The one-salary experiment, ten years in • Hacker News Board

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#91

Post by zdragnar » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 2:37 AM UTC

issa wrote: post #84

I've always found it strange that companies don't give raises to current employees. A team I am on just lost a good engineer to another company offering him a $30k+ raise. He would have stayed if our company had even given him half of that. Instead, they let him go, and how will have to hire someone else, probably at that higher salary. So weird, and seems to happen a lot.

I've heard from multiple managers that offering someone money to stay typically buys another 9 months or so of their employment. They'll soon find other reasons to be looking for a job.

There are, of course, exceptions; it's just a general rule.

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#92

Post by flukus » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 2:38 AM UTC

Waterluvian wrote: post #80

readingnews wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish I worked at your firm. I once worked at a place and saved them millions in one year. At the yearly review, they said "well, that was some good work". That was the entire review. When I said "how about giving me an extra 1k a year (a bit less than others who had been there for a while were getting) I was told we had no extra cash. Well... wow, I just saved you like 1.5 million dollars. I am not asking for that,…

I think what's most telling is what you did after that meeting. Did you quit and go work elsewhere? Don't get me wrong, I don't think companies should be so short sighted as to nickel and dime employees. But your one true source of leverage is to actually get up and leave.

There's a lot more leverage than that depending on the particulars of the story. It may have been OP that identified a saving that could be made and their leverage is a future unwillingness to identify such things. Maybe they'll stop questioning things and "code to spec" in future. Maybe they'll ignore those erroneous errors they notice throughout the day and wait for a bug report in production.

Companies that don't give raises can expect all of these behaviors.

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#93

Post by craneabove » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 2:40 AM UTC

fishtoaster, where you at?

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#94

Post by wting » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 2:42 AM UTC

zdragnar wrote: post #91

issa wrote: post #84

I've always found it strange that companies don't give raises to current employees. A team I am on just lost a good engineer to another company offering him a $30k+ raise. He would have stayed if our company had even given him half of that. Instead, they let him go, and how will have to hire someone else, probably at that higher salary. So weird, and seems to happen a lot.

I've heard from multiple managers that offering someone money to stay typically buys another 9 months or so of their employment. They'll soon find other reasons to be looking for a job. There are, of course, exceptions; it's just a general rule.

I believe grandparent was referring to proactive raises.

Reactive counter offer raises typically don't work because the employee's mind has been made up to leave. Compensation is usually only part of why someone decided to leave.

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#95

Post by ashtonian » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 2:43 AM UTC

issa wrote: post #84

I've always found it strange that companies don't give raises to current employees. A team I am on just lost a good engineer to another company offering him a $30k+ raise. He would have stayed if our company had even given him half of that. Instead, they let him go, and how will have to hire someone else, probably at that higher salary. So weird, and seems to happen a lot.

I've worked for 5 companies and 3 of them had this behavior. Would get 5/5 on reviews, saved company hundreds of thousands, delivered a flagship multi million dollar in revenue product. Ask for more then 10k and was told to get an offer elsewhere and they would match. Got another job at 30k+ told them to screw off, if I have to apply and go get a job offer to prove my "worth" then I'm just going to go work for another company. Companies have a bad habit of negotiating for negotiating rather then paying for worth. It's because it's hard to track worth and easier just to always bottom out, that and much of non tech centered world still operates like that across the board.

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#96

Post by humblebee » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 2:43 AM UTC

ashtonian wrote: post #88

polpenn wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Current company knows his worth. New company doesn’t so your teammate has informational advantage and can negotiate a higher salary.

If the market is going to give him that rate (assuming he can adequately perform the new job) that is his market value..

That is basically the same thing the poster you replied to said, except from the perspective of the current company and not the new one. The current company knows his performance. The hiring company is making an educated guess from maybe 10 hours of interaction and a resume.

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#97

Post by cgriswald » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 2:45 AM UTC

bmdavi3 wrote: post #79

readingnews wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish I worked at your firm. I once worked at a place and saved them millions in one year. At the yearly review, they said "well, that was some good work". That was the entire review. When I said "how about giving me an extra 1k a year (a bit less than others who had been there for a while were getting) I was told we had no extra cash. Well... wow, I just saved you like 1.5 million dollars. I am not asking for that,…

Thanks, that's a perspective I never got. Shows how lucky I've been at the places I've worked. (Or perhaps, how underpaid I was at the time!) I should also mention that before these conversations, I had also been interviewing with a few different companies and gotten offers, so I knew those numbers were real and I really, truly, was ready to leave if they said no. But I genuinely wanted to keep working there and be m…

Hey. I don’t know you so take this for what it’s worth. But you asked for less than 0.01% of what you saved the company. Every single one of the people who decided you don’t deserve an extra 1K earned more than that because of what you did, either through salary, bonuses, or stock price increases. It’s possible you signaled that you don’t think you’re worth much by asking for as little as you did. Whatever it is, they believe (right or wrong) that you’ll continue to earn them money even if they don’t give you an increase. Don’t let them believe that even if you have to leave to do it.

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#98

Post by rjp0008 » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 2:45 AM UTC

wting wrote: post #94

zdragnar wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard from multiple managers that offering someone money to stay typically buys another 9 months or so of their employment. They'll soon find other reasons to be looking for a job. There are, of course, exceptions; it's just a general rule.

I believe grandparent was referring to proactive raises. Reactive counter offer raises typically don't work because the employee's mind has been made up to leave. Compensation is usually only part of why someone decided to leave.

If you pay everyone more that gets expensive quick. Seems like it could be cost effective to give almost rock bottom raises and just replace the people who aren't 100% into it.

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#99

Post by rileymat2 » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 2:45 AM UTC

polpenn wrote: post #86

issa wrote: post #84

I've always found it strange that companies don't give raises to current employees. A team I am on just lost a good engineer to another company offering him a $30k+ raise. He would have stayed if our company had even given him half of that. Instead, they let him go, and how will have to hire someone else, probably at that higher salary. So weird, and seems to happen a lot.

Current company knows his worth. New company doesn’t so your teammate has informational advantage and can negotiate a higher salary.

> A team I am on just lost a good engineer to another company

Your analysis would be correct if they lost a bad engineer to a company giving him a 30k raise.

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#100

Post by user5994461 » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 2:48 AM UTC

wting wrote: post #94

zdragnar wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard from multiple managers that offering someone money to stay typically buys another 9 months or so of their employment. They'll soon find other reasons to be looking for a job. There are, of course, exceptions; it's just a general rule.

I believe grandparent was referring to proactive raises. Reactive counter offer raises typically don't work because the employee's mind has been made up to leave. Compensation is usually only part of why someone decided to leave.

It's a myth spread out by recruiters. They do not get paid when the developer doesn't change job. They'll say anything to get you to leave.

Truth is, counter offers happen and work out. When it's about compensation, not toxic workplace/coworker, or relocating elsewhere to live with your wife/children.