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.'"
Whats the difference between a sweeper who is working very hard expecting a bonus at the year end and a programmer who does the same ? Whats is required is a difference in thinking. Never work expecting something. Work honestly and sincerely and do your best. In the end if u dont get the recognition u expected, move on... The important thing is being your own boss. Think of the value you are generating... If the company doesnt recognise it, maybe its time to realign yourself with the corporate goals, do some soul searching too. In the end, maybe it just maybe the time to move on...or better still start something on your own.
It is news for Nerds because the developers could revolt and demand extra wages or they will start to produce shoddy code.
Errrrrrrrr hang on a minute
liqbase
I don't even have a job you insensitive clod!
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
"I love working at Microsoft but cannot stay in an environment where I am treated shabbily and afforded no opportunity to defend myself against such treatment."
So are we to deduce that this person at one point loved working in an environment where they were treated shabbily and could not defend themselves? Or they did not know this was the culture at Microsoft and later found out the hard way?
The whole quote about favouritism in reviews (unfortunately) rings true about many companies, not just Microsoft. My advice is if you are unhappy - leave, no one is forcing them to work for Microsoft. And it might just be the best move of your life.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
For all the talk about the economy picking up, jobs being plentiful and it being an employee's market, I have to say the raises for the past few years have been dismal at best. A raise of about 3% has been pretty much standard this year, which doesn't even keep up with inflation, let alone the rising cost of keeping your home (presuming you've bought one in this crazy market).
The value of my home just went up by $146,000 this year alone -- and before you start accusing me of being too greedy, know that I'm not interested in selling, just living here. All that extra value is pure fluff, the stuff that dot-com stocks were made of. The problem is, I'm being forced to pay property taxes that are going up at the rate of 25% a year just to keep my house. Fat chance trying to find a job where my income increases commensurately.
I've no idea what to do, and I'm seriously considering moving to India, and joining the growing contingent of foreign workers there.
Somebody explain to my why it seems that despite the dollar figure of my salary that's far above what my parents earned at my age, I still feel poorer.... and I'm a good saver!
I have a big problem with people like you who have that attitude. Have you heard of a cost of living increase? I have been working for three years without even one of those. In essence, although my value to my company has increased, they are lowering my salary.
For my businesses, I pay my employees the lowest salary possible, in some cases minimum wage. I myself only earn minimum wage. Yet my employees also get a much larger share of profits, up to 70% on a given project. They are directly tied to the performance of their work, as well as the performance of the market. I'm one of the lowest paid in my IT business (although I also do less work than most).
That may be great during good times, but what happens if your business falls on hard times? If you aren't compensating your employees appropriately, do you think they are going to stay? You see, salary is a form of compensation. If you don't pay your employees anything but or near minimum wage, you must not think very highly of your work. Just because an effort fails, does not mean that it was for lack of trying. Profit sharing should be an extra incentive to work even harder.
Its all very simple: if you are paid below your worth, look for an employer that will pay what you are worth. If you can't find one then adjust your concept of what you are worth.
There. One could even make a flowchart of that.
"Large corporation with enormous bureaucracy has internal politics" Where's the story?
Yeah, I worked for MS for 5 years. Yes the review system runs largely on Politics - those who play the game get the rewards. How is this different from 99% of the rest of corporate America?
MS takes pretty darn good care of it's employees (my salary at MS was anywhere from 150% to 200% of industry standard for my position depending on whose numbers you looked at, and that doesn't even count top notch health benefits). In return, they expect you to buy into the company culture that your job is your only priority. I knew guys who would set up their Outlook to send emails at 2 and 3 in the morning to give the impression they were working late. I had a manager who's only measure of an employee's worth was whether or not they were working at least 10 hours of "overtime". Our Society as a whole tends to reward appearance over substance 9 times our of 10. Why is it a shock when corporations follow suit. If you were willing to spend the time and effort to play the game, you too could get the rewards. Personally, I couldn't stand the Company Culture at MS and that's why I'm not working there anymore and will not be working there for a long, long time (if ever) if I can help it. But just because that culture doesn't jive with my own standards and priorities doesn't make it immoral or illegal.
Now, there's business practices of upper management that are a whole other story as far as immoral and illegal, but I'm not getting into that here.
Heh, reminds me of my favorite joke while I was working there "The day Microsoft sells something that doesn't suck is the day Microsoft starts selling Vacuum Cleaners".
This is news because of the economic implications for Microsoft. Microsoft has historically been able to recruit the best and brightest to work for Microsoft, give them stock options, and essentially let investors pay the developers a ridiculous salary without the costs showing up on Microsoft's books. This, in turn, allowed Microsoft's books to look amazing which generated more interested in MSFT stock. Basically, while Microsoft was growing, it could print its own money. Now that this isn't the case Microsoft is a much less attractive place to work.
This wouldn't be a big deal if the coders at Microsoft couldn't find someplace else to work with higher pay, but that's not the case with the elite at Microsoft. That's why Google has been able to scoop up so many Microsoft employees, and it is also why we have seen a steady stream of Microsoft employees forming their own startups and such.
Bill Gates obviously thinks 64k should be enough for anybody.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
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."
Insert witty sig here.