6 ms·

If you are performing well at a company as big as Google, you get 10% raise easily every fiscal year. "easily" as in the company is doing well. (It's a common s

by bkhl 16y ago

If you are performing well at a company as big as Google, you get 10% raise easily every fiscal year. "easily" as in the company is doing well. (It's a common sense that companies are less likely to give raises if the company is not making much money) If you happen to be asking for a raise, you are either working for a wrong company or not performing well compared to your peers.

ghshephard 16y ago
So not true. I managed to hire some absolute _star_ performers from HP last year - right after they received a 10% pay cut (along with many of their likewise high performing colleagues). I don't know what was going through HPs minds, and I'd love to know if they lost a number of their great performers. Low - average end performers will have to stay, particularly in a down job market - but the great ones can always get jobs anywhere. I assure you that pay increases in large companies in the valley are not a slam dunk 10% a year, particularly if you aren't getting a promotion to a new position.
- jkent 16y ago
  It amazes me that companies feel that pay cuts can solve their business issues. I got wind of one of these at a previous (40 employees) company. The company folded within three months. I'd already quit by that point...
jrockway 16y ago
My experience is that programmers are treated as a cost rather than an asset, and the squeaky wheel gets the grease. What Google's public announcement means in that context is that no programmer should accept anything less than a 10% raise. "Why should Google employees get that and not us?"
- bkhl 16y ago
  This wasn't a public announcement. It was an internal email that got leaked.
  - jrockway 16y ago
    Well, it's public now, isn't it.
Dove 16y ago
I wish. It's more commonly some sort of good-cop bad-cop routine, where the line manager really appreciates your work and fights hard for you against the upper level manager, who is just so stingy about raises in general. If you're stellar, you wind up with something way better than your teammates, but an insult compared to what you could command on an open market. I think on some level, they're constrained by collective bargaining agreements. Maybe they hope you've been with the company so long you only see the people around you. Maybe they only see the people around them. There was a real technical superstar of a guy a few years ago. I didn't work with him, but a coworker did. He went to management and said, "Give me a 17% raise or I'm leaving." They didn't and he did. The fallout was cataclysmic. I left a project about three years ago, and there was widespread panic when I announced my decision to leave. I took four months to pack things up and leave them in a stable state, but you cannot totally mask the absence of talent. A coworker asked, "Is there anything this program could do to make you stay?" I answered, "No." He said, "How about a 200% raise?" I said, "Oh, I'd stay another year for that." Judging from the fallout over that year, it would have been an efficient option. But they either didn't have the power or didn't have the perception.
- jrockway 16y ago
  He went to management and said, "Give me a 17% raise or I'm leaving." They didn't and he did. The fallout was cataclysmic. I wish this happened more often. Then people would just automatically receive, as a raise, whatever it costs to hire a replacement. The problem is that people are really too nice about their compensation and don't realize that they have a business to run -- themselves. (Man, now I want to get a business card that lists my title as "Technical Prostitute".)
  - shin_lao 16y ago
    I'm sorry but when you reach that kind of situation, you have a huge HR problem.
    - shadowfox 16y ago
      But this seems to be fairly common among the mid-to-large size companies.
madewulf 16y ago
IMHO, and in my region (Belgium), this is completely unrealistic. In most companies, the goal is to keep you happy with the lowest possible salary. Consequently, you have to ask for raises, and see it as a negotiation. The error would be to think that management has your best interest at heart. They don't, they have the business best interest at heart, which is only normal. For me, you usually don't earn what you deserve, but what you negotiated.
- gaius 16y ago
  It is in the businesses best interest to retain talented staff, not only for its own productivity but to raise the barrier to entry for competitors.
  - madewulf 16y ago
    It does not change the point that they want to keep their talented staff at the lowest possible price....
    - gaius 16y ago
      True. There's a Dilbert about how the company wants the best staff in the industry, but pays the industry average salary.
      - sokoloff 16y ago
        http://www.dilbert.com/fast/1995-05-22/ http://www.dilbert.com/fast/1995-05-22/
    - DavidSJ 16y ago
      They also want their retained staff to be happy, however. It's not so great to have an employee who's just barely satisfied enough to stay on with you. The quality of his/her work won't be as good, typically.
  - wlievens 16y ago
    That's not even true. A typical consulting company (of which there are plenty in Belgium - I'd say at least half the programming jobs) probably doesn't care much, because for a less efficient programmer they will eventually bill more hours to the clueless client.

by bkhl 16y ago

ghshephard 16y ago

So not true. I managed to hire some absolute _star_ performers from HP last year - right after they received a 10% pay cut (along with many of their likewise high performing colleagues). I don't know what was going through HPs minds, and I'd love to know if they lost a number of their great performers. Low - average end performers will have to stay, particularly in a down job market - but the great ones can always get jobs anywhere. I assure you that pay increases in large companies in the valley are not a slam dunk 10% a year, particularly if you aren't getting a promotion to a new position.

jkent 16y ago
It amazes me that companies feel that pay cuts can solve their business issues. I got wind of one of these at a previous (40 employees) company. The company folded within three months. I'd already quit by that point...

jrockway 16y ago

My experience is that programmers are treated as a cost rather than an asset, and the squeaky wheel gets the grease. What Google's public announcement means in that context is that no programmer should accept anything less than a 10% raise. "Why should Google employees get that and not us?"

bkhl 16y ago
This wasn't a public announcement. It was an internal email that got leaked.
- jrockway 16y ago
  Well, it's public now, isn't it.

Dove 16y ago

I wish. It's more commonly some sort of good-cop bad-cop routine, where the line manager really appreciates your work and fights hard for you against the upper level manager, who is just so stingy about raises in general. If you're stellar, you wind up with something way better than your teammates, but an insult compared to what you could command on an open market. I think on some level, they're constrained by collective bargaining agreements. Maybe they hope you've been with the company so long you only see the people around you. Maybe they only see the people around them. There was a real technical superstar of a guy a few years ago. I didn't work with him, but a coworker did. He went to management and said, "Give me a 17% raise or I'm leaving." They didn't and he did. The fallout was cataclysmic. I left a project about three years ago, and there was widespread panic when I announced my decision to leave. I took four months to pack things up and leave them in a stable state, but you cannot totally mask the absence of talent. A coworker asked, "Is there anything this program could do to make you stay?" I answered, "No." He said, "How about a 200% raise?" I said, "Oh, I'd stay another year for that." Judging from the fallout over that year, it would have been an efficient option. But they either didn't have the power or didn't have the perception.

jrockway 16y ago
He went to management and said, "Give me a 17% raise or I'm leaving." They didn't and he did. The fallout was cataclysmic. I wish this happened more often. Then people would just automatically receive, as a raise, whatever it costs to hire a replacement. The problem is that people are really too nice about their compensation and don't realize that they have a business to run -- themselves. (Man, now I want to get a business card that lists my title as "Technical Prostitute".)
- shin_lao 16y ago
  I'm sorry but when you reach that kind of situation, you have a huge HR problem.
  - shadowfox 16y ago
    But this seems to be fairly common among the mid-to-large size companies.

madewulf 16y ago

IMHO, and in my region (Belgium), this is completely unrealistic. In most companies, the goal is to keep you happy with the lowest possible salary. Consequently, you have to ask for raises, and see it as a negotiation. The error would be to think that management has your best interest at heart. They don't, they have the business best interest at heart, which is only normal. For me, you usually don't earn what you deserve, but what you negotiated.

gaius 16y ago
It is in the businesses best interest to retain talented staff, not only for its own productivity but to raise the barrier to entry for competitors.
- madewulf 16y ago
  It does not change the point that they want to keep their talented staff at the lowest possible price....
  - gaius 16y ago
    True. There's a Dilbert about how the company wants the best staff in the industry, but pays the industry average salary.
    - sokoloff 16y ago
      http://www.dilbert.com/fast/1995-05-22/ http://www.dilbert.com/fast/1995-05-22/
  - DavidSJ 16y ago
    They also want their retained staff to be happy, however. It's not so great to have an employee who's just barely satisfied enough to stay on with you. The quality of his/her work won't be as good, typically.
- wlievens 16y ago
  That's not even true. A typical consulting company (of which there are plenty in Belgium - I'd say at least half the programming jobs) probably doesn't care much, because for a less efficient programmer they will eventually bill more hours to the clueless client.