Hacker News Reader

Comment by jader201 | Hacker News Reader

I generally disagree. I always feel that it sets a bad precedent by relieving those in charge of having to take the initiative to recognize and reward the efforts of their employees.

If they are too busy to make sure I'm not having to question my value, I would rather find another employer that may not have this issue.

Having said that, money is one of the last things that cause me to leave a job. If I enjoy what I'm doing and the people I work with, it usually doesn't matter (as much) what raises I receive.

I also recognize everyone is different. This is just my preference and what works for me.

View on HN

> "Having said that, money is one of the last things that cause me to leave a job. If I enjoy what I'm doing and the people I work with, it usually doesn't matter (as much) what raises I receive."

I had a conversation with a friend very recently about how our company handles counter offers.

"They don't believe in counter offers."

"Don't... don't believe in them? What's there to believe in?"

"That's what they say."

"That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard!"

"I dunno, it kinda makes sense to me."

"What?!"

"Well, the reasoning is if you're only there for the money, then why would they want you?"

"It's a JOB! Of course I'm there for the money. Otherwise I'd be doing it for fucking free! What if the money is the only thing keeping me from fucking leaving?!"

"Hm... yeah, that's a good point."

I don't know when or how one's passion became some sort of counterpoint to their compensation. Just because I love what I do doesn't mean I don't deserve more money. It means I'm lucky enough to be driven far beyond most, and endowed with a greater amount of ability, and thus a rare and valuable member of the team.

If money is so unimportant they should be a non-profit paying everyone as much as they possibly can.

Oh you can't do that? Right, so money IS important then..

The best part is the CEO, the executive teams right down even to the middle management won't move a match stick unless there is some bonus, stock incentive or a pay component attached to it.

Yet they expect nearly every one else shouldn't have any financial expectations at all.

They only do that because some people are destructively naïve and buy it hook, line and sinker. No one actually believes those things. It's just a clever strategy which is more palatable than "no" if you don't read between the lines.

To me, money was always the least consideration. The content of the work, how much I'd learn, the atmosphere and co-workers, open source or not, that was generally what made me pick one job over another. Often when I had several offers, I ended up picking the lowest.

And yet, when I've worked there for two years and learned a lot and did some good things there, and I still haven't gotten a raise, I don't feel appreciated. And when I don't feel appreciated, I look for something else.

In my experience, I've found that the times I want more money falls into a few categories:

1) Cost of Living - This can change bc of higher rent, getting married, having a kid or a million other things

2) I'm unhappy about something else - When I have another issue with my work, it often leads to what many people have said in other comments..."I'm not paid enough for this" which can take many different forms. Addressing this is much more important than whatever financial increase you do or do not get in asking for it.

3) Envy - If you find out all your peers at similar stage companies are paid more than you, or that your coworkers are, you'll probably want a raise.

In my experience, #2 is actually the most common that leads you leave and even if you get the raise, a manager needs to make sure they treat the condition (whatever is bothering you) not just the symptom (I want more compensation for my work).

Huh. It's easier to go find an entirely new job than to just knock on your employer's office door and ask to have a quick chat about your compensation?

If that kind of interaction makes you uncomfortable, I guess you probably should go find another job since you might not have a great relationship with your company.

In my experience, the issue that I see is that after asking for a raise or more compensation the response is that "they will look into it". Weeks later, no one gets back to you. At which point its time to move on.

A ll too common as a way of ripping people off, unfortunately.

Sometimes they are actually trying, if the problem is internal politics preventing paying staff properly, but more often they're hoping you'll either forget about it or leave instead.

Both are good reasons to leave. It doesn't matter if your direct superiors disrespect you, or disrespect is more institutionalized higher up the chain.

It's not that it's easier, it's that most likely the raise will be 20% minimum, and you're probably looking because of other reasons in addition to the money ("I'm getting paid chump change to deal with this? I'm done"). If you're really good, all it takes is a few phone calls to a recruiter you already know, an interview that week, and your notice on Friday.

> If you're really good, all it takes is a few phone calls to a recruiter you already know, an interview that week, and your notice on Friday.

That sounds like the kind of job hunt that puts you into the exact same position of frustration.

Depends. My best job came from a recruiter. In a larger company, the people who you'll be working with and the people managing the hiring process aren't the same. I'd imagine that transistion takes place the second there is someone to handle HR things. Afterall, the team that's hiring probably wouldn't be hiring if they had time to deal with it.

Not always. That's essentially what I did to get my current job.

I think this is somewhat related to the concept of 'managing upwards'. While it might not be hard to tell people "I should be making more money", it should also not be difficult for a good manager to recognize "hey, this guy should be making more money". For me, there would not be a scenario where I'm asking my manager for more money but I'm also satisfied with the relationship with my company, because part of my job satisfaction in relation to my company is recognition of my efforts in the form of salary compensation.

I (personally) feel that there's an implicit understanding with my employer, wherein my above and beyond efforts will result in increased compensation. If I feel like I've been clearly outperforming my compensation level and that's not recognized, I'm more likely to search for a new job than to ask for a raise, because my current employer has already failed to meet their end of the bargain.

This exactly. It IS easier because when it comes to a new company, you've only got one problem - the salary. When it comes to your existing company there are two problems. The money, but also the fact that you're having to ask for it. The more you deserve it the more awkward the conversation becomes since the ask itself is evidence of a management failure. In extreme cases, making the request can be as uncomfortable as having to reapply for a job you've already got.

In a well-run shop, managers have a very good idea as to who is worth what, and how much the company stands to lose if they lose good people. Staying one step ahead of this curve is a fundamental part of their jobs as a managers.

Obviously, the rules are a bit different in an early-stage start-up where the founders are doing everything at once and hoping something connects. But once an operation has hit cruising altitude, you really shouldn't have to ask for a raise if you're actually worth what your asking.

"I (personally) feel that there's an implicit understanding with my employer, wherein my above and beyond efforts will result in increased compensation."

Your expectations around compensation should be based on explicit not implicit understandings. Making assumptions about how your emploeyer is going to make decisions about your compensation is not only likely to lead to disappointment, it's a poor way to maximize your salary if that's what you're interested in.

Simple answer, yes.

Most startups will hire (or push for hiring) a "senior person" at the "maximum rate allowed by the board". This includes a mix of stock/yearly comp.

Depending on hiring circumstances you can potentially push this. If there is a need, the will find a way to make things work out.

Once hired, from the employees perspective, it becomes a game of maintaining expectations. Unfortunately for the employee, in the case of startups (especially early), the expectations are quite high and any extra effort is tied in to the initial offer/hiring agreement.

Early stage startups are a gamble. There are often unexpected twists and turns. If you agree to X and Y at time T, three months down the line, the expectations at time U may be much greater.

As a non founding employee, your initial contract starts when you join with the expectations around the company when you joined. Carrying those same expectations along the way if the company is not growing in the same manner as you expected is a detriment to yourself.

When you realize this, it is time to re-evaluate and decide what is right for your current situation.

Does if fit your initial agreement? Then maybe you continue. If it doesn't, you need to consider renegotiating or looking elsewhere...

If my employer requires me to come and ask about compensation it means one of two things.

a) They don't value the work I am doing.

b) I am not doing work that is valuable enough to be noticed.

Both options mean it is time to look elsewhere.

Companies aren't interested in negotiating promotions or pay increases anymore. I went from making $30k/year 4 years ago to $200k/year now, and not one time in that course was it from a raise.

And people say jumping from job to job looks bad. If it does, I sure as shit haven't seen that side of it.

Sadly true.

Some companies are willing to keep up, because they don't want to replace employees, but for most, it's cheaper to hire someone underpaid for a year or so until they jump ship, then repeat.

I have a great relationship with my company - I enjoy my job, I get on with my colleagues and my boss - but it's still incredibly socially awkward to ask someone for money. (Whereas interviewing elsewhere means they've offered money first)

"If they are too busy to make sure I'm not having to question my value, I would rather find another employer that may not have this issue."

Honest question: have you quantified your value to your current employer in dollar terms?

A lot of people I know say they're worth $x because that's what another company might pay them, but I can count on one hand the number of these people who actually did the math on how much revenue/profit their employer derived from their work.

Most employees don't directly contribute to revenue and are largely replaceable. Assuming their position cannot be eliminated, that is, the decision to have that position in the first place is reasonable, they are worth approximately what their replacements would cost in salary and training. Thinking of your worth as being largely determined by what another company might pay for you (or a similar employee) is generally reasonable, unless you're directly responsible for some portion of the revenue in ways that are not replaceable, which is true of very few people.

If you're trying to estimate your worth to your current employer, you may be better off estimating how much they would pay for a replacement (and how urgent the search would be) if you were to leave.

The value to another company, whilst interesting to see if you're at the right place, doesn't necessarily help figure out your negotiation position if you'd prefer not to move.

At a previous employer, I did some work, over a three year period. (Custom reporting system, nationwide, 10,000 people fortune 500. The system was used by hundreds of managers and above, and professional workers (think 7 years of college or more). Shortly before we were laid off (the IT dept was outsourced to Cognizant), there was a bid for re-writing the system. Cognizant came back with a quote for $20,000,000. Yes, that's 20 million dollars. That was in late 2008. As of last year, a director there told me they are still using my system, 4 years after I left, and zero maintenance had been required.

I made 65,000 per year for four years. What do you think I should have made, money-wise?

At my current gig, same thing. Billions of dollars at stake, and I single-handedly design, build, deploy (one-click -- the power of scripting) and maintain systems used by over 1000 people, from executives to line workers. What is my true worth to the org? Do you think they would pay be $900,000 a year? Even at that rate, they would still make money off my work.

I can't tell you what you should have made but unlike a lot of the people who are constantly whining about how they are underpaid because they have a friend at Google making $150,000/year, you actually did the math and can argue for your value. :-)

I see where you're coming from. In a way, you have a point, and in another, you don't :) You've provided massive value to the business, but on the other hand, other people made your job possible probably by working pretty damn hard.

Start your own business and keep all the profits you earn.

You're right: other people made my work possible. They put computers on my desk, paid for (nice) offices, paid the power, air conditioning, water bills, stocked the coffee room, emptied the trash, etc. They also insured the software was licensed, the laser printers were fast, stocked, and maintained. They paid the networking bills, etc. All these things I would have to do myself if I ran my own business, and I could not possibly do them as well and as cost-effectively as people who specialize in that work.

This leads to why small businesses are hard: the owner has to do everything themselves, and at many things, they are bad.

At my current company, I give the car to the free valet in the garage, grab a cup of tea, walk to my desk and sit down and work, without worrying about all the infrastructure stuff.

> They put computers on my desk, paid for (nice) offices, paid the power, air conditioning

True, but more importantly, before all of that, they made something people want to pay for and acquired enough customers to pay for that shit, and for lots of salaries too.

That's a good accomplishment, unless they're part of some government-supported cartel etc. There are plenty of those too.

You need to save up enough money that you can live for a year without an income, quit your job and start consulting. At least if money is important to you.

I notify my employers every time a recruiter pings me. I often sell consulting services for my company to the companies recruiters put me into touch with.

I agree with you except that money is one of the first things that would cause me to leave a job. Quality of work comes before this.

Others reasons being: freedom to experiment, work culture, flexibility, and being respected as a person not just as an employee.

As I mentioned below, it is a mixed bag. But if you are feeling that your current situation is not amenable to what you can actually make, if it makes sense (culture is open to it, people have been busy, environment has changed) -- talk with your manager and above (founders) (depending on your position) first.

The minute you enter the realm of "counter offers" you have more than just business interests at play.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com