix it. But I'm happy to explain why the pay people are getting is probably fair.
I use hiring info to keep abreast of salaries: if candidates seem to need more than I had planned to offer then I level the appropriate employees up as well. I.e. you don't have to try to get a new job just to get a raise. It means people are paid fairly (e.g. your company's cap on raises is stupid). Apparently publishing everybody's pay adds stress for some reason, but I try to set the pay as if they were published -- so if someone does find out they won't be surprised ("Woah, Jane gets 20% more than me? Crap, I guess she is the one we all go to when we are having trouble finding the right algorithm; I should pick up my game").
Note that there is nothing wrong with looking around at other company's hiring pages, linkedin etc; it's no different from keeping your other skills up to snuff (learning new technologies or whatever). I just don't like being presented with what's essentially an ultimatum -- it means the asker isn't really thinking about the issue.