Slashdot Mirror


On Obtaining Appropriate Compensation...

wpc4 asks: "I've been working at my current place of employment in California for going on 2.5 years. I work for a rather big HMO providing IT support for over 2000 users. In my time there I have had no negative feedback, I am the "go to" for the department, I have improved our service area's image to other IT departments in our organization, had one promotion, and so forth. I am currently making over $5k less than the minimum for my title, while some new employees just got hired with the same title and lesser skills as myself and were hired on at over 30% more than I make, yet I have 2.5 years of seniority. Since I'm not union I don't appear to have any way of trying to get myself compensated appropriately, is there anything in the California labor laws that I can pull into play? Any suggestions at all before I look for other employment?"

184 comments

  1. Tried asking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Squeaky wheel gets the grease (or replaced... but if you're going to look elsewhere anyway, shouldn't hurt to ask.)

    1. Re:Tried asking? by trompete · · Score: 1

      Before you do something drastic, make sure that you stand above all of the unemployed people in your metro area. There are thousands of skilled IT workers here in the Twin Cities without work (partially due to our new gov. Pawlenty making the government more "efficient" :-P).
      A safer alternative would be to get interviews for similar positions at other companies and see what they will offer you. If you don't get offers from other companies, you had better stay where you are cause you're lucky to be working!!

    2. Re:Tried asking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Before you do something drastic, make sure that you stand above all of the unemployed people in your metro area. There are thousands of skilled IT workers here in the Twin Cities without work (partially due to our new gov. Pawlenty making the government more "efficient" :-P).
      If so many "skilled" workers are unemployed, doesn't that indicate that the definition of "skilled" needs to be revised to account for demand, at least where trade skills are concerned?
  2. Since you didn't mention it... by Murdock037 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...have you tried asking?

    The points you make are all reasonable. If you're genuinely as useful as you claim, management would certainly be receptive, especially in light of the discrepancy between your salary and that of the new hires (which they may simply not realize until you point it out). This could very well end up being a non-issue for you.

    And don't threaten to quit on your initial approach, if you do ask. Most of my bosses have never responded well to confrontational employees, if they weren't given the chance to right a wrong in the first place.

    1. Re:Since you didn't mention it... by Drakin · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points, I'd mod you up.

      Seriously, this is the best route to take. Simply inquire about the situation, politly, and explain your viewpoint. Demands and threats are probably the best way to not get you your raise.

      It's a common issue it seems. Few companies seem to realise that when they change the pay scale for new hires, they need to alter it all across the board.

    2. Re:Since you didn't mention it... by Otter · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Hmmm, the first four responses are: ask for a raise, sue, threaten to quit, and quit if you're a white male. A 25% rate of socially functional responses seems about par for the course.

      Absolutely -- before getting a lawyer (which won't help) or threatening to walk, ask. It's extremely unlikely anything worse will happen than them saying no, and if you're doing a good job and making below minimum for your title, you're in a relatively good position.

    3. Re:Since you didn't mention it... by wpc4 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I have. I was told there wasn't enough money in the budget, originally. Now my boss is looking into getting me a promotion, although HR specifies no more than a 10% raise for any promotion. So now I'm making $15k less than title and still less then the new hires if I were to get a promotion.

    4. Re:Since you didn't mention it... by mcdrewski42 · · Score: 1

      Just because HR have a policy doesn't mean they won't make an exception if your boss is supportive of it

      OTOH - why don't you apply for the new hire positions if they're worth more money?????

      --
      /* affect != effect */ void affect(int *thing,int effect) { *thing += effect; }
    5. Re:Since you didn't mention it... by splattertrousers · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you ask, I'd recommend keeping it short. Don't go on and on about how great you are, and don't bring up all kinds of comparisons with other people in your company or in other companies.

      I'd aim for a 10 second pitch.

    6. Re:Since you didn't mention it... by mcdrewski42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you're genuinely as useful as you claim, management would certainly be receptive

      It's glib, but anytime you think you're indispensable, stick your hand in a bucket of water and when you pull it out see how big a hole it leaves.

      Remember that when you walk in to the office.

      --
      /* affect != effect */ void affect(int *thing,int effect) { *thing += effect; }
    7. Re:Since you didn't mention it... by neitzsche · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Find another job. You are worth it.

      By not seeking other employment you are encouraging them to screw their employees. You are rewarding them for screwing you (by staying.) Your employer has no other way of learning why underpaying employees is bad.

      The longer you stay underpaid, the more they are encouraged to do the same to others.

      Hmmmm. I think I'll go update *my* resumé now...

      --
      "God is dead." - Frederik Nietzsche
    8. Re:Since you didn't mention it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the best solution is: 1) Ask. 2) If that doesn't help, just start stealing things, slacking off, taking lots of cat-naps during the day. If my employer treats me like shit and it's a tough job market, I'd just start treating *them* like shit by doing the absolute minimum to get by.

      After all, why should I bust my ass to make less or equal to everyone else who slacks off and does *their* absolute minimum? If they're not going to reward you justly for your exceptional work, stop working exceptionally.

    9. Re:Since you didn't mention it... by BitGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful


      If your boss is "Trying" to get this fixed, and its been more than three months with no solution, your boss is not doing anything.

      Either he doesnt' think you're worth the new money, or your company is too dysfunctional.

      Start looking elsewhere. If you really aren't being paid what you're worth, and the company has had three months to rectify it and hasn't ,then you should leave.

      IF they are hiring new people at %30 more but say that they don't ahve room in the budget, they are lying.

      They have room in the budget for the new people.

      I think either your boss doesn't value you as much as those new people (it happens, even with people who are actually good employees) or he figure's your'e a sap who he can string along.

      Get your resume in shape and get out of there.

      Don't be a sap.

      Oh, and screw this "they owe it to me" crap-- they don't owe you anything, and that's what you're getting, so end the relationship. Let your boss know you know this is absurd, or kills his ass until you leave- its your call. But its time for you to tak responsibility for the situation. Find someone who will pay you what you're worth.

      Not because they "owe" it to you-- because they value you.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    10. Re:Since you didn't mention it... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1
      I.T.? California? Job?

      My friend... It is hard and cold out here amongst the jobless throng. Be careful. Don't jump from the frying pan!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    11. Re:Since you didn't mention it... by cmehta1 · · Score: 1

      I wasnt in the exact same situation, but I did have the same feelings of being vastly underpaid, lots of seniority, since I started there fresh out of school and stayed far longer than any of my school friends stayed in their first jobs.

      I did ask for a big bump in a polite letter, explaining my many reasons and gave them two months to "find the cash" at my next scheduled review period. The whole letter was fairly well-received with no hard feelings and they liked how I did it.

      That being said...two months later THEY FORGOT and gave me the pro-forma 2% raise w/o an explanation!!!!! When I flipped out, they couldnt complain "since they had their chance", and I was able to legitamitely threaten to walk w/o problems, since they completely forgot to address my request or didnt take it seriously.

      I gave them enough rope to hang themselves with and even upper mgmt agreed I had a right to feel angry. When they realized I tried to work with them, and they completely ignored me, they knew they had better come up with a better # FAST.

      I didnt get the 30% bump I was hoping for....but 20% was a nice consolation prize. Also HAD I tried to walk, there wouldnt have been any hard feelings about "squeezing them" for a counter-offer, since I gave them their shot early.

    12. Re:Since you didn't mention it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's extremely unlikely anything worse will happen than them saying no
      but possible. hard-working organized colleague asked for a raise, got fired. getting the work done required hiring three new people. can't assume companies are rational profit maximizers.
  3. Unlikely by Asgard · · Score: 0

    I doubt there is any sort of labor-law to protect you from an employer who doesn't want to pay you competitively. Try threatening to quit unless they bring your pay back into line, then quit when they refuse.

  4. IANAL, so here goes... by digital_freedom · · Score: 1, Informative

    Get some legal advice for your situation. You can usually call an attorney and talk with him/her for 30 min for free. Then ask them if you have a case and whether they think they can win for you. Also, ask if you really have a chance to win some increased compensation and how much they think it would be. Figure out your cost-benefit in all this, and then decide whether or not to proceed.

    1. Re:IANAL, so here goes... by malakai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You _THINK_ you deserve a raise so your going to call up a lawyer????

      I don't understand this mindset. It's insanity. No wonder you can't throw a stone and not hit a lawyer these days (who will sue you).

      -malakai

    2. Re:IANAL, so here goes... by KDan · · Score: 1

      Maybe he can claim that he's been driven to a nervous breakdown by the fact that he's underpaid, that it's destroyed his life, that it's ruined his future prospects - hell, it even got him as far as making a post on /. about it!!!

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
    3. Re:IANAL, so here goes... by b!arg · · Score: 1

      How in god's name is this modded up as informative????

      --

      Everybody dies frustrated and sad and that is beautiful
    4. Re:IANAL, so here goes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You _THINK_ you deserve a raise so your going to call up a lawyer????"

      Well, you have to pay that lawyer somehow...

    5. Re:IANAL, so here goes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you fucking stupid? You need a lawyer to ask for a raise?

  5. Suggestion by aztektum · · Score: 1

    Instead of wading through a million IANAL posts on Slashdot, consult AL.

    --
    :: aztek ::
    No sig for you!!
  6. ask for a raise by claydean · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Ask for a raise

  7. IANAL by Stigmata669 · · Score: 1

    and YANAL. So go find a L.

    --
    Yawn.
  8. Ask. by afabbro · · Score: 4, Insightful
    That's it - ask. Bring some data and make your case. If they say no, you can either swallow it or look for a new job.

    There is often a "loyalty penalty" in organizations. Someone who works for many years and gets yearly raises will make less than someone who comes in at market rates. It sucks but it's very common.

    --
    Advice: on VPS providers
  9. Making less then the minimum? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I am currently making over $5k less than the minimum for my title

    Huh? How can you be making less than the minimum? What minimum are you talking about?

    1. Re:Making less then the minimum? by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Huh? How can you be making less than the minimum? What minimum are you talking about?"

      He pays them to work there.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    2. Re:Making less then the minimum? by one9nine · · Score: 3, Funny

      He must work in Soviet Russia then.

    3. Re:Making less then the minimum? by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Huh? How can you be making less than the minimum? What minimum are you talking about?"

      Insightful? It isn't obvious? Most places have a salary range for any given title. "The miminum we pay a nurse is $16 an hour". He's below that. Using the example I gave, he's a nurse making $13 an hour. Not trying to bash you (or the moderator) dude, but I'm a little baffled as to why that comment didn't make sense to you.

      My question is: did he get into that position by a field promotion, or did they hold him back because he didn't have a full education in his field or something?

    4. Re:Making less then the minimum? by wpc4 · · Score: 1

      Not industry set minimum, company HR compensation minimum.

    5. Re:Making less then the minimum? by isorox · · Score: 1

      He pays them to work there.

      Having just graduated I'm almost to the point of considering that (pay for real-world work experience, no OSS doesnt count). Instead I'm being an entrepreneur for the summer.

    6. Re:Making less then the minimum? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Most places have a salary range for any given title. "The miminum we pay a nurse is $16 an hour". He's below that.

      It's possible that's what he was talking about, but if so, how did that happen? If the place has a policy to pay people a certain salary why aren't they following it? Is it intentional? Is it an oversight?

      I've heard of minimum salaries for union employees, like nurses, but he specifically said he was non-union. So where does this minimum come from?

    7. Re:Making less then the minimum? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Why would a company set a minimum for itself and then break it? Are they aware of this? It doesn't make sense to me.

    8. Re:Making less then the minimum? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "If the place has a policy to pay people a certain salary why aren't they following it? Is it intentional? Is it an oversight?"

      At the end of the day, people who decide salaries are only human. It could be a mistake, it could be that the person is defficient in an area, it could be that the place wants him to leave but doesn't want to fire him. I'm being held back because I got promoted into a position I didn't go to college for. Figures.

      "So where does this minimum come from?"

      I'd like him to answer that. I wouldn't be surprised if the economy had something to do with it. Worse, it may not actually be policy for somebody to be paid a certain amount, just a guideline. He should get that in writing.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    9. Re:Making less then the minimum? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      "So where does this minimum come from?"

      I'd like him to answer that.

      '

      Well that's exactly what I was doing when I asked what minimum he was talking about. After all, the answers I've gotten are pure speculation.

    10. Re:Making less then the minimum? by Chasuk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This isn't rocket science.

      From the context, it should be obvious that our complainant is stating that he makes $5k less than the average minimum paid for his level of experience, wherein "minimum" is the lower/lowest amount in the range normally paid the people doing the same job in his/her geographical area.

      Not to be condescending, but professionals have no mandated minimum salaries, so the meaning should have been unambiguous.

    11. Re:Making less then the minimum? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      From the context, it should be obvious that our complainant is stating that he makes $5k less than the average minimum paid for his level of experience

      What the hell is an average minimum?

      wherein "minimum" is the lower/lowest amount in the range normally paid the people doing the same job in his/her geographical area.

      Normally paid? How do you figure out whhat is the range normally paid? Obviously he's not making below the lowest amount paid to people in his geographical area.

      Not to be condescending, but professionals have no mandated minimum salaries, so the meaning should have been unambiguous.

      Well, it wasn't. I've gotten three replies now with three different answers. So there was nothing unambiguous about it.

    12. Re:Making less then the minimum? by Zerth · · Score: 1

      I worked at a place like that. They upped the minimum salary to X, I was getting .85X(my salary had been about 5% above the previous X). I asked them why I hadn't been raised up to at least the minimum, they said they had a policy that they couldn't give anyone more than a 10% raise per year. I asked them why I hadn't gotten a 10% raise, then. They flustered. I asked them what could I possibly do and one of them made a crack about quitting and then interviewing for my job again.

      I didn't have the guts to, but a coworker in the same situation did and they hired him back on for the equivalent of a 20% raise. I didn't quit right then, but I left a few months later after they started asking me if I wanted to go into management.

    13. Re:Making less then the minimum? by kraksmoka · · Score: 1
      why bother quitting? why not just apply for your job as a new hire while you're still working there??? if your company is as dense as it sounds, they might hire you again with your raise :)

      i can tell you for sure tho, hiring an attorney for this is the last thing you want to do, unless you're itching to get fired.

      --
      "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
    14. Re:Making less then the minimum? by NevDull · · Score: 1

      1. Hire employees
      2. Make them pay you
      3. PROFIT!!!!!!!!

    15. Re:Making less then the minimum? by HeyLaughingBoy · · Score: 1
      Instead I'm being an entrepreneur for the summer.

      What are you doing (entrepreneur wise) and why can't you keep doing it after the summer? If you have the initiative to be an entrepreneur, you're instantly setting yourself apart from the crowd if your venture fails and you have to look for a job (been there, done that, lost my T-shirt :-) Employers are generally impressed by self-motivated people. I've mentioned my entrepreneurial side businesses at the interviews for this job and my previous job and the interviewers loved it. Even brought some hardware I designed with me. Heck, at the last job, before coming on board I told the dept. head that I would probably be working on occasional maintenance projects for some previous clients and he was fine with it as long as there was no conflict of interest.

      Anyway, if you can post what you do, I'd be interested. I like hearing about others' self-employment projects.
    16. Re:Making less then the minimum? by isorox · · Score: 1

      Usual everything-to-do-with-pc guy, hardly innovative, but theres a large ex-pat (mainly UK, Germany, Scandanavia) market. At the moment theres noone on the island that speaks English well and knows about computers. (I'll also be working in a bar and cleaning boats until buisness picks up)

      I hope to move into some form of wireless broadband supplier, although I'm still unsure about EU regulations for 2.4GHz, but at the moment I have a net worth of £-15,000, and barely any capital. The cheap cost of living in Greece and availability of jobs in the summer means that things can get too bad. If buisness picks up enough to carry living through winter (need about &euro100 a week) then thats great.

      Key thing is I'm not investing any capital at the moment (more then an advert in Athens News), and a moped is only &euro5 a day to hire long term.

      If things work out, great. If they dont, I dont lose anything. I can still apply and get rejected for jobs in the UK over the internet.

      No matter what happens, I'll live, and have some more noteworthy experience then working in Subway for a year.

    17. Re:Making less then the minimum? by HeyLaughingBoy · · Score: 1
      No matter what happens, I'll live, and have some more noteworthy experience then working in Subway for a year.

      Definitely more fun too. Good luck to you.
  10. Go to HR by mpechner · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If people are earning more take two actions:
    1. Update your resume and get it out there.
    2.Approach your boss and HR about a salary adjustment. Not a raise, a salary adjustment.

    A Salary adjustment is justified by bringing your compensation in line with new hires with the same title and grade.

    A Raise is based on merit and a review.

    Then again, is $200/month after taxes worth raising a stink? I tend to not worry until the discrepancy is closer to 10%.

    Either way, first get the resume out there for a week or two. You will need to see what is happening incase the alternative given by the company is that you will have to wait for your review.

    Just remember, a salary is better than unemployment.

    There is no law to protect you, only company policy. Unless you really want the definition of "at will employment."

    Or to learn how a 1 person layoff comes about.

    1. Re:Go to HR by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Either way, first get the resume out there for a week or two.

      I wouldn't suggest that. If you get out your resume, and your employer finds out, then you probably will get fired. If you're a good worker getting paid less than new hires, you're not going to get fired simply because you asked for a salary adjustment.

      Just remember, a salary is better than unemployment.

      Hmm, work my ass off and get paid a lot vs. call some telephone number one a week and get an unemployment check. Personally I'd say a salary is worse than unemployment :).

    2. Re:Go to HR by sydb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you get out your resume, and your employer finds out, then you probably will get fired.

      Not sure how that would happen. Presuming the resume (well, mine is a CV) is going to reputable employment agencies, then they will always consult you first before passing it on to a prospective employer. The agency wants to look like an idiot just as little as you do.

      I occasionally get calls from agencies 18 months after being placed in a permanent post, so my CV is definitely 'out there' despite my not having pushed it.

      There is no harm in this. You are not going to get fired simply for having been in touch with an employment agency months ago, or now.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    3. Re:Go to HR by mpechner · · Score: 1

      Nothing wrong with getting your resume out there. I've never been "asked to Leave." because my resume was sent out.

      Try to live on $200/week. Especially when at the end of the year you have to pay taxes on it.

    4. Re:Go to HR by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Try to live on $200/week.

      I do.

      Especially when at the end of the year you have to pay taxes on it.

      If you're only making $200/week in unemployment compensation, you won't pay any taxes on it.

    5. Re:Go to HR by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Good point. If you keep it low-key, you're probably not going to get caught. I still think if your employer found out you were actively getting out your resume that you'd be fired though. I'd probably at least start looking for his/her replacement.

    6. Re:Go to HR by Piquan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Presuming the resume (well, mine is a CV) is going to reputable employment agencies,

      People misunderstand. Things get screwed up. And if you post on dice.com or something, all bets are off. I've seen people with the best of intentions get into trouble by putting out a resume before they were ready to.

    7. Re:Go to HR by BitGeek · · Score: 1


      I live on $200 a week, though I budgetted $300 in my savings, just in case.

      In this market, anyone who's employed should be living on $200 and putting the rest into savings or retirement.

      I don't understand the people who just watch the dot bomb (And all the local Amazon.com employees who bought million dollar houses on stock optiosn declaring bankruptcy) who are continuing to live paycheck to paycheck at a big salary.

      It was prudent in boom times to save your money, and if you're not doing it now, you're just being irresponsible.

      Oh, unless of course you are truely financially independant (That is, without counting any stock options). Then nevermind.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    8. Re:Go to HR by tzanger · · Score: 1

      How exactly do you live on $200 a week when a mortgage is about that? And a car payment about half that? Or are you talking just about food?

    9. Re:Go to HR by Electrum · · Score: 1

      In this market, anyone who's employed should be living on $200 and putting the rest into savings or retirement.

      Please outline a budget where a single person could live on $200 a week. I would be very interested in seeing it.

    10. Re:Go to HR by toast0 · · Score: 1

      $200 a week is > $800 a month, but we'll go with $800/month cause that makes my calculations easier

      Rent for an efficiency in downtown milwaukee $400
      Electricity for a month in downtown milwaukee $25
      Telephone bill for a month (only local service) $20
      Water and heat included with rent

      That takes care of rent and utilities (assuming electric stove) and leaves you with $355 for the rest of your needs.

      Lets say your company sucks, and you can't get a discount bus pass, so you have to buy the weekly bus pass at $12/week... so that's $60 if its one of the months with 5 sundays (or whatever day the weekly pass starts on)

      That pretty much gets you everything you need except food. For $295, you should be able to feed yourself for a month. You could probably get a breakfast and dinner value meal at a fast food joint for that, or *gasp* get stuff from the grocery store and eat real food.

    11. Re:Go to HR by sharkey · · Score: 1
      Then again, is $200/month after taxes worth raising a stink?

      Probably worth raising the issue, but not a stink. As someone with a $173 monthly car payment, a $200/mo net increase would be very much worth it.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    12. Re:Go to HR by deanj · · Score: 1

      A mortgage is about that? A car payment is half that? Where's this car and house? My mortgage is a touch over $1000, and the car payment is about $250.

    13. Re:Go to HR by tzanger · · Score: 1

      Your mortgage is $1000 a week?? And your car payment is $250 a week?!

    14. Re:Go to HR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got a bounce email back from a job I applied for once.

      The bounce message contained my resume sending history for 2 years to totally different job posts/prospective employers.

      Can you imagine how damaging it is to a have a database built that collects every job you have applied for and provides this information to anyone willing to pay for it?

      Likewise nothing stops your current employer from accessing this data and knowing the very moment you send out that resume.

      As William Gibson said in that recent NYT article. It is getting very diffcult for ANYONE to keep ANYTHING private.

    15. Re:Go to HR by BitGeek · · Score: 1



      Oh there are lots of ways-- you can buy a good mobile home for about $6,000 and then your rent is only $200 a month. Another $200 for food and $100 for gas and you'd have $300 for everything else.

      Or if you pay $500 for rent, you ride the bus and just barely make the $800/month budget.

      Seattle's cost of living is less than the Bay Area, but higher than most of the rest of the country-- so if you can do it here, you can certainly do it in places that are cheaper.

      Frankly, the idea that you have to spend all that money living comes from the fact that you "have" to have a nice apartment and you "have" to have a nice car, etc. etc.

      Buy a early 80s Toyota for $1k (or less!) put aside $1K for an extra engine and $500 for miscelaneous and you've got a car-- plus the cost of replacing the engine and doing any serious work you might need for the next 5 years JUST for the cost your typical slashdot poster pays in INTEREST ALONE in two years on their used $10,000 or whatever car that they "Have" to have. (though car interest rates have gone down lately...)

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    16. Re:Go to HR by BitGeek · · Score: 1


      If you have a mortgage and a car payment, you're already financially irresponsible.

      Houses never make financial sense-- you do not "Save" in taxes what you spend on them.. its just a waste of money.

      IF you have a house and a car payment, you may not be living beyond your means, but you're still wasting a lot of money.... and you're certainly living beyond prudent means.

      IF your mortgage is more than %15 of your net-- after taxes-- income, you shouldn't have bought the house.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    17. Re:Go to HR by tzanger · · Score: 1

      Houses aren't a good financial investment? Excuse me while I disregard everything you say from now on. Real estate is one of the best long-term investments going. Got some data to back up your position?

      Cars I'll agree with you on, but if you're not in a city you're going to need one.

    18. Re:Go to HR by BitGeek · · Score: 1


      Go ahead and disregard everything I say from now on- its not uncommon for people to refuse to believe the truth-- and not surprisingly, if you did the math you'd see that what I say is true.

      Houses appreciate at the rate of inflation, or a bit less. Houses also have a significant amount of maintenance money that has to be put into them. At least %2 of the value of the house, per year. On top of that, they have real estate taxes, and all that.

      Every analysis I've seen that talks about investing in houses (Except for those that say buy a house and rent it out to someone else) fail to take into account the costs of buying the house.

      On the other hand, if you lived in an apartment, you'd have enough living space (people who buy houses buy too much house) and you could invest the difference. The average house owner sells their house in 7 years. In that time period, Just looking at real estate commissions alone, they have lost money! Even if the house appreciates, they have virtually no equity at that point. And they certainly haven't made back the commission and closing fees-- but have to pay another set of them to get out of the house.

      The only reason people buy houses is because they don't have the discipline to invest their money-- it doesn't make sense as an investment-- even when compared to inflation adjusted treasuries.

      But you'll never hear that from a real estate agent!

      And so people like you-- who I assume have never done the math-- just blindly take the house salesman's investment advice.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    19. Re:Go to HR by tzanger · · Score: 1

      First, aplogies for the flippant comment earlier.

      Now to address some of your points. I purchased my house (ok, a 6% APR 15-year mortgage) 6 years ago for $80k (about 1400 sq ft). I only put 5% down which is a big mistake but for a first house it's pretty much the norm (I was 21, not many 21-year-olds have a ton of money to put down). My next house I hope to be putting at least 25% down on. In that time, I've put the following into the house: new furnace ($2500), new garage roof ($600), carpet ($1200) and miscellaneous fixups (drywall, paint, etc) of about another $3000 over that time. Let's round it up and say I've put $8000 into the house. If I'd have bought a newer house I wouldn't have had to put as much in.

      I'm listing it for about $125k to buy a larger one (3 kids and 3 bedrooms don't work), and the ones I'm looking at are all ~80 years old and about $120-$140k. (My current house is 104 years old.) Even taking into account real estate fees (3-5%) and lawyer fees (about $2k IIRC) I will have made money on the property.

      If I had rented a 3 bedroom apartment, providing I could have found one large enough, I would be paying over $1200 a month in rent (I'm paying $760/mo now) and would have nothing to show for it when I decide to move. Had I invested in the stock market this past six years I'd probably have lost a good chunk of money to boot.

      As far as your opinon that people who buy houses always buy too much space: I disagree. I would be happy with ~1500-2000 square feet. That's for five people, and would include nice-sized dining and recreation rooms (I like to have family and friends over). I dislike living in compartmentalized boxes full of people cooking strange-smelling foods, kids running down the halls and having no property of your own. You could rent a house, granted, but again why rent for the same amount as you're going to pay a mortgage for and have nothing in the end?

      I think that all the analyses you've read also assume that people buy 25-year mortgages and put a bare-minumum down payment in. That's never a good idea.

      I dunno; real estate has always been at least a mediocre investment for my family. We've certainly never lost money on it.

    20. Re:Go to HR by BitGeek · · Score: 1


      Wow, only six years? Your equity must be something like %2 of the loan, or so.

      If you actually sell it for $125k, that's one thing. But you can't really compare the deal until you close and you look at the actual amount of money you get out of the house.

      You've been renting your house, you just don't realize it. You haven't gotten any equity because the mortgage is front loaded. All the appreciation of the house has been due to deflation of the dollar over that time period (The dollar is inflated %8.6 a year, so you're actually not getting all the value out even at $125k... ) "Inflation" as commonly put forth is a fabricated number based on manipulated price baskets. ... but that's getting into too much detail.

      On the other hand, if you had invested the difference, you would have made a big chunk of money in the stock market-- if you'd invested wisely. The "market is down" stuff is due to the overall market-- not wise investments. (And wise investmetns aren't that hard to make.)

      When I said people buy houses with too much space-- you fit the bill. Not that you SHOULDN'T have all the entertaining space you want-- clearly you want it and so you're buying it. Just realize its not an investment.

      Basically, you're making the error of looking at the dollars you get out at the end, and not doing a compound annual return analysis on them, nor taking into account inflation (the dollars at the end are worth less) nor fully taking into account the costs of the house-- the $8k figure is a good start, but extra furniture, higher heating bills, probably more gas consumption, taxes, fees, etc all add up.

      Nobody likes to hear they made a bad investment-- especially when such large figures are involved. And maybe the plasure you got from having that house was extremely valuable to you, such that there's no point in talking about it-- in which case, great- more power too you-- just realize you're buying that pleasure, not investing your money.

      It doesn't really matter whether the downpayment is large or not. IF its large, then that is money you've set aside that is only growing at inflation (or less). The mortgage is always front loaded on interest. So, if you've been in the house less than 9 years, its the mortgage where you really lose out. The downpayment money, that you then get out in equity on the other end is not a factor. (Its like putting it in a CD).

      So, where my analysis breaks down is if you buy the house and then live in it for 10-15 years AFTER you've paid off the mortgage. Then houses start to look like a decent investment, when compared to the stock market (or bonds).

      I think if you really add up all the numbers after selling the house, you'll find I've been correct-- especialyl if you count hte thousands of ways you spend more money (updating fixtures, running ethernet cable) that you wouldn't on an apartment.

      Hey, but at least you've listened to my heresey without pronouncing me demonic, as most people do. People really HATE to hear that their house was a bad investment...

      When I was looking to buy and ran the numbers, I assumed a %7 growth in the stock market and a %7 growth in the value of the house-- just to be conservative-- and this is what I got. IT may be different in your area if rents are much higher than houses, or some oddity like that. Anyway, I Talked to a CPA friend of mine about it and he said he'd run the same numbers when thinking about buying a house next door to his and decided he was better off staying where he was and investing the money in the market.

      But kids also are a factor, and if you are looking purely for prudent financial managment, you wouldn't have kids! They're a money black hole.... so, that's the choice you've made and that's where your money is going.

      If people just realized that it isn't a no-brainer to buy a house, or that houses are for many people not a good investment, I'd be less annoyed. Certainly someone who pays off their mortgage and continues to live there for 10 years, and who doesn't have the skills or discipline to invest the money elsewhere is probably doing the best investment program they can, given their situation.

      Good luck, and lets hope you get that $125k!

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    21. Re:Go to HR by ScuzzMonkey · · Score: 1

      A month. $200 a week only comes up to *counts on fingers* $800 a month. Falling a little short of the real world, in other words. :)

      --
      No relation to Happy Monkey
    22. Re:Go to HR by Sanction · · Score: 1

      Actually, at least in the market in Idaho, apartments are not cheaper than buying a house. The big key is to get one with a 10 or 15 year mortgage. If you have a 10 year, and make a bit of extra payment, in 8.5 years you will own it outright, or on a 15 you would be only 5 years from payoff at the 7 year mark, and a lot of equity at that point.

      With a straight 10 year mortgage, at the seven year mark you would have roughly $40,000 in equity. If you had gone with an apartment for $200 a month less, your savings would (at 7%) net you only just shy of $22,000. A 15 year with no extra payments would still leave you with $22,000 in equity, with low enough payments that an apartment would be hard pressed to be much cheaper.

      You are correct that some people get screwed with 30 year mortgages or a too large house, but with a shorter period mortgage, the house will usually be a far better investment.

      --
      Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
    23. Re:Go to HR by BitGeek · · Score: 1


      Maybe. At that point, you have to do the math and see.

      On average, though, people put minimum down, buy the largest house they can and get a 30 year mortgage and are out in 7 years.

      Since rents are tied to the real estate market, I think in most cases your rents will actually be lower than the effective rent of a house-- because the houses are being priced on the market right then, but rents are not. Rents are less market sensetive and more likely to lag the market.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    24. Re:Go to HR by Sanction · · Score: 1

      Pretty much certainly. You are absolutely right that most people get screwed on mortgages, but that is mainly due to how badly they get nailed by a 30 year. On a 10 or 15, you would have to be a very disciplined and skilled investor (which most people aren't) to do better. That gap becomes even bigger with the mortgage deduction, which may not be nearly as big of a deal as real estate agents make it out to be, but it is usually big enough to balance out the yearly maintenance costs, which does a lot to even the playing field. But you are right, then it is time to do the math. In our housing market, rentals tend to stay very even with the monthly on a 15, and more expensive than a 30 with decent down (though the interest will eat you alive). It's all a numbers game.

      --
      Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
  11. FIRST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ..."You are lucky to have a job in this economy so shut up and take it" post.

    So let's pipe down and not have to wade through another million of them, hm?

  12. What's wrong with our country? by malakai · · Score: 4, Insightful
    this:
    Since I'm not union I don't appear to have any way of trying to get myself compensated appropriately, is there anything in the California labor laws that I can pull into play?
    You are a commodity, if you think your more valuable to your company then they currently pay you, negotiate with them. You'll find out real quick. Why do you need laws or some Union to do this for you? Maybe if your inept and just trying to milk your company you need those things. Or if the talent coming into your company was being paid _less_ and was 12 year old nigerian workers... then go looking for laws. But you even state the people being hired now are paid _more_ not less, then you.

    Seniority should mean crap imo. I think this concept of seniority is blown to shreds when the less senior member of a department is more valuable and know more then the senior ranking member.

    Talk about value. You have a value to this company. If you guess that value, and believe you should be paid more then act on it. If you are wrong (over inflated ego) be prepared to be slapped down.

    -Malakai
    1. Re:What's wrong with our country? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Why do you need laws or some Union to do this for you? Maybe if your inept and just trying to milk your company you need those things.

      Maybe he's just not good at negotiation?

    2. Re:What's wrong with our country? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      one man has little chance of going through the tedious process of negotiating the work contract.

      that is why unions were formed, to have one united voice with which the unions of the employers can settle the contracts.

      now the question is, why is he not in an union then, didn't seem like a smart move when techies were hot hot hot? the paper workers around here get insane wage for what they do, but they are organized. and know that they make insane amounts of money to the company they work for as well. if there were no union and every worker had to settle their wage with the foreman by themselfs, and if there was even little too much work force around.. the techies haven't had this yet and are insanely poorly organized for what they're worth and do(that affects the companys, _ANY_ companys, bottom line, a techie strike would stop the whole country).

      _anyone_ can be replaced, some more cheaply than others.

      ok here's a somewhat usable tip: find another job, and after you are somewhat certain you will have it inform that you are going to switch job, if you are valuable the old employer might consider it worth to give you some bonus to stay if not, move on.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:What's wrong with our country? by wpc4 · · Score: 1

      "Seniority should mean crap imo. I think this concept of seniority is blown to shreds when the less senior member of a department is more valuable and know more then the senior ranking member."

      I fully agree, and that is currently the case. We have some people here, MCSE's that wouldn't know what to do with a server if it bit them in the ass.

    4. Re:What's wrong with our country? by bklock · · Score: 1

      If one of our servers was going around biting people, I'm not sure our sysadmins would know what to do with it either. Probably try to stay away from it and send in some disposable MCSE's to feed it.

    5. Re:What's wrong with our country? by BitGeek · · Score: 2, Insightful


      That's a load of crap.

      Anyone can negotiated a work contract, and who says it has to be tedious?

      I've negotiated every single one of mine.

      Unions are organized crime- they exist only to form close shops and force employees to pay a cut of their salary to them for this "service" which they never perform- because they union learns quickly if they lety the company pay them off, they get more money! So the union gets paid off by the company, and the workers pay them as well, and they spend their time talking to mafia bosses.

      Only a sucker voluntarily joins a union. (At least as the unions are in the USA).

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    6. Re:What's wrong with our country? by greck · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      That's my problem... my fortes are technical areas, not marketing, sales, and office politics. Absolutely nothing against those disciplines--I just recognize that I suck at them, and therefore, am inclined to similar under-compensation.

    7. Re:What's wrong with our country? by schon · · Score: 1

      Maybe he's just not good at negotiation?

      So what's the solution?

      Getting a lawyer? Gee, that's a great way to stay employed. What employer wouldn't love for his employees to start threatening legal action, instead of simply taking 10 seconds to simply ask for a raise?

      Find another job? How does that solve his problem? If he sucks at negotiation, then he'll just find himself in the same boat at another company (if the company is honest, he may start at market wages, but that sure won't last long.)

      If he sucks at negotiation, then the only way he has to fix his problem is to learn negotiation. Yes, it can be done (social skills are just like any other). And the best place to start is to simply go ask his boss (nicely) for a raise. It's that simple.

    8. Re:What's wrong with our country? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      One possible solution is to unionize.

    9. Re:What's wrong with our country? by Naikrovek · · Score: 1

      wrong. unions were created to keep the employers from fucking over the employees, which they would do if they could get away with it.

      henry ford wouldn't even let his workers talk to each other during a break. it is for reasons like this that unions were formed. Child labor is another example of what a company will do if left unchecked. in the US in the '30s, one child died in the US per day during one of their 18 hour shifts. They weren't even allowed bathroom breaks, but were told to sit over the grate in the floor. all of my examples are very old because these were pre-union times. you don't hear of these things nowadays because of labor laws (that unions helped create) and minimum wage laws (that unions helped create).

      Everyone in the country knows that every time a minimum wage hike is drafted into a bill, that every company in the entire country screams bloody murder, but if it weren't for unions, and the effort they put into minimum wage laws (and lets not forget democrats who attempt to push minimum wage rates up constantly), we'd all be working at $0.65 an hour (even college educated folks) and we'd be goddamned happy about it or we'd be out on our asses, jobless.

      anyone that thinks unions are organized crime should go live in a country where unions are outlawed. you will QUICKLY learn the value of a union.

      Yes, some push their weight around too much, but don't judge the entire union workforce based on a couple of corrupt unions.

    10. Re:What's wrong with our country? by GreyyGuy · · Score: 1

      you don't hear of these things nowadays because of labor laws

      Correction: you don't hear of these things nowadays in the US. A little bit of looking outside our borders will show that the fuck the worker mentality is still alive and well in countries that do not have such laws.

    11. Re:What's wrong with our country? by stanmann · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Yes, some push their weight around too much, but don't judge the entire union workforce based on a couple of corrupt unions

      Can you show me an example of a union that isn't corrupt??
      I haven't seen one. And in the definition of corrupt I am using I include promoting seniority over competance and protecting deadwood.
      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    12. Re:What's wrong with our country? by stanmann · · Score: 1

      If the server is going around biting people, you have several options
      Sacrifice an intern, MCSE, Squirrel, 386/486 Motherboard, or OS/2 CD on your altar.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    13. Re:What's wrong with our country? by deanj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unions and union leaders are thugs.

      If a union employee is doing a bad job at work, it's nearly impossible to fire them. They can be incredibly abusive to everyone, and the company can't do a thing about it.

      Before you go spouting off about what you think unions are, you should go work in a car factory for a while as a supervisor. You'll change your tune quickly.

    14. Re:What's wrong with our country? by BitGeek · · Score: 3, Insightful


      And Henry Ford paid his workers the highest wages in the country, also without unions.

      Fact of the matter is, a worker who didn't like Henries no-talking rule could go work somewhere else for less money.

      It was a trade off the worker was free to make.

      With unions-- you don't get to make that choice. You get what the union "negotiates" for you, and you don't get to work out a better deal with the employer.

      IF unions really provided a good service, they wouldnt' force people to join the union in order to work there. That they do is all the proof that's necessary that they are fundamentally corrupt.

      Your innocent belief that the union isn't paid off by the company to fuck over its members is sweet, but foolish.

      I'm not unionized, and I don't get fucked over by my employers. I wonder why that is.... according to you, I'm incompetant to negotate my own salary and so I must be getting fucked over and yet I make lots of money-- not $0.65 an hour.

      The reality is, unions are a parasite-- industries that are not unionized pay their employees better.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    15. Re:What's wrong with our country? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      Anyone can negotiate a wage, however average person can't negotiate the _contract_, it's not just about the money. And thug like union heads would get thrown out around here.. And they provide a firm negotiator against the employers 'union'.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    16. Re:What's wrong with our country? by Sanction · · Score: 1

      "The reality is, unions are a parasite-- industries that are not unionized pay their employees better."

      I was actually seriously reading your post, until I came to that gem. I suggest you look around a bit and reconsider that absurd statement.

      --
      Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
    17. Re:What's wrong with our country? by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      You may want to consider investing in a good book on basic economics, such as Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.

      When you raise the prices of something artificially by passing a law, what happens is that less of that thing is purchased.

      The end result in the case of minimum wage laws is that unemployment goes up as people who are only worth less than the minimum wage to an employer can no longer get a job. This mostly negatively affects people new to the work force, teenagers and the working poor.

      Your work is only worth what you can convince someone else to pay for it. If it isn't worth "minimum wage", then you shouldn't be paid "minimum wage".

      Employers don't continue to operate businesses that aren't profitable. If a minimum wage law is why its no longer profitable, then the employees still don't have jobs.

      Conversely, if say, a fast food joint or a grocery store raises its prices in order to make enough to cover its new employee costs, guess who pays for that? How many "minimum wage" style workers shop at a grocery store or fast food joint, as opposed to someone who is rich and shopping at someplace nice enough that they don't pay anyone "minimum wage"?

      They don't create wealth out of nothing for people by passing a "minimum wage" law. All they do is keep people who aren't worth the "minimum wage" from being able to get a job anymore, while causing a little inflation for the lower end of economic spectrum.

      Unions are fine as long as any employee is free to join or leave them, but they are simply another form of government enforced coercion when the laws are setup to require you to be a member in order to be able to work.

      Personally, I prefer freedom to the government or a union running my life.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    18. Re:What's wrong with our country? by miu · · Score: 1
      Fact of the matter is, a worker who didn't like Henries no-talking rule could go work somewhere else for less money.

      Fact is, that the no-talking rule was demeaning. Fact is, a man making a living wage (or just above it) will accept a little humiliation (and change it in his mind to make it acceptable) for the extra money.

      Fact is, unions in the U.S. have resulted in a great increase in the standard of living for workers and greatly enlarged the middle class .

      (Please note well: I'm being a bit mocking in my application of the label 'fact'. Fact of the matter is, I'm a bit leery of self-labeled facts.)

      Unions are flawed, and they suck, and they are corrupt, and are filled with people I disagree with - just like every other organization that functions in the real world. The cost of unions is less than the cost of not having unions.

      --

      [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
    19. Re:What's wrong with our country? by BitGeek · · Score: 1


      Except that, as I pointed out, his workers were not making a low wage-- they were making the highest wages in the country!

      Bottom line is-- you think that someone making a choice you don't like should be forbidden. (You call it demeaning-- you guys are always calling things bad terms to try and justify your fascism).

      Unions are p[art of the reason we have so many poor people-- high taxes are another part of it. But you're mind is made up, and you' won't listend to the facts.

      Hell, you'll just ignore them and insist Henry Ford was paying those people bottom of the barrel wages.

      Cause the truth doesn't fit your fascist agenda.

      But freedom is me and my employer being able to reach agreement on my working conditions-- without your sticking your nose in and demanding that I have to take vacation (When I'd rather give it up and be paid more), or whatever your petty little mind wants to FORCE US to do.

      Always it comes down to force with you guys-- you're so violent.

      Why do you not only insist on getting your way, but have to bring guns into it? And you don't even have the guts to do it yourself-- you hire thugs from the government to force companies to accept unions-- unions that eventually drive them into bankruptcy as they did Chrysler and the airlines.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    20. Re:What's wrong with our country? by BitGeek · · Score: 1


      Nurses-- unionized and barely getting by.

      Programmers-- well paid.

      Every study done of the situation backs my points-- unions siphon off all the profits, lowering wages and driving companies into bankruptcy.

      Wonder why the airlines can't make it? Southwest-- which is unionized (as they are forced to be by the government) is profitable because they have such a good relationship with their employees the union has no power. All the other airlines, where the union does have power, are teetering on bankruptcy.

      Coincidence? Hmmmm.....

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    21. Re:What's wrong with our country? by BitGeek · · Score: 1


      You are so right! Unfortunately, I suspect our /. friends have swallowed their watered down marxism and mixed it with bigotry and hatred to the point that they cannot see thru their anger to the fact that you are telling it like it is.

      If only they'd read up on some economics!

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    22. Re:What's wrong with our country? by miu · · Score: 1
      Hell, you'll just ignore them and insist Henry Ford was paying those people bottom of the barrel wages.

      No, I'll insist that Ford was using his strength to force those workers to accept demeaning and unreasonable conditions for working for better wages than they could make elsewhere.

      But freedom is me and my employer being able to reach agreement on my working conditions-- without your sticking your nose in and demanding that I have to take vacation (When I'd rather give it up and be paid more), or whatever your petty little mind wants to FORCE US to do.

      I don't care whether you actually take a vacation or not, I only care that you be able to take one if you wish. You should be allowed to make the choice to trade in vacation for additional pay. If employers were not required to provide vacation then most people would not even have that choice and employers would treat the money saved as profit and never think twice about raising wages.

      Why do you not only insist on getting your way, but have to bring guns into it? And you don't even have the guts to do it yourself-- you hire thugs from the government to force companies to accept unions-- unions that eventually drive them into bankruptcy as they did Chrysler and the airlines.

      The reason that early unions were protected by force was that workers who tried to unionize were attacked by private security forces hired by business owners. A government force was required to allow the workers to form unions without being threatened with violence, just as a society sanctioned force was required to ensure civil rights, just as the police provide the threat of force which protects your property, just as we use economic or millitary force to bend other nations to our way of thinking. Part of the job of government is the application of force to achieve the ends of the nation.

      --

      [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
    23. Re:What's wrong with our country? by Sanction · · Score: 1

      Nurses: Do your research, only 21% of nurses report belonging to a union, but those that do report far higher average wages.

      Programmers: a tiny group, not doing nearly as well after the boom, that did well because of the scarcity of professionals in a newly important field

      The airlines are teetering on bankruptcy because they made the mistake of competing mainly on price, and removing the profitability of the entire industry. Take a look at the history of airline profits, labor costs have very little to do with their failure.

      How well are non-unionized laborers doing? How about construction? I would be interested in those studies you are talking about, when I did a quick google around, all I found quickly were some from the U of Maryland showing that union workers receive far higher wages, and industry specific surveys showing higher average wages for union jobs.

      --
      Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
    24. Re:What's wrong with our country? by BitGeek · · Score: 1


      Wrong. Sorry, but you've got false information, and you're not going to listen to me about it. Maybe if you read some history books you'd know... companies did not attack workers for unionizing-- union thugs attacked workers for NOT unionizing. The union was, and still is, an arm of the mafia demanding protection money.

      That you want to force everyone to do business with the mafia against their will, is a sad position. I've pointed out the truth-- refusing to believe it is your responsibility.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    25. Re:What's wrong with our country? by BitGeek · · Score: 1


      Ah, but no link eh?

      %21 of nurses belong to a union? Not according to the nurses I've known.

      You guys will believe whatever you want to believe-- its always the same with liberals. You have no limit to your desire for violence, and so you'll grasp on to any straw as an excuse to justify the killing and abuse of those you hate-- generally the wealthy.

      The common expression of this, of course, is the gulag... and look we just recently surpassed russia for the highest percentage of our citizens behind bars!

      There's no point in arguing with you because you are armed with no facts, refuse to learn, and have no understanding of economics.

      I don't know why I waste my time expecting a common criminal wannabe-- someone who doesn't even have the guts to commit the robbery himself-- to recognize the immorality of the violence he advocates.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    26. Re:What's wrong with our country? by Sanction · · Score: 1

      You're the one posting absurd statements, the research is your problem. Try http://www.advancefornurses.com/common/editorial/P rintFriendly.aspx?CC=3904
      for starters. Talking to "nurses I've known" does not qualify as either research or knowledge by any stretch of the imagination.

      Of course, what should I expect when you go on some giant generic "liberals" screed in response...well, not in response to anything I wrote in my post. What does unionization have to do with violence, killing, hating the wealthy, and gulags?

      --
      Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
    27. Re:What's wrong with our country? by Naikrovek · · Score: 1

      Can you show me an example of a union that isn't corrupt??

      Can you show me a unionized company that is *more* corrupt than a non-unionized one? I can't. Chummyness, favoritism, ass-kissing, nepotism, and all that good stuff happen *just as often* in non-unionized companies. I've been passed over for promotion at least a dozen times in favor of the lazier, dumber, more ignorant person, simply because they kiss a little butt now and again.

      what happens when an employer genuinely fucks over its employees? are unions bad then, or are they a good thing? I vote good. What happens when a company is facing bankruptcy or recievership or something fatal? I've been in a union that actually as a whole, agreed to work without pay (and without repayment) for two weeks to save the company enough money to stay afloat. That two weeks saved our jobs and the company's life. That union wasn't bad, was it? We had the management removed and new management installed and things flourished. Turns out that the non-union management were far more corrupt than even Enron execs, in their own way.

      to say that all unions are bad is equivalent to saying that all people are bad. Or saying that all dogs have rabies. It just doesn't work.

      I'm pro union, and you can't change my mind. I know the facts and I know what its like to be in a union.

      unions aren't bad.

    28. Re:What's wrong with our country? by BitGeek · · Score: 1

      Everything.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
  13. Hint at temptations by cyberman11 · · Score: 1

    Remember, wages are not set by fairness but by supply and demand. Is it really fair that someone who picks fruit 12 hours a day in 100 degree heat gets $4 per hour while a PHB gets $30 per hour to sit in an air-conditioned cubicle and think? If other companies are paying more than your current pay for your current work, that is important to both you and your company. I would mention that I have recently noticed that market rates for my work are much higher than my current pay; that I very much like my job; that I definitely want to stay with my current employer; and that I am feeling tempted to consider higher-paying alternatives.

    1. Re:Hint at temptations by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      Every orchard I've every worked in they paid by the box or bin. Usually the pickers made a pretty good wage. The last orchard paid $3.50 per 30#-35# bin of cherries, most good pickers (husband wive, possibly a kid or two) got at least 40 a day. That's more than I make with a degree. They do have to start early and move a lot, and it's pretty tough to do that sort of work all year, but they could generally find work for 4-6 months. Most of them really enjoyed being outside, and the generally relaxed attituted there. Until the government cracked down on migrant camps, (some were pretty bad shanty towns) most orchards provided showering facilities, rest rooms, and an area for camping. Basically the rules changes so if you offered them they had to meet all sorts of expensive requirements so the farmers generally pulled their limited offerings.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    2. Re:Hint at temptations by BitGeek · · Score: 0, Offtopic


      Ah, gotta love that government "Service"! Creating poverty wherever it touches. Minimum wage creates unemployment. Lets tax the poor people %50 of their income so we can under fund programs that might give them %5 of their taxes back when they can no longer make ends meet!

      How bright do you have to be to realize that letting them keep the money in the first place would leave them better off? Or that letting the wealtheir people keep the money would also leave the poor people better off? (more jobs, bigger economy, higher standard of living). Taxes can only CAUSE more poverty than they could hope to fix, and half of them are diverted to defense and other boondoggles like social security (Which gives people about %20 of their money back in retirement.)

      Government is a disease masquarading as its own cure!

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    3. Re:Hint at temptations by tzanger · · Score: 1

      I'm not aware of any North American district or federal government that taxes at 50%, even for the ultra-wealthy. Sure you get close but that's at the high tax brackets, and they're smart enough to use the numerous loopholes available.

    4. Re:Hint at temptations by Glonoinha · · Score: 1

      California.
      If you need me to break it down for you just ask, but that is easily 10% of the people in the USA that are taking home less than half of what they 'earn'.

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    5. Re:Hint at temptations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you need me to break it down for you just ask...

      Please do then. Also, don't forget to reference official online sources.

    6. Re:Hint at temptations by Glonoinha · · Score: 1

      Federal Income Tax : 25% plus or minus at the $100,000 annual income range (yes I know it is graduated, but close enough for this math.)
      FICA : 15% (your 7.5% plus the employer matches that with another 7.5%)
      California Income Tax : 9%

      That is 49% right off the top leaving 51%
      - 7.5% Sales Tax on the rest means multiply that by .925 = 47% of your gross is actually spent on yourself. This doesn't take into account the $2500 - $4000 a year in property taxes, leaving (optimistically) $44,500 or 44.5% in take home from your original $100,000 imaginary income.

      Pretty simple.

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    7. Re:Hint at temptations by BitGeek · · Score: 1


      That's cause youre not counting all the taxes. Remember gas taxes alone are about %50.

      The average person pays about %30 in total income tax-- state and federal. On top of that they pay %16 in social security tax (though they only print %8 on your paycheck- don't be fooled by this accounting trickery-- you EARNED the %8 your employer "pays")... add medicare on top of that (which is what? %5) and you're at %51.

      If your average sales tax costs (remember gas is %50 or higher when you count the multiple levels of taxation of this commodity-- distribution, refining, sales, etc.) is %8 (I'm assuming a low %6 state and city tax plus %2 boost for having to buy gas-- as poor people have less efficient cars) and spend the rest of your monet (the other %49), then %8 times 0.49 is roughly %4 of your total income.

      This brings your tax burden to %55!

      Pretty consistent with tax freedom day being July 11th-- which is over %50 of the year going to taxes! So their numbers match mine roughly.

      Yes, the poor people are giving up half their income to taxes. Those who invest give up less, of course, and some people manage to keep their taxes low... but on average, my statement is true.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    8. Re:Hint at temptations by BitGeek · · Score: 1

      And this isn't even counting the hiddend taxes-- property taxes, car sales taxes, drivers license fees, car license fees, electricity taxes, the %20 of your phone bill that goes to taxes, the %50 taxes on flying if you fly, the water taxes, the excessive electricity taxes, banking fees that go to tax, etc. etc. etc.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    9. Re:Hint at temptations by Sanction · · Score: 1

      What really bites about this is when you look around a bit. A lot of other countries have rates not much higher, and the taxpayers actually receive real services in return.

      --
      Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
  14. You may have to show another offer by zanson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But the first thing to do is go and talk with your manager. Tell them you like your job but don't feel you are being fairly compensated, etc.

    But, depending on where you work some companies will only do large salary adjustments if you have an offer from somewhere else for them to match/beat. Even if they don't have a policy like this, having an offer from somewhere else gives you leverage for getting a raise.

    1. Re:You may have to show another offer by hdparm · · Score: 1
      I'd say talking with his manager would be just more wasted time. Sounds like that particular manager doesn't care much, since this underapreciation is going on for a while. Perhaps he needs to speek with someone much higher in the hierarchy, all the way to the person whose signature means salary increase.

      I haven't pulled this out of my ass - I was in a pretty similar situation until few months ago. After many failures to get a decent response, single email to CEO (I would have asked in person but CEO is in different country) solved the problem.

      It seems to me that most mid-level managers share, to me unexplainable, mentality of only taking care how not to upset executives. If you are one of us, unfortunate to report to people like this, the only sensible option left is to talk directly to decision makers.

      Be smart, though. People high up on a ledder are clever and don't have too much time to spare. Be polite, accurate and concise. Leave bullshiting for your asshead manager. The funniest part - he'll love it.

      Good luck.

  15. I have to ask... by GuyMannDude · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In my time there I have had no negative feedback...

    Yeah, but have you received any positive feedback while you've been there? (I know you mention one promotion your got -- but anything else?) Maybe they think you're just an average employee.

    GMD

    1. Re:I have to ask... by GreyyGuy · · Score: 1

      Do you work in IT?

      Getting no negative feedback is very rare, given that people will complain that you didn't help them find the "any" key fast enough, or that it is your fault the Internet broke.

  16. How'd you get there? by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What got you into that position? At what point did you not get what you deserve?

    I ask because I'm in the same boat. I got promoted during a salary freeze. No raise for me, so I'm under the minimum for my title as well.

    I haven't resolved the problem, mainly because my company really is under financial pressure. It's hard to demand a raise when all of management took a 20% paycut so that use peons wouldn't get burned. (I wonder how many of you are hearing a story like that for the first time!)

    However, if my company were to get on its feet again and continue to underpay me, I'd probably start shopping around for a new job. I'd likely play the "I have another offer, raise me or lose me" card. Unfortunately, I wouldn't dare do this without somewhere to go.

    Okay, not a great solution, but I'd like to know how you got into that pickle.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  17. Ask, but have a backup plan by wowbagger · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Yes, by all means - ask for a raise. Document the items you asserted in your posting here, then go see your boss and ask him to explain why you are not compensated.

    But has others have said, under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should you say anything like "or else I walk". NEVER.

    HOWEVER, you should begin preparing a backup strategy - update your resumee and start looking at other jobs in the area. Begin asking yourself if you are willing to relocate. In short, start looking for another job.

    This is for the following reasons:
    1. First, if you have to ASK to be paid what you are worth this time, are you willing to KEEP asking? If they are screwing you now, what makes you think they won't start again later?
    2. You may find that you are misreading your position, and aren't really worth what you think you are (you may be misreading your job title, for example). This would be a bitter pill to swallow, but you should at least grant the possiblility until you can disprove it.
    3. You may find a better job.


    It is far better to start looking NOW, while you are relatively cool about it, than to get so pissed off that one day your mouth acts before your brain. I have a friend who did that - told them "Take this job and shove it" and walked out. He damn near lost his car and home before getting another job, and that was during better times than now!
    1. Re:Ask, but have a backup plan by ivan256 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But has others have said, under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should you say anything like "or else I walk". NEVER.

      If you're willing to take the risk, threating to walk is in fact the *most likely* way to get you what you want. I'm not talking about saying anything rude, just politely inform your boss that if you're not going to be paid what you're worth you'll have to consider leaving for a company. It gets the point across and doesn't burn any bridges at the same time. In fact there was a survey done recently that I heard about on BBC newshour where managers said that said this was most likely to result in succes of any method (but was also most likely to get you fired), but I can't seem to find it on their website.

      Don't do this if you absolutly can't live with loosing your job, but if asking nicely doesn't work and you can handle the risk, go for it.

      NEVER say never. :)

      Besides, looking for a job is one of the worst things you can do if are at all interested in keeping your current job. Once you start looking you'll find you mentally "check out" and leaving becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. You shouldn't have to shop around if you are certain that entry level people are being hired into equivalent positions to yours at a higher salary then you have.

    2. Re:Ask, but have a backup plan by bobbozzo · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I agree, one should ask for a raise before deciding to leave...

      In my company, it's been directly stated that if anyone has an offer from another company, let your manager know, and "they'll try to match it".

      So..., ask nicely for a raise now, and if you don't get it, or it's not enough, start searching & applying & interviewing (in your spare time, or use some vacation or sick time :P), and if you get an offer you like, ask for a raise again, telling them you have an offer, and then decide what to do.

      I'm currently at step 1 (asking for a raise), and I filled out an app for a very nice-sounding position with the county in case I need leverage.

      --
      Nothing to see here; Move along.
    3. Re:Ask, but have a backup plan by Phronesis · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The key is that you can look much more appealing to your boss when someone else is chasing you. Your market value is the most someone will pay for you today, so you sometimes need to look around energetically to determine your market value. Once you have established this empirically, you can receive what you're worth (by definition).

      Last year my friend had given up on getting an adequate raise at his current employer (asked many times, received little). He looked around and got a firm job offer from another outfit, went to his boss and asked whether the boss wanted to make a counter offer, and the boss gave a raise on the spot more than twice the raise my friend had imagined he could get. He turned down the other offer, stayed with his old outfit, and is much more happily (and gainfully) employed, and has a better relationship with his boss.

      The key to this is that he would have been very happy to take the other job too, so this was not a bluff, nor a negotiation in bad faith.

      Another friend received the following advice from his boss:

      We don't have enough money to pay everyone what they're worth, so we pay them the minimum it takes to keep them. Most people grumble but stay put. Substantial raises are reserved for people who do great work AND have other options. If you have a firm competing offer and I can't live without your contributions, I can get authorization to give you a good raise, but otherwise you're pretty much stuck with COLA.
  18. Working is a privilege... not a right! by foooo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I for one am sick of hearing people go on about their job like it's their birthright to have a good job at good pay.

    If your job stinks... look for a better one.

    If your job doesn't pay well... look for a better one.

    Your boss isn't required (nor should be) by law to provide you with cake and also let you eat it.

    The ball is in your court.

    ~foooo

    1. Re:Working is a privilege... not a right! by kelleher · · Score: 1

      Damn straight! Mod this guy up!

    2. Re:Working is a privilege... not a right! by aziraphale · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If working is a privilege, why do they have to pay me to do it?

      Employing ME is a privilege, not a right - and you have to pay me a fair sum for my time, enough so I don't go and spend my time working for someone else, or (heaven forbid) spend my time doing things for my own benefit, such as spending time with loved ones.

      The ball is not just in my court, it's also in the court of my employer.

    3. Re:Working is a privilege... not a right! by hdparm · · Score: 1
      The ball is not just in my court, it's also in the court of my employer

      Right. Because your and your employer's court are actually the same one. I'd hate working under any other circumstances. Most of us will work for ~40 years, that's a long time to spend in own, isolated court. I'm with you.

    4. Re:Working is a privilege... not a right! by foooo · · Score: 1

      When you are employed... you're entering into a (sometimes implied) contract between you and the people/person/corporation that you are working for.

      Either party (in most states) can end this contract "at will" meaning anytime for any reason. This is a Good Thing(tm) employees can leave a job if they don't like it and employers can fire employees if they don't like the situation.

      Employing *you* may be a privilege in *your* view... but if *YOU* subject *YOURSELF* to substandard employment conditions (wage/conditions/etc) then the onus is on you to improve *YOUR* situation

      Likewise for the employer... if they're not happy with what they're getting from the contract they can either talk to you about it or fire you to fix things up.

      At any rate there is no ENTITLEMENT. You don't have the right to super working conditions. You DO have the right to get out of most contracts of this type. Giving you the freedom to seek out better conditions if you so desire.

      ~foooo

    5. Re:Working is a privilege... not a right! by DarkGreenNight · · Score: 1

      Oh, so working is a privilege for you?

      Well, it seems so in this economy, but in fact it's a right and a duty (yes both) for the citizens to work. It's a right (and a duty) written in the spannish constitution (ok, not applicable here).

      I hate all this "working is a privilege" crap.

    6. Re:Working is a privilege... not a right! by Sanction · · Score: 1

      "At any rate there is no ENTITLEMENT. You don't have the right to super working conditions."

      That all depends on the country and state/province you work in. In fact, in the majority of first world countries, you do have a right to super working conditions, or at least decent ones. How well this is enforced can be another matter.

      --
      Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
  19. Re:BLOW by wpc4 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Didn't work:(

  20. Why not ask? by Gefd · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm making the assumption that you haven't already since you don't mention as much in your post. But why don't you ask for appropriate compensation?
    Why resort to leaving or invoking labour laws, why not schedule a meeting with your direct superior and discuss your concerns?
    If that doesn't acheive the desired result, schedule a meeting with the next management level above them. Once you've exausted all of those avenues, then that would be the time to consider taking the actions that you mentioned.

  21. You are worth what the market will bear by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 4, Informative
    Raises vs. being hired in new is a very sticky point. Especially in an up economy people who stay within a company tend to get screwed. For some reasons companies are psycologically unable to pay their people what they are worth vs. hiring in new people for what the market will bear.

    That said, in a down market like we tend to be in now, companies will tend to leave your salary alone and bring in people with lower salaries because that is all it takes to recruit someone into the company.

    In my career, the only time I have gotten BIG increases in salary is when I have changed jobs (most of the time reluctantly, but twice because I wanted too) getting over 50% increases when I leave (vs. getting 5-10% raises for staying). This is the bassis for what I was saying above.

    How do you deal with this. It depends on your faith in your job skills, and the relationship that you have with your management chain. Do you go to your manager and say... Listen, I fell that my job title deserves this pay, please lets work on how to get it together, or if you think he is going out of his way to screw you on pay (many people think this, when all they have to do is really ask, but it is a posibility) then it might be worth looking for another position within the company, or outside the company. I would however not recomend it with todays economy, wait a year or so for tech jobs to pick back up so you aren't faced with the same problem in 3 years

    --
    I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
    1. Re:You are worth what the market will bear by DocStoner · · Score: 1

      I tend to believe more companies are like what you have stated. Mine is the same way. New hires start at what you are making now, but they won't increase your pay regardless of how good or valuable you are. It's a little known fact that the only way to get more than a 3% raise per year is to switch jobs/titles or be promoted.

      If you show up everyday on time and do an excellent job, you will make more money... someplace else.

  22. Very good point... by fm6 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ...and a reminder that being treated "fairly" is not something you're guaranteed. Everybody finds themselves in this kind of situation now and then, especially at the workplace. Office politics, informal relationships, HR bureaucracy, even simple happenstance -- these all have as much to do with your situation as how well you do your job.

    That being said, I don't think you can assume that management is "receptive", even if you're a good employee. Management does stupid shortsighted things all the time -- that's what keeps Scott Adams in business! This particular situation is probably not due to malice or prejudice, but you really can't rule it out either.

    The very first issue is to answer the question, Why are you being passed over? It might be simple oversight. It might be that somebody just doesn't like you. It might even be for a perfectly good reason you know nothing about.

  23. surf the net by AllMightyPaul · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does your employer know that you surf the net and post 'Ask Slashdot' questions while at work. If they do, then I wouldn't ask for a raise. :)

  24. do you like your job? by 74Carlton · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One point I have not seen raised is the question of whether you like what you are doing. Sure, you could jump ship, but on the other hand there are expenses and hassles and risks with going in to a new place. I side with those who say "ask for a salary adjustment," if you are that worried about it. Or perhaps just hint... this worked for me after being under paid for a few years, I got two years of 18 and 20 percent raises. If you are comfortable and respected where you are, that is worth money in my estimation (especially if you get to go home on time every day).

  25. Good Lord by fm6 · · Score: 1

    It's possible to circulate one's resume discretely, and I suppose it's usually a good idea to do so. But I hate to imagine what kind of company you're working for, if they'd fire somebody just for circulating a resume! Indeed, that's a pretty stupid policy, considering the costs of unnecessary employee churn. At any place I've worked, a manager who thought that way would be the one who'd be looking for a job!

    1. Re:Good Lord by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      It's possible to circulate one's resume discretely, and I suppose it's usually a good idea to do so.

      Yeah, someone else already mentioned that, and I agreed with him.

      But I hate to imagine what kind of company you're working for, if they'd fire somebody just for circulating a resume!

      I don't work for a company.

      Indeed, that's a pretty stupid policy, considering the costs of unnecessary employee churn.

      If the guy's circulating his resume, chances are you're going to save money by getting his replacement before he quits on you.

  26. Speaking from personal experience . . . by edward.virtually@pob · · Score: 1

    . . . I'd advise you to cope with the lack of proper pay and be glad you have a job. Pay is politics and if you're unpopular pestering people for raises is a good way to get sacked no matter how objectively deserving you are of one -- nobody cares, but they'll be happy to fire you to shut you up.

  27. I respectfully disagree by wowbagger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Threatening to walk is NEVER the right answer.

    Look at it from the boss's perspective - you just had to bribe an employee to stay. Now, how far do you trust that employee?

    Just as I recommended to the employee to have a backup plan, I would recommend to the boss to have a backup plan - namely, start de-emphasising that employee - get them off critical path, get a second employee to be able to cover for them, start looking at how to replace them.

    You are correct in that looking for another job might cause one to mentally commit to leaving, creating a self-forefilling prophecy. So would the boss's logical reaction: he is going to become able to replace the employee, and may very well do so.

    If you have to threaten to quit in order to get your raise, you don't want to be working there.

    Most bosses are clueful enough to realize that if an employee is asking about their salary, failure to meet the employee's request will result in the employee leaving - you'd have to be pretty stupid to say "Oh, you won't pay me what I'm worth. OK, well, back to my cube I go, dohp-dee-doh." And if your boss IS truly so stupid that he doesn't realise that, then do you want to be working for him?

    1. Re:I respectfully disagree by DEBEDb · · Score: 1

      Look at it from the boss's perspective - you just had to bribe an employee to stay.

      That's a pretty silly perspective. "No
      you just had to bribe a candidate to come
      on board." What the hell does that mean?
      "You just had to bribe the pizza delivery
      driver to feed you."

      --

      Considered harmful.
    2. Re:I respectfully disagree by j-turkey · · Score: 1
      Threatening to walk is NEVER the right answer.

      Look at it from the boss's perspective - you just had to bribe an employee to stay. Now, how far do you trust that employee?

      It all depends on whether or not you're actually threatening. Giving your boss an ultimatium like "Pay me more or I'm leavin'...bitch!" is never gonna fly...but asking for a raise to "Keep you happy" is a far better way to imply that if you're not compensated fairly, you'll be looking. Unhappy employees tend to not stick around.

      In any case, your only reasonable option is to ask. Document what you just wrote in your post, and present it in a clear and respectful/friendly manner.

      A lawsuit would be just plain stupid because (A) A lawsuit will cost more than you ever stand to gain (so you'll lose) and (B) They're not required by law to pay you any more than minimum wage...if you don't like it, you're free to quit.

      Just my two cents,
      --Turkey
      --

      -Turkey

    3. Re:I respectfully disagree by deanj · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's not a silly perspective. Being a veteran of many layoffs, I can tell you that some of the first people to go in bad times are the ones that the company had to fork out some bucks to keep in the good times. The company wants loyalty (yeah, I know..."ha ha, what's that"...but they do), and one of the things they look at is whether the people they keep during the bad times are going to be the ones that stay. If someone's already thought of leaving, and they know it, they'll help them out the door, unless it's a REALLY key person.

      And don't assume that since YOU think you're a key person, that you ARE a key person. I've seen a lot of "key people" surprised when they get a pink slip.

    4. Re:I respectfully disagree by crashfrog · · Score: 1

      Look at it from the boss's perspective - you just had to bribe an employee to stay. Now, how far do you trust that employee?

      What an unusual world you live in - one where employees are employed not for money, but from the goodness of their hearts!

      Get real, dude. People work because they get paid. If you didn't get paid to do it, they'd call it "fun", not "work".

      The free market only works for the labor market if it's actually free. That means, if a company wants to remain in a business relationship with you, they need to pay a competitive salary. The minute they think they can short you, they do. It's called "profit motive".

      --
      I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
      If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
    5. Re:I respectfully disagree by 4of12 · · Score: 1

      Threatening to walk is NEVER the right answer.

      Exactly right on.

      The better approach is to ask and, before you ask, put together thoughtful, objective evidence that you are a valuable employee and deserving of being compensated more than you are currently.

      Bosses like to feel powerful, and you're putting the ball into their court where they can feel like they're making a decision rather than being subjected to blackmail (think - how would you respond to either presentation?).

      A good boss will do what they can to keep you if you've made a fair case (be logical, professional and unemotional in your presentation) and believe you are a valuable asset to the company.

      And, while you polish your resume - using exactly the same arguments that you needed to present to your current boss - you can start looking for other offers at your leisure.

      If you've given your boss an opportunity to compensate you fairly and he doesn't take that opportunity, then he has only himself to blame and cannot fall back into some BS about a blackmailing SOB employee. You will have left on as good terms as it is possible to do. You can say goodbye and how much you've enjoyed working there, etc., but that there was no way you could forego the increased compensation.

      It's wise to never burn any bridges, because you never know if you'll want to cross back, even if you think you never will. Even if you leave because your boss is a psychotic, force yourself to be courteous and kind.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
  28. An alternative compensation by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Perhaps you will feel less put upon if you consider this: management can't fail to notice that you stuck with an undercompensated job. You can encourage them to understand that you're doing so because your in with them for the long haul. The resulting good will may be more valuable to you in the long term than that lost pay is in the short term.

    1. Re:An alternative compensation by The+Clockwork+Troll · · Score: 1
      management can't fail to notice that you stuck with an undercompensated job
      Yes, they notice and flag you as "[x] OK to fuck over at annual review time"

      This is cynical, but isn't it possible that this is what happened to the article's poster?

      --

      There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
    2. Re:An alternative compensation by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, if you're going to assume that everybody's out to fuck you, it does simplify your career strategy. Doesn't make for a very pleasant work day, though.

    3. Re:An alternative compensation by TC+(WC) · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think having everyone out to fuck me would, in fact, make for the most pleasurable work day ever.

    4. Re:An alternative compensation by Sanction · · Score: 1

      You can still have a very enjoyable work day. Having a good job doesn't require me to pretend that management (at least in the majority of situations) will do everything in their power to ensure that money goes to them in pay and bonuses instead to the peons under them.

      How many people got bigger bonuses in the down economy, while the management gave theirs up? Now how many got salary freezes and little to no bonus, while management still got theirs? Unfortunate, but often the case.

      --
      Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
  29. Was in a similar situation and got a raise. by Confessed+Geek · · Score: 3, Interesting


    I had been working for about 2 years and found out the new position equivelent to my own would be payed more. So I came in to my bosses office with my resume told him i quit and applied for the position.

    We both knew I wasn't really quitting but it made my point and I got a small promotion and new salery a bit above the incomming position.

    I don't recommend the quitting part but applying for the new position might not be a bad idea.

    1. Re:Was in a similar situation and got a raise. by deanj · · Score: 1

      Dude, you're so lucky that worked.... 'course, you probably new that it would work with that boss. I've had plenty of bosses that would have shown someone the door for trying that.

      Glad it worked for ya though.

    2. Re:Was in a similar situation and got a raise. by Confessed+Geek · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I wouldn't try that in a big mega corp, but I was his only staff and we were kind of buddies. It was actually a bit of dirty trick, but I knew he wasn't going to fire me and I was really pissed that someone with less experience, and fewer skills was going to get paid more.

  30. Any suggestions?!?! by ewhenn · · Score: 4, Funny

    Any suggestions at all before I look for other employment?"

    Take a dump on the coffee room floor.

  31. Wrong! Don't keep it short! by dustpuppy · · Score: 3, Informative
    I totally disagree - this falls into the 'if they don't already know how good I am, then there is no point me saying anything' mentality.

    Sure, there is no need to have a State of the Union address prepared, but you should be able to prove that you are worth the extra money. The only way you can do that is to provide concrete examples of who you have helped improve service, the bottom line, customer satisfaction or whatever measurement the manager favours.

    Don't assume that your boss knows what you do - half the time they don't. Actaully, half the time may be too generous. How do you expect to sell yourself (and let's not kid ourselves, that is what we are doing when we ask for a pay rise), if we don't do any selling?

    I got a 15% payrise after I:

    showed that compared to the market rates, my pay was below average

    gave three examples of how I had generated additional revenue for the company, increased the efficiency of an area and demonstratably improved customer satisfaction.

    All up, that took about a 1 minute to say.

    1. Re:Wrong! Don't keep it short! by kwerle · · Score: 1

      I totally disagree with your total disagreement.

      It all depends on the job. My "first real job" was for a small company. I had written some great software that was doing great things for the company.

      I walked into the big boss's office and told him I wanted a raise. He asked what I was thinking. I told him. He asked if I was worth it. I told him yes (I certanily was). He gave me the raise. The whole dialogue took less than a minute.

      What it boiled down to was this: they really didn't give raises unless you asked. They really also didn't know what IT was worth. They also really respected me because I'd been kicking ass for a couple of years.

    2. Re:Wrong! Don't keep it short! by dustpuppy · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you had a clueless boss :-)

      > He asked if I was worth it. I told him yes (I certanily was). He gave me the raise.

      What kind of manager is that? If he knows what you are worth, why does he need to ask if you are worth it? If he doesn't know if you are worth it, how does asking you for your opinion give him an objective answer? So you've basically been lucky that you had a clueless manager as to how you got your pay rise.

      > They really also didn't know what IT was worth.

      Again you emphasise my point. Anyone can get a payrise out of a manager who has no clue and has no backbone to at least ask for justification for a payrise.

      Full points for asking for a payrise and congratulations on getting one, but your method of requesting a payrise won't work in any workplace where there is an experienced manager present. My method works in *any* workplace, yours only works in inexperienced places.

    3. Re:Wrong! Don't keep it short! by kwerle · · Score: 1

      Just to clear up any misconceptions.

      The boss I asked for the raise started the business.

      He maintained the code back in the 70's.

      At the peak, he employed around 40 people.

      The business routinely had profits in excess of 80% of the gross.

      He kept the business running for more than 20 years before selling it.

      He asked if I was worth it. I told him yes (I certanily was). He gave me the raise.

      What kind of manager is that? If he knows what you are worth, why does he need to ask if you are worth it?

      One of the best. The kind that knows how hard their employees are working, the quality they're producing, and whether or not they can be trusted to answer salary questions honestly. I'm sorry you haven't worked for any outstanding managers.

    4. Re:Wrong! Don't keep it short! by dustpuppy · · Score: 1

      Outstanding managers certainly should know their staff and in an ideal world would not need to ask for proof that you deserve a payrise.

      But:

      * How many outstanding managers are there is this world? (don't translate one lucky experience into 'this will work for everyone' advice)

      * outstanding managers can be forgetful, distracted by other issues, have other pressures on them (eg cost cutting) - are you going to rely on their memory in the hope of getting pay rise?

      * you are working in a small company where it's easier for everyone to know everyone and what they do. I too have worked in that environment (it was great), but I've also worked in big multinationals like Ericsson and IBM - hoping that your manager will give you a payrise without backing it up with at least some evidence is suicide in these corporations.

      * again, as I said before: sure, your method will work sometimes in the right environment, but not always. Mine works in all environments.

      * with my method, you will get your payrise with or without an outstanding manager

      * your method, you will only get a payrise with an outstanding manager

      * to summarise, all I'm saying it to go in prepared, give some evidence to backup your claim for payrise (not an essay speech), but a few examples ... and all should be good. You should be prepared to do that *every* time. Not preparing to do that IMHO is asking for a rejection (although you may be lucky and get away with it).

  32. Re:The title fits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Apparently, yours is x-2, where

    x = your score before the post #6410759

    Tough shit.

  33. Busted by Glonoinha · · Score: 1

    -In my company, it's been directly stated that if anyone has an offer from another company, let your manager know, and "they'll try to match it".

    Actually what they are saying is 'let us know you betrayed by us by interviewing elsewhere and we will try to convince you to stay (here's a token raise) until that other company fills the position, then we will replace you with a loyal employee and make it harder for you to find a job.'

    If you go out and interview, like the potential of the new position, get an offer ... take it and give your notice. Don't get lulled back in only for them to piss away your time until the new position is filled then fire you, putting you on the street - being unemployeed when you negotiate your compensation at a new job will easily cost you $10,000 a year.

    It shouldn't, but it does.

    --
    Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    1. Re:Busted by peccary · · Score: 1

      what's more ... if you play along with that game, it hurts everyone else at your company, and it hurts yourself in the long run.

      Management must learn that if they don't treat people *fairly*, they won't get second chances.

      If they learn that they can underpay everyone until they're called on it, then they *will* underpay everyone until they're called on it, which will save them a substantial amount of money and pulls down everyones overall compensation.

  34. Moo by Chacham · · Score: 2, Informative

    Since I'm not union I don't appear to have any way of trying to get myself compensated appropriately

    Of course not, with that attitude.

    The best way is merely to mentione to your employer that you want more money. Mentioned that the less qualified are getting more. It would have worked for me. I was offered a 25% increase in salary for that very reason! I did leave, however, because i felt that they didn't care enough about me, and i found another job where i was more comfortable.

    If you are truly valuable to them, and you ask, as oposed to complain, they will most probably help you.

  35. Re:BLOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It doesn't work for michael sims either, but he keeps trying!

  36. I disagree with your disagreement... by msuzio · · Score: 1

    I'd pretty solidly say that mentioning in the negotiations these points pretty much always works (has always worked for me, until I hit the point where I really am at the top for my current job, and don't really want to move up the management chain):

    - You like your job
    - You like the company on the whole
    - You aren't satisfied with your compensation vs. the work you do and the value you provide to the company
    - You hope this can be worked out
    - If it cannot be worked out, you are considering whether or not you have a future at the company.

    There. You didn't make any threats. But your point is very clear -- hey, I'm worth a lot more to you, let's make this work, or I'm gone. I think a boss understands that clearly. Last time I tried this, I got a 15% raise out of the deal.

    So I'd say yes, making it clear that this is a vital negotiating point with your continued employment is a very important point to make. Of course, do make sure the resume is up to date if you're going to mention this, because it better not be a bluff -- you have to really mean it.

    1. Re:I disagree with your disagreement... by MrChuck · · Score: 1
      - You hope this can be worked out
      - If it cannot be worked out, you are considering whether or not you have a future at the company.

      No. "Gee, you won't give me a raise (or the raise I want)? I'm disappointed."

      There, end of statement. You have nothing more to say. If your boss is too slow to figure that there is an implicit "my resume will be updated", then saying it explicitly won't get you anywhere.

      If he can go to his bosses when you give notice for that other job you've been offered that's either [closer to home || pays more || involves scrubbing supermodels] then so be it.

      But you may document your goodness and ask for a raise, if you don't get it you simply accept it and move on to your next action, whatever that is.

  37. I don't really think we do disagree by wowbagger · · Score: 1

    You've clarified your points, let met clarify mine, as I don't really think we disagree that much.

    I don't think saying "Well, OK, so you say I cannot get what I am worth here. OK, then I will have to consider my response to that" is wrong.

    However, DON'T say that if you don't have some fallback plan. Have some offers in hand first.

    If you don't have the offers in hand, don't threaten to quit, in any way.

    If you do have the offers in hand, then you aren't threatening. You are stating a fact.

    So with both of our clarifications, I don't think we disagree, we were just emphasizing different aspects of the situation.

    To recap: don't threaten. If you are going to make any statements about leaving, have those offers IN HAND first. Otherwise you are risking a period of unemployment.

    1. Re:I don't really think we do disagree by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      To recap: don't threaten. If you are going to make any statements about leaving, have those offers IN HAND first. Otherwise you are risking a period of unemployment.

      Asside from what I said about pursuing other options first earilier, I don't understand why you thing having offers in hand isn't a threat. Getting other offers first is way more explicit a threat than what I suggested.

      Offers in hand == Threat. You can't bring offers and not threaten.

    2. Re:I don't really think we do disagree by wowbagger · · Score: 1

      I guess we differ on the definition of "threat".

      To me, a threat is a statement intended to pressure somebody into doing something they would not otherwise do - "Give me the money or I will quit" is a threat.

      If you are making a statement about what will happen, without the primary intent being to alter the person's actions, that is not a threat, just a statement of fact. "You do not currently give me adequate money. These guys will. I will work for those who give me adequate money" isn't so much a threat as a statement of fact.

      True, in both cases you are conveying the same information, but as a chef would say "It's all in the presentation." In one you are bringing pressure to bear on the boss, directly and deliberately. In the other, you are informing the boss of the consequenses of his decision, but indicating that if he doesn't give you money it's "no hard feelings, I'm just looking after my own best interests, good day."

      Remember that the industry is small (ANY industry is small, now-a-days). If you present your case to the boss logically, dispassionately, and fairly you are far less likely to be haunted by it than if you convey the impression that you are shaking the boss down.

    3. Re:I don't really think we do disagree by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      "Give me the money or I will quit" is a threat.

      "Without a raise I'll be looking" isn't though; at least not compared to "I have these other offers, so if you don't give me a raise I'll be taking one of them".

      I wish I could find that survey, because they interviewed bosses and the majority of them basically said they'd just ignore requests or say "I'll look in to it" without something to get their attention, and the suggestion of leaving was the best attention getter.

      If you don't have the stomach to do what it takes, you shouldn't be complaining.

  38. Education? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You didn't mention your educational background. Do you have a college degree? Did the new hires that make more than you have college degrees? Lacking a college degree is often the cause of most salary discrepancies. If you don't have a college degree, it's most likely the thing holding you back. Yeah, it's stupid that a piece of paper can determine your salary more than actual knowledge and skill, but that's the world we live in. Talk to your boss and see if there's a way to get your company to help pay for that degree and earn that salary increase.

    If you do have a degree, then you need to do some work. As many have suggested, sit down with the management, explain your position, and flat out ask them why you are being paid less. Prepare a resume of sorts that describes all of the ways you have contributed and improved things for your company. Any statistics and dollar figures you can use are the best ways to do this. Management likes to see cold hard numbers and dollar signs showing you saved money and increased efficiency. Make it as clear and objective as you can. If they refuse to look into the discrepancy, start looking for someplace else to work... and let them know you will be doing so.

    Good luck!

    1. Re:Education? by Satan's+Librarian · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure about other IT services, but I've hardly found this (education) to be the case in serious technology-oriented companies as a programmer. At the entry level, it can prevent you from being hired in some cases if there's no other way to weed the resumes - they don't have anything else to look at for comparison.

      But, if you have a resume that you have to cut down to fit a page or two (i.e. 5-10 years of work experience), then the education rarely comes up unless you're looking at the Big Blue research department or applying for a government job.

      I *have* seen a college degree given as an excuse, but it's very rarely the actual reason. Experience, expertise, and what you actually prove you're worth at your current and past jobs are far more important. I make more without a high-school diploma than many people I've worked with who have a B.S. or a Master's - same job, similar expertise, better negotiation skills.

      What it all comes down to is negotiation. If you can negotiate well, and they need the skills you can provide, you get a good salary - especially if you've got a strong hand and aren't just taking the first thing offered. If not, you get the least they they can pay you.

      I've had salary and IP agreement negotiations last weeks after a company had already decided to hire me, because I wanted to reach a good compromise between what they were hoping to pay and what I expected for compensation. Just as a note - those IP agreements are usually negotiable too, and sometimes worth more to you than negotiating the salary if you tinker in your spare time.

  39. Very high risk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    He turned down the other offer, stayed with his old outfit
    Career counselors recommend against taking counteroffers from legacy employers.

    Current employer looks at you and thinks "disloyal, might leave any time, don't assign to important projects".

    Headhunter thinks "flake, just using me to angle a raise out of current job, will never score me a commission, not worth shopping around".

    Can't work out well unless you have an adult, businesslike current employer.

  40. I've been offered a raise by Telastyn · · Score: 1

    I was working as phone tech support for an isp. Obviously, this was less than thrilling, so I applied for more challenging, and better paying work when I felt I was qualified. After successfully interviewing for an admin job, I informed my boss [during my 1yr review] that I was giving my 2 week notice.

    He asked if there was anything the company could do to keep me, and offered a 25% raise.

    Just a little tidbit of experience to help you decide.

    [and for those interested, I declined and took the admin job which was paying a little under 4 times the phone monkey job. 5 times after a year]

  41. HOWTO negotiate by aelvin · · Score: 2, Insightful
  42. never threaten by MrChuck · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If you ask and get turned down, get the resume out, quietly and get another job offer.

    THEN, you tell your boss that, while you've enjoyed your run here, you've been made a better offer. Bring some boxes so you can clear out.

    However! this is when your boss, who really stood to lose nothing before, may push harder for you to get a raise rather than losing you.

    This was common practice where I used to work.

    You never hung on up recruiters (always be polite) and keep your resume up to date and take a periodic long lunch for an interview.
    I friend use to take 2 hrs every Wednesday afternoon and talk to other companies. He had a new boss who dicked around on his expense reports ("you're making me spend 4 hrs of my time trying to get reimbursed for $150 when you bill me out at $200/hr? Are you high?").
    When new boss asked where he was going on his Wednesday, he said "job interview." and left. New Boss asked around, learned of the habit and knew that if they weren't a Good Place for this lucrative person to work, he'd leave. When my friend returned (from an interview at a hellish place), his signed and approved expense reports were on his desk.

    If you truly get a better offer, by all means take it, but let your company make a counter offer and weigh that.

    So Never threaten to leave.

    Give notice and threaten not to stay. Unemployment sucks.

  43. from Mr QR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's simple, if they don't give you a decent wage, quit and find a better job, or at least make your current organisation think that you have the intent of quitting so they will want to pay more to keep you since your the department "go to", and stand up for yourself! Don't settle for bad pay.

  44. Did you get the memo? by Publius101 · · Score: 1

    Perhaps the reason why the newcomers are being paid more is that they are putting the new cover sheets on their T.P.S. reports.

  45. What do you think a Union exists for? by DermottBanana · · Score: 1

    To protect workers against exploitation. You're being exploited, and you aren't in the union? You're on your own. Why do you think other people *are* in the union?

  46. only do as much as you're paid to do. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then there's the other alternative. If you're getting paid less than the next guy, then do less work than him. Don't stay late, don't put in hours to meet deadlines, take your maximum holiday allowance. OK you'll never get a promotion but it sounds like you want to be out of this company anyway.

  47. Never accept a counteroffer by dcavanaugh · · Score: 1

    "...some companies will only do large salary adjustments if you have an offer from somewhere else for them to match/beat."

    Even though counteroffers are fairly common, most employers feel as if they are getting "robbed" by someone who is exploiting the situation. Their logic is a bit warped, but the perception becomes reality. Future raises will be low end of low, and promotions will go to someone else. After all, "We are paying John Smith too much already. We have others that deserve something as well."

    Employers have a limitless supply of excuses to avoid large salary adjustments. They will attempt to validate the status quo, often making irrelevent "internal equity" comparisons that ignore the problem that caused the discussion in the first place. Incredibly, the money that is "not in the budget" to retain existing employees is somehow available to hire a less experienced replacement from the outside.

    The best strategy is to pursue other opportunities. Get a better offer, accept the offer, and quit. Otherwise, you may force the current employer to cough up a few dollars, but the problem will be back sooner than you think. Besides, who wants to work in an environment driven by last-ditch counteroffers?