Slashdot Mirror
Flat Pay Prompts 1 In 3 In IT To Consider Jump
CWmike writes "Companies have cut salaries and training, held back on bonuses and piled more work on employees in response to the economic downturn. These tactics may well be pushing many IT pros to go job hunting, Computerworld's latest salary poll has found. More than one third (36%) of the 343 respondents to a recent poll said they are looking to move to a new employer in the next six months. And 69% reported they had not received a pay raise in the past six months. The poll was conducted during the last two weeks in September. For employers, the warning could not be more clear. As the economy improves, the most able IT workers may leave for something better."
Most employers do annual pay adjustments, so asking if they received a pay increase in the past 6 months would, on average, get at least 50% saying no. The report was engineered from the start to get the result that they published.
Yes.
However sometimes you must switch jobs for the 'tards in charge to realize that the salary offered is not making the position attractive to employees.
No amount of pissing and moaning will get me more money. Period.
On the other hand, if I can find a position elsewhere, I get to actually have a salary discussion. Whereas that's not on the table now.
I risk getting fired if I talk about money. I do not risk getting fired if I talk about money with a new company.
I can pick and choose where and when, and to a certain extent what I do with a new company. I get shit thrown at me to do extra at my existing company.
If companies don't like the brain drain, they can fucking step up to the plate to talk about salaries once in a while.
I have nothing to lose by talking to some other company about a job, that turns a 0% chance at a raise to a non-zero chance, with some slight risk.
Despite what fanatical libertarians around here may say, this is exactly the sort of situations unions are for.
According to my girlfriend's students they are all going to grow up to be big rich software engineers. They will all run their own companies and have no one to answer to. It's just the old neck beards that worry about the economy.
hah, that's hilarious, screw the old guys because I'LL NEVER GET OLD
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
The companies never really figure out what's going on. Your lead or immediate project manager may have a clue, but their management (all the way to the top) just doesn't get it.
Ironically, the argument for the huge CEO bonuses, even during the bailouts, was that "we have to pay this much to retain our 'talent'" (talent being the executives who brought the disasters upon these companies).
Face it. US styled (quarterly earnings per share centric) capitalism simply doesn't work long term.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
I agree with the sentiment in theory, but voting with your feet is not as easy as you make it sound.
The extremely large company where I work just fired, well, had a layoff of one, of a guy whose next prospective employer's HR department called to check references. Last I heard, this guy has been unjustly tagged as a malcontent by the boss, and he has not found a new job. HR is giving a very dour and tight-lipped "name and dates of employment only" response that, while skirting the law, makes it very clear the company considers him a horrible employee. It's a small industry, and looking around carries the risk of getting prematurely helped out the door. It can absolutely be done, but the risk is not zero.
Secondly, health insurance. One of the guys I work with has a chronic health problem with one of his kids. Every time he changes jobs, he gets to start the fight anew to get the kid's medical issues covered. It is not trivial, it frequently gets right up to the lawyers, and each time his kid's medical care is interupted, there's a small but real risk that his child could actually die.
Employment has so much "friction" it might as well be considered a market failure. If McDonald's screws you over, Burger King is across the street. If your employer screw you over -- and unjust poor references seem to be the weapon of choice -- then an uphill legal battle lasting years and costing up to hundreds of thousands of dollars might be your only rememdy.
Don't kid yourself. "Voting with your feet" isn't nearly as safe and effective as we would like it to be, or as it should be.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Bush economic meltdown
I'm no fan of Bush, but fixating on him is shortsighted. Remember that congress appropriates money and originates budgets, not the president, so, I suppose all the Democrats in congress had nothing to do with it, right? I mean, they've only been in control for the last 4 years. And of course the fact that the spending over the last 18 months dwarfs what happened in 2007/2008 and the impending tax increases has nothing to do with businesses being reluctant to hire, right?
Congress is corrupt, the executive branch is corrupt and the judiciary is most of the way there. If you think that R=bad and D=good, or the inverse you are deluded. They all suck
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
I say this after being on both sides of the table. Most people out there are bordering on a waste of oxygen - taking valuable time from the useful ones to solve inane problems. About 10% of workers are truly talented, and can solve problems independently - those are the guys you want. The next 10-15% are good - not really independent problem solvers, but reliable and honest, and would prefer a productive work day to being bored 'cause there isn't enough to keep them busy. Everybody else is just killing time for their meal ticket. An, honestly, I was a combination of the first and last groups for a lot of years. I sure as hell wouldn't have given my former self a raise of any significance. In the past three years I've been asked by several people to join their staff or lead a new department - but I've also got 8 years of running a very successful firm (~30-40% growth every year for 7 years, we'll probably drop back to about 20-25% year with the recession).
If you're not getting a raise, one of three things is happening:
1) the company really is on hard times - they're keeping you, perhaps at a loss, because you're valuable.
2) you're boss is not giving you credit for what you do, or nobody with decision authority sees your brilliance and work ethic.
3) you're in the 75-80% of people who really aren't that good.
If you're in the rare #2 slot (I'm going to put that at less than 1%; good odds are that you're really a #3), I feel for you, and you definitely need to find another job. If you're #1, you have to decide if it's worth bailing on the company who is keeping you employed. If you're #3, good luck. You'll always be disappointed.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I work for one of the large IT companies. Pay isn't my concern. I'm pretty happy with my salary.
My concern is job stability. They've been laying off people simply to prop up the stock price. Year after year, its round of layoff after round of layoffs despite near a record high stock price and record profits and revenue. We got rid of the low performers years ago, yet the layoffs keep on coming. They've even laid off distinguished engineers. That tells me that even if I perform so well in my job that I reach one of the highest levels for an engineer, even that's not going to keep me from being laid off. So what's the point? If I stay, I risk being laid off when I'm 50 when it's going to be even more difficult to find a job.
I'd be willing to take a $10k-$20k cut in salary for a more secure job...one that isn't going to lay me off unless it at least has good reason to.
He deals with the god damn customers so the engineers don't have to. He has people skills; he is good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?
Yes. That's one of the lowest tax rates in the country (15%). Also, you are only taxed if you make a profit obviously, so it isn't like you would lose money should capital gains taxes increase although your profit would be reduced of course.
In addition, even some of the wealthiest people in the world are in favor of increasing the capital gains tax, such as Warren Buffett (who made his fortune from stocks).
Problem: Consumer demand for around 15-20% of our (US) economic output goods/services has been destroyed by both the stock (2001) market and real estate (2007-current) market collapse. This demand was of course artificial, propped up by "wealth" that didn't really exist (no, your house wasn't worth $30K more six months after you bought it).
So, the question is, how do you light a fire under the economic engine of consuming when most households are loaded down with mortgage, student loan, and unsecured/secured debt? Easily. You have the Federal Reserve buy out the underwater portion of debt.
Most, if not all of you, will say "That's not fair! I spent wisely and saved accordingly!" Good for you. You don't drive the economy. Those who consume do. So, to get those people consuming again, you need to get rid of this debt hanging out there. It's going to go away at some point anyway (research shows that if you're more than $10K underwater on your mortgage, you're 8-10 times more likely to walk away from the mortgage than someone who isn't underwater). The faster we eliminate that "zombie" debt, the more disposable income will be freed up for consuming goods, and the economy will start rolling again.
And please, don't say "You can't just make money out of thin air!" That's exactly what the Federal Reserve does. Inflation will be kept in check because we're already suffering from deflation. If the excess capacity doesn't get eaten up, the US is going to end up with the same problems Japan had. Once that excess capacity is eaten up, the Fed can raise interest rates to put the brakes on additional expansion.
Feel free to poke holes in my logic. A crowdsourced solution is still a solution.