Bluesky users debate corporate wage resistance as class conflict
Online conversation surfaces recurring pattern: employers reject raise requests, then hire replacements at higher pay.
What to know
- A Bluesky thread surfaced recurring worker accounts of employers rejecting modest raise requests, then hiring multiple replacements or external candidates at higher pay—contradicting claimed cost-saving rationale.
- Commenters frame this pattern as deliberate control tactic and class warfare rather than business economics, with some citing specific examples of strategic employee departures that cost companies multiples of denied raises.
- The conversation reflects skepticism toward business-as-usual management logic and political narratives around business competence, with participants arguing fair compensation and worker respect yield better retention and outcomes.
The dispute Whether employer wage denial is primarily about control/hierarchy or simply reflects workers' weak bargaining power due to job-market friction. · positions read across 169 posts and comments
Employer wage denial is deliberate control tactic masquerading as cost-saving; rejecting raises protects power hierarchy regardless of economic loss.
-
“Yeah. The point is to reject the request, not to save money.”
vglntgrandma.bsky.social · Bluesky ↗
Worker self-advocacy through job mobility is the effective response; staying loyal to rejecting employers guarantees wage stagnation.
-
“A few years back I wanted $10,000 more. My employer said no. My new employer offered $80,000 more.”
crabclaw898.bsky.social · Bluesky ↗
Fair compensation and employee respect create mutual benefit; bosses who invest in workers avoid turnover and gain loyalty.
-
“I had a summer job boss who never had to advertise for employment. Word of mouth and high employee retention. How? Fair compensation and never asked an employee to do something he wouldn't do himself.”
pocketprogrammer.bsky.social · Bluesky ↗
mcsquared.bsky.social Bluesky user initiating discussiontransitfossil.bsky.social Bluesky commenterpocketprogrammer.bsky.social Bluesky commenterkevindhull.bsky.social Self-identified CEO, Bluesky commentersmedleybutlerghost.bsky.social Bluesky commenter
How it unfolded 7 developments, newest first · click a bar or a number to jump postscomments
-
7
High-value employee departure costs quantified
A user shares specific case: company denied $500K bonus to sales engineer who built $3M training pipeline. Engineer left; pipeline withered within months. Follow-up notes company spent more on replacements than denied bonus, hired "three guns" unable to recover losses, while engineer now works at SpaceX pre-IPO.
“Company I worked for had a sales engineer/trainer who amassed a 3M training pipeline for their products. He wanted 500K bonus for that which was denied. He abruptly left and within few months the training pipeline withered. Company lost 2.0M to save paying him 500K.”
— smedleybutlerghost.bsky.social -
A few years back I wanted $10,000 more. My employer said no. My new employer offered $80,000 more. And then I received another $12,000 in raises soon after. Seek and ye shall find. And then some.
2 more of the top 3 · 128 posts in this stretch
-
This seems to be common across most industries. I know so many people who left their jobs because they couldn't get a raise, their jobs were too demanding for their pay rate or both and when they leave, 2 people are hired to do the same work they were doing.
-
A billionaire will spend $300 million on political ads rather than just pay $3 million in taxes. This says a couple things... $300 million is nothing to a billionaire, and they desire to exit society while still benefiting from it. (AN ACTUAL PARASITE)
-
-
6
Users cite executive compensation excess as moral framing
Comments invoke billionaire political spending, executive bonuses, and CEO salaries as context for employer unwillingness to grant worker raises. One user notes billionaires spend $300M on political ads rather than pay modest taxes, framing this as parasitic behavior.
“A billionaire will spend $300 million on political ads rather than just pay $3 million in taxes. This says a couple things... $300 million is nothing to a billionaire, and they desire to exit society while still benefiting from it. (AN ACTUAL PARASITE)…”
— preppercat.bsky.social -
Those are the best managers - the ones who roll up their sleeves and get down in the trenches with you.
2 more of the top 3 · 20 posts in this stretch
-
Had this happen in 2017. I asked for less work and more money as I was doing 3 times as much as a guy who was just recently hired (I'm Utah and a woman, so, yeah, that's par for the course). They refused, I left. They hired 2 people to replace me. Costing them so much more. Morons.
-
also their refusing to go to a 4 day work week in spite of the data
-
-
5
Users challenge myth that business management requires special skill
Thread includes skepticism of political framing around business-style government. One self-identified CEO comments: 'there are times when I'm dumber than a stump.' Another frames job-hopping as rational response: 'The best way to really get an increase is to leave for a better life.'
“I'm a CEO and I've got to tell you there are times when I'm dumber than a stump.”
— kevindhull.bsky.social -
The NYT had a piece a while back that showed companies could save momey and increase efficiency by employees working from home but companies wouldn't do it because CEOs wanted the image of employees in the building. How efficient the corporate ego is!
2 more of the top 3 · 9 posts in this stretch
-
And yet the average voter wants the government to be "run like a business"? They think business people must somehow be smarter than the rest of us, make better decisions than the rst of us? I'm a CEO and I've got to tell you there are times when I'm dumber than a stump.
-
Yep. Two decades ago my parents were always whinging because I did t stay in a job for more than 2 years. I’m fairly sure I make 3 or 4 times the amount I would have if I stayed at that same job. The beat way to really get an increase is to leave for a better life
-
-
4
Users contrast exploitative management with alternative model
Some commenters offer counterexamples of fair-pay employers with low turnover and describe bosses willing to work alongside employees. One describes a boss whose company "never had to advertise for employment" due to fair compensation and mutual respect.
“I had a summer job boss who never had to advertise for employment. Word of mouth and high employee retention. How? Fair compensation and never asked an employee to do something he wouldn't do himself.”
— pocketprogrammer.bsky.social -
And you can also just not be an asshole. I had a summer job boss who never had to advertise for employment. Word of mouth and high employee retention. How? Fair compensation and never asked an employee to do something he wouldn’t do himself. Teenage me was jumping in a dumpster with a millionaire.
2 more of the top 3 · 6 posts in this stretch
-
Money might not be real, but rebuking insolent upstarts before they can recognize their worth certainly is.
-
This, supposedly, is why we need a businessman, to rUn GoVeRnMeNt LiKe A bUsiNeSs!!!
-
-
3
Commenters argue rejection is intentional, not economical
Multiple users propose employers reject raises as deliberate control tactic rather than cost measure. One commenter states 'The point is to reject the request, not to save money.' Another cites a NYT piece on corporations refusing remote work despite cost savings, attributing refusal to CEO ego rather than efficiency.
“Yeah. The point is to reject the request, not to save money.”
— vglntgrandma.bsky.social -
Yeah. The point is to reject the request, not to save money.
1 more of the top 2 · 3 posts in this stretch
-
S
They may be playing games with tax write-offs since labor cost is a deductible item.
-
-
2
Workers share wage-rejection experiences in response
Thread fills with accounts from users describing rejected raise requests followed by employer hiring at higher rates or multiple replacements. Users cite personal examples spanning years, with consistent pattern: initial denial to existing employee, then higher external hire or costlier multi-person replacement.
“I think they fear giving people what they ask for: "what if everyone asked for a raise? we can't have that!" unless you're an executive who dives deep into the bonus pool.”
— transitfossil.bsky.social -
I think they fear giving people what they ask for: "what if everyone asked for a raise? we can't have that!" unless you're an executive who dives deep into the bonus pool.
1 more of the top 2 · 2 posts in this stretch
-
This is a forever issue with corporations. Years ago, my large company job was moving to KC. I didn't want to go, but they offered me a promotion. I made my minimum for moving known. Came in $5k below what I asked for, nope. They hired 2 men both making more than I asked for the same position.
-
-
1
mcsquared posts framing corporate efficiency as class war
A Bluesky user posts that corporate "efficiency" is not about cost-saving but class conflict, drawing 245 comments and 8,241 engagement.
“It's not just "corporate efficiency" it's class war…”
— mcsquared.bsky.social
What people are saying 8 voices from 1 site · best of 169 · verbatim
- Why do companies consistently fail to calculate true replacement cost when denying raises to existing employees?
- What systemic changes would shift power balance to make worker mobility less necessary for wage growth?
- Sep 22
-
This. They are multiplying that number in their heads.
-
Weird how giving employees a raise as appropriate is problematic but millions for CEOs isn't.
-
Gotta say love this Took the last couple Friday’s off Now I’m like living and thinking 🤔 This is so much better
-
when Dad got out of college he was a plant manager in a furniture factory -other than the Principals the Master Joiners were the highest paid employees in the company Dad was basically a clerk the experienced Tradesmen-were the ones that made everything work ...now bean-counters think they do
-
It’s not about the money - it’s all about the corporate desire to push the lie that all workers are easily replaceable.
-
Same thing happened to me. Except it took 2 new inexperienced people to replace me. Heh heh heh heh heh. 🌊
-
Nope, it's just business. The reason they say no is because they know job hunting sucks and most people will say "f* it I guess I am stuck at this pay". The number who say that more than makes up for the number who take the leap. If more people were willing to leave their employer this would stop.
-
Now how much more did the guy get at the new gig?