Raises

[Evan]

But if you're talking about a professional position that is difficult to fill then you may have to give raises to even the average employee to keep them.

While I agree with that, I'd argue that in a market like DC very few positions are hard to fill.

having been on the hiring end Id have to disagree.
throw in people with specialized skills, and high level clearances..... you throw money at just about any warm body that fits the description and hope they work out

[Apoc]

I think clearances is whole 'nother ballgame entirely. If you're going to have a helluva time finding someone with similar qualifications you need to pony up the cash. It's simple supply and demand there.

[Evan]

I think clearances is whole 'nother ballgame entirely. If you're going to have a helluva time finding someone with similar qualifications you need to pony up the cash. It's simple supply and demand there.

how is it a whole 'nuther ballgame when you are talking specifically about the DC area and thats a significant portion of the jobs available?

[Apoc]

how is it a whole 'nuther ballgame when you are talking specifically about the DC area and thats a significant portion of the jobs available?

I'd argue your use of significant and ask that you support it with some numbers. I would be surprised if more than 10% of civilian, corporate jobs require clearance.

Most of us here don't have one... I don't think.

[G.Irish]

But if you're talking about a professional position that is difficult to fill then you may have to give raises to even the average employee to keep them.

While I agree with that, I'd argue that in a market like DC very few positions are hard to fill. I don't disagree that training someone new costs money but with the number of people looking to switch, most of which who have little qualms about "job jumping" then it's really not that hard.

I'd have to say competition for IT professionals with security clearances is pretty fierce around here. When I put up my resume on Monster I got somewhere over 70 emails and dozens and dozens of calls from recruiters and had plenty of choices.

In the job I left I was one of the programmers who did a lot of work cleaning stuff up and pushing for documentation and processes that didn't exist before. The people left behind were the people who had made a bunch of messy applications and poor documentation in the first place. And plenty of good people left before and after I did.

[Evan]

how is it a whole 'nuther ballgame when you are talking specifically about the DC area and thats a significant portion of the jobs available?

I'd argue your use of significant and ask that you support it with some numbers. I would be surprised if more than 10% of civilian, corporate jobs require clearance.

Most of us here don't have one... I don't think.

heh, well clearly the nature of the work means that there are no published numbers for cleared workers. And of course I could ask for the same numbers about uncleared positions.

Given that every state department employee and contractor must have a clearance (30k+ employees), every employee and contractor for all the intel agencies (DNI, DIA, CIA, FBI, DHS, NSA, NRO...and it goes on and on) must have a very high level security clearance, significant cleared positions at other agencies such as DoJ, and given that this area revolves around the government and these agencies, and Id say thats a pretty concrete argument for use of the word significant

[Apoc]

If there are so many jobs that require them then it shouldn't be that hard to fill them then.... should it? Are you asserting that there's a shortage of people qualified and therefore those employee candidates should be paying more? If that's the case, wouldn't you think the market would be flush with people realizing they could make more if they left? Something doesn't add up.

It sounds to me like you're talking more about paying more to match market value (skills, attributes = money) and not raises based on performance. If a crappy performer with a clearance can go somewhere else to make more money then you were either underpaying them to begin with and getting a deal or playing them fairly and it'll be someone else's problem. If they'd be so hard pressed to find a qualified replacement then obviously they need(ed) to pay more to start with.

Giving more than a market increase just because they have the clearance and don't suck only really serves to raise what the average performer makes... it's the very nature of the market value. Supply is short, price goes up. A company needs to compensate for that but that's an increase in baseline market value anyway... not rewarding employees for their average performance. It's called a market adjustment (see Deersty's post) and they exist entirely separate of merit increases.

[Evan]

You are making my head hurt Chris.

More requirements for a position = smaller candidate pool.
especially when one of those requirements is a $50k security investigation.
smaller candidate pool = not easy to fill the position.

its pretty simple


I should forward you all the emails I get within 12 hours after activating my resume on monster. My voicemail only holds 30 messages, so that fills up in about 4 hours.

not bragging, its just how it works here.

[Apoc]

I'm not debating the supply and demand aspect of it. I'm saying that if an employee can leave and get more money elsewhere than you were paying under market value anyway. Any money you give them to stay is independent of their performance and you wouldn't toss them a higher merit increase just because the position is harder to fill.

Gerald said they should give money up front instead of waiting to match when it's too late. That's true, but that's in terms of making sure you're paying them in line with the market... not giving them a 10% raise for average performance just to keep them happy for the sake of it.

Performance increases, or the lack thereof, was the topic of this debate. Is it splitting hairs? Maybe... but I still don't think you should be rewarding people for lackluster performance no matter what their qualifications.

[Kaan]

The only time you get a raise at booz is if you move up levels. They dont get a christmas bonus, they get a million dollar party... such is booz allen.

I've been with this project for 4 years. I've only been reviewed twice, because the contract keeps changing hands, but the government always asks me to stay and i always get a job offer from the new company.

I do a job that would take someone at least 6 months to train to do... and with out all the experience i have, even after 6 months they arent going to be as effective as i am right now. It is in their best interest to keep me around. Now unless the contract changes hands between now and april, i'm expecting a fairly large raise. The government is hounding my company to keep me around and keep me happy.

edit: the last review i had was in fact less than the cost of living... for an excelent review. Go figure. way to motivate me to keep working hard!

[Evan]

Chris what are you talking about? I was responding to your statement (that I quoted) that you said DC positions are easy to fill.

[PDenbigh]

I have only read RJ's post, not the other 3 pages yet.

The Harrisonburg market is different for one. We don't have the employee jumping problem nearly as much as Nova. Also, our company has 7 employees, not 70 or 700, so the game changes a little. Overall we have to have and maintain a higher quality employee than our larger counterpart.

That being said, I don't believe in giving our employees raises just for the hell of it. We are a for-profit venture. If an employee has not substantially contributed to our bottom line, then they are merely coasting along collecting a paycheck. Having a job is not a god-given right, it's an earned one. If you mess around on my dime, you are certainly not going to grow financially on my dime.

On the flip side, if an employee walks in one day and says "Hey, I was talking to ___ and I think they could use a support agreement." I send a sales guy to discuss this further, and if the deal is closed, the employee gets a bonus and a note on their file to consider for the next review. To get a raise above and beyond the cost of living at my company, you have to set yourself apart from the rest. You have to be pleasant to work with, stick to your promises, and keep customers happy. By doing this or by bringing in new business you are contributing to the bottom line, and that's the name of the game.

If you are NOT doing these things, I don't really want you working here anyhow and I'm not really doing you a favor in the big picture of keeping you around when there is obviously something else you could be doing that you would excel at better. And I'm certainly not going to spend more of oru hard earned profit to give you a raise. That hurts everyone else in the company that is working so hard because it directly limits the remaining funds available for their bonuses, raises, etc.

RJ I imagine you deserved a raise. If you went above and beyond to keep customer happy, manage more projects than expected, etc, then you were doing more than your job description implied and thus you deserve to earn more.

How does anyone justify a 0% raise? Either employer or employee?

Maybe Pete can chime in here, since he knows how to run a business

But, from my end it would seem that giving your employees regular raises (say, annually) for more $$ than the usual 3% would do a lot more for retaining your employees. I consider a 3% raise a cost of living adjustment, not a raise - its maintaining your salary rather than raising it.

If the employee has met all their goals for the year and received good review(s) why shouldnt they get a significant raise of 5-10%? I hate to be superficial, but the paycheck is why you're at the job and more money is the easiest way to retain employees.

I think this is especially true given the DC area job market - right now its pretty good and there's a lot of turnover - I know I've had a few jobs in the past few years, same with Evan and Mikey so its common to find something else every 2 years or so from what I've seen, and employee turnover costs the company a lot of $$ - a lot more than a few raises. Its kind of like the housing market being in favor of buyers right now - the job market is in favor of the employees as there's more jobs than people to fill them.

[PGK]

More anecdotal evidence!

My current employer keeps a lower than industry standard turnover rate (which is surprising considering how difficult he is to work with), and has more employees that have worked for him more than 10 years than practically any other employer in his industry. He accomplishes this by paying well over industry standard. I moved there for a 37.5% increase in pay, the counteroffer from my previous employer was a 12.5% raise.

Now, my current employer is very interested in results and performance. One employee was recently given a -10% performance based raise. My employer finds and keeps good people by rewarding their work generously and without solicitation, and he weeds out those who can't hack it quickly.

But for the subject at hand, to me, a 0% raise is an invitation to start taking two hour lunches, maintaining habitual lateness, and interviewing elsewhere. For a cost-of-living raise, I'd still come in on time, but if I felt I had done better, I'd be looking elsewhere too.

Funny story though, my girlfriend had her annual review, was given a 3% cost of living raise and the maximum allowable merit-based raise of.....3%. No joke. never, ever, take a union job.

[Maengelito]

i think the problem here is that we're all in pretty much the same demographic (young males, most of us being single) and have different priorities than your average cross section of the workforce. as a govt employee, you see several people who are RIP (retired in place) and basically show up and get a paycheck. there are several go-getters that try to get a lot of stuff done and flirt with the idea of working for govt contractors or have already come from working for govt contractors. we all get COLA (cost of living adjustment) which is basically decided each year by congress. of the 5+ years i've been working here, its been between 1.3% to 3.1% but usually somewhere in the middle. its like clockwork every first payperiod of the calendar year though. for journeymen, our raises come every year and is pretty significant. i've more than doubled my starting salary in 4 years, but as soon as you reach a competitive level, then its based on merit. there's a lot of beauracracy here though which has me pretty jaded and not expecting a non-COLA raise anytime soon. i honestly dont think it would make a difference if i wrote a report every week or wrote one for the year, i think i'm considered as middle of the road.

[Apoc]

Ironically, I just got an email for a gubment contract position in DC.

Anyone interested?

Title: Systems Analyst - Trivoli
Location: Washington DC
January -March, Perm

* PRISM
* Enterprise Vision Professionals
* Edmonds Enterprise Services

[REED]

i think the problem here is that we're all in pretty much the same demographic (young males, most of us being single) and have different priorities than your average cross section of the workforce. as a govt employee, you see several people who are RIP (retired in place) and basically show up and get a paycheck. there are several go-getters that try to get a lot of stuff done and flirt with the idea of working for govt contractors or have already come from working for govt contractors. we all get COLA (cost of living adjustment) which is basically decided each year by congress. of the 5+ years i've been working here, its been between 1.3% to 3.1% but usually somewhere in the middle. its like clockwork every first payperiod of the calendar year though. for journeymen, our raises come every year and is pretty significant. i've more than doubled my starting salary in 4 years, but as soon as you reach a competitive level, then its based on merit. there's a lot of beauracracy here though which has me pretty jaded and not expecting a non-COLA raise anytime soon. i honestly dont think it would make a difference if i wrote a report every week or wrote one for the year, i think i'm considered as middle of the road.

unfortunately I agree - however, the 4.49% COLA this year makes work that much more enjoyable

[Kaan]

unfortunately I agree - however, the 4.49% COLA this year makes work that much more enjoyable

thats what you are supposed to get for 2008? my company is going to shit! haha

[Ginger]

COLA is probably based on the CPI, which is all kinds of screwed up for 2007. Enjoy it

[WRXtranceformed]

Nothing is more depressing than looking at your W2 from this past year and seeing you made a lot less than the previous year ha. I made ~$15,000 less this past year than my first year out of college, mostly due to the housing market decline and my lack of bonuses coming in since I wasn't in construction anymore. Fortunately I wasn't on commission yet while I was in sales in the new home industry or my income could have been halved or quartered like a lot of people I knew.....

This year I'm going to turn that around now that I'm out of that industry

[Feersty]

Promotion and raise in the works. w00t!