Why most employers aren’t like Starbucks and Costco [View all]

[doxydad]

Being a coffee clerk may not be a dream job, but Starbucks (SBUX) has added some kick to its line positions with a new program that covers college tuition for employees who meet certain conditions. And Starbucks, like Costco (COST), Whole Foods (WFM) and a handful of other enlightened employers, offers starting pay well above minimum wage, along with other benefits it probably doesn’t have to.

Firms that offer employees above-market pay and perks usually contend it makes good business sense to treat workers well, since it boosts morale, discourages turnover and improves the company’s image. So why don’t more companies do it? The answer involves a combination of pragmatism, short-sightedness and sensitivity to Wall Street concerns.

Companies basically fall into two categories in terms of the pay and perks they offer their workers: Those that view their workforce as a cost and those that consider employees an investment. It won’t be surprising to hear the overwhelming majority of companies take the cost approach.

“The number of companies who treat employees as an investment is pretty slim,” says Lee Dyer, a professor at Cornell University’s ILR School. “When a company like Starbucks invests in its people, the reason it gets so much attention is because it’s such an anomaly.”

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/why-most-employers-aren-t-like-starbucks-and-costco-152636634.html