Raises

[.RJ]

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.

[HAULN-SS]

We had our reviews lately, but we haven't had raises yet. I did get a 1.5% random raise the other day just because "market research justified pay raises for some employees." Our real raises aren't until March.

I have a friend in Richmond that got an 18% raise after her first year, and what amounted to a 10% bonus, $6000. This was for a small-medium consulting firm

[Apoc]

I think it's a matter of perception. If you've met your goals, I don't think you should get anything more than cost of living. If you've exceed your goals, then you should be making more money than you were last year. IMO, you can't expect to make MORE if you're not doing anything over and above what you were already getting paid to do. You have to do more than what you were getting paid for to make more. Makes sense, doesn't it? Of course, that system depends entirely on correctly evaluating who meets and who exceeds expectations.

I've gotten 3-4% raises at other companies and hated it. After being at a company that actually rewards people for good work, I've realized that it was because those other companies rated everyone the same for whatever reason. Not sure if it was politics or being cheap but that's what they did.

I make ~50% more than I did when I started my current job 3.5 years ago. I've seen a lot of people complain they're getting a shit 3-4% at the very same company and leave. The difference there is these are the people that deserved that amount, despite what their perception is. They'd say how the company was cheap and I'd just nod my head in agreement while getting 7-10% raises for "exceeding expectations."

That said, I'm not sure how anyone could be okay with a 0% raise. I'd be out of there in no time if that's what I got.

[Ginger]

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.

What's the employer's reason to do this? If all the employee did was meet their goals, not exceed them, then it sounds like you're saying the employer's motivation is employee retention.

There's a couple reasons, I think, not to, in essence, overpay. You pay employees extra money for just doing the assigned work and that's likely that it's all you'll ever get out of them. People, institutions, everybody responds to incentives, after all. Some people will want to move up, sure, but you're telling people that you think it's just great that all they're doing is getting by. If that means you lose people that are only getting the job done, well, so? People that just get the job done can be replaced, and you get the benefit of changing your hiring processes to possibly get somebody that will, in the long run, do a better job for the company.

I don't think the "well, I went to a different company and got more money" comparison is fair. You went to a different company to do a different job - one that is supposed to produce more for an empoyer than the last one. You produce more, you get paid more. If you give people an above market raise for not doing *more* work, well that's dumb. You don't keep around a girlfriend that's mediocre just because it'd be a pain to get a new one.

I think the bottom line is that you, as the employee, need to go the extra mile in production needs to take the initiative. If you do an above expectations job and don't get rewarded for it, then you've got a case to talk to your boss about a raise. But if you're just sailing by and expect a raise just because it's traditional... I mean, am I the only one that sees that as silly?

[Apoc]

Look Andrew, I agreed with you on another subject.

You only get 1 per year so don't let it go to your head.

[Ginger]

It's a rolling 365 reset, not a change of year date reset? Damn.

[.RJ]

If that means you lose people that are only getting the job done, well, so? People that just get the job done can be replaced

Thats one of the big things I'm getting at.

It takes most employees 6-8 months to really learn and settled into a new position, and become proficient at it. And then there's always the chance that this new employee doesnt work out, or is horribly inept. I think you're underestimating the cost of employee turnover to the company - and the cost of employees and general. If your salary is (for example) $60k, then it costs the company $90-$100k to keep you around (your training, desk, computers, utilities, benefits, and so on). Frequent employee turnover hurts productivity and the bottom line a lot more than bigger raises. I can go out and find a new job, and it doesnt cost *me* anything - I wouldnt even miss a paycheck - but to the company I leave (that has to replace me) and the company I go to (replacing someone else) both lose a lot of $$ in the whole deal.

I dont want to make it sound that I'm expecting something from nothing for a raise - My boss didnt even want to bother with doing a review with me, so it is a little hard to say what their expectations are - but throughout the year I've received some very positive feedback from them in addition to bringing new business ($$,$$$) in from the project I work on. I think more $$ is justified in this case but I'm not going to pursue it.

[Ginger]

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.

In regards to your current situation, the only feedback you've ever mentioned to me was from the client, and you made it seem incredibly negative. Perhaps, if you factor in the positive you're bringing up now was from your company and the negative from the client, they just offset?

*edit* I think, in your situation, that it wouldn't hurt to talk to the client and your employer together. You've made it seem in the past the your employer's expectations of your and the client's expectation of your position are wildly off base of each other. Rectifying these differences could result in a much better work environment for you, or more responsibility, more money, or a combination of everything. At the very least it says "look, I'm the guy that's supposed to be doing *something* and I know that the two parties related to me don't think the same thing, so lets fix that so I can be more effective."

[.RJ]

If it wasn't worth it, it wouldn't happen in such widespread fashion as you illustrated

Its just part of the game around here - whether companies have just accepted it as such and rolled into their operating costs, I dont know, but its quite a bit cheaper to give an employee meeting their goals a 10% raise than it is to hire a new employee. If the employee just sucks, then it works out in their favor in the end to replace them of course.

Perhaps, if you factor in the positive you're bringing up now was from your company and the negative from the client, they just offset?

Well, the negativity I get from the client (IBM) isnt due to my work (and from what I gather its been going on for quite a while, and things are definitely improved now that I'm full time on site) - its due to what our developers are doing down in Blacksburg. And its my job to deal with all of that and take the heat. Its fun.... really.

[Ginger]

Its just part of the game around here - whether companies have just accepted it as such and rolled into their operating costs, I dont know, but its quite a bit cheaper to give an employee meeting their goals a 10% raise than it is to hire a new employee. If the employee just sucks, then it works out in their favor in the end to replace them of course.

I think this is one sided. You're still ignoring the possible benefits of hiring somebody that will do a better job. You're holding on to this "the worker deservs better" mentality, but instead of playing the story of an abused employee, you're reversing it to say that companies are doing things that are bad for on their own faces. I still maintain that if these employees were worth keeping around, long term, they would be treated better, monetarily.

To elaborate, you're also leaving out what employers hope you will do in the future. It's short sighted to say "well, I'm doing my job, and it's just silly of them to replace me with somebody who they'll have to retrain to do the same job." The more skill a job takes, the longer the new employee acclimation can take.. by that token, companies often like to promote from within. By acquiring somebody new they not only potentially benefit from somebody who may go above and beyond (a chance they'll have tried to further mitigate by revising hiring practices), but they'll also, potentially, be acquiring somebody who will be a good future, higher level employee.

For your "part of the game" around here, I think Chris and I have seen it to be different. NFCU has tons of employees that have been around for most of the life of the company. You walk around my building and it's run of the mill to see 10 and 20 years of service awards. I was recently working with an Executive VP (which is pretty much as far as you go in our type of workplace because the CEO is elected by the membership) who was one of the first 200 people hired by the business. That kind of thing just isn't out of the ordinary. Chris' experience above.

Well, the negativity I get from the client (IBM) isnt due to my work - its due to what our developers are doing down in Blacksburg. And its my job to deal with all of that and take the heat. Its fun.... really.

I don't want to just sit here and hash back and forth with you about the job you're doing. Really, you know exactly what kind of job you're doing. We don't. But, on that token, I remember a conversation where you told me that IBM was expecting an on-site developer that would be able to remedy certain types of situations quickly. You then said that you weren't hired to be that type of guy. If you ask me, that sounds like a solid miscommunication between the two parties your deal with. Why not work that dichotomy out?

[WRXtranceformed]

My first yearly review with my first employer netted me a 14% raise, which apparently was the highest throughout the entire company...I was working really hard but that surprised me a little. My second raise was some bullshit cost of living raise that was like maybe $2000 for the year, but that was when builders were tightening up all of their finances and laying mad people off. It will be interesting to see the base pay raises with this company. It's a little different when you're in my position of salary + commission for sales.. I think they scale down base salary increases because they know that the longer you work in a sales position, the more money you're going to make through bonuses as you build your prospect pipeline.

[Evan]

To play devil's advocate, at least as far as contracting goes, since your billable rate didnt go up, why should your salary? If you bring in new business, you definately deserve a raise, esp in the gubment contracting, where new business can last a loooong time.
A private company is different, since the business case could be made that you are better and more efficient at your job the more you do it, thus justifying an annual raise.

[Evan]

A little more detail about my situation since I said I got no raise.
My situation is very different and its a little complicated.
Basically my company was bought, and the new company thinks of professional services (consulting) as very different from the old one. They dont believe in long term consulting committments. So they could give a shit about my contract and if I leave or stay. They arent going to piss off the client by pulling me out, but they arent going out of their way to make me or the client happy either (a big mistake, imo) THey are absoultely clueless how to deal with the government, and since they are cocky brits, they dont want to learn from the company that they bought who was a master at working the government.
They actually told many of the 'old' consultants that they should go work for a partner.

Hell, I didnt even get an email or phone call from my manager to say "thanks for being here a year" let alone a raise.

For the time being, Im ok with this. The perks are good enough and I like the people I work with and work Im doing enough that a piddling little raise that I wont notice on my paycheck anyway isnt enough to make me want to leave.
The bonus thing did piss me off a lot more because it was promised as part of my compensation package and I took that into account when considering offers from other companies.
And I know my billable rate. That pisses me off too, that they are only paying me 20% of the money Im bringing in. But thats how the game works.

Some contractors I work with though get 5-6% raises just for meeting expectations. 8-10% for exceeding expectations. That would be pretty damn nice.

[.RJ]

That kind of thing just isn't out of the ordinary

Its not out of the ordinary, but its much less common now than it was 20 years ago. Then, there wasnt the same level of job hopping, consulting companies, buyouts, takeovers, gov't contracts and dot-com booms. But certainly, these people that have stayed for 10 or 20 years have some incentive to do so - whether it be work environment, benefits, money. And if NFCU gives people the incentive to have their 10/15/20+ year plaques on their desk then they're obviously doing something right - and now they're the largest credit union around, and still growing. So kind of proving the point

I've never been at a job longer than 2 years, so I cant really say one way or another about the long term benefits of sticking with a company. If I were working in the same office we have in Blacksburg, I certainly wouldnt be looking to go elsewhere - they have a great work environment and some pretty good people working down there, and thats why I took the job.

If you ask me, that sounds like a solid miscommunication between the two parties your deal with. Why not work that dichotomy out?

Yep, I brought that up with my boss - and without VPN access to our servers, we run into exactly the same problems we had before with version control and managing the source code. They're have more $$ to burn on this project and we talked about it but its just not feasible.

But this thread wasnt to discuss the merits of my own job

[Feersty]

I have been at my company for 16 months, and I am finally being looked at for a performance based raise. We will see what happens. I did get a cost of living adjustment, but that was prorated because I had only been with the company for 5 months at the time it was given. It amounted to about 600$ annually. Laughable. Also a contractor, obviously in the environmental business.

[Apoc]

I don't think you can compare contracting to any FTE work... at all. Contractors always have and will always be treated as disposable. It's the nature of the type of work and both sides benefit from that agreement.

Part of the reason I'd never consider contract work is because I'd expect to be shit on. Whether it's right or not, you're not part of the company and are seen as temporary so they're not going to make a long term investment in keeping you... either at the client or the actual contracting company.

I'm sure more ideal situations exist but at every company I've been with the contractors are second class citizens. They say "well if they can't make a commitment to a 'real' full time position, then why should we make sure they're happy?" Contract work is great for a lot of people but there are a few perceptions inherent to choosing that work lifestyle.

[derilict]

I have been at my company for 16 months, and I am finally being looked at for a performance based raise. We will see what happens. I did get a cost of living adjustment, but that was prorated because I had only been with the company for 5 months at the time it was given. It amounted to about 600$ annually. Laughable.

x2. I also received a pro-rated raise which, after careful calculation, amounted to a 1.12% raise. Woo hoooo. But, I've only been there since Aug., so I guess I can't really compain.

[Evan]

Part of the reason I'd never consider contract work is because I'd expect to be shit on. Whether it's right or not, you're not part of the company and are seen as temporary so they're not going to make a long term investment in keeping you... either at the client or the actual contracting company. I'm sure more ideal situations exist but at every company I've been with the contractors are second class citizens.

The govt agency I work for treats me better than my company....
the contractor I work with has been contracting with the agency in the same position for 7 years. and any good company is going to have different projects/contracts lined up for you when one ends. its nice to have variety.
now contracting with a private company? yeah I probably wouldnt want to do that. thats a big reason i dont want to be a travelling consultant working with a new company every 2 weeks.

[HAULN-SS]

Yep, I brought that up with my boss - and without VPN access to our servers, we run into exactly the same problems we had before with version control and managing the source code. They're have more $$ to burn on this project and we talked about it but its just not feasible.

But this thread wasnt to discuss the merits of my own job

You're a CM guy? I have pretty much had to become a clearcase/quest guru at my new job. I don't really like it, but i'm suffering through it until I can switch to another program within the company.

[.RJ]

CM?