Slashdot Mirror
Are Skimpy Raises the New Normal?
Lam1969 writes "Computerworld just released their latest salary survey, and it finds that IT worker bees have once again only received small raises. The article notes, "IT raises still lagged slightly behind the average of about 3.2% for all U.S. workers as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. While the majority of respondents (69%) said their 2004 base salary increased from one year ago, 31% experienced either no change in salary or had their pay cut." It goes on to quote LAN specialist Stephen Noisseau as saying, "I guess that's the way the cookie crumbles ... I'll take 4% over nothing. We're getting basically cost-of-living raises.""
We're getting basically cost-of-living raises.
Welcome to the way the rest of the universe works. Be glad you even got that. Most poeple have to find new jobs to get a raise at all.
Don't worry, I'm sure another bubble will be along to get you a 100% raise every 6 months like the good ol days.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
Is it really a valid expectation to automatically get a salary increase? What happened to earning it? I feel pretty confident in saying that 69% of all workers didn't perform above average, so why should they be expecting a reward?
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
And keep in mind that a 0% raise is actually a pay cut, due to inflation. If you're not averaging about a 2% raise every year, your income in terms of buying power is declining.
And while I may whine about the fact that most of the time I have to jump jobs to get a raise, if I hung around those places, i'd probably be likely to get the 3-4% every year or so, and I don't really have a problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is when I only get a 3-4% raise, yet, executives can give themselves 50% raises, 4 million dollar bonuses, etc. There is nothing a CEO can produce that warrants that level of compensation. PERIOD.
I say we find somebody crazy enough in congress to propose a salary cap for CEO's bill. Then tell everyone in the public about it, and see how many people really support something like that. Especially when the workers outnumber the C-level's probably 100 to 1.
"See, we plan ahead! That way, we never have to do anything now."
What always gets me every time we have a discussion about raises is that any call for pay increases to the rank and file is met with fierce opposition by those who claim it will obliterate the economy via inflation and will rob shareholders of their rightful gains while sending corporations reeling into bankruptcy.
So, I must pose the question, why is it perfectly fine for managers (especially those in the upper echelons) hand out massive raises to themselves and their cronies that are often the equivalent of several times the average salary of their subordinates? The typical CEO makes 450 times as much as the average person they employ. Even when business is bad, layoffs are rampant and wages stagnant, the raises for the managers continue - because according to them, poor performance is always the fault of the lower rungs, while good quarters are always thanks to their expert stewardship.
The auto parts company Delphi is asking for their non-management staff to accept 50-69% pay cuts, (these workers were described as being basically worthless in a speech the CEO gave two weeks ago) while the managers that have presided over the company sliding into bankruptcy are going to get massive raises.
Please explain who spending tons of money to compensate workers who are being asked to produce more per hour, work more hours and accept fewer fringe benefits like comprehensive healthcare coverage is some evil, evil thing that shall destroy every company and drive them into bankruptcy, while distributing the same amount of money to the higher ups is no problem whatsoever?
Ask your prospective employer if they offer superior raises to overperforming employees, and what kind of range such a raise might be in.
I always ask this question, and as a result, i've never had a raise less than 9%.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Organized Labour = Paying for tyrant who tells you to stop work.
I lived through the 70s & 80s in the UK. Unions help nobdy but those elected to an office within the union.
I'd rather join the bloody masons than a union and I consider the masons scum.
Unfortunately, there's too many saps out there who complain about shit raises, but won't go out and do something about it. Don't like your raise? Get a new job, and then when you leave, tell them exactly why. If more people did that, raises would be higher for everyone.
The cake is a pie
I do not begrudge effective, honest and successful CEOs their salaries. If they earn it, they earn it.
BUT
Ovitz did not deserve $140 million. Ken Lay did not earn his $42 million in 1999. Ebbers did not deserve a guaranteed 1.5 million annual pay for life. Jure Sola did not earn his $20 million bonus for hitting targets one quarter out of 16 as the investors in the company saw shares fall 78%.
The complaint isn't how much CEOs make... it is how much BAD CEOs make. Could I perform as well as a CEO? Well, pay me $1,000,000/month and I'll see if I can drive the nation's largest retailer into the ground along with 57,000 jobs like Chuck Conaway did.
Why do companies exist? To generate profit. If the CEO can't do that then the CEO needs to be replaced. And if the CEO is engaged in any sort of corruption, fraud or outright stupidity then he has to go.
Are all CEO's inept, devoid of skill and undeserving of large salaries? Absolutely not. Only a silly extremist would make such a claim.
However. I find it inexcusable to tell the employees that there isn't enough money for raises (or even adequate equipment) then siphon off several times the profit for one overpaid and underworked twit who just isn't bringing any value to the organization.
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
Cheap-labor lobbyists bribed Congress to increase the H-1B tech visa limit recently. Lobbyists keep saying there is a "shortage" of techies, but there is no objective evidence to back them. Tech unemployment is still high by historical and population relative standards, and salaries have been flat. Why don't they pick on lawyers for a change? Why, because lawyers have (or use) power, we don't.
If we don't collectively apply political pressure, they will do to our field what they have done to agricultural workers.
Table-ized A.I.
"Or they (Like my company) will replace these people..."
Meager wage increases (if you get them at all) are now the norm rather than the exception. The change to labor laws under George W. Bush were not an anomally -- your employer now expects you to work longer hours for less pay and benefits. Consider yourself lucky if your job hasn't already been offshore outsourced, or not in the planning stages. Your 401K overseas investments are growing fastest because you are helping to finance your company's globalization. But do not expect to gain enough from these investments to make up for when your job finally disappears overseas -- it won't.
The government's job is no longer to be of any particular benefit to you -- only to your employer. The tax cuts, tax loopholes, and outright federal grants were never intended for you, but for your employers. There was never any possibility that your political campaign contributions would ever provide the politicians with either an evenhanded or even populist world view -- you cannot compete with your employers when it comes to buying those politicians because they do not come cheap.
Expect that the time will come when your job will disappear overseas, or that your employer will replace you with cheaper imported (L1-A or H1-B) labor. And do not expect that you can fall back on the experience from those summer construction jobs you took while a student -- those jobs are now taken by the hundreds of thousands of illegal alien laborers that have continued to pour across our borders. This is no accident, but a concerted effort by the George W. Bush administration to force all wages down for his corporate sponsers. Between open borders, the INS "catch and release" policies, and zero enforcement against employers hiring illegal aliens, the plan is to do for domestic skilled blue collar jobs what has been done to the shoe, textile, steel, and IT white collar jobs.
The only substantial wage and benefit increases are destined for the pockets of upper management and the executive board room, and especially for those companies who not only cater to government contracting but also make the largest campaign contributions. And by the way, don't make too much noise when you protest the current status quo, because the term "terrorist" is largely undefined in the latest and greatest version of the US Patriot Act.
Welcome to "1984", and be certain to take your daily dose of "soma". Not taking your meds could provide you with an extended stay at Club Med - Gitmo.
Um, I think 4% is pretty standard for anyone across any industry that is considered a worker that gets their work done in a timely fashion and in good order. If you want that 10% raise, you better be implementing procedures to save the company millions of dollars and make sure your management knows about it. The only justification you could make for a higher raise while "just doing your job" would be for a smaller company where the earnings are more transparent to the workers. If there's only 30 people at the company and profits rise 30% over the year due to everyone "just doing their job", then yeah, a higher raise is arguable. But all that fancy stuff you do as a server admin for a large company, managing server space, making backups, handling software licensing schemes, that's all your job. You're expected to do it and do it reasonably well, that's why you were hired. And in return, you can expect a cost-of-living raise plus a small service incentive increase. The average raise at my company this year will be about 3.5% and I'll be content with that. Mainly because I'm still learning some of the processes and I don't know how everyone else will review my performance thus far. While I think I've done a great job on everything I've worked on, I figure that's what is expected of me. But if I end up patenting some new technologies in the coming year that I believe will help the company, I may feel different. If you can backup your claim for a higher raise, then by all means go for it. But don't sit there and whine that you only get 4% for just doing your job.
Besides, hasn't anyone ever told you? You don't get rich working for someone else.
The vast majority of my family owns their own business or works for one of the members who does. As someone with experience on both ends of the spectrum... company ownership and working for "The Man"(tm)... I can say for certain that the primary reason most people are offered 2% (or whatever) raises, is because the boss or bosses are fairly certain they can get away with it. Sometimes this backfires. In a company with highly skilled and specialized folks, this can often mean you lose some of your best employees. Either way it's all a calculated risk. Questions that are asked:
Is the cost of the additional salary more or less than the cost of replacing the potential loss of personel?
What percentage of those who find other jobs can be lured back in with an offer for a bit more?
Is the product produced by the employee worth the money being paid?
Can an employee that costs less create the same quality of product in the same amount of time?
In the end, if you truely believe you're worth more than you make, and the company you work for seems unwilling to compensate you in this manner, everyone is better off if you find that job. In reality, your true market value is only what the highest bidder will pay. And, in our current job market, there are typically at least a dozen people willing to do what you do for the same or less... supply and demand at its best.