889
Sounds familiar? (lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] quicksand@lemm.ee 141 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I don't get how corporate is so detached that they're making these policies. I left my last job about a year ago because a competitor offered 30% more. My manager said they could do 3% and, with regular raises, I'd be at that amount in 10 years. I know his hands were tied and he was just grasping at any reason he could come up with to keep me, but that just makes me even more incredulous that companies are crafting policies like this.

Edit: This job also requires about a year of training to be halfway decent, with multiple business trips overseas, so they didn't even save any money as far as I can tell.

[-] noride@lemm.ee 80 points 8 months ago

They're not detached, they're playing a different game. The game of the greedy little piggies.

If I give you a raise, well, it just might get out that we give raises around here! Suddenly, I got all these, lazy, do nothing greedy little piggies asking for more money! That 5k becomes 20k, then 50k, etc.! My hard earned slop is drying up quick!

But if I hire someone new, I send the exact opposite message. We don't do raises here, and if you don't like it, we have no trouble replacing you, greedy little piggie!

[-] quicksand@lemm.ee 21 points 8 months ago

Yeah I just show up to work and try to do a good job, so I can see how I'm not like them I guess. It really sucks having to change from a job I really liked to another just to keep up with inflation or get to the pay range they're hiring ln

[-] Signtist@lemm.ee 6 points 8 months ago

This is the real reason. A universally beaten-down workforce is how you keep people working hard for the minimum pay. One new employee being paid more than the others from the get-go isn't anywhere near as damaging to the bottom-line as one employee getting a nice raise and inspiring the rest of the office to demand one as well. With the taboo against asking people how much they get paid, nobody will ever know that the new guy gets paid more, and soon enough even they'll get paid well under what they're worth with inflation constantly rolling away.

[-] fidodo@lemmy.world 42 points 8 months ago

I think it's short sightedness. If you look at the costs over a decade it would be a no brainer to invest in retention, but if you're only looking at the change in this quarter's budget then it's not as clear.

[-] ours@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

And we're just looking at salary difference with the new hire here. Hiring and onboarding the right person costs.

[-] exhaust_fan@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

It also sadly risks undeserving employees getting raises and becoming much harder to dispose of, especially in jurisdictions where it's hard to fire people.

It's shit. Top talent and young people suffer for it.

[-] protist@mander.xyz 21 points 8 months ago

The is the world the MBAs have created, saving money in the short term seems to be the only thing that matters to many companies. Also, for every one person who leaves to get more money, there may be several who stay at the lower wage

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 19 points 8 months ago

I always assume they believe you are lying.

They are willing to risk the "ok cya here's my 2 weeks" to never suffer the "lol I made that shit up thanks for the big raise"

[-] Stoney_Logica1@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

In which case, who cares? If the person can do the job and is happy to do it for $5k less than a new hire and no training is required, you could be Pinocchio for all I care.

[-] quicksand@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

Yeah but I addressed that in my earlier comment. These are job positions that require training and skills and it's still easy come easy go for most of my industry as far as I can tell.

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago

Essentially they're hedging your bargain

[-] Agent641@lemmy.world 19 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

If they can't really spring for higher salaries, but you're too lazy to change jobs just yet, get them to pay for credentials and training that make you a more desirable hire. Make them load the gun you'll shoot them with.

[-] quicksand@lemm.ee 9 points 8 months ago

Doing that at my new company. They're paying for my master's :)

[-] CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago

Hiring budgets are often very different from operational budgets. The job you're moving to for a 30% raise has the same policies as your current job; you're just seeing the other side of it.

[-] quicksand@lemm.ee 15 points 8 months ago

I've come to understand that but it's a foolish way of operating on their part

[-] ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

They only loss out on the ones that leave. They win big on the ones that stay.

I wonder if anyone's ever did the maths, I wouldn't be surprised in many instances if it works out. However, it would be hard to estimate the impact of the employee resentment and loss due to losing knowledge.

[-] CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

They have done the math.

Over the long term, it costs them almost 4-5 times as much to hire a new employee. It takes most new employees 6-12 months to become as productive as their counterparts. Add the cost of recruiting, interviewing, performance management, etc. Giving a raise by far is the cheapest option.

Long term.

But quarterly profits will always, ALWAYS, supercede any long term investments.

Why take the hit in your operating budget NOW when all you care about is making sure you're hitting next quarter's numbers? Hell, the employee leaving is going to lower your costs so it's better for you in time for the shareholders' meeting.

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

Their goal is to get employees who get comfortable and will stick around for that 3% raise. Hiring someone new - even at a premium - gives them another shot at getting an employee who won't demand a big raise later.

As far as they're concerned, someone who demands a 20% raise today will demand a 20% raise again the same time next year.

[-] quicksand@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago

Especially when the procedure are garbage written by people hired overseas at the bottom dollar that have never seen the machines. And on top of that there's a lot of tribal knowledge. But I'm at the bottom of the chain looking up. I'm sure the bean counters have thought this all through already

[-] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

Yes, middle management gets a bonus for keeping costs down, so it's in their personal interest to refuse raises.

The one in charge of hiring gets a bonus for bringing in people because work needs to be done and there aren't enough workers.

The incentives make the system as it is. And good long term incentives seem to be few and far between.

[-] CodingCarpenter@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago

I had something similar happen. I lined up a second job that was offering almost double the pay. And my current company was just at a loss they couldn't even offer me online work it was just like a goodbye. Though now I've kind of hit a paid cap for my particular field so I doubt that golden moment will happen again

[-] quicksand@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago

I think that's the point where I'd start considering trying to find something else in the same company. If I can make lateral moves for pay raises, I'd prefer that to toeing the company line and hoping they're nice enough/like me enough to promote me

[-] CodingCarpenter@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago

And that's exactly what I'm doing ๐Ÿ‘. Going for that senior role. While trying to avoid management lol

[-] quicksand@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

Me too. Trying to get to R&D or Integration and Testing but it's gonna be a while

[-] MuffinHeeler@aussie.zone 1 points 8 months ago

I had that happen to a team member (me as a manager). She came to give me notice, the pay jump was huge. 45k to 70k. I loved her and I tried to swing it with my boss, but the ultimate answer was no and she left. I hope she is happy now. She really was awesome and I wish she stayed working for me, but I'm happy for her. She was a single mom to 2 teenagers so there's no way she couldn't accept that money

[-] HottieAutie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 8 months ago

In my experience, a lot of management positions are filled by people that are meeting a need of feeling a sense of power and control over others. They don't care about the company anymore than they have to to meet this need.

Also, it's possible that they're worried that if they give you a raise, you'll tell others and they will demand one as well. They rather hire a new person without social ties to other workers that wont share what their salary is.

[-] quicksand@lemm.ee 5 points 8 months ago

The lower management people that I've worked with haven't been like that for the most part. I guess my frustration is mostly with the fact that the message of retaining people isn't getting to the people who make decisions on things like that

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

That seems pretty credulous based on your anecdote. Also, you'd surpass 30% in 9 years of 3% raises.

[-] quicksand@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago

One less year is not a compelling reason to stay either. 2 weeks << 9 years

[-] LodeMike@lemmy.today 0 points 8 months ago

I'm an engineering student.

I like to say: "You know the joke that business majors are stupid?" and that's it.

this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
889 points (99.3% liked)

Funny: Home of the Haha

5756 readers
201 users here now

Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.

Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!

Our Rules:

  1. Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.

  2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.

  3. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.


Other Communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS