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.""

44 of 736 comments (clear)

  1. Welcome to reality.... by Duncan3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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/
    1. Re:Welcome to reality.... by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Exactly the only way for us to get raises is to find a better paying job. If enough tech workers do this then companies may give higher raises to keep their workforce. Or they (Like my company) will replace these people with people will less skills for less pay and train them with experience.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Welcome to reality.... by forand · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think I have heard this type of argument before. . . OH YEAH that was it when slave owners told their slaves that they were better off being slaves in the US than being godless in Africa. My point is that one should not have to be "glad" that they are getting a cost of living increase in pay. Convincing people that they should be happy in a bad situation isn't doing anyone any good. In the long run you are correct that people will have to look for different jobs to get the money they need just to maintain their standard of living which will hurt the employer. Similarly switching jobs like this plays havic with many retirment plans which will hurt the employee in the long run. Just because it is the way it is doesn't mean anyone should be happy about it.

    3. Re:Welcome to reality.... by heinousjay · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here's something I've noticed - take it as you will.

      People that have the attitude of entitlement, that someone must take care of them, that they deserve increases, tend to do worse in the long run over people who believe they are owed nothing and must earn every penny.

      All my evidence is strictly anecdotal, so I won't bother detailing it. Feel free to discount this.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    4. Re:Welcome to reality.... by elgatozorbas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually a raise equal to the cost of living sounds rather fair to me. If everybody would get a raise significantly higher than the cost of living, things (produced by those employees) would become more expensive too, making the cost of living follow the increase. It is like saying 'everybody should be above average', no?

    5. Re:Welcome to reality.... by HermanAB · · Score: 5, Funny

      What? Some people have jobs?

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    6. Re:Welcome to reality.... by StillAnonymous · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But that discounts your increasing experience and (hopefully) better performance at your job that occurs each year.

      If there's no raise, there's no incentive to work harder. Unless of course you're easy to replace and your experience doesn't matter to the company...

    7. Re:Welcome to reality.... by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This atmosphere could backfire as well. If people feel like their job is at risk they are (or at least should be) looking for new jobs as we speak. If the economy picks up just slightly they could loose their best staff.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    8. Re:Welcome to reality.... by SeaFox · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If enough tech workers do this then companies may give higher raises to keep their workforce. Or they (Like my company) will replace these people with people will less skills for less pay and train them with experience.

      In other words, fire the experienced employees who want a decent wage and hire unskilled workers who don't have the guts to ask for more pay and let the customers suffer with bad support while the new class learns what the hell they're doing..

      At my employer (we do contracted support) The client pays for training classes for new employees (these training classes are not as long as they should be but anyway) what happens if the company can't retain the new hires? They have to hire some more and the client has to pay for their training. At some point, the client gets tired of paying for new groups to be trained, and simply don't allow new classes. The result is a hiring freeze for that department. The employees on the project get overworked, irritable, ect. trying to cover the workload of a larger group. We may have oppertunities to earn more from overtime when this happens, sometimes these "oppertunities" are not our choice. In any case, the remaining employees don't get any additional compensation per hours for the extra workload. This situation continues until the company that hired us starts to lose money from their customers leaving from bad support or the employee numbers drop to a point where it is not possible to fulfill staffing hours. The only people who really suffer in the end is the employees who don't quit and the customers (end users) who deal with poor support.

    9. Re:Welcome to reality.... by timmarhy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      way to have shit staff. i've been in that position and you end up with a constant stream of sub par staff who leave you at the drop of a hat. retraining costs money, you'd better of hanging on to staff with a clue if you can. it doesn't take huge pay rises to keep people, just a sense they are being paid well for a job well done.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    10. Re:Welcome to reality.... by stinerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One thing I always notice is that conservatives tend to have been born into middle and upper-middle class families and have had ample opportunity to make something of themselves, while those who are more liberal (read: socialist if in Europe) have not had such opportunities. I think this has something to do with the trend you describe. Conservatives miss the point that not every has had the same opportunities, while liberals don't quite get that sometimes it is the fault of the poor man that he is poor.

      The causality of the situation will be debated until the end of time. Are people unsuccessful because they are lazy, or are people lazy because they are unsuccessful? I'll decline to share my view for fear of starting an offtopic flamewar. All the same, it is an interesting question.

    11. Re:Welcome to reality.... by zerocool^ · · Score: 5, Insightful


      Way to be callous, man. A 2% raise... adjusted for cost of living, that's actually a pay cut.

      Health care costs are up, gas costs twice as much as it did a year ago, houses are unaffordable - up 85% in the past year - in any location where there are jobs, but you can't live far away because you can't afford to commute, and yet you can't work for some small town company with no health benefits...

      I didn't get a piece of the Dot-Com bubble, and now that we're on the downside of it, there are no jobs that pay a living wage, and lots of us are looking for other ways to make a living. It'll come back around, and salaries will become more consistant with cost of living... but in the mean time, I wonder about whether or not I should take my 1 year old to the hospital or if his cough is going to get better on its own with time and generic robitussin, because the emergency room doctors here don't participate with my independant keycare health plan and I really can't afford it.

      Save your harsh words for the realtors, man. All I'm trying to do is scrape by and take care of my family.

      ~Will

      --
      sig?
    12. Re:Welcome to reality.... by IdleTime · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If I and the rest of my cowrkers do such a good job that the company makes a few billion dollars in profit each year and the company raise the price of our prodcts each year, but have problem giving the employees the slightest wage increase. THAT is the real problem, the company I work for and many, many others are having record years, the owners fortunes increases drastically each year because we do such a good job, WE, not THEY, because without us, they would not be rich, but without them, we couls still produce and sell the same product.

      Nobody is talking about entitlements here, that is a typical right wing talking point without foothold in reality.

      Over the past 6 years, we haven't even gotten cost of living raises, basically resulting in making LESS and LESS money each year.

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
    13. Re:Welcome to reality.... by uncqual · · Score: 5, Funny
      We may have oppertunities to earn more from overtime...

      Please explain this concept of "earning more" by working overtime. I'm very confused. :)

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    14. Re:Welcome to reality.... by suitepotato · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I grew up in a housing project on welfare (back before it became like it is today when it wasn't even a handout and you could only hope relatives better off than you treated you to a McDonald's basic cheeseburger once every few months and hotdogs with macaroni and cheese was eaten three times a week). I'm not remotely liberal. The only poor people who truly believe in the left are those who are permanently poor and broken. Those who get wealthy and still profess belief in it are part of the lie that liberalism is and has been since the words "liberal" and "liberalism" were stolen by the leftists from the old style liberals who were if anything more like the true conservatives of today.

      The horesh*t about not everyone having the same opportunities falls flat and exposed as such when you consider that every year people come here from nations where poverty isn't defined as being able to afford digital cable, a projection screen TV, leather couches, and a $30K SUV while living on welfare and foodstamps (I used to install said cable for said people while they sat on said leather couches screaming at each other over who spent the money that should have gone towards the baby's diapers; drugs? working under the table and collecting? who am I to even ask?). It's defined as "will there be any food tomorrow?".

      They come here, work hard, sacrifice mightily, just as they did every day just to live where they came from, and such pays off here where it didn't there. How is it that people come here from places where fortunate isn't a tax payer run apartment building but a scrap metal roof instead of one made of rotten scrap boards, and make it so much better?

      Does anyone think that these largely non-white people are getting a break and aren't the victims of racism and bigotry? Does anyone think "the man" is going easy on them? That they have special opportunities that people here four generations or more don't?

      They point up what American families need to do to be fruitful: stick together, work hard for the common good of the family, put off what you want right now for what you need later, and think of each other over your self. If people think this should be a world where individuals can think only of themselves and be as wealthy as they want all by themselves, they need to realize that's not generally the rule no matter what Hollywood seems like. Long term stable success is a lot of long hard work usually. If you're not up to the cost, don't step up. Stay in the project eating macaroni and cheese and sitting on your front porch staring at the beat up Camaro that you haven't got the money to get on the road. Or scamming the system while crying it doesn't pay you enough money to afford the newest X-Box game.

      I may scramble from job to job to keep my income paying a mortgage and ten dozen other bills, but I'd rather be doing this for my family than letting them sit around without hope living at the mercy of others.

      --
      If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
    15. Re:Welcome to reality.... by Bill+Dog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If your company could replace people with less-skilled counterparts, then they probably should've done so long ago.

      Here's what it is with most companies: After a while they take you for granted, and are no longer interested in paying you what you're worth. But to another company you're all new and shiny and irresistably mysterious, so they'll offer you more to lure you away. So your old company now has to pay market value+ to replace you, so they're now paying *more* for someone 1) they don't know, and 2) who's not familiar with the code base and procedures for getting reimbursed for travel etc. Each company would be better off working to retain the competent that are already up-to-speed on that company's stuff, but instead they in effect force musical chairs amongst all but the dead wood.

      --
      Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
    16. Re:Welcome to reality.... by sangdrax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is not about the people who are able and smart. They have the power to make the choices you have and become more succesfull than the people from their environment.

      It is about the people who do not have above-average skills. In rich environments, they start out decent, and have (through connections, background and money) an easier time getting a decent job. If not, they still have something to fall back on. If something in their life goes wrong (with financial impact, which it often has) before they finish education, they have a far better chance of recovering.

      In poor environments, the options are more limited. You plainly have to work a lot harder for food and shelter, and education. Once harder work has to be done to get succesful, fewer will succeed (doh!).

      The idea that everyone is capable of everything is a myth. Let alone regardless of connections and money. This has little to do with mindset.

    17. Re:Welcome to reality.... by stinerman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Those who get wealthy and still profess belief in it are part of the lie that liberalism is and has been since the words "liberal" and "liberalism" were stolen by the leftists from the old style liberals who were if anything more like the true conservatives of today.

      Really? I'm dead broke since I'm in college, but I don't expect to be that way for the rest of my life. I consider myself to be quite liberal in the "new" sense and don't plan to change my beliefs any time soon. I believe in the idea of a welfare state, and will gladly give up a good share of my money in furtherance of that belief if I ever have the luck of being successful.

      Your comment regarding immigrants is pretty spot-on. The reason this is, is because many immigrants look at a $5.15/hr job as a Godsend. They had it so bad in their previous country, anything here looks fit for a king. The chronically poor who have lived here for their entire lives don't see things that way, and subsequently believe that if they work a full time job, they deserve X and Y. Even then, many immigrants end up being just as broke as natives. Take a look at some of the working-class neighborhoods in Boston, decendants of Irish immigrants. They came, worked hard, and had nothing to show for. Its just that "broke" in the US sense is far and away better than "broke" in the foreign sense.

      I may scramble from job to job to keep my income paying a mortgage and ten dozen other bills, but I'd rather be doing this for my family than letting them sit around without hope living at the mercy of others.

      I applaud you for doing that.

      Although there is a certain cost-benefit analysis some people use in this situation. If single-mom X can make $400/wk at work and have to pay for child care or she can live off public assistance until her child reaches school age, why should she work? She can make sure her child is getting the attention they need if she's home.

      This, to me, is an inherent flaw in the system, the same way that 45,000,000 Americans don't have health insurance, but all of our prisioners do. In fact, my girlfriend is one of those $45,000,000, and I suggested to her that, in order to get some costly surgery done, the best way to go about it was to commit a crime so that she would be incarcerated. This way she would get the care she needed. I've read quite a few stories where seniors would pull a gun at a convenience store, wait for the manager to call the police, and then wait outside for the police to come. Once they were in jail, they'd get their heart medication and other health needs taken care of.

  2. Hard Times by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Informative
    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."

    Took a 30% pay cut two years ago, as nothing was available but a job 40 miles from home. Only one pay increase in two years, 1.15% which has more than been eaten by the rise in petrol cost.

    It's simple Supply-Demand (Keynesian economic theory), when workers with a particular skill set are not in demand or supply excedes demand, there's not much rationale to give workers higher pay. Of course some increase is a sign of goodwill and encourages workers, but tell the beancounters.

    Oh, and the execs got about 6% pay increase this year. Can't have that lot starving, can we?

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Hard Times by keraneuology · · Score: 4, Informative
      Oh, and the execs got about 6% pay increase this year.

      Only 6%? That's not much... 2003 saw the average Fortune 500 CEO's salary up 22.18%.

      In 1992 the average CEO made 82x the average employee's salary. By 2004 this ratio has climbed to 400x.

      Don't forget Gary Smith who was awarded $41.2 million for overseeing the elimination of 93% of Ciena's value in just 4 years.

      --
      If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
    2. Re:Hard Times by Audacious · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've gone both ways in pay scale. When I worked for a university once there was a stretch of three years when we never got a pay raise. Usually we only got a 1% or less pay raise. When I became an assistant manager I found out what was going on - the higher-ups were taking all of the money even when the state congress expressly stated that no managerial personnel was supposed to take a pay raise for that year. Pay raises of 3-5% were the norm.

      On another front, a friend of mine was also working at the university. After three or four years of never getting a pay raise he decided to find out what was going on. In his case, he wanted to look at the accounting books. It turned out that the accounting books were on the top floor of the library accesible only by stairs and no photography equipment was allowed on the top floor. Also, no pens, no paper, no pencils, nothing - except yourself. (Althought you could ask for a pencil and paper as you will see here in a sec.) It took several hours (and several days) of making requests for various accounting books, being told they were not available, being denied access to records, and the like to finally get hold of the books he wanted to look at. Turns out they were all done in pencil and several of them had areas that had been erased. Lucky for him, the sections he was looking for were still in good condition. After looking at the pages he asked for some paper and a pencil. The person would only give him one sheet of paper, one pencil, and stood over him while he copied the information from the book to ensure he didn't modify the books. Only one sheet of paper was allowed per person per visit. So it took him a while to get all of the facts. It turned out one person who had hired on with the department had funneled almost all of the funds to themselves. Something like a 30% pay increase each year for the past few years thereby doubling their salary in a very short amount of time. Since the "librarian" had stood over him and watched him copy everything he had the foresight to get the person's name as a witness to what he'd done so there could be no mistake about what he'd found out. He threatened to expose the whole affair if the offending person wasn't fired. They were and the money got distributed like it was supposed to be distributed to everyone. No charges were ever filed against the other person.

      This is why I hate the "let's hide what everyone makes" mentality of most companies. As the saying goes "Evil can not stand the light of day but loves the darkness of the night." Which is to say that you can not do covert things unless you hide, misdirect, or mislead others in what you are doing. So remember that the next time raises are (or are not) handed out. Those people above you didn't take a "0%" pay raise. They took their cut out first and then went "Oops! There's nothing left for the rank and file. Oh well! Maybe next year!"

      One last thing: Any time your boss gives you little or nothing as a raise; just remember this one thing - Every company has to file their income tax returns and those returns are open to public scrutiny. But more importantly, there is a company that already does this for you. They are Standards and Poor. Any major library in any major city will have the S&P books on hand for each year. All you have to do is to go to the library and look up the year you are told you are not going to get a raise (or even if they cut your pay). You can look up your company's information, see what the head of your company had to say about that year's profit and loss, see what dividends were paid to the stockholders, and even see how much money the company's owner made for that year (and you can compare it to the year before's amount to see what kind of a raise they got). Go and look at it. See how much of a pay decrease they took. I think you will be very surprised to find that even in the worse years they didn't take a pay cut or no raise at all but instead usually take about a 7-10% increase every year. Not to mention bonuses they may have taken on top of their pay increases.

      Something to think about.

      --
      Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke. :-)
    3. Re:Hard Times by keraneuology · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Somebody must have imparted a momentary impulse to a patellar tendon because I just saw a knee jerk.

      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"
    4. Re:Hard Times by sacrilicious · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Execs and board members often grossly overcompensate themselves, often to degrees which put the average contributor comparatively in the position of sharecropper, and often completely without regard to the performance of the company stock. A friend of mine who invests in the stock market says he has a policy of favoring stocks where the ceo caps their total pay (salary plus bonuses + stock) at some reasonable multiple of the lowest-paid company contributors, where "reasonable" is something like 15x. He has had good results with this policy, e.g. several stocks up x2 since last year. He likes this investment policy both because it quells his outrage at exhorbitant exec salaries, and because of a point made in the above article:
      When you have a breakdown in the executive compensation process in which CEOs are receiving undeserved pay, it is an indication that there is a power imbalance in the boardroom... [and] when you have a weak board of directors, that is where you have broader corporate governance breakdowns which can include accounting fraud.
      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  3. Raises shouldn't be the norm by heinousjay · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Raises shouldn't be the norm by MoonBuggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The first thing that springs to mind is inflation. No raise is the equivalent of a pay cut, taking into account the fact that your salary buys less as time goes on.

  4. 0% raise is a pay cut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. 3-4% really is the norm by SupahVee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."
    1. Re:3-4% really is the norm by NekoXP · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Most CEO's get their pay raises voted on through the board of directors of the company, and any majority shareholders that aren't on the board.

      Of course they can all also vote themselves the same outrageous pay raises..

      A salary increase cap I doubt you could push through - you'd have to rule out the fringe cases where a guy DID earn $4m bonus a year (for instance, turning a company around from bankruptcy - I imagine a couple of airline bosses are hoping they can swing this)

      What I suppose could happen is that salary raises and bonuses are capped based on percentages of profit margins and difference between previous years (if it's profits up, add a percent or two, if profits are down, reduce a percent or two), and written into company charters.

      How much could Bill Gates grant himself per year if he had a 3% pay raise and a further 2% bonus on a good year? How about Steve Jobs?
      It's probably no better than the current "corruption" :(

    2. Re:3-4% really is the norm by Ziest · · Score: 4, Interesting
      How much could Bill Gates grant himself per year if he had a 3% pay raise and a further 2% bonus on a good year? How about Steve Jobs?


      If I am not mistaken, Steve Jobs has an annual salary of $1.00. Considering how much stock he owns and how much money he made in the past I don't think he thinks very much about how much he is getting paid. I think the CEO of Cisco has the same deal.

      Z.

      --
      Another day closer to redwood heaven
  6. Disorganized Labor by Safe+Sex+Goddess · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I was already modded down as a troll in an earlier posting last week for being pro-union. But no one tells me to shut-up:-)

    I'll say once again:

    Blue Collar = Organized Labor
    White Collar = Disorganized Labor

    Democracy is about working together to be treated fairly. Why should corporate profits leap by huge percentages while employee salaries do not?

    --
    Abstinence is a government conspiracy. www.SafeSexZone.co
    1. Re:Disorganized Labor by patio11 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Democracy is about working together to be treated fairly.

      However, I don't want to be treated *fairly*. I want to be treated *well*. Maybe its the ./ Conceit, but I think I'm better/more employable than the guy in the next cubicle (figuratively speaking, considering the next cubicle is a printer) and don't want to have my ability to bargain *for me* compromised just so he gains immunity to firing. I also don't want to get X% of my pay jacked in an additional tax to support a bunch of layabout "leaders" who will spend the majority of their time spending my union dues on lavish offices and political causes which I don't support anyway.

  7. Reality vs. perception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    After 2 years of unhappiness and general lack of hope in my current job, my group has a 30% turnover.

    I remember hearing over and over that raises where only 2% for the last couple years. In fact, due to cost cutting they stopped collecting the trash cans on a daily basis. Now, instead of individual trash cans in our cubes, we have communal trash cans in the hallways, which are emptied once a week. BTW, we keep having record quarters.

    So, when my boss's boss threatened to give me a bad review and no raise, I shrugged my shoulders and informed him that "My annual 2% raise is close enough to 0% that it didn't matter." I then proceeded to tell him that he had a structural problem. The lack of raises provided him with no "stick" and the lack of advancement opportunities provided him with no "carrot."

    I have already decided to leave as soon as the first of the year comes around (and I quality for the End-of-Year bonus).

    The funny thing. I honestly believe I got a 2% raise last year. That is what everyone says the raises were. I was doing some record keeping this weekend and noticed that I actually got a 8.25% raise last year.

    Sometimes perception and reality don't match.
    I am still leaving though.

  8. Hopefully by t_allardyce · · Score: 5, Funny

    I give my Chinese sweatshop kids a raise now and again, usually about a cent a month extra, sometimes a dollar bonus if they've been churning out consistently good shoes. It keeps moral up and gives them the belief that they might one day make enough money to break free of their shackles. I would warn bosses against so called 'perk raises' for example taking the number of tardiness lashings down might seem like a good idea but I've had problems when the workers start boasting about it and eventually UNICEF or someone finds out that we actually _are_ lashing them. That was a pretty costly lawsuit. In all I would say treat em mean and keep em keen. Its far better to threaten a wage reduction for poor work than to offer a raise for good work, instead just tell them that you're only paying the Pakistani kids half the price and that will get them feeling pretty good.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  9. And in other news.. by siliconeyes · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Salaries in India to go up by 11.4 percent, possibly the highest in the whole world.

    As a small mobile software developer in India currently looking for fresh business and perhaps adding employees other than myself to the business, this news makes me have second thoughts!

  10. The paradox by Y-Crate · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  11. here's a good interview tip by Surt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  12. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  13. Be prepared to quit by ucblockhead · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Many places flat out lie. Be prepared to quit. It's often the only way to get a real raise. There was one place that, after I had worked there nearly a year, gave me a 2.25% raise, claiming that it was "all they could do". So I went and got another job. When I have notice, they offered me an immediate 10% raise if I'd stay. I laughed at them, and suggested that if they would give decent raises, they wouldn't have such a problem keeping good people.

    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
  14. Loyalty is Stupid by mosb1000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is what I don't understand. If you feel that a pay-cut is unfair, why do you stay with the company? I mean, if you think your time is worth more, why are you pissing it away working for less than you are worth? The fact of the matter is that companies can't be loyal to their employees and remain competitive. If your employer is not going to be loyal to you, you should not be loyal to him.

    The whole principle of a free-market economy is fair exchange where both parties feel that they are getting back an equal or greater amount of value than what they put in. If you're not getting that out of an exchange, you shouldn't be participating in it.

    Managers can do whatever the hell they want, a company run by morons is going to go bankrupt in short order, and it's the shareholders who will pay for their stupidity. That's one of the risks of investment, and it is also why many shareholders keep a close eye on what is happening with their investment. If you feel like your boss/the leadership of a company you've invested in is making stupid decisions, for god sake get out now or they'll take you down with them.

    1. Re:Loyalty is Stupid by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is what I don't understand. If you feel that a pay-cut is unfair, why do you stay with the company?

      Health insurance. It isn't the only reason, but it is decent sized. In particular pre-existing ailments. A lot of health insurance plans will not cover pre-existing conditions until you've paid 12 months worth of fees.

      For anyone with a kid or spouse with a pre-existing condition, the thought of no coverage, especially if the condition could dramatically worsen, is enough to keep them from even considering switching employers.

      Which, is why I believe employeer-provided health insurance is evil. I don't believe in state-provided insurance either for all the inefficiences that come with socialism. I do advocate for personal health insurance, where you are personally responsible for each dollar spent for fees and it has no ties to your employer or any other group that would use it to coerce you into acting against your own best interests.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  15. I dunno...what kind of printer? by PFactor · · Score: 4, Funny

    subject says it all. Guess I enjoy getting modded down.

    --
    Don't believe anything I say. I crash test crack pipes for a living.
  16. I got 40% raise after just 6 months!! learn how... by Adeptus_Luminati · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I came in as a contractor, because I had unique skills very hard to find in the mark place. Having worked for over a 1/2 dozen companies in my past (as an employee), I know very well that if you want to get paid well it's all about your initial negotiations. Once you've signed on the dotted line as an employee, that's it amigos: game over - You've got little else to leverage with after that and you have to be treated like the other employees.

    So after 6 months they wanted to keep me as I had done a good job and they valued my work, at which point I bypassed my boss all together and negotiated with the VP of IT for 2 days for a total of 5 hours, explaining why I was worth way more than what he was offering and debunking every reason he had to pay me like the other employees. And yes, I did plan a lot before that meeting - many hours! I did get the spcheal about how the company paid fairly and according to market research I was worth X amount of dollars, but I played it cool, mentioned that I had other prospects on the side (which was true) willing to offer me close to 60% more than what he offered me, I mentioned I had worked internationally and one of the jobs even offered me partial company ownership, but most importantly I said, hey, look I don't consider myself an average employee, so if you are interested in hiring average employees I understand that but if you read my resume (which I knew he didn't read it as I had been hired by another manager), you will know very well that I'm hardly an average employee and I take on work that very few people have the skills to take on.

    Even though I didn't get the huge $ I was asking for (which was a 6 figure close to what he was making), I did get the highest tier of pay he was allowed to give me (he even got out all the pay charts and showed me what all the other employees made). 2 years later, I still make about 5% higher than my boss who has been working there for like 7 years!

    So, hey... It was mental stress-hell for a week there getting ready to prepare to negotiate and getting through the negotiation itself, but 2 years later I could care less that I haven't been given even 1% raise as I am very happy with what I am earning and have no intentions of stressing myself over any raises for at least another 2 or 3 years.

    Do your research, prepare like hell, know his negotiation abilities, strengthen yours and be VERY creative in your game. During negotiations, as he was saying no to my request, I said stuff like:
    1)
    well fine then how about you re-hire me as a contractor, or
    2)
    let me look at your Hierarchy and pay-scale to find me a job description I am capable of doing that meets my salary expectations (which he did show me),
    3)
    I brought into the negotiations print outs from monster.com and other places that showed that people with my job title made way more than what he was offering (what I showed, was of course the extremes),
    4)
    I suggested that the company was growing in a new direction and fast and that perhaps it was time to create a new job title that did not fit into the existing pay scales & descriptions,
    5)
    I explained that in my last job I made 50% more than what he was paying me as a contractor, and that I took the job because I liked the company and the technology was very leading edge at the time (VoIP) but that now (2003) my skills are high in demand (and he knew that),
    6)
    next I said, ok well what about stock options to make up the difference?
    7)
    Or what about training commitments worth $X per year,
    8)
    or forget the salary and if you are not convinced, let me work for you for free and you pay me 10% of what I save the company money on (I could have trippled my salary easily if he had said yes).
    9)
    I threw the question/problem back into his lap saying... Ok so listen, you know that I am not your average employee and am worth more than your regular pay scales, so how do you sugge

    --
    No trees were killed in the making of this post; however, many trillions of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
  17. No joke by paranode · · Score: 4, Funny
    Sometimes I wish Princess Leia was my boss...

    "If money is all you love, then that's what you'll receive." Yes ma'am!

  18. Whine, Moan, Bitch, Complain? by bleckywelcky · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.