6 ms·

I dont claim to have significant experience with job market, but I wouldnt throw the possibility of "free salary rise" out of the window without even asking fir

I dont claim to have significant experience with job market, but I wouldnt throw the possibility of "free salary rise" out of the window without even asking first.

arvinsim 5y ago
Most people don't ask because the raise is lower than switching jobs. Some people also believe that their work speak for themselves and they shouldn't have to explicit ask for a raise.
- johnnyanmac 5y ago
  >Some people also believe that their work speak for themselves and they shouldn't have to explicit ask for a raise. Sure. but closed mouths don't get fed. That's how we end up in the opposite situation that brought about this topic. Or worse, the oft-common "promotion" of a happy IC to management role who frankly isn't a good manager, despite being an amazing IC.
  - selfhoster11 5y ago
    > closed mouths don't get fed IMO, it's the manager's responsibility to advocate on behalf of the employee, especially if they want to retain them. There's also the matter that a raise doesn't need a promotion. Don't promote people upwards unless they are willing and already working at this level. Give them a simple raise instead.
    - zonethundery 5y ago
      Agree, but then one is completely dependent on the manager being a thoughtful participant in the corporate meta game. The employee asking makes it _easier_ for the manager to advocate on their behalf.
    - jasonshaev 5y ago
      > There's also the matter that a raise doesn't need a promotion. This is a critical point. I've been a manager at companies where the primary, and sometimes only way, to get someone a raise is to promote them because of strict salary bands defined by level. This creates a perverse incentive to promote too early. Salary bands are usually in place to -- ostensibly -- make sure salaries are fair. Fair salaries are a good thing. That being said, there HAS to be a mechanism to reward top performers with additional cash that doesn't require promotion otherwise it can feel like "teaching to the test."
      - jacobr1 5y ago
        They other factor is matching the pay bands to the market correctly. If the HR team outsources this to national averages rather than assessing peer companies, especially in software, the bands are going to be too low. Which means if want to retain anyone (not just your high performers, but your average employees) you are forced to inflate to just match market rates.
      - setr 5y ago
        Usually I see this in the form of bonuses, especially ones that will basically always trigger unless you piss someone off (e.g. based on boss’s performance review, where you both know it’s just going be approved unless you really fuck up). Though this still maintains the risk/burden on you; e.g. boss changes; but it keeps HR happy, lawsuits away, and employees with a proper paybump
        dagw 5y ago
        Usually I see this in the form of bonuses, especially ones that will basically always trigger Every place I worked bonuses are decided according to a strict formula based on the performance of an entire departments and even the company as a whole. There is no way to reward an individual or even a project group with a bonus unless the whole larger office also hit their targets.
    - johnnyanmac 5y ago
      >Don't promote people upwards unless they are willing and already working at this level. Give them a simple raise instead. I don't disagree, but I don't think there's anything simple about the process at all. 1. this obviously works against the company's interests, if they assume the employee is satisfied. short term business sense says they want to get away with paying as little as possible for labor, whereas employees want to be paid as much as possible. It's an eternal tug of war. And to be honest, one the tech sector has relative advantage over compared to other industries. 2. Even if we get over this short term block, figuring out how to give "merit based" raises can get very tricky, very fast. Especially if you leave the onus to not the developer, but to the manager's perception of the developer to determine. This not only has bias on how much they/the company values a project (e.g. would working on a "simple" adtech feature be worth more than the labor overhauling a failing product to fail less? The ad product makes the company more money after all). But on their bias as a person. Would Manager give Bob a bigger raise because he goes to Karaoke on Thursday with the company, over John who has to get back to his family after work? Worse yet, would Manager implictly give Janet not a different raise than Bob due to subconcious sexism and not actually doing more work (be it preferential towards or against Janet)? It's a whole mess, which is why companies try to objectify the whole thing. At least there, there is no room bias outside of who can pitch themselves better (if we assume equal work done). 3. Even if we arrange all of the above, raises aren't typically something a direct manager has easy access oo. It involves several lines of commands to appeal to and approval, beholden to a bunch of budget issues beyond a typical manager's control. Even if they truly want to compensate properly, the company itself may simply decide that they'd rather take chances hiring someone new when/if they need to maintain a potential void, over potentially compensating someone who was I think the 3rd point is an interesting quandry since it goes against the usual mantra of "People leave managers, not companies".
  - ravenstine 5y ago
    That is a reflection of the incentive structure of most companies. It's not overtly in the interest of the business to pay their employees more money without extracting more labor from them. If a business either cared about or was at least cognizant of employee satisfaction, then rewarding good work would be a part of the management team's culture. The initiative management usually takes is in giving out new titles to employees and raises that aren't that far off from inflation, which is essentially just milking more out of employees they think will handle more work for roughly the same cost. What you are essentially saying is that employees should beg not to be devalued, which might make sense in a contractor-client relationship, but W2 employment comes with such a tilted balance of power (especially with non-competes and clauses that bar doing work for other companies on the side) that there just isn't that much to gain from trying to negotiate. Employees are better off changing jobs every few years so they can completely shed any baggage from their last position and get a much fatter paycheck. (industry variations notwithstanding) This isn't to say that I think that people are being sinister. It's just behavior that the system incentivizes.
- whywhywhywhy 5y ago
  >Some people also believe that their work speak for themselves and they shouldn't have to explicit ask for a raise. I used to think that too but at the end of the day if you don't ask you don't get. Doesn't matter how you wish things were.
  - hamburglar 5y ago
    For what it’s worth, I have literally never asked for a raise in 30 years and have had my pay double in the span of two years at multiple companies. I am an individual contributor making an embarrassingly good total comp. Maybe the key is that deep down, I keep trying to provide value commensurate with what they pay me, and I never feel like I get there.
    - benfrancom 5y ago
      Perhaps if you negotiated, you could have gotten substantially more?
      - hamburglar 5y ago
        Substantially more guilt- based productivity maybe. I think I’ll be fine.
circlefavshape 5y ago
+1 First step: ask for a raise, even a substantial one. You mightn't get it, but you might, and it's a lot less hassle than changing jobs
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  Don't you generally need to get an offer to have leverage/know your market worth? The hassle is mostly prepping for the interviews. If I can't cut out that step, I am basically being saved the effort of cleaning up my desk and going to a new one.
  - kevinmchugh 5y ago
    Talk to your friends and coworkers about salaries. No one needs to reveal where they're at, but just talk about what the market's paying for relevant employees. Also ask them if their company is hiring and has reasonable interviewing practices. Not everyone makes candidates jump through hoops.
    - pc86 5y ago
      Everyone revealing where they're at exactly (cash + bonus + stock + extra perks/PTO/whatever), while potentially a little uncomfortable in the beginning, is better for everyone long-term. I used to be against it, if only because I was typically at the top of the pay band for my role so had little to "gain" from the practice, but I've come around the last couple years. There's really very little downside, even if you're a top performer. 1. People who are legitimately being taken advantage of can more quickly realize it and either work to correct it or leave. 2. Top earners should be able to justify their outsized compensation to others, including peers. 3. Some people just legitimately don't know you can negotiate things like non-discretionary bonuses, extra PTO, etc. 4. Maybe your company pays everyone below-market, not just you, and at least knowing this will make it easier to decide if it's worth the lower pay (for QOL/WLB or whatever) or if you want to leave.
      - SaltyBackendGuy 5y ago
Aeolun 5y ago
I can get a free salary raise of 3% when staying, or 20% when leaving. To be fair, I took their matching counteroffer, but that would not have happened without me leaving in the first place.
- srvance 5y ago
  I make it clear that things aren't working as soon as I can without giving ultimatums. If that isn't enough to trigger a response, then a desperate counter-offer is doing it for the wrong reasons.
nly 5y ago
Beyond a threshold salary, where your lifestyle is already comfortable, salary is unlikely to be the primary reason you look for a new job. Even if your current employer match, it's probably better long term for you to move on with your career and garner broader experience

I dont claim to have significant experience with job market, but I wouldnt throw the possibility of "free salary rise" out of the window without even asking first.

arvinsim 5y ago

Most people don't ask because the raise is lower than switching jobs. Some people also believe that their work speak for themselves and they shouldn't have to explicit ask for a raise.

johnnyanmac 5y ago
>Some people also believe that their work speak for themselves and they shouldn't have to explicit ask for a raise. Sure. but closed mouths don't get fed. That's how we end up in the opposite situation that brought about this topic. Or worse, the oft-common "promotion" of a happy IC to management role who frankly isn't a good manager, despite being an amazing IC.
- selfhoster11 5y ago
  > closed mouths don't get fed IMO, it's the manager's responsibility to advocate on behalf of the employee, especially if they want to retain them. There's also the matter that a raise doesn't need a promotion. Don't promote people upwards unless they are willing and already working at this level. Give them a simple raise instead.
  - zonethundery 5y ago
    Agree, but then one is completely dependent on the manager being a thoughtful participant in the corporate meta game. The employee asking makes it _easier_ for the manager to advocate on their behalf.
  - jasonshaev 5y ago
    > There's also the matter that a raise doesn't need a promotion. This is a critical point. I've been a manager at companies where the primary, and sometimes only way, to get someone a raise is to promote them because of strict salary bands defined by level. This creates a perverse incentive to promote too early. Salary bands are usually in place to -- ostensibly -- make sure salaries are fair. Fair salaries are a good thing. That being said, there HAS to be a mechanism to reward top performers with additional cash that doesn't require promotion otherwise it can feel like "teaching to the test."
    - jacobr1 5y ago
      They other factor is matching the pay bands to the market correctly. If the HR team outsources this to national averages rather than assessing peer companies, especially in software, the bands are going to be too low. Which means if want to retain anyone (not just your high performers, but your average employees) you are forced to inflate to just match market rates.
    - setr 5y ago
      Usually I see this in the form of bonuses, especially ones that will basically always trigger unless you piss someone off (e.g. based on boss’s performance review, where you both know it’s just going be approved unless you really fuck up). Though this still maintains the risk/burden on you; e.g. boss changes; but it keeps HR happy, lawsuits away, and employees with a proper paybump
      - dagw 5y ago
        Usually I see this in the form of bonuses, especially ones that will basically always trigger Every place I worked bonuses are decided according to a strict formula based on the performance of an entire departments and even the company as a whole. There is no way to reward an individual or even a project group with a bonus unless the whole larger office also hit their targets.
  - johnnyanmac 5y ago
    >Don't promote people upwards unless they are willing and already working at this level. Give them a simple raise instead. I don't disagree, but I don't think there's anything simple about the process at all. 1. this obviously works against the company's interests, if they assume the employee is satisfied. short term business sense says they want to get away with paying as little as possible for labor, whereas employees want to be paid as much as possible. It's an eternal tug of war. And to be honest, one the tech sector has relative advantage over compared to other industries. 2. Even if we get over this short term block, figuring out how to give "merit based" raises can get very tricky, very fast. Especially if you leave the onus to not the developer, but to the manager's perception of the developer to determine. This not only has bias on how much they/the company values a project (e.g. would working on a "simple" adtech feature be worth more than the labor overhauling a failing product to fail less? The ad product makes the company more money after all). But on their bias as a person. Would Manager give Bob a bigger raise because he goes to Karaoke on Thursday with the company, over John who has to get back to his family after work? Worse yet, would Manager implictly give Janet not a different raise than Bob due to subconcious sexism and not actually doing more work (be it preferential towards or against Janet)? It's a whole mess, which is why companies try to objectify the whole thing. At least there, there is no room bias outside of who can pitch themselves better (if we assume equal work done). 3. Even if we arrange all of the above, raises aren't typically something a direct manager has easy access oo. It involves several lines of commands to appeal to and approval, beholden to a bunch of budget issues beyond a typical manager's control. Even if they truly want to compensate properly, the company itself may simply decide that they'd rather take chances hiring someone new when/if they need to maintain a potential void, over potentially compensating someone who was I think the 3rd point is an interesting quandry since it goes against the usual mantra of "People leave managers, not companies".
- ravenstine 5y ago
  That is a reflection of the incentive structure of most companies. It's not overtly in the interest of the business to pay their employees more money without extracting more labor from them. If a business either cared about or was at least cognizant of employee satisfaction, then rewarding good work would be a part of the management team's culture. The initiative management usually takes is in giving out new titles to employees and raises that aren't that far off from inflation, which is essentially just milking more out of employees they think will handle more work for roughly the same cost. What you are essentially saying is that employees should beg not to be devalued, which might make sense in a contractor-client relationship, but W2 employment comes with such a tilted balance of power (especially with non-competes and clauses that bar doing work for other companies on the side) that there just isn't that much to gain from trying to negotiate. Employees are better off changing jobs every few years so they can completely shed any baggage from their last position and get a much fatter paycheck. (industry variations notwithstanding) This isn't to say that I think that people are being sinister. It's just behavior that the system incentivizes.
whywhywhywhy 5y ago
>Some people also believe that their work speak for themselves and they shouldn't have to explicit ask for a raise. I used to think that too but at the end of the day if you don't ask you don't get. Doesn't matter how you wish things were.
- hamburglar 5y ago
  For what it’s worth, I have literally never asked for a raise in 30 years and have had my pay double in the span of two years at multiple companies. I am an individual contributor making an embarrassingly good total comp. Maybe the key is that deep down, I keep trying to provide value commensurate with what they pay me, and I never feel like I get there.
  - benfrancom 5y ago
    Perhaps if you negotiated, you could have gotten substantially more?
    - hamburglar 5y ago
      Substantially more guilt- based productivity maybe. I think I’ll be fine.

circlefavshape 5y ago

+1 First step: ask for a raise, even a substantial one. You mightn't get it, but you might, and it's a lot less hassle than changing jobs

MattGaiser 5y ago
Don't you generally need to get an offer to have leverage/know your market worth? The hassle is mostly prepping for the interviews. If I can't cut out that step, I am basically being saved the effort of cleaning up my desk and going to a new one.
- kevinmchugh 5y ago
  Talk to your friends and coworkers about salaries. No one needs to reveal where they're at, but just talk about what the market's paying for relevant employees. Also ask them if their company is hiring and has reasonable interviewing practices. Not everyone makes candidates jump through hoops.
  - pc86 5y ago
    Everyone revealing where they're at exactly (cash + bonus + stock + extra perks/PTO/whatever), while potentially a little uncomfortable in the beginning, is better for everyone long-term. I used to be against it, if only because I was typically at the top of the pay band for my role so had little to "gain" from the practice, but I've come around the last couple years. There's really very little downside, even if you're a top performer. 1. People who are legitimately being taken advantage of can more quickly realize it and either work to correct it or leave. 2. Top earners should be able to justify their outsized compensation to others, including peers. 3. Some people just legitimately don't know you can negotiate things like non-discretionary bonuses, extra PTO, etc. 4. Maybe your company pays everyone below-market, not just you, and at least knowing this will make it easier to decide if it's worth the lower pay (for QOL/WLB or whatever) or if you want to leave.
    - SaltyBackendGuy 5y ago

Aeolun 5y ago

I can get a free salary raise of 3% when staying, or 20% when leaving. To be fair, I took their matching counteroffer, but that would not have happened without me leaving in the first place.

srvance 5y ago
I make it clear that things aren't working as soon as I can without giving ultimatums. If that isn't enough to trigger a response, then a desperate counter-offer is doing it for the wrong reasons.

nly 5y ago

Beyond a threshold salary, where your lifestyle is already comfortable, salary is unlikely to be the primary reason you look for a new job. Even if your current employer match, it's probably better long term for you to move on with your career and garner broader experience