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."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As the economy improves??? (Score:5, Insightful)
69% reported they had not received a pay raise in the past six months.
If raises were given evenly distributed throughout the year you should see 50% answering no. My experience is that most companies give raises at the beginning of the year (Feb/March) so 70% saying no isn't surprising. Is anyone really getting raises every 6 months? If you do, is your company hiring Java developers? I've clearly been doing this wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Lockheed Martin generally does/did their raises in February. I've always assumed it was pretty much industry standard. Or at least at the end of the FY.
I too did not receive a raise in the last 6 months, I'm not worried at all, our raises come in December.
Re:As the economy improves??? (Score:4, Informative)
Every company does them at different times, although annual is common. ALso, end of the fiscal year is meaningless in calendar terms, a fiscal year can as easily end in July as January.
Re: (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:As the economy improves??? (Score:5, Funny)
Any chance that
while you aren't
getting any raises
you are sending
emails with forced
carriage returns to
your boss? I'm
just saying...
Re:As the economy improves??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush economic meltdown
I'm no fan of Bush, but fixating on him is shortsighted. Remember that congress appropriates money and originates budgets, not the president, so, I suppose all the Democrats in congress had nothing to do with it, right? I mean, they've only been in control for the last 4 years. And of course the fact that the spending over the last 18 months dwarfs what happened in 2007/2008 and the impending tax increases has nothing to do with businesses being reluctant to hire, right?
Congress is corrupt, the executive branch is corrupt and the judiciary is most of the way there. If you think that R=bad and D=good, or the inverse you are deluded. They all suck
Re:As the economy improves??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Control? no not in control. They barely have majority, but REP filibuster pretty much everything to death. There hand where tied as the previous republican majority mistake continued to ride. The tax measure that's expiring will not add any more jobs whether or not it expires.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Their hands
were tied
Fixed that for you. How does it feel to fail something that fourth-graders are expected to do correctly?
You're a dumbass. Note, that's "you're" and is not "your," just in case you got confused there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The tax measure that's expiring will not add any more jobs whether or not it expires.
Have you considered the possibility that allowing the tax measure to expire, thereby increasing taxes relative to prevailing levels during the measure, might result in even more job losses? Asking businesses to pay more taxes during the middle of the worst economy since the Great Depression is undeniably stupid. Indeed, the biggest problem with the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress, IMHO, is that they continually inject large amounts of uncertainty into the economy: uncertainty about tax
Re:As the economy improves??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Very off topic, but wouldn't you think that someone spending that much on a military campaign without raising taxes would have some ramifications? To NOT blame Bush would be a new level of blinders. This HAD to happen.
I'm not disagreeing that they are all corrupt, but such massive failures as the huge deficit spending increase and allowing our corporate overlords to run rampant is significantly more dangerous--not recognizing that is shortsignted at best (Criminal may be more accurate)
Re:As the economy improves??? (Score:4, Insightful)
but fixating on him is shortsighted.
No, considering the man GW Bush to be the only thing meant when someone mentions "bush economic meltdown" is shortsighted.
Letting his party have control of America again would be a total disaster. The minute the Supreme Court put them in unchecked power in 2000, they fired up the pump and started draining the treasury and several decades' worth of future earnings, putting us in the deepest hole we've ever been in.
Re:As the economy improves??? (Score:4, Informative)
Obviously you've never been a farmer or lived near one.
Re:As the economy improves??? (Score:5, Funny)
Farming or IT, what's the difference. Either way, you're dealing with manure.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At least being a farmer, you know you're going to be dealing with shit up front. IT? Yea, you learn the hard way.
Re:As the economy improves??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:As the economy improves??? (Score:4, Informative)
I speak as someone who lived in the BFMONW rural Midwest America for close to 10 years. I was surrounded by family farms whose children were exploited by their parents for labor both hazardous to their immediate as well as long term health. All the while they were provided an inexcusably poor education which all but guaranteed their career choices were limited to unskilled labor or semi-skilled trades. Given the economically blighted nature of such an area this generally meant they were very often forced to continue working on the farm or sometimes fork it as a start to their own.
I also speak as someone who rescued his wife from such a life. I'd watch the insults. I very much do care when children are exploited for labor to the detriment of their future. The issue is far more personal than you would've ever imagined. I would never suggest that the parents don't care about their kids, but I would very much suggest that they can be short sighted and lack understanding about the consequences of their choices about them.
Re:As the economy improves??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:As the economy improves??? (Score:4, Insightful)
That point is something that the GOP seems to forget. Stimulus is giving money to people that otherwise would not have had it. Why is this different than a tax break? because if you don't have a job a tax break doesn't do you a damned bit of good until maybe April. But foodstamps or unemployment checks do put money in your pocket that you will use right now.
Also, tax breaks for the wealthy that the GOP seems to love so much (remember 'small' business they want to help includes 2 of the worlds richest people the Koch brothers) don't help if the environment isn't good. They will just sit on the money until things improve, because, well, they can. They have money and don't need it for monthly expenses.
The poor and unemployed will quickly spend the money and food stamps, thus creating the 'stimulus' as that money ripples through the economy.
Infrastructure is likewise. Money that would not be spent because nobody is real positive about the future is spent by the gov't to build roads, new power lines, dams, whatever. That money goes into companies and employees pockets. So while paying for something you need to do anyway (said infrastructure) you are also putting money into the economy. Which allows money to circulate creating revenue and income for people up and down the chain.
Re:As the economy improves??? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't have a problem with Roads, power lines, dams, or other items that provide for the general long term benefit of society. But what passes for stimulus these days is stuff like cash for clunkers. Building a bridge puts somebody to work today. Whereas buying a car requires you already have a job.
Re:As the economy improves??? (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>cash for clunkers
Can I get some cash if I go-round breaking windows? Just as demolishing cars made work for assemblyline men, my activity will make work for glaziers.
(Note: Both these ideas are economically flawed. Cash for clunkers/cash for window-breaking are equally stupid.)
Re: (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 citie
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the money has also been sent to places like China, India, and Korea for various projects
Well, that's where the nation's businesses have been sending all of their money for the past 20 years.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the main reason why the government will be happy about inflation is that it also reduces the amount of debt you have.
- it does not reduce the amount of debt you have. It distributes the debt to all the existing money and devalues the money. I am arguing that it is exactly what the government is aiming at and they will cause a currency crisis, USD will be destroyed, US bonds will be destroyed, US will no longer have credit and since US has a 50billion/month trade deficit, 75% of which is goods coming from various countries like China, US is going to have prices going through the roof and BTW the interest rates will skyroc
Re: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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).
Good luck and best wishes on the tech job hunt. The MBA might lead to a larger salary, but it leads to the dark side. (Then again, I've secretly wanted to spray lightning from my fingertips for quite a while...)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No. If 9 make $1k, then the median income, the one for the "in the middle" earned, is $1k. If the first guy's income doubles and the other nines' are halved to $500, then the median is now $500.
You're right about the mean and total, which is the reason the median is more representative. But the median is more representative.
Re:As the economy improves??? (Score:5, Informative)
Only if he was dumb enough to not claim the money he invested in the company as a write-off. See, the money he would use to pay those fictional employees is NOT taxed at 90%, even in your scenario. In fact it's taxed relatively little, likely just the half of Medicare and Social Security tax that corporations pay on employee compensation. And the portion of it he spends on physical or service related costs of his business isn't taxed at all. The only way he's going to suddenly be out 900k is if he was taking that much in personal income one year, then turning around the next year and putting his personal assets back into the business.
If anything, raising personal income tax would be an incentive to invest more. If the choice is between taking an extra million in personal income of which 90% goes to taxes, or rolling that million back into tax-free investment in the company, the company is a much better option. Today you can take that million in extra income and pay only 30% in taxes, so it's a lot more appealing.
Basically, your argument is ridiculous, based only in fiction, and you appear to have such a loose grasp on the American tax code that I suspect you are overdue for an audit.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
Nice oversimplification.
Most income tax systems increase the taxation level in bands, so while he might pay 90% tax on everything over say $500,00 the first $10k might be free, up to 20k at 10% etc. Of course no country has anything like that level of taxation, although a 90% top rate was tried in the 60s in the UK and wasn't a total disaster. Most of the people who claimed they would leave didn't.
We have had this debate recently in the UK because the government wants to take away child benefit from people
Re: (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
Re:As the economy improves??? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
MOD PARENT UP!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
He actually understands what the hell is going on (and what should be done about it). The increase of moral hazard of supporting bad creditors is much less bad than the economic certainty of a depressed economy for the next twenty years if nothing is done.
Re:As the economy improves??? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
That's not true at all - saving drives the economy just as much as consuming. Without saving, you can't have debt - banks need money before they can loan any out. Credit card companies likewise need a balance to cover everyone's credit limit until they get their end-of-month payment.
Savings also drives investment - no savings, no money to invest. No investment, no economic expansion.
Naturally, you need consumption, too. But dismissing the importance of saving and investment is taking a very short-term economic outlook. Also a very American one; we've had negative personal savings for a long time, which makes shocks like the mortgage crisis even harder to weather.
Economic History supports the opposite conclusion (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:As the economy improves??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. That's one of the lowest tax rates in the country (15%). Also, you are only taxed if you make a profit obviously, so it isn't like you would lose money should capital gains taxes increase although your profit would be reduced of course.
In addition, even some of the wealthiest people in the world are in favor of increasing the capital gains tax, such as Warren Buffett (who made his fortune from stocks).
This just in... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds like you should dust off your resume and look for a new job. You are the reason why people are underpaid.. You accept a shitty wage. Move to green pastures.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Whoa there cowboy, don't go blaming the victim, it's not like he was "asking for it." He is not the reason why people are underpaid. You confuse symptom with cause. The cause is C*O pay, plain and simple. These guys call the shots, and surprise, surprise, they decided they need to get paid more, at the expense of people who actually create value instead of shuffle papers.
Re:This just in... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh hell... C*O salaries are set by boards, which are populated by other C*Os. No bargaining involved; "you give me $100M today and I'll give you $100M tomorrow." No bargaining involved.
Unfortunately for most of us we have other people who are all too willing to take the job at a lower pay scale. No bargaining involved; "you take what we offer or we go to teh next guy in line."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you haven't noticed, there's a recession on. Construction has taken the brunt of lost jobs, stagnant wages, and wrecked careers.
It's taken me 2 years to get a call back on a resume. In the meantime my shitty wage feeds my family.
My point is that many IT people still expect the salaries from the 90s, when simply knowing how to spell IT was a guarantee of a high paying job. It's changing, and not for the better.
Re: (Score:2)
I work with communications engineers that pull down between $100k & $200k a year.
What are you doing wrong?
Re:This just in... (Score:5, Insightful)
They work in an industry where 31% have received pay raises across a short span of time which likely doesn't intersect with the organization's fiscal year (e.g. did many run on Federal or Calendar years). [sarcasm] Oh, my - what a hardship.[/sarcasm] In such a climate as this - that sounds pretty good to me. You want to talk about flat pay - then make that time period at least a year, and compare it to other fields.
Re: (Score:2)
Working on the space shuttle really isn't all that hard for the most part. It's time to stop equating yourselves to rocket scientists. Again, for the most part.
being a CEO really isn't all that hard for the most part. It's time to stop equating yourselves to big shots. Again, for the most part.
Designing Bridges really isn't all that hard for the most part. It's time to stop equating yourselves to engineers. Again, for the most part.
etc...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
IT really isn't all that hard for the most part. It's time to stop equating yourselves to engineers. Again, for the most part.
That's because you're doing it wrong. IT done properly, with change management, proper testing, business deadlines, purchasing, project deadlines, budgeting cycles, politics, etc. etc. can be very stressful and difficult. People who think its easy are likely not doing these things, or not doing them properly. Flying by the seat of your pants can be pretty easy most of the time, but most of the time it also gets you in trouble.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
nothing done properly is stressful.
if you're doing too much, you're doing it wrong. live with doing it wrong, find a boss that isn't bad, or be a better boss.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It really depends on the IT position:
If you are an operator, it is fairly easy. Look for lights on servers that glow differently from others, run a script or two, clean packets dropped on the floor by the N5ks and N7ks, pass any complicated stuff to L2, and dig out a good beer from the stash in the CRAC's cooling duct.
If you are a junior admin, it is easy to hard, depending on how much stuff falls on your plate. On more staffed places, it might be just basic system maintaining and pushing out profiles, an
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: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:Raise in the past 6 months? Try year. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, it is above the expected 50% if the date of pay raises was random, but I doubt it is. My company is within that 50% for its date, but until a few years ago it wasn't. The question is plainly biased.
Further, saying that 36% are looking is a much softer threshold than saying 36% have submitted resumes or job applications. At least it wasn't the completely nebulous "considering" that they sometimes use.
That said, changing jobs is often the best way to get a pay raise, and I don't blame you one bit for trying for it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously. I want to see the result for the past year. Or better yet, the past two years. Not everyone in the private sector gets a pay raise every year, even in good times.
Re: (Score:2)
You are assuming that pay raises everywhere follow the calendar year. Almost every place I have worked at has adjusted pay based on their fiscal year.
Credit typically increases at 9-12% per year (Score:3)
Anyone who stays more than 3 years in a position is going to be very much left behind and facing increasing inflation in housing prices, cars, and eventually the basics as well.
Grass is not always greener... (Score:4, Insightful)
Its not always about money. I recently (about a year ago) went from being a partner at an up and coming IT firm, to the number 2 IT guy for an agriculture company. Before, I was stressed out, always worrying about this client or that client, income, taxes, ticket systems, just in general had too much on my plate. I left due to business structure and strategy disagreements, but now I am working in a laid back environment where I do a good job, and can still take the time to study after hours. IT guys are far too often over-taxed, over-used, and under-appreciated. That is why I think there needs to be a shift in the work environment for IT people or else we will continue to see this constant migration to the always greener grass.
time for a union? (Score:3)
time for a union?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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 b
Insert sensationalist headline here (Score:2)
Computerworld couldn't find anything else to fill their pages with than this? I knew they were useless, but this is pretty sad.
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]
Even when the market was "good" this was true. (Score:3, Informative)
I never once got a raise I was promised. All any employer ever did was blow smoke up my ass in the performance reviews. I never once got a salary increase that I didn't have to quit my old job for. Once or twice jumping ship for better pay got the rest of the team members *their* promised raises though.
Unionize. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ask the steel industry how that worked out. Or the auto industry. Or any of the half dozen other industries chased offshore because (in part) of unions that insisted on never ending pay and benefits increases - regardless of how the company and/or the economy was faring.
Don't get me wrong, unions have accomplished a lot of good, but they've also done a lot of damage.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Those industries you mentioned have always been quick to complain about the unions, but they can't be bothered to take a second look at $25 million executive compensation.
They think a union hurts them? They should be thankful the workers aren't killing them and taking their money.
Re:Unionize. (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite what fanatical libertarians around here may say, this is exactly the sort of situations unions are for.
Libertarians aren't against Unions, after all, they're just voluntary associations of people.
It's the various laws around them (not right to vote by secret ballot, forced participation to work, forced dues), that gives them the heebee jeebees.
Re: (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 profit
Re: (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 manufacturin
Re: (Score:3)
I'm in a union, your turn.
I think I get the intention of this article (Score:2)
I bet the author xeroxed it and left a few copies laying strategically around the office.
Pay Raise? (Score:2)
I work in Public Sector, I like my job, I work hard, and I'm not paid very well for what I do (51K/yr) I haven't had a pay raise in two years, and this year they are requiring three furlough days (pay cut). Next year, they're saying four.
I realize that is is popular to criticize Public Employees as being lazy and overpaid Union drones, but guys in IT at the Public Sector are often the exception.
I realize that times are tough, and with unemployment hovering at (or hidden) above 10%, I'm just thankful I have
This is crazy talk! (Score:5, Funny)
Outsourcing and visa abuse (Score:2, Informative)
its pretty clear (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
80% of employees are useless drones (Score:5, Insightful)
I say this after being on both sides of the table. Most people out there are bordering on a waste of oxygen - taking valuable time from the useful ones to solve inane problems. About 10% of workers are truly talented, and can solve problems independently - those are the guys you want. The next 10-15% are good - not really independent problem solvers, but reliable and honest, and would prefer a productive work day to being bored 'cause there isn't enough to keep them busy. Everybody else is just killing time for their meal ticket. An, honestly, I was a combination of the first and last groups for a lot of years. I sure as hell wouldn't have given my former self a raise of any significance. In the past three years I've been asked by several people to join their staff or lead a new department - but I've also got 8 years of running a very successful firm (~30-40% growth every year for 7 years, we'll probably drop back to about 20-25% year with the recession).
If you're not getting a raise, one of three things is happening:
1) the company really is on hard times - they're keeping you, perhaps at a loss, because you're valuable.
2) you're boss is not giving you credit for what you do, or nobody with decision authority sees your brilliance and work ethic.
3) you're in the 75-80% of people who really aren't that good.
If you're in the rare #2 slot (I'm going to put that at less than 1%; good odds are that you're really a #3), I feel for you, and you definitely need to find another job. If you're #1, you have to decide if it's worth bailing on the company who is keeping you employed. If you're #3, good luck. You'll always be disappointed.
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't even get any raise, you insensitive clods!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You could try polymorphism too: "WTF, I'm a chick today! Hey, this feels niiiiice."
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Mrs. Fiorina, Welcome to Slashdot!
Re:Guess what ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes.
However sometimes you must switch jobs for the 'tards in charge to realize that the salary offered is not making the position attractive to employees.
No amount of pissing and moaning will get me more money. Period.
On the other hand, if I can find a position elsewhere, I get to actually have a salary discussion. Whereas that's not on the table now.
I risk getting fired if I talk about money. I do not risk getting fired if I talk about money with a new company.
I can pick and choose where and when, and to a certain extent what I do with a new company. I get shit thrown at me to do extra at my existing company.
If companies don't like the brain drain, they can fucking step up to the plate to talk about salaries once in a while.
I have nothing to lose by talking to some other company about a job, that turns a 0% chance at a raise to a non-zero chance, with some slight risk.
Re:Guess what ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The companies never really figure out what's going on. Your lead or immediate project manager may have a clue, but their management (all the way to the top) just doesn't get it.
Ironically, the argument for the huge CEO bonuses, even during the bailouts, was that "we have to pay this much to retain our 'talent'" (talent being the executives who brought the disasters upon these companies).
Face it. US styled (quarterly earnings per share centric) capitalism simply doesn't work long term.
Agreed, but two problems... (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with the sentiment in theory, but voting with your feet is not as easy as you make it sound.
The extremely large company where I work just fired, well, had a layoff of one, of a guy whose next prospective employer's HR department called to check references. Last I heard, this guy has been unjustly tagged as a malcontent by the boss, and he has not found a new job. 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. It's a small industry, and looking around carries the risk of getting prematurely helped out the door. It can absolutely be done, but the risk is not zero.
Secondly, health insurance. One of the guys I work with has a chronic health problem with one of his kids. Every time he changes jobs, he gets to start the fight anew to get the kid's medical issues covered. It is not trivial, it frequently gets right up to the lawyers, and each time his kid's medical care is interupted, there's a small but real risk that his child could actually die.
Employment has so much "friction" it might as well be considered a market failure. If McDonald's screws you over, Burger King is across the street. If your employer screw you over -- and unjust poor references seem to be the weapon of choice -- then an uphill legal battle lasting years and costing up to hundreds of thousands of dollars might be your only rememdy.
Don't kid yourself. "Voting with your feet" isn't nearly as safe and effective as we would like it to be, or as it should be.
Re: (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.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
I'd be cautious about showing another job offer. To many employers, that's a sign that you're ready to jump ship (maybe you are), and although they may make a compelling counter offer for the short term, in the long term you may find you're a marked man.
Absolutely. "I've had an offer from somewhere else, can you beat it" is the Joker, and you can only play it once. Depending on your situation, it might be worth it - but you need to be damn sure before you embark on the process and you *have* to be prepa
Re:Guess what ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps, but when they want you, they're willing to play ball at least int eh short term.
You are a company. You have a sys admin. He does shit. you don't really know what kind of shit, but he must be doing some shit because the computers mostly work. He wants more money and keeps talking about needing some training and upgrades. Fuck him... you don't even know what he does and the computers mostly work.
You are a company. Your sys admin left a month ago. The computers have stopped mostly working. They now often don't work, and sometimes threaten employee's children with things that you're almost certain will get you fined. You have found a person with a pretty good resume who appears not to be a Troll. He says he can get the computers to mostly work again. He wants more money than the old guy, but he says he can get the computers to mostly work again. He wants a training budget, but he says he can get the computers mostly working again. He says you need to spend some money on infrastructure upgrades, but PLEASE GOD GET THE COMPUTERS WORKING AGAIN.. Ahem.. sorry... yes.. we can probably pay that.
You see. There's a difference. In reality land probably not quite such a huge difference, but companies are always more willing to negotiate and play ball with a new hire into a "need to fill" vacancy than they are with a current employee.
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:They don't seem to have a problem with CEO pay (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not so much the CEO pay that concerns me as it is the ratio to everyone else in the company [epi.org].
Re:They don't seem to have a problem with CEO pay (Score:4, Insightful)
Especially after sitting thru a mandatory video conference that he presented yesterday.
What exactly is it that he does again? I couldn't really tell from that meeting.
Re:They don't seem to have a problem with CEO pay (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? When was the last time you called a company that has engineers on the payroll and got the CEO?
He farms the customer service out to Bangladesh and pockets the money he saves on that. Then he keeps Engineer pay flat while turnover continues to lower average salary, pocketing the money he saves on that, even while introducing new products the Engineers developed, which improves his bottom line, and he pockets a fat bonus that's negotiated into his contract because of that.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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