[mildtrepidation]

I wouldn't go so far as to make this assumption, though it could be the case. I'd say it's more important to realize that management that would come up with this sort of 'reward' in the first place is not at all likely to care about this kind of input, even if it's phrased nicely or given privately.

[001sky]

This also migh just be the classic 'fit' issue. Whilst unfortunate, OP (or someone on his behalf) needs to find a better gig. Life is simply too short.

Simple rule is business is to pay $10/per $100 dollars of new revenues. This is Amazon referral fee, for example. But getting paid $10/ per 1,000 is off by an <order of magnitude> and the manager is lacking judgement. This is opportunistic and potentially exploitative.

Highly doubtful a private 1-on-1 would change the stripes, but maybe who knows.

[dragonwriter]

Perhaps, but any management -- well intentioned or not -- is a lot less likely to see the "input" as disruption that is toxic to morale, productivity, and managements interests generally if it is either (and especially if it is both) presented in a way which focuses on constructive improvement in approach to the stated goal and/or provided privately.

[giarc]

Sure a poor assumption, but remember this is feedback from staff that are paid minimum wage. The inputs are not likely differing engineering controls for example which result in $100,000's of savings annually.