I've always attempted to hold up a mirror at each job and ask myself if I could justify my salary if I were in my bosses/company's shoes. I left one job specifically because once I got there, it became apparent that my manager had obtained permission to hire just because she was belly aching about not having as many people on her team as another peer. There wasn't enough work. I was bored. To even hire me, they had to move my title up from the original advertised level to meet my pay requirements. I found another job within 5 months that launched whatever measure of "success" that I've had.People really don't like to hear it for some reason, but I'll say again that the best way to define corporate profit is the sum of how much it underpays its employees. Employees should understand that minimizing the payroll is the chief concern of every large enterprise, including that they will let the best employees leave to maintain the system. To maximize your pay, you need to know what you can get. It's not as simple as just demanding a raise. It's a never ending campaign. But the flip side of that is the more you make the more you're a target.
I personally do not recommend trying to maximize your pay. Work your manager so that you're not getting screwed, but there are better things in life than 10% more pay and what it takes to get it (and the career risks with it).
As for the second issue, yeah that is a tough one, if you are feeling like you need to hide salary from your 17 or 18yo kid. I don't understand why it would need to be hidden, but if you have your reasons, then, yeah, that makes it tough to hide salary.
It may surprise you based on what I've written, but I've long held the view that I'm only underpaid the second I have another offer that I'm willing to take. They're not paying me not to leave, they're paying me to not bother to look and interview.In some cases. However, the change jobs routine for more pay only works for so long. At some point, more productive people tend to get recognized. When I had a lot of employees, I had many with the same title that did not make the same pay. It was based on productivity, which was typically a mix of capability+experience+diligence+intangibles. I had clear, achievable goals and deliverables and they all did similar work on different projects so it was quite easy to tell who produced the most. I'm all about fair pay, however, equal and fair are not the same thing.
Also, I never negotiated people leaving. I knew I paid them fairly so if they were planning to leave, I respected their decision. I've also never used another job offer to try to leverage more salary out of my current employer. If I have decided to leave, it is for reasons and I'm not going to be bargained with after making that decision.
I did say that people hate to hear it. But its not. Every task an employee does adds value. That value minus the pay, equals profit. It is oversimplified, but it's true.That's just completely detached from economic reality.
True, that's why it's an oversimplification. But even for that, some employee built the asset, or identified it for purchase, etc.Even in a service business, there are assets, both tangible and intangible, that are producing value.
Lol.If you could only make a profit by underpaying employees you wouldn't have any firms at all.
yes, but most have the same ones. Most even use the same company or two to give them their salary ranges! Almost all HR benefits and compensation schemes are identical these days at big companies. Small businesses often do their own thing.Different firms have different compensation philosophies.
LolMinimizing payroll is not going to be the chief concern of most large enterprises.
I'm not trying to be absolute about it. It's just the most simple way to define it. It's not wrong, people just hate the implications.Certainly payroll is a big cost for most firms, and it's certainly true that for some positions at some firms, they would rather let a good employee leave than give up relatively centralized control of compensation. I would agree with basically everything else, just not the absolutes.
About 2 years. But can you move, what are those costs? Can your lifestyle handle a layoff? And hate to break it to you, but the risk of being an HR target is not just a layoff. Getting another job when HR is against you is a problem.I don't now. 10% is a lot over time. I don't disagree that you don't want to be an employee that's always asking for more and there are risks to being relatively highly compensated for a position. But if you're overpaid by 10% for 15 years and then get laid off, how long do you have to be unemployed to undo that 10%?
Agreed.I think a somewhat similar line of advice would be to live your life financially based on the compensation at a job you feel confident you could get in 30 days. So if you're a waiter at a chain restaurant, you can presumably go get another similarly paying job. If you are a VP of a bank in a small town, you probably need to think about what it looks like if you lose your job and whether you could quickly replace that income without having to relocate. Not only will this make sure you save sufficiently, it will be much less stressful for you.
Your employer committed a federal offense.I was told not to discuss my salary here at my place of employment.
I've prepped those calcs and I've audited those calcs. They aren't lying. Well, they could be but it's an easy call out by auditors even doing basic verification. But that metric is largely garbage without stratification. I'd rather know who is being rewarded well and who is just keeping up with inflation.My conspiracy theory is that when big companies say they gave out X.X% average raises this year, that they're lying.
Why would an auditor be checking a claim that's not an official statistic? Hell, it's usually not written down, just stated by management.I've prepped those calcs and I've audited those calcs. They aren't lying. Well, they could be but it's an easy call out by auditors even doing basic verification. But that metric is largely garbage without stratification. I'd rather know who is being rewarded well and who is just keeping up with inflation.
We hired this kid last year as an entry level IT tech. Maybe 25. He came out and asked me one day what I made. Said he just wanted to know what he could expect when he had my level of experience. I told him that's not an appropriate topic. He said "Why?" and "If I ask HR do you think they'll tell me?".I grew up in a household where I had no idea what my parents made. Still don't know the exact number nor care to but I have an idea.
Younger people at my place of work will discuss their salary out in the open. Is this now the norm or was it just my family that kept those kind of things private?
rich kid? Had an ex-coworker that grew up with zero concept of what things cost. Spent company money like it was mommy’s credit card.We hired this kid last year as an entry level IT tech. Maybe 25. He came out and asked me one day what I made. Said he just wanted to know what he could expect when he had my level of experience. I told him that's not an appropriate topic. He said "Why?" and "If I ask HR do you think they'll tell me?".
To be fair though, I also have to tell him not to order alcohol at lunch or order two desserts or an extra meal to take home when the company pays. This guy just has zero social awareness. I wasn't sure if it was just him being awkward and weird or if it's the generation as a whole. With your question, I'm leaning towards generational now.
oldmanshakeshandatcloud dot gif
It'll show up in MD&A sections of filings as explanations for periodic variances in various P&L lines if management find it helpful for understanding. Doesn't really show up in "official statistics" (assume you are referring to the audited financials and disclosures) that requires an audit opinion but auditors still review it to make sure it's not conflicting with the audited information it is meant to supplement.Why would an auditor be checking a claim that's not an official statistic? Hell, it's usually not written down, just stated by management.
Asking about the money part is possibly generational. Asking about your salary in particular rather than asking for ranges is likely him being socially inept. Take some pity on him and coach him about how he should have approached that situation, and no "that's not an appropriate topic" is not coaching. It doesn't give him any context or give him any idea of how to approach getting the information he's interested in without crossing unstated boundaries. People like that aren't likely to ever be socially adept, but they can accumulate enough examples of what to do and not to do that they can delay showing their ineptness until they have built some credibility and goodwill with people. It's not like anybody chooses to be socially inept anymore than people choose to be dumb.We hired this kid last year as an entry level IT tech. Maybe 25. He came out and asked me one day what I made. Said he just wanted to know what he could expect when he had my level of experience. I told him that's not an appropriate topic. He said "Why?" and "If I ask HR do you think they'll tell me?".
To be fair though, I also have to tell him not to order alcohol at lunch or order two desserts or an extra meal to take home when the company pays. This guy just has zero social awareness. I wasn't sure if it was just him being awkward and weird or if it's the generation as a whole. With your question, I'm leaning towards generational now.
oldmanshakeshandatcloud dot gif
#humblebragI don't even know what the 17 I make. My CPA may be the only human on the planet that has any idea.
It'll show up in MD&A sections of filings as explanations for periodic variances in various P&L lines if management find it helpful for understanding. Doesn't really show up in "official statistics" (assume you are referring to the audited financials and disclosures) that requires an audit opinion but auditors still review it to make sure it's not conflicting with the audited information it is meant to supplement.
They would say they asked employees not to divulge pay info, not ordered them not to. Completely legal to ask, so it would never hold up in court.Your employer committed a federal offense.
That obviously wasn't the entire convesation that we had on the issue.Asking about the money part is possibly generational. Asking about your salary in particular rather than asking for ranges is likely him being socially inept. Take some pity on him and coach him about how he should have approached that situation, and no "that's not an appropriate topic" is not coaching. It doesn't give him any context or give him any idea of how to approach getting the information he's interested in without crossing unstated boundaries. People like that aren't likely to ever be socially adept, but they can accumulate enough examples of what to do and not to do that they can delay showing their ineptness until they have built some credibility and goodwill with people. It's not like anybody chooses to be socially inept anymore than people choose to be dumb.
I'm not sure, honestly. If I had to guess,though, I'd say he's not.rich kid? Had an ex-coworker that grew up with zero concept of what things cost. Spent company money like it was mommy’s credit card.
I'm only referring to the publicly filed stuff, not what HR may be selling you. Management will often publicly explain what's driving a year over year increase or decrease in salaries and wages with commentary similar to how they would with a revenue delta. They'll break out the volume (headcount change due to whatever demand is forcing) and price (avg compensation change due to what market/inflation is driving) and have that explain the net $ movement.
Yeah, I don't follow the financial mumbo jumbo. If management makes the verbal claim that raises were 3%, but really (officially) they were 5%, theyre just saying 3 so people think they got better than avaerage when they didnt, why would an auditor be checking that? How would an auditor even know?
I'll have to check old emails to see if my Corp puts that in writing.
Well said, and while there are undoubtedly some poor employers out there, I think that there’s a pretty gross misconception that employers’ unwillingness to publicize salaries is all about money hoarding and sticking it to the little man.I get the point, but it's just not the apples and oranges comparison people want it to be. Case in point, when I left one management job for a promotion, they let me recommend my replacement. I recommended a woman I had hired just a couple of years prior. They made her an offer. she came to me asking what I was making in that position, and at first I didn't want to tell her because I knew they would have offered her less because she hired on at a rate way below what I was making. Eventually I told her, and she became irate saying they offered her x amount less "because she is a woman". I explained to her, no, they offered you less because you were already making way less. You had been with the company 2 years, where I was with the company 10 years so I had already worked my salary up from various promotions and other experiences. I did a better job negotiating, because frankly I didn't need the job or the headache that came with it as I was happy in my previous job before they asked me to take that position (I didn't even apply for it, they came to me so I had a lot of leverage). I could go on and on, but it had nothing to do with her being a woman. It was something she perceived, and still perceives to this day. People/companies really just don't care anymore. Can you do the job? If yes, you can have it. They will look at your experience, your skills, your current situation, and a lot of other factors to come up with a compensation package to offer you. It's just like anything else - they will try to get you for the minimum amount they think you'll take. If they really want you, negotiating will be fairly easy. If they consider you just one of several/many that can fill the role appropriately, then your offer will reflect that and you may not have much negotiating power. You can have 100 senior engineers all with the same years of experience, and all 100 of them are different. You'll have some worth a lot, and plenty worth next to nothing. Many will be in the middle. Thinking you can or should pay them all the exact same is naive at best.
It is certainly a recent development. I graduated State and started the real world in 2005. It was not like this when I started my career. As an employer, I assume that everybody knows what everybody makes.I grew up in a household where I had no idea what my parents made. Still don't know the exact number nor care to but I have an idea.
Younger people at my place of work will discuss their salary out in the open. Is this now the norm or was it just my family that kept those kind of things private?
And also supervisors.As you said, comparing salary between employee A and employee B is rarely as cut and dry as people want to make it, and no one’s more aware of this than local HR.
My mom was a health admin for the state. Her salary was publicly posted. My dad idk, I have a idea, but he did alot of side gigs.I grew up in a household where I had no idea what my parents made. Still don't know the exact number nor care to but I have an idea.
Younger people at my place of work will discuss their salary out in the open. Is this now the norm or was it just my family that kept those kind of things private?
I am curious to hear from those who hide or won’t talk about their salary to their older children, what the reason or reasonI am curious to hear from those who hide or won’t talk about their salary to their older children, what the reason is.
like, what is the downside of discussing that? This obviously assumes the kids are old enough to have an understanding of basic finances.
Productive knowledge can be powerful.
I feel kids don't have a good sense of where money goes, so to say "we make X dollars" is to invite thought of "well you make more than enough to buy Y".I am curious to hear from those who hide or won’t talk about their salary to their older children, what the reason or reasonI am curious to hear from those who hide or won’t talk about their salary to their older children, what the reason is.
like, what is the downside of discussing that? This obviously assumes the kids are old enough to have an understanding of basic finances.
Productive knowledge can be powerful.
Smart man but I think with friends and family they already know where you stand on politics but with acquaintances/customers - most anyway, probably not a good idea.Was told by my grandfather to never discuss how much money you make or who you vote for, it can only lead to arguments / resentment. I've always lived by that and have encouraged my kids to do the same.
( last person I ever knew with a real non-government pension)