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

451–460 of 560 posts

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

#451

Post by sidlls »

jldugger wrote: post #405
_Codemonkeyism wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the reasons stated, I would not give in. This is a slippery slope. Raising the pay of one employee out of band will usually lead to group behavior, meaning others do the same for the same reasons. I was also mostly budget constrained in the past and could not raise budget to significantly (say 20%) pay raise several employees. If the employee for whatever reasons earns say 10% below average of the other employees…

Which is why changing jobs is the only way to get paid what you're worth: management has neither the backbone nor the incentive to price things properly. So instead we perform the cognitive hack of two underpaid employees trading jobs, because as you said, "The easiest time to give an employee a raise is during hiring." I figure the only way to really fix this 'the only way to get a raise is to leave for a year' meth…

Putting retention in the manager's evaluation without also supporting his efforts (e.g. with an appropriate budget) isn't fair to the manager.

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

#452

Post by CryptoFascist »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #395
malka wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As soon as companies are loyal to their employee, I will be loyal to them. Work is a simple contract. I give time. I get money. Period. The company will not hesitate to throw me under the bus if it can bring more money, and I do not see why I should be more considerate toward them ?

Perhaps then, you should consider looking to work for a company that will be loyal to you. :)

Unless your family owns the company, no such thing exists.

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

#453

Post by gnahckire »

rhengles wrote: post #403
magnetic wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What else would they be motivated by? The actual work (what is being done), the mission of the company (are you helping kids send pictures that disappear after 10 seconds or are you working on finding a cure to hearing loss?), the team, the location (do I have to spend 2h commuting?), the opportunities to learn, the opportunities to grow, etc. We each value different things, but if money is your only consideration,…

Unless you run a non-profit, your company is also motivated by money and all your work and mission are only means to an end, which is to maximize the shareholders profit. That's why the company was founded, right? Of course you have the right to deny a rise and let the employee go, maybe it really doesn't fit in your budget and/or you can hire someone else for less, but don't talk like the employee is wrong for searc…

I really find the "make the world a better place" rhetoric funny. Because, at the end of the day, you're right.

Companies exist to make money.

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

#454

Post by talmand »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #395
malka wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As soon as companies are loyal to their employee, I will be loyal to them. Work is a simple contract. I give time. I get money. Period. The company will not hesitate to throw me under the bus if it can bring more money, and I do not see why I should be more considerate toward them ?

Perhaps then, you should consider looking to work for a company that will be loyal to you. :)

How does one determine such a thing?

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

#455

Post by watwut »

sidlls wrote: post #248
watwut wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coding the same thing over and over may mean stagnation, but projects that change tech leads that often are usually mess. It takes time to get up to speed to that position, it takes time to people around to adjust (handle related turf wars and what not), create relationships and all that political stuff. Nor does it allows you to see long term consequences of your decisions.

> Coding the same thing over and over may mean stagnation, but projects that change tech leads that often are usually mess. Absolutely. > It takes time to get up to speed to that position, it takes time to people around to adjust (handle related turf wars and what not), create relationships and all that political stuff. What you describe has value within an organization. These skills don't actually mean one is better…

It means that if you was tech lead for two years and then for a year, I don't really want you for long term tech lead position here. Because you don't value nor see precisely things tech leads needs to do and be good at. Júst being good in architecture is not enough, through you need that too. Political and negotiation skills are transferable actually, you learn then with experience. Fine for coder though.

As for your last point, we are in the middle of rather large refactoring. New people here are not trusted with refactoring, because they are not trusted as much. If you have track record not to underestimate difficulties, you are placed at positions that are assumed to require refactoring. The issue with refactoring is that many if not most refactoring attempts fail and leave system in even larger mess. That is why many managers are scared of it. Inexperienced highly confident person trying, unfinishing due to difficulties (whether technical or political) and then leaving mid job.

Refactoring larger project where half the team is still learning and the other on the way out sounds like bad idea. Of course you need to change people to get new ideas in, but positions for stable and less stable people are different.

Guess I am lucky with my current job.

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

#456

Post by foo101 »

_Codemonkeyism wrote: post #322
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…

Might work somewhere else. I always felt blackmailed in a situation like this and wished the employee all the best with his new job. [Edit] To clarify the blackmail note: It's better to talk in the weekly 1:1 about salary expectations, changing markets or during people development focus, than to pull up a competing offer out of your hat while not talking about your dissatisfaction with pay during weekly 1:1s. 1. If t…

> [Edit] To clarify the blackmail note: It's better to talk in the weekly 1:1 about salary expectations, changing markets or during people development focus, than to pull up a competing offer out of your hat while not talking about your dissatisfaction with pay during weekly 1:1s.

Talking about my dissatisfaction with pay during 1:1s has never got me a raise. Getting a competing offer has.

> 1. If the employee is only motivated by money, he will be gone rather sooner than later as there is always a higher offer around.

I may not be motivated only by money but money is a motivation. I am selling my skills in exchange for money, so it is in my interest to sell my skills to the highest bidder that matches my other requirements such as good role, autonomy at work, etc.

> 2. If you give in once to this, the employee will come back 6 months later with demanding the next pay rise.

Only if you are paying him below the market rate. If the pay is at par with market rate, it is not going to be so easy to come back 6 months later with another significant pay rise that is hard for you to afford.

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

#457

Post by foo101 »

_Codemonkeyism wrote: post #351
LostCharacter wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an employee is coming to you with those offers instead of just leaving for the other job, shouldn't that indicate to you that they WANT to stay, but they also want to keep their career moving forward and earn more money? Why is that unreasonable? You're sending people out the door that want to continue working for your company just because they're telling you they have better opportunities and giving you a chance…

For the reasons stated, I would not give in. This is a slippery slope. Raising the pay of one employee out of band will usually lead to group behavior, meaning others do the same for the same reasons. I was also mostly budget constrained in the past and could not raise budget to significantly (say 20%) pay raise several employees. If the employee for whatever reasons earns say 10% below average of the other employees…

Your comment proves the point of the article. As long as the management refuses to pay a salary that is at par with the market standard, the only way to get paid as per the market standard is to get a new job.

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

#458

Post by castratikron »

I'm not sure why companies prefer that someone leave and take all of their institutional knowledge with them, then hire someone new at a higher wage that would have kept the first person at the company. They are not taking into account the value of knowledge. If your domain knowledge increases 20% within a year, then you should be getting a 20% raise.

With the elimination of pensions, the only vesting time that most people have is for their 401k, which is usually only a couple of years. Not sure what employers are expecting to happen or why they're surprised when their hot college grad employees decide to leave for a big pay bump.

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

#459

Post by mdpopescu »

gorkonsine wrote: post #323
_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…

It's a very interesting analogy, and shows the terrible and wrong mentality that managers like 'scaryclam' have. Work is NOT like having a girlfriend. Like the other poster said, a better analogy is your relationship with a prostitute. But it's good you brought up this incorrect analogy, because I think it really shows the horribly wrong mentality that bosses have, because they believe this to be a good analogy even…

I just wanted to say that I've learned a LOT from the back-and-forth on this thread. My thanks to all that were involved.

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

#460

Post by thehardsphere »

s73ver wrote: post #439
thehardsphere wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could counter with that, but you'd be redefining what we're talking about away from whether or not similar men and women are paid the same to something far more nebulous and difficult to measure. And rationality of any one particular hiring manager isn't going to make a big difference; they still need to compete with every other hiring manager in the labor market and must offer something competitive accordingly.

No, they'd be redefining it to something more analogous to the real world.

We were discussing salary differences between men and women who do the same work and have made the same choices. Salaries exist in "the real world," so you're going to have to try harder to change the topic to whatever it is you want to talk about instead.
Post reply on HN