Slashdot Mirror
The Microsoft Salary and Review System
f1055man writes "If you can make it through the obvious bias, Washington Alliance of Technology Workers (WASHTECH) has put together a revealing article on Microsoft's salary and review system. 'Internal Microsoft documents obtained by WashTech News show that Microsoft salaries have been stagnant or nudged only slightly higher over the past two years. Comments from current and former employees about the company's compensation and performance review system suggest a growing level of frustration among rank-and-file workers.'"
In the end, maybe it just maybe the time to move on...or better still start something on your own.
When I didn't get the raise I wanted, I didn't get all pissed off; I didn't even go look somewhere else. I just started my own computer repair/networking/etc. business on the side. It's been over a year now, and it's been a huge blessing both monetarily and in other, less tangible ways. There's probably not a person reading this that couldn't do the same. There's always more money to be found out there. Before I had my current skill set, if we started having trouble making ends meet, I'd just take on another shitty dishwasher-type job for a while. Thankfully now I'm able to be a little more entrepreneurial about it. Just wish I had the balls to do it full time...
I am not left-handed, either!
To be honest, I don't see a lot of reason for discontent over 'stagnant' pay comming from rank and file workers at Microsoft. I haven't noticed any major fluctuations within IT job market as a whole when it comes to pay rates in the last two years. And the whole situation becomes even less surprising if one takes into account these two factors:
Company size. Microsoft is not a small business, nor medium, nor even a large one. It's humongous. Thus, it is not really practical to talk about giving raises to i.e. top 5% or 10% performance employees like so many other companies do. In fact, even giving raises to just top 1% of employees still would bump the salary budget significantly every year.
Benefits. From what Net has been saying for years now, Microsoft's benefits and policies really don't suck. From stock options to silly things like 'nap time' during work hours, being a med-level employee for Microsoft doesn't seem to be really all that bad. Just as you check 401K and other benefits when considering work for Sun, IBM or any other IT (or non-IT) company, so too you should consider Microsoft's benefits before you complain about your stagnant pay.
Regarding elements of the article I find interesting: According to employees, who said they would be fired if they spoke on the record, the annual review amounts to little more than a closed-door popularity contest in which managers "fight" for higher scores for their team, or defer to higher-level decision makers who mandate how many workers drop to the bottom of the review scale. - this is definitely nothing unusual. In fact, if my manager didn't fight tooth and nail to prove that me and my team are better than other teams and get us raises or bonuses, seriously, I wouldn't have too high an opinion of him. Likewise, I have to notice that article focuses on salary itself - there is nothing in it about bonuses and incentives that I could find. Having a spouse who works for a major IT industry, I have to say I'm regularly stunned by the sums on her 'chrismas checks', 'yearly performance bonuses' and other 'small' things like that - they certainly make a significant portion of her yearly income (and regularly mess up our taxes, too).
'...computers in the future may have only 1000 vacuum tubes and perhaps weigh 1.5 tons...' Popular Mechanics, 03/49'
Companies that are owned by stock holders are only interested in profits, and then only as a way to boost stock share prices enough for them to sell for a gain. That means companies with stock holders do stupid things like fire 30% of their staff to make a profit or create short term gains at the cost of long term growth, thus threatening everyone's jobs.
I'd suggest anyone working for such a company to quit.
The company has no long term investment in you and would fire you in a minute if it meant their bottom line would increase their stock values. Half the time they aren't even looking to be more profitable... they just want to increase stock prices. The trend of not paying dividends has left public held companies in bad standing.
What you should be looking for is a small company that will value you and where replacing you would be painful and where making you a better and empowered worker wont threaten the employer with ideas that you'll run away with your new found skills.
Or better yet, start your own company. If you are working for a company (if a company pays you) you're obviously worth twice that. They can't make a profit on you if you aren't.
Here's one reason you're feeling poorer: You're being gouged on property taxes. In my neighborhood the market price of condos has more than tripled in the past seven years. If tax rates remain the same that means taxes have tripled. But have school enrollments tripled? Have police salaries tripled? Have there been three times as many fires? No, no and no. Rising real estate prices have become a money grab for politicians. You need to get involved with your local politics and insist that property tax rates be adjusted downward so that what you pay reflects the true cost of delivering municipal services.
Insert witty sig here.
This inflation creates cost of living increases (including the housing bubble in my opinion). Because of this inflationary cycle, people demand cost of living increases.
The housing bubble was created by a complete lack of confidence in the stock market. The investors then put more money into land, tying up a greater percentage of it and causing the prices to go up. If they sell land to put the money back in the stock market, the market will jump 10% in a month, and the price of land will drop 10-30%. Hopefully they won't all go at once and make the big popping sound.
But, back to the topic at hand, if you recognize inflation as something that happens, and something that won't go away, I can't see how you complain about raises as a matter of course. The employee costs you the same this year as last if you give them the 2% raise. You say they should get the same, unless they distinguish themselves, so you should be giving them a raise by what you said. However, it seems that you hate the government and take it out on your employees. Like you are trying to convert them to gold-standard nuts or something by blaming their lower wagers each year on the government. But, since it is a factor you are aware of and can correct for, your conscious decision to lower their buying power is the act that hurts them, not inflation.
Learn to love Alaska
It could be significant because MSFT has been doing it while increasing their quarterly profits. When a company needs cash and stiffs their workers on salaries it's a lot more understandable than a company that still manages to increase their quarterly numbers. It would breed a lot of resentment among the rank and file.
It might really be significant if MSFT had to stiff their workers to increase quarterly numbers. Their sales are nearly pure profit, billions in cash every quarter. And they're telling their employees "No soup for you!"
Doesn't make sense. MSFT is not an airline or a smokestack industry. Their sunk costs are pretty insignificant compared to their cash profit margin. For a cash rich company this behavior is oddly out of synch with their earnings.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Joel Spolsky, who has a nice blog called "Joel on Software",
wrote a very thought provoking article back in 2000. It is
called "Incentive Pay Considered Harmful".
He discusses how *not* to manage smart, highly educated employees.
Since Joel is a programmer who used to work at MS, his case comes directly
from Redmond.
Quem a paca cara compra, paca cara pagará.