Raises

[ScottyB]

but that was when builders were tightening up all of their finances and laying mad people off.

i'm in the same boat...my company is closely related to the building contractor business so we hurt if they hurt. for that reason i'm not expecting a large raise this year

[WRXtranceformed]

Heh yeah, you want to talk about jokes? Try the severance package that my last company offered the people they laid off. Two weeks pay.

[Apoc]

Heh yeah, you want to talk about jokes? Try the severance package that my last company offered the people they laid off. Two weeks pay.

Considering they don't really have to give anything, that's really not that bad.

[Evan]

with my first stint at Booz Allen I got $0. That really sucked because I had turned down at least 5 other offers to take that job.

[G.Irish]

I think you're overestimating the cost/benefit of turnover on mediocre performance employees, and under playing the risk game in acquiring a new employee. My rationale? If it wasn't worth it, it wouldn't happen in such widespread fashion as you illustrated. Businesses aren't in the business of losing money and if they felt that the risk of replacement outweighed the benefits of retention, well, they probably would have given a bigger raise.

This is ideally what businesses would do, but most businesses are not operating at optimal efficiency. A lot of what I've seen is that companies to pay enough attention to employee satisfaction and retention to give proper raises. At my previous job the turnover rate was up to about 40% when I left. The manager was incompetent and the VP apparently had his head far enough up his ass to not realize that this turnover was wrecking the contract. Almost all of the employees received counteroffers, even one who gave zero notice. Now, if the company was willing to pay more to keep these people why didn't they give them fair raises in the first place? By the time it comes to a counteroffer its too late.

Truth is in business there are a lot of idiots in positions of power. HP hired a CEO that ended up costing them billions. Some of the CEO's in the financial sector made a bunch of dumbass bets that have ending up costing their companies hundreds of millions or billions. There is this kind of dumbass in all levels of management up the chain. That is why sometimes employees are not compensated properly. That's why projects end up over budget, past schedule, and below expectations. That is why bad employees are allowed to continue to f things up while good employees jump ship. And ultimately this is why some companies soar, some do okay, and some fail.

So yeah, in an ideal world, above average employees are compensated fairly, average employees are compensated fairly, and poor employees are forced out. But in the real world, not many companies hit this nail on the head.

[Apoc]

Now, if the company was willing to pay more to keep these people why didn't they give them fair raises in the first place?

Why pay if you don't have to? Unless the employee has told the employee they are unhappy with their compensation/raises they have no reason to throw money at them. If the employee is looking for a job without discussing their issues with their employer first then you can't fault the company. If they have and the company has ignored them... well then it seems silly for the company to counter-offer.

[G.Irish]

Now, if the company was willing to pay more to keep these people why didn't they give them fair raises in the first place?

Why pay if you don't have to? Unless the employee has told the employee they are unhappy with their compensation/raises they have no reason to throw money at them. If the employee is looking for a job without discussing their issues with their employer first then you can't fault the company.

Because it is a competitive market for good employees. You should be rewarding your employees for a good job without them having to ask you if you want to keep them. Showing people you care about them means doing things without them having to ask. If you don't reward your best employees unless they ask, they are probably going to go somewhere else.

That's how you create loyalty. If you want to be strictly mercenary then yeah, don't pay more unless someone asks. But even that strategy is flawed because you're not really saving money if people jump ship and take their experience with them and you have to spend money to recruit and integrate someone else. Replacing skill-labor costs a lot of money, it would cost a lot less to retain.

If they have and the company has ignored them... well then it seems silly for the company to counter-offer.

Last sentences explains what happened at my previous job.

[.RJ]

Why pay if you don't have to?

Do you only give your wife flowers if she's mad at you?

Do you only change your tires when they go bald and blow out?

Do you only pay your visa bill when they call your house asking for $$?

Last sentences explains what happened at my previous job.

+1

[Apoc]

Showing people you care about them...

Sorry... I stopped reading there. Companies never care about employees. They may say they do but it's about minimizing cost while maximizing benefit, that's what business is about. Individual managers may care about you and the company culture may be to reward those that perform but companies never really care about employees.

[.RJ]

companies never really care about employees.

Of course they dont. But they should care about their bottom line, and excessive turnover costs them money.

[Apoc]

Do you only give your wife flowers if she's mad at you?

Do you only change your tires when they go bald and blow out?

Do you only pay your visa bill when they call your house asking for $$?

In none of these situations am I trying to maximize my profit. I am not a business and therefore don't make decisions based purely on financial cost/gain.

[Apoc]

companies never really care about employees.

Of course they dont. But they should care about their bottom line, and excessive turnover costs them money.

No one is arguing that... only that the people they're giving 3% to are worth keeping.

There are a plethora of companies that reward EVERYONE like shit, I've worked at a few. They are clearly in the wrong and I don't think anyone is debating that. Andrew, however, was answering your statement that "average" employees should be kept happy with significant raises.

If you're in the 50th %tile for salary and you perform there (meets expectations) then you should only expect cost of living increases.... because I'd bet that the 50th %tile will increase by that the next year.

[.RJ]

Andrew, however, was answering your statement that "average" employees should be kept happy with significant raises.

Well, money is certainly part of the equation in retaining employees. If they can give employees other incentives to stay at the company, then great - but chances are those are still going to cost the company $$ one way or another (benefits, work environment, training, etc).

In a competitive job market where employees have the upper hand, its certainly more favorable to give those average employees more than a 3% raise than to leave little incentive not to go job hunt elsewhere - IMO. If there's no incentive for you to stay at your job then why wouldnt you look elsewhere for a higher salary or a better situation? You mentioned that you were staying at AOL so they will pay for graduate school - thats a pretty big $$ incentive to stay.

[G.Irish]

companies never really care about employees.

Of course they dont. But they should care about their bottom line, and excessive turnover costs them money.

No one is arguing that... only that the people they're giving 3% to are worth keeping.

There are a plethora of companies that reward EVERYONE like shit, I've worked at a few. They are clearly in the wrong and I don't think anyone is debating that. Andrew, however, was answering your statement that "average" employees should be kept happy with significant raises.

If you're in the 50th %tile for salary and you perform there (meets expectations) then you should only expect cost of living increases.... because I'd bet that the 50th %tile will increase by that the next year.

Well that depends on the market for that type of employee. If you're talking about an average performing burger flipper at McDonald's then you shouldn't pay that person significantly more because it won't cost you much to replace that person if they leave. 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.

Basically its like this. If Cost of Raise < Cost of Replacement, you give the raise.

You're right, the company doesn't care about employees the way you'd care about loved ones. But companies should care about their employees as the source of their profits. If you neglect maintenance on your equipment, you will lose money. If you don't care for your employees and treat them right, you will lose money. Simple as that.

[Apoc]

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.

[.RJ]

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

Filling them with competent people however...

[Ginger]

Chris said something earlier that I think people should re-consider. He said he's worked with people who see his own company as cheap-skated and skimping on people doing a good job. At the exact same time, he was seeing raises that doubled the market average. People that say that they were unfairly compensated should really examine how much they're doing, and of what value it is.

There's a risk involved in letting competant, but mediocre (and xlets be real, an employee is only mediocre if he or she is just doing the job description) employees go. The risk, of course, is filling the job with somebody that will make up the differences in New Employee Costs and then outperform the encumbent. IMO, that risk is worth taking for people earning Real Money. If you're making Good Money, then the expectations are high and you should step up.

[Ginger]

Oh, and before anybody thinks I was underhandedly insulting them in my last post, I wasn't. I totally acknowledge that the good employees leaving bad businesses is real. If I was gonna hate, I'd just do it :-D

[John]

with my first stint at Booz Allen I got $0. That really sucked because I had turned down at least 5 other offers to take that job.

You stay at a job less than 8 months at any place and they're not going to give you a bonus or raise.

[Evan]

with my first stint at Booz Allen I got $0. That really sucked because I had turned down at least 5 other offers to take that job.

You stay at a job less than 8 months at any place and they're not going to give you a bonus or raise.

reading 0wnz j00

with my first stint at Booz Allen

I was talking about severance, when I got laid off after the dot.crash