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.'"

Comments

Re: Microsoft Engineer and a Sweeper?

[bensafrickingenius]

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...

Start over.

[neo]

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.

Re:Start over.

[windowpain]

You're so confused about basic economics it's hard to know where to start. But I'll try.

"Companies that are owned by stock holders are only interested in profits"

As opposed to companies owned by whom? Most businesses, even small ones, are incorporated, which means they're owned by stockholders. Stockholder is just another word for "owner". Sole proprietorships and partnerships also have owners.

"That means companies with stock holders do stupid things like fire 30% of their staff to make a profit"

Sometimes, firing 30 percent of the staff is exactly what needs to be done. Somtimes the percentage should be higher. Sometimes making a profit does not require any firings. It's absurd to make a blanket statement that firing people to increase profits is stupid.

"The company has no long term investment in you"

Says who? Which company? A company might not have a long term investment in a particular employee. Or it might subsidize that employee's education like my company does, making me not only more valuable to them but more competitive in the jobs marketplace.

"Half the time they aren't even looking to be more profitable... they just want to increase stock prices."

And exactly how does a company increase its stock price without increasing profits? Both increased profits and increased stock prices represent increases in shareholder value, which is a company's primary fiduciary (i.e., legal and moral) responsibility to its shareholders.

"What you should be looking for is a small company"

I prefer working for small companies but working for big companies has distinct advantages. It's foolish to make a one-size-fits-all statement that small companies are always better.

"Or better yet, start your own company."

Great idea. But then you'd be one of those greedy shareholders.

"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."

Karl Marx called and left a message for you re: the surplus value of wages. "Keep fighting the good fight comrade. Seventy five years of abject failure in the Soviet Union does nothing to disprove my theories."

Re:Nothing new - That's the same story everywhere

[windowpain]

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.

Re:Welcome to the rest of the jungle

[HangingChad]

I like to rip on Microsoft as much as anyone else, but holy shit welcome to the whole rest of the entire fucking industry. And the airline industry, and the financial industry

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.

Incentive Pay Considered Harmful

[rcastro0]

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.