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

Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

marker.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 515 posts

Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

#421

Post by neilv »

SavantIdiot wrote: post #154

I don't really understand this article, or the current trend of job hopping. I'm from the generation where you have one job, maybe two, and that's it: I've had 7, but I really only ever wanted one good job. For some perspective: when I left Intel circa 2010, I was a Senior Staff Engineer fighting to get promoted to Principal Engineer (followed by Senoir Principal, then Fellow, then Senior Fellow, hahaha). FYI I loved…

Regarding the story of a long-established company having to adapt to FAANG/post-dotcom pay... I've seen a different response to that.

In this case, I was the prospective new hire, at a well-regarded large company. They had a large number of software developers who'd pulled off some very impressive technical accomplishments (comparing favorably to most any tech company you could think of), and had been doing so since before FAANG... In the offer, they made the level Director, even though the role was non-management hands-on technical IC. And the comp. people had also added an additional incentive program that wasn't standard for this level. I figured that might be to work around the company's pre-FAANG pay grades for software-ish people. The team, business unit, and SVP were great, and I was actually very anxious to move. But then the offer letter came from corporate, and turned out to be laden with surprise clauses (regulatory, etc.), and corporate was unable to provide copies of documents that it referenced as things to which I'd be agreeing. My decision mostly came down to the intuitive (besides the practical costs of the surprise eleventh-hour asks): feeling that I'd be at the mercy of any Kafkaesque bureaucratic accidents of a large institution, more than I think I would be at a certain larger FAANG, while the total comp. wasn't close enough to that FAANG -- so accepting would feel more like being a scared loser, than like willfully investing towards success.

Sounds like Intel's variation of paying close to FAANG might've been the way to get that new hire (despite whatever perceived big-established-company downsides there might've been), but at the cost of demoralizing the existing engineering staff who had pre-FAANG comp. (Who then might feel like the losers.)

Has this problem been solved by any long-established company that has employed top-skilled technical people since before FAANG, without paying competitively?

Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

#422

Post by systematical »

This is something I assume we've all noticed. I just switched companies a couple of months ago and that's the first time the company I was leaving threw the brief case full of money at me. Interesting that 6 months ago I was only worth a 2.3% raise, but suddenly I was now worth a 25% raise. Didn't matter, I believe workers should make unlimited PTO a demand and I let them know that was another reason I was leaving... death to limited time off, long live unlimited.

Back to the point. I imagine somewhere in the next few years I will get another offer at 25% bump after a few years of small 2.5% bumps. Just the way it works. I chuckle, but then I think there must be something I don't know.

Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

#423

Post by Retric »

captainredbeard wrote: post #384
Retric wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Performance ratings are meaningless if you’re jumping ship every 2-4 years and the difference is between working twice as hard is a 2% raise vs a 4% one. What companies forget is new employees see the legacy of how you treated old employees over time. The basic structure of small consistent pay bumps was extremely effective when people stayed at companies for decades. Work twice as hard and make 2 percent more for th…

The gap at big tech companies between okay and "doing well" (i.e. twice the effort) is not a 4% raise, it's a 40% raise.

That’s easy enough to check by actually talking with other employees. It’s really not a company wide question, often large raises early are fairly easy but get dramatically harder as compensation increases. Which of course change the effort:reward calculation over time.

Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

#424

Post by lmm »

DoctorDabadedoo wrote: post #296
bla3 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was offered a measly 5% after being dragged in 4 meetings about how great I am. The way you do this is interview elsewhere, get an offer for 40% more, and _then_ tell your manager that you have an offer for 40% more and that you'd really like to stay but they'd really have to do something about compensation. You'll get more than 5% then (but likely less than 40%). It's annoying that you have to invest the time fo…

I have trouble with this for two reasons: - If am a resource critical enough for the company to match an external offer and keep me because of the work I do and not because I'm threatening to leave, why don't they act on it diligently and offer benefits accordinly (relevant pay raises, shares and etc.)? - The moment the company becomes aware that I'm considering to leave for some place else, I'm a potential replaceme…

> - If am a resource critical enough for the company to match an external offer and keep me because of the work I do and not because I'm threatening to leave, why don't they act on it diligently and offer benefits accordinly (relevant pay raises, shares and etc.)?

It's not about being critical. Even as a more or less interchangeable programmer, if you've shown that you're actually any good then you're worth keeping.

> - The moment the company becomes aware that I'm considering to leave for some place else, I'm a potential replacement, if a good candidate or a layoff comes along.

If the company/team/project is growing then there's no reason to drop someone, and if it starts shrinking then you're better off being the first out.

Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

#425

Post by phist_mcgee »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #399

I dunno. Maybe it's not "all about the money." I was a manager for 25 years (and stayed at the company for almost 27). When my team was finally dissolved, in 2017, the person with the least tenure had a decade. The person with the most had almost 27 years (he and I started on the same day, in 1990). The pay was...not so good. The corporation had some fairly lousy HR policies. I'm told that I was the reason that these…

That's great to hear that you provided an awesome space for your team. I think we won't see this kind of loyalty much going forward though, the opportunity cost now of not changing jobs for more $ has a greater downside now that 20 years ago. House prices are beyond ridiculous, lockdowns create confusion about the next 12-24 months, the economy is in a terrible state, but somehow the stock market marches forward.

The way I see it, engineers need to make their money now or risk being left out in the cold for when many assets move out of reach from the middle class.

I don't want a yacht, I just want to own a home with no debt. Apparently that is not an easy thing for many people to do anymore.

Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

#426

Post by chrismcb »

wpietri wrote: post #86
Kranar wrote: post #11

To chime in with my own anecdotal opinion that is likely to anger some people... in my experience most developers do their best work after about 6-8 months of starting a job at a new company, and that comes to an end after about 24-36 months of working at the same company. After that the vast majority of people just stagnate, get complacent, the job stops being interesting to them and they move on. After observing th…

I would look at inverting the causality there. If your data is accurate, I think it's better to say, "Most companies create developer jobs that get boring for people after 24-36 months." I was chatting with a Trader Joe's cashier Sunday. It turns out they change jobs every hour. That was a surprise to me; when I long ago worked in a grocery store, I was assigned to one position for 8 hours for every shift. Why does T…

Did Henry Ford figure that out like 100 years ago? That people get bored on the job.

Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

#427

Post by chrismcb »

DoctorDabadedoo wrote: post #296
bla3 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was offered a measly 5% after being dragged in 4 meetings about how great I am. The way you do this is interview elsewhere, get an offer for 40% more, and _then_ tell your manager that you have an offer for 40% more and that you'd really like to stay but they'd really have to do something about compensation. You'll get more than 5% then (but likely less than 40%). It's annoying that you have to invest the time fo…

I have trouble with this for two reasons: - If am a resource critical enough for the company to match an external offer and keep me because of the work I do and not because I'm threatening to leave, why don't they act on it diligently and offer benefits accordinly (relevant pay raises, shares and etc.)? - The moment the company becomes aware that I'm considering to leave for some place else, I'm a potential replaceme…

Because your were staying for the pay they offered. While they will give you a raise every one in a while, they don't really have an incentive to give you a big raise.

Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

#428

Post by mathattack »

Kranar wrote: post #11

To chime in with my own anecdotal opinion that is likely to anger some people... in my experience most developers do their best work after about 6-8 months of starting a job at a new company, and that comes to an end after about 24-36 months of working at the same company. After that the vast majority of people just stagnate, get complacent, the job stops being interesting to them and they move on. After observing th…

My 2 cents - if some stagnate, it’s still worth working hard to retain the ones with upwards trajectory. And he kind on the way out for the others. There is a benefit to institutional knowledge.

By your reasoning do you agree with Amazon’s explicit 4 years and out model?

Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

#429

Post by perl4ever »

lupire wrote: post #395
perl4ever wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Trader Joe's It's only been a year since they were in the news for not letting people wear things that say Black Lives Matter. And there was also the employee fired for sending a letter to the CEO about working conditions. https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/trader-joes-dan-bane-firin... I think there was a boycott, but people move on so quickly.

There's no need for employees to be able to run personal political campaigns directed at customers at work. Would you also insist that TJ allow employees to wear "Meat/Abortion is Murder" buttons? > employee fired for sending a letter to the CEO about working onditions. Allegedly. The journalist made no attempt to investigate or disprove TJ's side of the story, not even to ask the employee about it.

>The journalist made no attempt to investigate or disprove TJ's side of the story, not even to ask the employee about it.

They did! The TJ response is right there, after the termination letter, and the way I read it, they confirmed the story beyond a reasonable doubt by producing a denial that only sounds like a defense without context.

It says, "store leadership terminated this Crew Member's employment because of the disrespect he showed towards our customers. We have never, and would never, terminate a Crew Member's employment for raising safety concerns".

Their excuse is that he was not respectful enough to the customers...by demanding management exclude people (after 3 strikes) who refuse to wear masks and are abusive. And this is not a health concern, nor did they have any problem with the other health concerns. Really??

This is how every professional defends the indefensible these days. They craft a "non-denial denial" that communicates a falsehood to people who don't have the context, and doesn't technically lie or deny anything to people who do have the context. It is truly having your cake and eating it too.

Post reply on HN