They regularly give out bonuses rewarding good work, but the problem, again, isn't just wages. Tripling someone's salary because they are doing the work of three people doesn't make doing the work of three people any more feasible - you just get compensated more, which means the department has less to offer to whoever is filling the vacancy you're covering, and then there's no money left to boost their burnt out work force.

Team building exercises don't cost a ton of money, just fyi. Things like group meditation or yoga aren't exactly in the same financial ballpark as increasing 100 employees salaries by even just 25%, nevermind being compensated for the work they're actually doing.

Look at UVM if you'd like a real life example. All of their long term, good staff, have left because the traveling nurses are getting paid 1.5x as much as they are to incentivise them to work in Vermont to try to fill their vacant positions. So you can pay more, but that doesn't linearly increase productivity or efficiency. The way UVM handled it is hurting its staff.

That can be a two-edged sword. Yes, the people that stay and cover other positions definitely deserve more compensation, but the danger is that the management will make the added responsibilities the norm for the poor employees that are stepping up. Bad Management can also use that to justify saving payroll by not filling positions quickly or even getting rid of some positions outright.
If the organization doesn't identify and fix the undelying issues from the start, it can be difficult to change them down the line, which will only increase turnover.

> wouldn’t paying them more be the least the employer can do to compensate for additional work?

It might be that they simply can't pay more. They can't raise prices like a business - if they have X funding from their funding sources, they just have to hope someone decides to get generous if they need more.