Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 560 posts

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#281

Post by corobo »

scaryclam wrote: post #112
elnygren wrote: post #107

Best way to increase salary at current workplace? Get offers from other companies & ask for a meeting with your boss (or whoever decides your pay, so HR etc.). Bring up the offers, discuss what you'd get from there and also go through the potential career you could build at those companies. For example: Consultancy X would pay me $k/mo and every 6months it will go up the ladder if I perform well. With this kind of di…

I imagine this is good advice in some places, but as a line manager, if you pull this on me I'm more than likely to shake your hand and wish you luck in your new job. In a lot of places, having a talk with your manager about your salary before going off and actively looking for other offers is going to go down a lot better. Most line managers worth working for, value their teams and will fight for them if they are un…

> pull this on me

make you do your job as a manager?

> having a talk with your manager about your salary before going off and actively looking for other offers is going to go down a lot better

because then the employee doesn't know the market rate and the manager can get away with giving a garbage raise. Of course that's going to go down better, it's less work for the manager to dig it out of the budget or their boss

Edit: Made it a little less personal, my grudges are not with you.

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#282

Post by mac01021 »

scaryclam wrote: post #112
elnygren wrote: post #107

Best way to increase salary at current workplace? Get offers from other companies & ask for a meeting with your boss (or whoever decides your pay, so HR etc.). Bring up the offers, discuss what you'd get from there and also go through the potential career you could build at those companies. For example: Consultancy X would pay me $k/mo and every 6months it will go up the ladder if I perform well. With this kind of di…

I imagine this is good advice in some places, but as a line manager, if you pull this on me I'm more than likely to shake your hand and wish you luck in your new job. In a lot of places, having a talk with your manager about your salary before going off and actively looking for other offers is going to go down a lot better. Most line managers worth working for, value their teams and will fight for them if they are un…

> Most line managers value their team and will fight for them if they are unhappy

1) It's not a matter of being happy or unhappy. Just about everyone wants to earn as much as possible, the goal being to get as quickly as possible to the point where one no longer requires employment.

2) It's not possible to know how much the market values you without seeking other offers and seeing how much they'll offer you.

3) If one of your employees comes to you and says "I would like a raise" with no additional context, I can't imagine you're likely to offer them much. If they say "I need a raise or else I'm going to start looking at other jobs", I doubt you'll treat that much different from coming to you with an offer already in hand.

As an employee with a manager like you, it seems like my best best is to get an offer first, and then come to you saying "I'm really happy here, but you're not paying me market rate, and I think I would also be happy at this other company that will pay me more."

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#283

Post by bitexploder »

justadeveloper2 wrote: post #233
bitexploder wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The research I am aware of says if someone comes into your office with a competing offer they are likely to be gone in 6 months. https://hbr.org/2016/07/setting-the-record-straight-using-an... Outside offers to get a raise are a risky business at best. If someone is unhappy enough to do this it isn't just compensation most of the time.

So you get six more months out of a skilled employee. Most managers I know would take that deal. They would see it as an opportunity to have six more months to retain that person or at least kick the can down the road a bit longer.

It can be the right strategy, but you have to be prepared for them to leave. It can be a shock to some businesses to have someone leave when they are managing important responsibilities. It is just a matter of being completely informed. And if you expect them to leave within a 6-12 months you are looking for their replacement. It creates an uncomfortable situation.

It isn't the wrong call to keep someone on and counter, it is just a tricky situation.

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#284

Post by EdSharkey »

Marazan wrote: post #234
thehardsphere wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it is how the world works. If there was really a gender pay gap for women who are doing the exact same work as men with the exact same experience as men, then it would be trivial for employers to reduce their costs by only hiring women. Yet, nobody ever does this.

You have that arse backwards - women aren't paid less because companies think they can get away with it. Women are paid less because they are valued less for doing the same job. Companies think the are less valuable. As a result they do not seek to hire people they value less.

Wait, you just said, "women are paid less because they are valued less". Sounds logical.

But the grandparent's point is a sticky one: "it would be trivial for employers to reduce their costs by only hiring women." And yet ... no employer ever does this. They hire men and women. Also logical.

Either you're not telling me everything you know, or you're wrong. Without radical argument surgery, to make what you said square with GP, we have to consider changing the parameters in some pretty distasteful ways:

* It's actually the women themselves who value their time less, and let themselves get taken advantage of in salary negotiations.

* Men are more skilled than women for some jobs and those skills are in short supply. They get hired alongside women, but command higher salaries.

I tend to think there is no gender pay gap, but only if we adjust for people's choices to take breaks from their careers in order to raise families, pursue hobbies, mental health, etc.

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#285

Post by corobo »

JCharante wrote: post #280
_wwz4 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Letting everyone know they'll immediately be shown the door if they dare request an increase would create a terrible culture The person to whom you're responding explicitly drew a distinction between discussing a raise with your boss vs going to your boss with another offer that you have secured. I can see the importance of that distinction. To put the relationship in a different context: Imagine the difference betwe…

I know it doesn't add anything of value to the thread, but that's a really good analogy.

Not really. Business is business and personal is personal. If you look at them both the same you'll end up stuck in a job you hate for 8 years thinking you're being super loyal and that raise is just around the corner.

Spouses are loyal back, businesses are not.

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#286

Post by rdlecler1 »

djslakor wrote: post #236
scaryclam wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine this is good advice in some places, but as a line manager, if you pull this on me I'm more than likely to shake your hand and wish you luck in your new job. In a lot of places, having a talk with your manager about your salary before going off and actively looking for other offers is going to go down a lot better. Most line managers worth working for, value their teams and will fight for them if they are un…

> but as a line manager, if you pull this on me I'm more than likely to shake your hand and wish you luck in your new job. "Pull this on you"? You sound like a real joy to work for. This is expressly why I choose gigs where I'm working directly for an owner if at all possible. If you've created value, owners know how important you are and will take your request seriously as long as it's reasonable. In my career, I ha…

People don't like to feel like they're being exhorted. This has a high likelihood of backfiring. If you want a raise talk to your manager first. Don't come with threats to leave.

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#287

Post by thehardsphere »

skj wrote: post #249
thehardsphere wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no pay gap?

Your conclusion is, then, that all people are rational?

No. Rationality has very little to do with it. How rational the participants are doesn't itself change the fact that there is a competitive labor market and that salary offers thus must be competitive.

If women choose to forgo higher salaries in favor of something else, that's a different issue and it doesn't immediately mean that they are being "irrational", it just means they favor different things than men do.

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#288

Post by bitexploder »

eof wrote: post #204
bitexploder wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The research I am aware of says if someone comes into your office with a competing offer they are likely to be gone in 6 months. https://hbr.org/2016/07/setting-the-record-straight-using-an... Outside offers to get a raise are a risky business at best. If someone is unhappy enough to do this it isn't just compensation most of the time.

there doesn't appear to be any research in that article, just opinions? it doesn't surprise if that's true that you are likely to be gone; especially if you count the times that you aren't given a competitive counter offer.

Ahh, sorry.

https://hbr.org/2016/09/why-people-quit-their-jobs

At the end, a research and analysis firm in this space says 50% leave within one year. I could not find the papers. I actually researched this a lot when put in a situation that we had to make a counter offer and there are some better papers and such out there, but I don't have it handy.

You have to go case by case and really understand what is motivating the individual. There is a very high chance the relationship is beyond salvaging. But there is also a good chance you can fix the problem. It is much better to never be in that situation to begin with (preventative maintenance). Regardless when you get to the point of making a counter offer anecdotal experience and research indicates it is about like flipping a coin. Maybe you can gain some insight via discussions and back story that make it better than flipping a coin, but the basic idea is you are in a relatively unpredictable situation at that point, no matter what.

Whereas, having constant and open communications with employees, discussing comp and making sure all issues stay little issues prevents these situations. Eventually someone may leave, but in my experience you can almost always remove the chance they come to you with a competitive offer. They will know where they stand with the business and be getting a fair wage or they will know it is time to move on. It is a much better relationship than an employee feeling they have no recourse but to drop a bomb on your organization.

That said, it is understandable how this happens with "line managers". e.g. middle managers. Individuals not empowered by corporate structure to do the right thing. But in orgs of less than 100 people this should never be happening.

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#289

Post by amyjess »

oblio wrote: post #217
Sevii wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not agressiveness that's the main difference, men are willing to sacrifice a lot more for their careers on average.

Got any studies for this?

https://www.vox.com/2016/8/1/12108126/gender-wage-gap-explai...

Long, but worth a read. Here's a section from the middle of it:

> Right now, the burden of child rearing disproportionately falls on women

> Some of this could be by choice — but there are also cultural forces outside of a woman’s control at play.

> Consider a study of lawyers’ salaries from Mary Noonan at the University of Iowa. She found that men see their salaries decrease more than women when they switch to a part-time schedule for a year.

> "It seems that men in the legal profession who take on non-traditional gender roles (i.e., taking responsibility for child care) pay a high price for that behavior," Noonan and her study co-authors write.

> If the workplace penalizes men more than women for taking breaks from work, then it could be the wiser financial decision for a mother to take on more caregiving activities — the decision that society overwhelmingly expects.

> And even before having children, just the act of becoming pregnant will mean more doctor appointments and actually delivering a baby — all things harder to do in jobs with rigid schedules.

> There are some arguments that women have lower salaries because they don’t negotiate salaries as well or aren’t as naturally competitive

> Studies do find that women negotiate their salaries less frequently than men — but also that they may choose to do so with good reason. One series of experiments found that managers were less interested to work with women who asked for higher salaries in job negotiations.

> The data tells us that this can’t be the entire story. It can't explain why the wage gap is so much bigger for those with kids than those without. One 2015 study found that childless, unmarried women earn 96 cents for every dollar a man earns. Remember that study we started with, the one about the MBA graduates? It showed that women with kids had a wage gap twice as large as women without.

> "There are really three groups: men, women with children, and women without children," says Bertrand, who worked on that research with Goldin. "Things like negotiating skill might matter on the margin, but it is not the core issue."

> If the problem were that women aren't competitive, it couldn't address why the wage gap is smallest when women are youngest. It's not as if women would lose their negotiating skills over time.

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#290

Post by ohyes »

JCharante wrote: post #280
_wwz4 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Letting everyone know they'll immediately be shown the door if they dare request an increase would create a terrible culture The person to whom you're responding explicitly drew a distinction between discussing a raise with your boss vs going to your boss with another offer that you have secured. I can see the importance of that distinction. To put the relationship in a different context: Imagine the difference betwe…

I know it doesn't add anything of value to the thread, but that's a really good analogy.

It's a terrible analogy. A better analogy is you're a prostitute and you tell your client that you looked around and the going rate for this type of work is more than he's been paying you, so you're gonna go fuck other guys for money.

You don't fire your girlfriend in tough times, but your boss will fire you if he had to. It's a stricylty pay to play relationship.

Post reply on HN