I've heard it's because of how stupid budgets can be. There's no budget to give you a raise, but there is to replace you.
And they wonder why there's no loyalty.
And they wonder why there's no loyalty.
Why do companies choose to lose good employees, over giving them raises?
- Thread starter entremet
- Start date
From what I've seen, the budget is there but they mainly don't want to set a precedent. They'd rather have 5 people jump ship over the other 50 applying for roles they never intend to take just to ask for pay rises.
If it is someone genuinely critical enough, they'll find the money to not only match but give them that overdue pay raise. Its just rare.
If it is someone genuinely critical enough, they'll find the money to not only match but give them that overdue pay raise. Its just rare.
It not always up to the people who know or understand the value of the employee. I've had management say to me they wanted to keep someone but their hands were tied because the board of directors or upper management in the organinzation would not budge. The people who don't deal with the day to day responsibilities just don't give a shit sometimes.
Last edited:
It's a game of chicken in some cases, I think.
They don't expect people to leave. Sometimes they try to give people raises when they realize they're actually going to leave, but not before.
They don't expect people to leave. Sometimes they try to give people raises when they realize they're actually going to leave, but not before.
Not only that, but if it takes 6 months for a new employee to be trained and get to their full productivity potential, and people are leaving on an almost yearly basis because of low salaries, that means that these employees are only productive during a pretty narrow window.
dont forget rampup time. It can take 6 months or more for someone to realy get comfortable in a new position.
Software and Tech is a really fascinating field as well. I worked for a company doing government contracting. The way it worked is that you were rated Tech 1 through Tech 4. This rating was based on both time in the field, time with the company, projects you were involved with, and if you lead a team or not. Well often times you'll fulfill all of the requirements necessary except for time with the company. Time with the company being 5 years or 10 years. So it was often faster for you to get promoted to Tech 3 from Tech 2 by leaving the company for a year to work elsewhere where you're brought in at a Tech 3 at a pay increase and then coming back to the original job after the time has passed now at a Tech 3 for more money. When I was with the company, my issue was that I hit all the needs to be promoted, but no one knew how I did what I did as the sole Front End Developer, Full Stack Developer, and UX Developer on every task. Because no one knew the effort I put in to any task, no manager could really understand my growth or how much work I did.
Because if you were willing to jump ship for a raise today, you'll still be willing to jump ship a year from now. They'll have to keep paying you a fair wage indefinitely.
They're hoping your replacement will be content with the 3% raises they hand out every year. Let the people who care about chasing checks keep churning while people who are willing to settle once they've found someplace they're comfortable with (financially with and fit-wise) do so.
Especially when it comes to tech, because let's be honest: you probably don't actually need that raise, right? On the one hand it feels wrong to leave money on the table, but at the same time if you knew that the job you're going to is going to be a worse way to spend your 40+ hours per week, is the extra cash actually going to improve your life? 'Cause in my experience there's some pretty steep diminishing returns on the value of a dollar: I'd rather make $150k at a job I like than $200k at a job I hate.
They're hoping your replacement will be content with the 3% raises they hand out every year. Let the people who care about chasing checks keep churning while people who are willing to settle once they've found someplace they're comfortable with (financially with and fit-wise) do so.
Especially when it comes to tech, because let's be honest: you probably don't actually need that raise, right? On the one hand it feels wrong to leave money on the table, but at the same time if you knew that the job you're going to is going to be a worse way to spend your 40+ hours per week, is the extra cash actually going to improve your life? 'Cause in my experience there's some pretty steep diminishing returns on the value of a dollar: I'd rather make $150k at a job I like than $200k at a job I hate.
HR manager for a large company and this is our biggest pain point
policies exist to make it so 209 hoops need jumping through to justify internal increases but invariably we end up having to pay more to backfill externally often with less experience, it seems counter productive and stubborn
I think it's a fair point about 'slippery slope' so if we pay Bob what he wants then Bill will go seek a counter offer and we'll have to increase him as well etc
policies exist to make it so 209 hoops need jumping through to justify internal increases but invariably we end up having to pay more to backfill externally often with less experience, it seems counter productive and stubborn
I think it's a fair point about 'slippery slope' so if we pay Bob what he wants then Bill will go seek a counter offer and we'll have to increase him as well etc
Yep. It's about power and control. Can't have the workers getting ideas
All the reasons are basically covered, but yeah if it's a competent company and you are actually a high enough performer, you could get a strong counteroffer. I got one a few jobs back, which I turned down. They matched and offered some nice bonuses besides to sweeten the pot, but I was just done and wanted out.
This is a good summary of my current situation, which is the opposite of the situation I described above. I just turned down that range of compensation bump because I generally enjoy working with my team. I know from experience that liking the folks that I work with matters a lot for my day-to-day job satisfaction. I didn't really want to risk that for a sum of money that won't make a big difference in my life.
I think I gave the poor recruiter I was working with an aneurysm. He just couldn't understand why I was leaving money on the table, and was convinced I had been brainwashed by someone at my current employer, when I hadn't even told anyone there about the offer, much less ask for a counteroffer.
Frankly, it's also a bet on myself. If I can get the offer once, I can get another offer there or somewhere else if/when I change my mind.
This is a good summary of my current situation, which is the opposite of the situation I described above. I just turned down that range of compensation bump because I generally enjoy working with my team. I know from experience that liking the folks that I work with matters a lot for my day-to-day job satisfaction. I didn't really want to risk that for a sum of money that won't make a big difference in my life.
I think I gave the poor recruiter I was working with an aneurysm. He just couldn't understand why I was leaving money on the table, and was convinced I had been brainwashed by someone at my current employer, when I hadn't even told anyone there about the offer, much less ask for a counteroffer.
Frankly, it's also a bet on myself. If I can get the offer once, I can get another offer there or somewhere else if/when I change my mind.
Because the point of companies is to hoard money, and it is cheaper to churn through tons of people knowing that jobs are scarce and there will always be someone willing to fill in for peanuts, than to give more money to a staff you actually bother investing in.
Nah, to create value for the shareholders i.e. the people at the top of the company.
I think I'm a good employee.
I've been given 20% raises YoY for the past 2 years, as well as generous stock and cash bonuses. My life has changed incredibly thanks to the organization I work for.
Its written into my contract that we don't discuss/share this with other colleagues though.
From what I understand, raises are based on peer review by the leadership team.
You may believe you are a good employee, and your boss may think so too but, every other leader in the organization might think you're a piece of shit who brings no value to the business outside of your direct line of work.
Then its upto your boss to fight against that or accept it.
I've been given 20% raises YoY for the past 2 years, as well as generous stock and cash bonuses. My life has changed incredibly thanks to the organization I work for.
Its written into my contract that we don't discuss/share this with other colleagues though.
From what I understand, raises are based on peer review by the leadership team.
You may believe you are a good employee, and your boss may think so too but, every other leader in the organization might think you're a piece of shit who brings no value to the business outside of your direct line of work.
Then its upto your boss to fight against that or accept it.
This was the argument I made to my boss to give people in my department each up to 20k worth in raises:
"We pay them what they are worth now, have a higher chance of retaining them, and live to fight another day or we risk them leaving and us spending months trying to hire someone who will 100% come in at a higher rate and be less competent"
I don't know what it is like at bigger companies, but for my smaller shop, the problem is always the budget. If one person stays because you were willing up their salary to keep them, you have to be ready to do similar things for everyone. Doubly so because younger folk have zero issues sharing their salaries with their coworkers.
I have given them warnings that in order to remain competitive, we may need to continue jacking up salaries for current work.
"We pay them what they are worth now, have a higher chance of retaining them, and live to fight another day or we risk them leaving and us spending months trying to hire someone who will 100% come in at a higher rate and be less competent"
I don't know what it is like at bigger companies, but for my smaller shop, the problem is always the budget. If one person stays because you were willing up their salary to keep them, you have to be ready to do similar things for everyone. Doubly so because younger folk have zero issues sharing their salaries with their coworkers.
I have given them warnings that in order to remain competitive, we may need to continue jacking up salaries for current work.
OP
OP
They can't prevent you from discussing your salary with others. That's illegal. And one of the biggest advantages employers have.
Other than Amazon and companies trying to get Amazon, I feel like most companies get this. At least my company does, knowing that retaining a good engineer is much better for productivity than having to hire new, train, and get up to speed. There's like a year long lag time between hiring a new developer and having them really be up to speed where I work.
I want to jump ship but not sure how to get interviews without the whole industry knowing since they are all within the same neighborhood lol.
Thats also exactly why they don't want you to discuss your salaries with your co-workers. Makes it easier for them to pay people below market rate based on experience/expertise in a field.
We have not had a good security guard here in over 3 years and we haven't had one for almost a full year because no one wants to accept the job for what they're offering it at. Which I find hilarious and depressing because they would get paid the same that I would for doing less work than I'm supposed to do.
But I have a 30 second commute so I ain't leaving.
But I have a 30 second commute so I ain't leaving.
Because most companies don't really know who is creating value for them or not, so they end up with pretty terrible decisions on who to keep and who to toss overboard. I also really think the 2008 mentality of, "fuck you. There are X people just lining up for your job" has become a universal accepted fact at many places and assumed that it will always be the case.
Last edited:
OP
OP
It's not going to happen though. Many people lining up. Plus it's a market. They're not just lining up for your position and you have to compete for them. Unless we massively open up immigration here. The population keeps getting older and retiring. And folks are having much fewer children.
The whole Great Resignation is real, but a lot of it Boomers and older Gen X retiring. It's not people just chilling lol.
The HR industry is going to be completely overturned because of these huge structural changes.
Millions of workers retired during the pandemic. The economy needs them to "unretire," experts say.
Americans are already working more days, longer hours and later in life than people in other industrial countries, but the average age of retirement ticked down during the pandemic.
www.cbsnews.com
The problem I have with discussing salary with others, is that often the people who want to know have an agenda. Have run into it in the past where certain colleagues took the position of "hey, x is being paid this much, I should be paid as much or more"
To be fair to everyone who have bad experiences, I believe I've been offered the company kool-aid and I drank it up quickly without a second thought as it is the greatest opportunity life ever presented to me. If you don't need to and can find better options, I would encourage that always.
OP
OP
I'm not saying to do it. Just saying they can't prevent you.
You should at least submit your salary to GlassDoor's database for the job seeking community.
Yeah, but it's not cheaper though. Hiring new employee for the same salary as the old one was asking for is significantly worse for the employer, assuming the old one was doing a good job
Generally, you can be prevented from doing it during work. The NRLB tends to allow companies to do that. Not that the NLRB is great to begin with.
The whole point of being able to discuss salaries is to see if you are being paid less than others for whatever reason. It's okay for people to say "X is getting paid this much so I should to."
Everyone is replaceable for the most part. This more or less happened to me at my last job. I was one of the best, if not the best employee there. I'm not saying that to sound egotistical, but I was. I got perfect evaluation ratings and the quarterly award. However, the position topped out pretty low on the GS scale so I was always looking for something else. Well I got hired for a different agency with much more growth potential so I obviously took it. All my coworkers and the supervisors didn't want me to leave. However, upper management would not budge. If I got the increased GS level it would have caused too much "drama". I did not mind the job and would have liked to stay, but at the end of the day they weren't too inclined to try and keep me.
It comes down to me being easily replaceable; it was an extremely reputable agency so there are no shortages of people that would want the job. They would rather hire someone else that would do a poorer job, but keep paying the same.
It all worked out because I like my new agency and there is much more room for career growth.
It comes down to me being easily replaceable; it was an extremely reputable agency so there are no shortages of people that would want the job. They would rather hire someone else that would do a poorer job, but keep paying the same.
It all worked out because I like my new agency and there is much more room for career growth.
Budgets and compounding. It may be more expensive to replace someone in year 1 but if you're resetting wages in every 18 months for the majority, it works out way cheaper in the long run.
That 10% wage increase now could mean 50% compounded in 3 years.
It's also expected now, it really doesn't matter what you do, people plan to move on within 2 to 3 years.
People are also almost always replaceable.
That 10% wage increase now could mean 50% compounded in 3 years.
It's also expected now, it really doesn't matter what you do, people plan to move on within 2 to 3 years.
People are also almost always replaceable.
I worked at a place and I asked my manager if I could go full time remote. I needed to because of a family situation. My job is fully capable of being done online.
Boss said no. I had to commute into the office each day. So I had to leave to get a job that would allow me to be remote.
They then posted a job posting for my replacement and noted that it was a full time remote position.
I don't get companies man.
Boss said no. I had to commute into the office each day. So I had to leave to get a job that would allow me to be remote.
They then posted a job posting for my replacement and noted that it was a full time remote position.
I don't get companies man.
You find out one of your employees has started looking for jobs elsewhere. They obviously don't want to do the job you are paying them for, aren't interested in working at your company, because they've been job hunting and interviewed to the point of getting an offer, and now they are threatening to quit unless you give them more money. Are you going to give them a raise to keep them around??
Last edited:
They do not value any of that because they believe workers are replaceable. It's the thinking of "why pay X person more money when we can hire Y and give him same money?" To be really honest though, it really comes down to your manager. If you got a shitass manager, they will treat you like you're a replaceable toilet paper. If you get a decent manager who knows the value of your contribution, they will do their best to keep you happy. I've been with both types and you will be surprised to know how much time good managers spend discussing about their direct employees, their growth, career paths, their rates, bonuses, raise etc with HR and peers. It's quite a lot. Shitass managers dont and that's where dumb shit like you described happens. They think your job is very easy and you do not deserve more.
I would say that once an employee has sought and received an offer from another company, it is very hard to keep them long term, even with a counter offer. Once they see the opportunity the shine of the original company immediately diminishes.
So trying to keep an employee around is often a losing battle.
(Not in all cases and I'm playing devil's advocate, but this is often true.)
So trying to keep an employee around is often a losing battle.
(Not in all cases and I'm playing devil's advocate, but this is often true.)
This is some textbook poor management mentality haha. If you find out an employee is looking for jobs elsewhere, you talk to them and find out why. People don't just leave jobs for the hell of it.
Are trying undervalued?
Are they overworked?
Has their work environment drastically shifted recently?
Are they dissatisfied or bored with the work?
Have they been road blocked from getting promotions?
Are they treated fairly compared to their peers?
The question is "how do we retain this person" and the answer is "by addressing the issues that are causing them to leave". If money is the answer, then yeah, you pay them more or suffer the consequence of years of experience and specialized knowledge walking out the door that you're going to have to replace on the fly.
Because the higher ups at most companies have so little contact with the lower employees that they literally couldn't give a fuck less.
If you quit, your coworkers will be pressured by your boss to pick up the slack. Your boss's boss will be pressuring them to pick up the slack. Until you get a couple of levels up, at which point they are removed enough from the direct effects of you leaving to not care. The peons will be overworked until the magical day staffing shortages are fixed. Higher ups don't care, cause it ain't them being overworked.
If you quit, your coworkers will be pressured by your boss to pick up the slack. Your boss's boss will be pressuring them to pick up the slack. Until you get a couple of levels up, at which point they are removed enough from the direct effects of you leaving to not care. The peons will be overworked until the magical day staffing shortages are fixed. Higher ups don't care, cause it ain't them being overworked.
It feels like workplaces bet on you accepting lowball offers, or just being content with your lot. The loss on you turning shit down or leaving is considered acceptable risk to them, because they're fucking stupid.
It does scare me to imagine leaving a job without securing employment elsewhere, though.
It does scare me to imagine leaving a job without securing employment elsewhere, though.
Beautifully said and hoping one day that thought process will be adopted throughout any given company but that takes time, effort and $ to adopt these best practices and training.
Not necessarily. Look at UPS. Their unionized workforce is full of drivers who have been on for decades. Those drivers start out with the same skills as any Amazon driver. While Amazon warehouses and delivery have I believe a 100% turnover rate. The only difference is company priorities.
I'm not seeing anything that says it was fake—the OP deleted it, but it may be because of legal issues of publishing it.