Flat Pay Prompts 1 In 3 In IT To Consider Jump 608
CWmike writes "Companies have cut salaries and training, held back on bonuses and piled more work on employees in response to the economic downturn. These tactics may well be pushing many IT pros to go job hunting, Computerworld's latest salary poll has found. More than one third (36%) of the 343 respondents to a recent poll said they are looking to move to a new employer in the next six months. And 69% reported they had not received a pay raise in the past six months. The poll was conducted during the last two weeks in September. For employers, the warning could not be more clear. As the economy improves, the most able IT workers may leave for something better."
Raise in the past 6 months? Try year. (Score:5, Interesting)
Most employers do annual pay adjustments, so asking if they received a pay increase in the past 6 months would, on average, get at least 50% saying no. The report was engineered from the start to get the result that they published.
Re:This just in... (Score:5, Interesting)
Hehe.... I manage $10M in construction. I deal with contract disputes, State and Federal funding and regulatory agencies, local politics, you name it. Oh, and I'm a licensed engineer.
My pay is less than the guy who goes around wiping viruses off people's computers.
Go ahead and jump, IT. There's nothing on the other side.
Flat technology! (Score:4, Interesting)
My concern isn't so much flat pay - I have more money than I know what to do with - but flat technology. I spend my days fixing idiotic bugs in legacy systems, with few prospects for learning anything new.
...laura
True (sample size 1) (Score:4, Interesting)
True for me. I made the jump this past January. 2009 my company said no raises for anyone (except executives, of course). 2010 they claimed the same thing, I declined, they offered me an insulting pittance, and away I went.
Cut my expenses to the bone, picked up some contract work, and now doing economic research most of the time. Getting ready to publish my first paper, if the vetting goes well. Also took some time to do my first fine woodworking -- produced two nice footstools(*), which I gave to my parents.
Damned fine thing. I strongly recommend it if you can bzip your budget.
* http://beach.traxel.com/img/footstool-ts/footstool-with-cushion.jpg [traxel.com]
Re:Raise in the past 6 months? Try year. (Score:4, Interesting)
True.... but its not entirely wrong, 69% is still above the expected 50% by almost 20%. We haven't gotten a raise in about 2 years here, with a hiring freeze. This resonates with me since, its exactly what I told a head hunter last night.... I am looking to leave because they haven't given raises in 2 years, and the group dynamic means that I can epxect to be waiting quite a while for a promotion....all the while being told "you are one of the senior guys"... even though I don't have the title.
That and, I know I could make more elsewhere.
Re:This just in... (Score:2, Interesting)
And the costs of certs and education in the computer and network field is ALWAYS just a drop in the bucket compared to becoming a "licensed construction engineer" in any city or state. I mean they have that fee you have to renew every once in a while.
Re:As the economy improves??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well the better job is another job in the same field.
I've been a software engineer for 15 years, and during that
time I was lucky to get 1 or 2 cost-of-living pay increases.
But I got enormous pay bumps by switching companies (and
the last switch was mid-2009, the height of the Bush economic
meltdown). Why companies insist on doing things this way is
a mystery to me, but that's how it is.
Re:Guess what ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Doesn't matter. It was like this even in good economic times, and hasn't changed at all; the only thing that's changed is how much hiring is going on.
Companies don't give substantial raises, period (except to executives, of course). They give paltry raises, and that's it, and that's only in good times. However, they'll pay "market rate" for new hires, regardless of the current economy. So if they want a guy who has 10 years' experience, they'll generally pay the current going rate for that position with that much experience (what the going rate is can be easily found in salary surveys, which there's several websites that specialize in). The companies do this, because if they don't pay going rate, they won't fill their open positions at all, and the time and effort spent interviewing candidates is significant and costly, so it's not worth it to interview a bunch of people only to have them reject your offer for being a low-ball.
However, for existing employees who are loyal and don't jump ship for the next higher offer, companies don't bother much with raises. They might give you a 1% raise here and there to keep you happy, but that's about it. It doesn't match the market rate, so if you stick with a company for 10 years, you'll find that the new hires (with the same experience level as you) are getting much higher salaries than you are, for the same job.
The only answer is to change jobs every few years. Don't be one of those suckers that stays at the same job for 15 years; it's a rare company that actually keeps your pay in line with market rate (if you found one of those, and you like the job, then great! Stay there.).
Why do companies do this? As best as I can tell, it's because of the aforementioned suckers that are too lazy, afraid, or whatever (perhaps overspecialized?) to change jobs. The companies are happy to exploit them and their fear of change.
Personally, my "secret recipe" is to make sure you have skills (and take jobs that require and use these skills) which are in high demand, keep your skills up and constantly improve them on-the-job, and change jobs every 2-3 years. Changing jobs too often looks bad (under 1 year is very bad), and changing too slowly means you're missing out on a much higher salary. Also make sure you live in an area where there's plenty of competition for your skillset; don't live in some podunk town where there's only one employer that needs your skills, because they'll take advantage of that, knowing that you'll have to pack up, sell your house (good luck!) and move long-distance to get a higher salary. I've also found it's good to stay at one (probably large) company for a longer time; I have a 7-year stint at a megaTechCorp that looks great even though my subsequent jobs were much shorter. One long term will balance out any short terms. This can also be helpful if you find yourself in a job you really, really hate and need to leave early.
So no, the new company will NOT "funnel those same pressures on to you", at least not until it's time for a raise (1 year). They'll pay the going rate or else you won't take the job, and they know it (well, there are a few companies that are rather clueless and give low-ball offers; pass these by). And when it's time for a raise, it doesn't matter what the current economy climate is. In a great economy, you'll get a paltry-to-mediocre raise, and in a poor economy, you'll get a zero-to-paltry raise. There's not much difference between the two; $1-2k/year difference really isn't very much money. Just put in your time there, and after you've been there between 2 and 4 years, start looking at new jobs.
Re:Unionize. (Score:3, Interesting)
Not if it's done right. The way it works is you add in a corporate profits tax--you know, the kind of tax that paid for all our previous wars, before Bush decided we can fund these ones on our Chinese credit card instead--but allow a deduction for domestic workers' salaries. Use the proceeds to lower the deficit, or maybe to fix our decaying roads and bridges.
I'm actually kind of surprised no Congresscritter has thought of this. We're in a unique position these days: corporations are declaring record profits, and funneling those profits into mergers, acquisitions and lobbying for Republicans, while unemployment is high. Engineering a good tax incentive could possibly change all of that.
This isn't just IT... (Score:3, Interesting)
My wife is a nurse with 25years of experience. The local colleges crank out nurses at an alarming rate, all with no experience and willing to work for peanuts. The hospital knows this, and this is why my wife has to work on Xmas and New Years.
Re:Guess what ... (Score:2, Interesting)
There's certainly an element of that in there, but I think it's more thought out and planned than you suggest.
If a company has 100 staff, all being paid 20% below "market" rate, it'll cost them 20% more to bring all their salaries up. By leaving your pay where it is, they're calling your bluff and assuming they'll get it right most of the time.
If they give you a payrise, then their line that no-one's getting pay rises this year won't stick so well, and they'll need to give more people payrises.
If 20% of people leave because of the pay, and they need to hire replacements at market rate, increasing the total salary costs by a whopping 4%.
Sure, *we* know that the productivity of new hires will take ages to match those they're replacing, but try telling a manager that a 20% increase in costs is better than a 4% increase.
Re:Agreed, but two problems... (Score:3, Interesting)
HR is giving a very dour and tight-lipped "name and dates of employment only" response that, while skirting the law, makes it very clear the company considers him a horrible employee.
Not necessarily. Some HR departments enforce this policy across ALL its former employees, on principle. If they respond "he's a malcontent," then the ex-employee might sue. It's not skirting the law. It's proofing yourself to lawsuit. If the same HR department showered some employees with glowing praise and was neutral for others, then we'd have a problem.
Flat pay isn't my concern. (Score:5, Interesting)
My concern is job stability. They've been laying off people simply to prop up the stock price. Year after year, its round of layoff after round of layoffs despite near a record high stock price and record profits and revenue. We got rid of the low performers years ago, yet the layoffs keep on coming. They've even laid off distinguished engineers. That tells me that even if I perform so well in my job that I reach one of the highest levels for an engineer, even that's not going to keep me from being laid off. So what's the point? If I stay, I risk being laid off when I'm 50 when it's going to be even more difficult to find a job.
I'd be willing to take a $10k-$20k cut in salary for a more secure job...one that isn't going to lay me off unless it at least has good reason to.
Re:As the economy improves??? (Score:4, Interesting)
If the same HR department showered some... (Score:4, Interesting)
"If the same HR department showered some employees with glowing praise and was neutral for others, then we'd have a problem."
Which is pretty much the standard operating procedure these days.
"Hi, I'm from XYZ Inc, calling to check Bob's references..."
"Bob? *sigh* *grunt* Yeah, Bob. Bob used to work here for the past couple of years. That's all I'm going to tell you."
"Can you tell me if Bob was a good employee?"
"Bob used to work here. Now he doesn't. That's all I'm going to say. Understand?"
"Yes, yes I do."
And this is how Bob gets torpedoed, in a perfectly legal way...
Re:As the economy improves??? (Score:3, Interesting)
I know I gave up.
Unless a miracle occurs and I find a job in November, I'm going to earn a third degree in Public Policy. Or possibly Business Administration. Haven't really decided which is the best course yet but I know hardware/digital design has reached a dead end. The stuff is getting outsourced to low-cost Indians (and I don't blame the managers; I'd do the same).
Re:Good (Score:3, Interesting)
If you have been in IT a while, you learn things that you never thought of when starting off.
When you start in IT, you think on a tactical basis. You need a server up, so you reach for the RHEL media, install it, make sure RAID works, install all patches, set users, put the application on it and go to your next project.
As times go on, you start thinking on more than just that level. You learn to start thinking strategically. You know that the default filesystem may bring the box down, so you do a custom filesystem so if /var fills up, it won't cause things to grind to a screeching halt. Or, you figure out a standard imaging process so each box, be it Linux, Windows, Solaris, or what have you has patches, security profiles and other items that differ from company to company built in. As you gain experience, you don't just rush out and build an x86 box when you need another server. You install VMWare on the hardware and install the box in a VM. This way, when your boss decides to move to blade enclosures, it is a matter of just a move of some VMDK files as opposed to major brain surgery with a production application.
None of this stuff is immediately apparent when starting in IT. You learn from mistakes. You think a firmware upgrade of some disks can be done in 5 min + a reboot, only to find that it caused the machine to kernel panic on bootup, and have to back the changes off. Or you might have tested your disaster recovery plan with tons of restores... but forgot to back up the license keys for the backup server, and find that everything is ground to a halt with trying to get data pushed until the maker of the software ships new keys... and all the while the clock is ticking. You take the molly guard off the big red button to get enough clearance to get a server by... forget to put it back on, then some junior admin's derriere EPOs the data center.
Economic History supports the opposite conclusion (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/financial-theory/08/political-party-democrat-republican-stock-returns.asp [investopedia.com]
Re:Unionize. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm in a union. This year we voted to give up our COLA, this year, and depending on certain factors, next year as well.
Yes, it could work and does. No it doesn't need to be hostile. It does need to be reasonable, and the contract and managers need to recognize that people in the IT side of things cannot be managed like a factory worker.
OTOH, a lot of manufacturing jobs disappeared because manufacturing CEOs sold the technology overseas. So the got theirr million(it was the 70's) and the US lost manufacturing base.
Re:As the economy improves??? (Score:3, Interesting)
>>>It would be much more irresponsible to *not* have done the stimulus
Well let's see where that stimulus was spent:
- Besides the Slashdot story about sending the money over to Africa (to teach men to wash their penises), the money has also been sent to places like China, India, and Korea for various projects. Now many I'm just a dummy, but I don't see how spending money in OTHER economies is supposed to help stimulate the US economy. Let's spend that "anti-AIDS" dick washing here in our own cities. Link:
http://www.bankruptingamerica.org/spending-fail-map/ [bankruptingamerica.org]
Ooops and here comes the -1 mod patrol. Sorry but I'm only the messenger. Go attack the website if you disagree with them.
Re:As the economy improves??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Problem: Consumer demand for around 15-20% of our (US) economic output goods/services has been destroyed by both the stock (2001) market and real estate (2007-current) market collapse. This demand was of course artificial, propped up by "wealth" that didn't really exist (no, your house wasn't worth $30K more six months after you bought it).
So, the question is, how do you light a fire under the economic engine of consuming when most households are loaded down with mortgage, student loan, and unsecured/secured debt? Easily. You have the Federal Reserve buy out the underwater portion of debt.
Most, if not all of you, will say "That's not fair! I spent wisely and saved accordingly!" Good for you. You don't drive the economy. Those who consume do. So, to get those people consuming again, you need to get rid of this debt hanging out there. It's going to go away at some point anyway (research shows that if you're more than $10K underwater on your mortgage, you're 8-10 times more likely to walk away from the mortgage than someone who isn't underwater). The faster we eliminate that "zombie" debt, the more disposable income will be freed up for consuming goods, and the economy will start rolling again.
And please, don't say "You can't just make money out of thin air!" That's exactly what the Federal Reserve does. Inflation will be kept in check because we're already suffering from deflation. If the excess capacity doesn't get eaten up, the US is going to end up with the same problems Japan had. Once that excess capacity is eaten up, the Fed can raise interest rates to put the brakes on additional expansion.
Feel free to poke holes in my logic. A crowdsourced solution is still a solution.
Re:Well actually it is (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a good point - university tuition is the next bubble. The entire system makes no financial sense these days (except community college, which hasn't gone over the top yet).
The economy has been pretty flat for a decade or so, no doubt. The same thing happened in the 70s, mostly as a result of the gold shock and OPEC coming of age (but that was followed by 15 years of solid growth). It's harder to pin down causes this time around, but absolutely retarded levels of government spending can't possibly be helping.
My point was that you can't really compare "owning a car" today with "owning a car" 50 years ago: they are two very different pieces of equipment, and if we returned to the sort of car made in the 50s, they'd be quite cheap. Many things we take for granted toady were wonderful luxuries 50 years ago. Over the past 30 years we've moved from houses that on average had fewer rooms than people living in them, to today where there are on average more bedrooms than people living in the house.
But how things would look if we (including our government) were spending less than we made and paying down that debt? I think it's likely things will get much worse, as the money borrowed to support those lifestyles of 25 years ago comes due, with brutal interest.
Re:As the economy improves??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider a country with ten people, one making $1M and nine making $1k.
The one making $1M also happens to be an entrepreneur who starts a business, fires everybody and moves the production overseas. He now makes $2M and his ex-employees are living off of welfare. Unfortunately welfare doesn't provide enough money for his employees to buy the Entrepreneur's products anymore so he also goes bankrupt and everybody has $0.
Re:As the economy improves??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Didn't you get the memo? Only wealthy people are smart and productive. If we didn't have rich people the stupid plebes would just wander around with a tin cup wanting for something to do. Now if the poor peasants had enough money themselves to start a business like the wealthy individual I'm SURE they wouldn't start businesses of their own. No, they are poor because they are lazy and stupid and deserve to be poor. The wealthy are wealthy by their own merit without any assistance. And their wealth is proof that they're just better than other people.
Geez get with the times.
Oh and if the Rich were taxed at 90% they wouldn't want to start businesses because they would all rather make minimum wage than subject themselves to a paltry $100k a year. It's demeaning to suggest that someone could make ends meet on $100k.
Re:Flat pay isn't my concern. (Score:3, Interesting)