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.
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.
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".)
Did you or that guy already have another job lined up, or did you just walk?
Also, when you decided to leave, did you give your former employer 4 months notice or was it less (the standard 2 weeks) and it grew to 4 months? If you already had accepted the other job, how did you handle pushing back your start date with them?
I'm curious, because I'm currently entertaining changing jobs. More money isn't the main reason, it's because I want to work on more modern technologies, and my current job is stuck in the mid-1990's.
I'd also be interested in any details you'd be willing to share about these fallouts.
I don't know about the other guy. I can't imagine it would have been hard for him to work.
I was moving between projects in the same company for technical reasons; my salary and position didn't change. The flippant raise offer was from the program I was leaving; it wasn't serious and it wasn't possible. Everyone knew that.
In spite of the bitter tone of my post, I've enjoyed working where I do and do my best to make transitions smooth. I, the program I was leaving, and the program I was going to got together and figured out what seemed best for everyone. We agreed to 4 months of support. What actually happened is that a couple months after I left, they called in a panic. . . and I ended up supporting them on Fridays for about 18 months thereafter, before finally weaning them.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
Comments
Nice. Now if you want a 10% raise this year, it's easy to say, "everyone at Google got one..."
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.
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.
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".)
I'm sorry but when you reach that kind of situation, you have a huge HR problem.
But this seems to be fairly common among the mid-to-large size companies.
Wouldn't you get stuck in a loop though? I demand a raise today or I'll quit so I'm given $X to pacify me. What stops me doing the same next week?
Whether you're actually worth $X.
> (Man, now I want to get a business card that lists my title as "Technical Prostitute".)
http://www.thatwasfunny.com/differences-between-consulting-a...
Why 17%?
Maybe so the raise could ultimately be 10-15% and the company would think they'd "won."
Probably added up to some round number, a psychological barrier.
There's no reason the percentage should be a "round" number :-)
Did you or that guy already have another job lined up, or did you just walk?
Also, when you decided to leave, did you give your former employer 4 months notice or was it less (the standard 2 weeks) and it grew to 4 months? If you already had accepted the other job, how did you handle pushing back your start date with them?
I'm curious, because I'm currently entertaining changing jobs. More money isn't the main reason, it's because I want to work on more modern technologies, and my current job is stuck in the mid-1990's.
I'd also be interested in any details you'd be willing to share about these fallouts.
I don't know about the other guy. I can't imagine it would have been hard for him to work.
I was moving between projects in the same company for technical reasons; my salary and position didn't change. The flippant raise offer was from the program I was leaving; it wasn't serious and it wasn't possible. Everyone knew that.
In spite of the bitter tone of my post, I've enjoyed working where I do and do my best to make transitions smooth. I, the program I was leaving, and the program I was going to got together and figured out what seemed best for everyone. We agreed to 4 months of support. What actually happened is that a couple months after I left, they called in a panic. . . and I ended up supporting them on Fridays for about 18 months thereafter, before finally weaning them.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
It does not change the point that they want to keep their talented staff at the lowest possible price....
True. There's a Dilbert about how the company wants the best staff in the industry, but pays the industry average salary.
http://www.dilbert.com/fast/1995-05-22/
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.
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?"
This wasn't a public announcement. It was an internal email that got leaked.
Well, it's public now, isn't it.