Languish.org

Prompted by the Governor of the BofE's pleas to the British people to not ask for a bit pay rise - and some polling by YouGov:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FLFRWDLXsAM9n8U?format=jpg&name=small)

I have never asked for a payrise :blush:

I voted Yes & I got one.

But I ask for one almost every year. I usually don't get it.

Nope, but have received several quite significant increases (beyond what I would have asked for myself :P ) when changing positions.

Austrian custom does give annual cost of living increases in most companies, though.

Have, and have gotten them. But the largest raises have always come from my job bouncing around.

I never asked directly, as in walking into the manager's office and going "Yo, gimme a raise".  That said, one year, during the annual review, I was informed that I would again be getting no raise, because no one in the company was.  I was also getting no raise for getting my designation, because I wasn't eligible for one.  I was asked what I thought about that, and I answered that I was wondering why I'm still working in this company.  Two weeks later I got a significant raise.

Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2022, 10:47:00 AMI was asked what I thought about that, and I answered that I was wondering why I'm still working in this company.

:cheers:

Strictly speaking no, although I have asked for promotions a couple of times, once subtly once in a fairly agitated state. :D Worked both times.

No, but I've never really been in a position to ask for one.

Several times, and got them. Duh.

Yes, I did, and no, I didn't.

Same as GF. I'm surprised at the 52% that have never asked, wtf.

Quote from: Zoupa on February 08, 2022, 11:58:26 AM
Same as GF. I'm surprised at the 52% that have never asked, wtf.

A lot of people are bad negotiators, and for things like that they're also up against trained negotiators who often have a lot more power in the relationship.  Being a good negotiator requires some tolerance for conflict. 

It's particularly tricky in this situation, because the person you'll be negotiating with is not a salesman that you didn't know yesterday and won't interact with tomorrow, but a person you need to maintain a good relationship with.  I think on a societal level it's a bad policy to require workers to have good negotiating skills to get their fair share, and negotiating is in general a wasteful zero-sum game.

Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2022, 12:05:58 PM
I think on a societal level it's a bad policy to require workers to have good negotiating skills to get their fair share, and negotiating is in general a wasteful zero-sum game.

We've talked about this before, and I still disagree completely. Without negotiation you are very unlikely to happen to hit on a good price.

Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2022, 12:05:58 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on February 08, 2022, 11:58:26 AM
Same as GF. I'm surprised at the 52% that have never asked, wtf.

A lot of people are bad negotiators, and for things like that they're also up against trained negotiators who often have a lot more power in the relationship.  Being a good negotiator requires some tolerance for conflict. 

I think that's why 52% of Brits have never asked for one.

I would struggle with it internally - which is weird because a lot of my job is negotiations which can absolutely involve conflict and friction but I'd struggle with people I work with.

Quote from: The Brain on February 08, 2022, 12:13:17 PM

Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2022, 12:05:58 PM
I think on a societal level it's a bad policy to require workers to have good negotiating skills to get their fair share, and negotiating is in general a wasteful zero-sum game.

We've talked about this before, and I still disagree completely. Without negotiation you are very unlikely to happen to hit on a good price.

Yes, I remember, and I guess I still disagree completely as well.  I think negotiation is a wasteful activity unless you're engaging in unique deals where there is no market price to anchor on, and I think it's a zero-sum game that lets the powerful entities scoop up most of the economic surplus from the deal.

Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2022, 12:23:04 PM

Quote from: The Brain on February 08, 2022, 12:13:17 PM

Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2022, 12:05:58 PM
I think on a societal level it's a bad policy to require workers to have good negotiating skills to get their fair share, and negotiating is in general a wasteful zero-sum game.

We've talked about this before, and I still disagree completely. Without negotiation you are very unlikely to happen to hit on a good price.

Yes, I remember, and I guess I still disagree completely as well.  I think negotiation is a wasteful activity unless you're engaging in unique deals where there is no market price to anchor on, and I think it's a zero-sum game that lets the powerful entities scoop up most of the economic surplus from the deal.

OK I give up.

Quote from: The Brain on February 08, 2022, 12:23:54 PM
OK I give up.

I was going to give up in my very next reply to you.  :mad:  Now I know for a fact that you're a great mind.

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 08, 2022, 12:21:06 PM

Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2022, 12:05:58 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on February 08, 2022, 11:58:26 AM
Same as GF. I'm surprised at the 52% that have never asked, wtf.

A lot of people are bad negotiators, and for things like that they're also up against trained negotiators who often have a lot more power in the relationship.  Being a good negotiator requires some tolerance for conflict. 

I think that's why 52% of Brits have never asked for one.

I would struggle with it internally - which is weird because a lot of my job is negotiations which can absolutely involve conflict and friction but I'd struggle with people I work with.

If your relationship with your boss is so toxic that you can't talk money without there being conflict and friction, then it's time to move on?

Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2022, 12:24:50 PM

Quote from: The Brain on February 08, 2022, 12:23:54 PM
OK I give up.

I was going to give up in my very next reply to you.  :mad:  Now I know for a fact that you're a great mind.

Damn logic. :angry:

Quote from: The Brain on February 08, 2022, 12:26:36 PM
If your relationship with your boss is so toxic that you can't talk money without there being conflict and friction, then it's time to move on?

We get on very well - I don't talk about money with anyone :ph34r:

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 08, 2022, 12:28:11 PM

Quote from: The Brain on February 08, 2022, 12:26:36 PM
If your relationship with your boss is so toxic that you can't talk money without there being conflict and friction, then it's time to move on?

We get on very well - I don't talk about money with anyone :ph34r:

Of course, my bad. :( Having grown up in a castle of course you've never had to. :bowler:

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 08, 2022, 12:28:11 PM

Quote from: The Brain on February 08, 2022, 12:26:36 PM
If your relationship with your boss is so toxic that you can't talk money without there being conflict and friction, then it's time to move on?

We get on very well - I don't talk about money with anyone :ph34r:

That's a mistake.

I've asked for raises a good number of times and I've always gotten them. I've used a number of different approaches depending on the situation.

Quote from: The Brain on February 08, 2022, 12:26:36 PM
If your relationship with your boss is so toxic that you can't talk money without there being conflict and friction, then it's time to move on?

Conflict doesn't necessarily mean profanity being uttered in anger or chairs being thrown.  It just means that you have conflicting goals.  Your manager would prefer to pay you what you're being paid, or otherwise they would've given you a raise without you asking.  When you ask for a raise, you're making it harder for them to reach their goals. 

Sometimes you can have conflicting goals without toxicity, but nevertheless people have a tendency to be wary of such situations, some much more than others.  Some people by nature of their personality want to minimize the number of situations that arise where their interests come at expense of other people's interests.

Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2022, 12:05:58 PM
I think on a societal level it's a bad policy to require workers to have good negotiating skills to get their fair share, and negotiating is in general a wasteful zero-sum game.

A few things:

Negotiation doesn't have to be a zero-sum game, even with salary.

I don't think it's accurate to frame negotiating salary as a policy. No one - and no body of people - is weighing the pros and cons of whether we should negotiate for salary or not.

There are options for workers who are uncomfortable negotiating for salary, and that's joining a union or other bargaining unit. That, of course, comes with a whole bunch of other implications. But at the core, the point of a union is to even out the bargaining positions of the involved parties a bit more than standard.

I don't see how negotiation is wasterful? It doesn't take very much time relative to the rest of the professional relationship, and negotiation generally produces better outcomes than not negotiating.

Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2022, 12:42:04 PM

Quote from: The Brain on February 08, 2022, 12:26:36 PM
If your relationship with your boss is so toxic that you can't talk money without there being conflict and friction, then it's time to move on?

Conflict doesn't necessarily mean profanity being uttered in anger or chairs being thrown.  It just means that you have conflicting goals.  Your manager would prefer to pay you what you're being paid, or otherwise they would've given you a raise without you asking.  When you ask for a raise, you're making it harder for them to reach their goals. 

Sometimes you can have conflicting goals without toxicity, but nevertheless people have a tendency to be wary of such situations, some much more than others.  Some people by nature of their personality want to minimize the number of situations that arise where their interests come at expense of other people's interests.

You're businesspersons. Doing business. If it gets personal then something in the relationship is a tad askew.

FWIW I don't think that workers should be forced to negotiate. If you don't want to do it then don't do it, by all means.

Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2022, 12:42:04 PM
Conflict doesn't necessarily mean profanity being uttered in anger or chairs being thrown.  It just means that you have conflicting goals.  Your manager would prefer to pay you what you're being paid, or otherwise they would've given you a raise without you asking.  When you ask for a raise, you're making it harder for them to reach their goals.

I don't think that's an accurate representation of the manager's goal. Assuming an industry where individuals are not immediately replacable and where people have some opportunity to find alternate jobs (even if it involves some effort), I think it's more accurate to say that the manager's objective is to pay you as little as possible to keep you happy and productive. And if you require more money than what you're currently making to remain happy and productive, it is in the manager's interest to find out whether what you require is within their available budget - and if it is, to pay you that.

If not increasing your pay keeps you happy and productive, then it's in the manager's interest to keep you at your current salary. If giving you an increase of X% is the difference between you leaving (or just doing a lousy job) or not, it may very well be the manager's preference to give you that increase.

The process of negotiation is figuring that out, and dealing with the consequences of that.

QuoteSometimes you can have conflicting goals without toxicity, but nevertheless people have a tendency to be wary of such situations, some much more than others.  Some people by nature of their personality want to minimize the number of situations that arise where their interests come at expense of other people's interests.

Yeah, there's no toxicity required.

What I'm not clear on what sort of process you're proposing for dealing with legitimately conflicting interests?

Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2022, 12:44:23 PM
I don't see how negotiation is wasterful? It doesn't take very much time relative to the rest of the professional relationship, and negotiation generally produces better outcomes than not negotiating.

It's wasteful on a societal level, because whatever you gain somebody else loses in equal amount.  If you get a $10k raise from your employer, your employer's profits decrease by $10k (let's ignore all the complications like taxes and so on).  It's not an activity that collectively increases societal wealth, it just shifts it.  However, the time spent on all matters relating to negotiation could've been spent creating something that does increase the collective wealth.  It's an arms race to win a greater share of a pie whose quantity is fixed.

For a more extreme example, imagine that every time you go shopping, you have to negotiate the price of everything, like a carton of eggs, because you know that everything starts off being overpriced by approximately a factor of two or so, but you know that with effort the store has room to go down to meet you.  I think it would be a great waste in aggregate to have everyone haggling every single time, even if some savvy negotiators could really save on their food costs.

Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2022, 12:52:24 PM
What I'm not clear on what sort of process you're proposing for dealing with legitimately conflicting interests?

Published pay scales with narrow bands for commoditized jobs.  Good negotiator or bad negotiator, you know what you're going to get, and you know that you're not taken advantage of because you're lacking information.

As a rule of thumb, though, a company won't pay you as much as you're worth to them. If you cost them more than they earn through you (or how much they *think* they earn through you :P ) they will generally try to find cheaper solutions.

Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2022, 12:55:08 PM

Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2022, 12:44:23 PM
I don't see how negotiation is wasterful? It doesn't take very much time relative to the rest of the professional relationship, and negotiation generally produces better outcomes than not negotiating.

It's wasteful on a societal level, because whatever you gain somebody else loses in equal amount.  If you get a $10k raise from your employer, your employer's profits decrease by $10k (let's ignore all the complications like taxes and so on).  It's not an activity that collectively increases societal wealth, it just shifts it.  However, the time spent on all matters relating to negotiation could've been spent creating something that does increase the collective wealth.  It's an arms race to win a greater share of a pie whose quantity is fixed.

You don't see the advantages of arriving at a price that both parties are OK with, for the parties and for society? The disadvantages of deals that needlessly fall through? Workers who stay too long or quit too soon?

I don't think that your manager spends much time thinking about your pay at all, and those who object to you bringing it up are probably objecting because they feel guilty.

I've worked mostly in organizations that have regular performance reviews, and so have mostly gotten raised as a result of those.  I've only asked for a raise once that I can recall, and that was when I realized that a new job had a lot more time involved than I'd been led to believe.

Quote from: Syt on February 08, 2022, 12:58:49 PM
As a rule of thumb, though, a company won't pay you as much as you're worth to them. If you cost them more than they earn through you (or how much they *think* they earn through you :P ) they will generally try to find cheaper solutions.

No, and they shouldn't.  Every economic transaction has a band, which I think is called economic surplus, where a deal is mutually beneficial.  If your time is worth $40 an hour, and the company gets $80 an hour of benefit from you, then any salary between $40 and $80 an hour is going to be acceptable to both parties.  The problem is that the entity with greater negotiating power (or skill) can tug all the economic surplus in their direction, so instead of settling in the middle like $60 an hour, you may wind up at $45 an hour.

Quote from: The Brain on February 08, 2022, 12:59:13 PM
You don't see the advantages of arriving at a price that both parties are OK with, for the parties and for society?

There is a range of prices where both parties are OK with it, economically speaking.

A lot of jobs have raises that come automatically with COLA and/or seniority and otherwise only through promotion.  I'm not surprised by that 52%.

I've never been in a position Where it was appropriate.

Minimum wage jobs? Lol no. Though it did come automatically with age and inflation.
One job it was yearly contract renewals with the same set pay for everyone.
Another it was 2 yearly contracts. In hindsight I probably shouldn't have seen them through to the end but the pay was decent and it seemed to lead on elsewhere.
Another...i was there less than a year.
Then my last job I automatically got a pay rise.
This job... I don't plan to ask for a pay rise in itself but I have made clear since before I was hired my eyes are on a higher position, and when it comes to that it better have a pay rise attached-would be surprised if it doesn't.

Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2022, 01:04:47 PM

Quote from: The Brain on February 08, 2022, 12:59:13 PM
You don't see the advantages of arriving at a price that both parties are OK with, for the parties and for society?

There is a range of prices where both parties are OK with it, economically speaking.

Yes?

Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2022, 12:55:08 PM
It's wasteful on a societal level, because whatever you gain somebody else loses in equal amount.  If you get a $10k raise from your employer, your employer's profits decrease by $10k (let's ignore all the complications like taxes and so on).  It's not an activity that collectively increases societal wealth, it just shifts it.  However, the time spent on all matters relating to negotiation could've been spent creating something that does increase the collective wealth.  It's an arms race to win a greater share of a pie whose quantity is fixed.

I'm not sure I agree here. I don't think it's nearly as clear cut as that.

The value of any given job - and the profit derived from it - shifts on a continual basis. New efficiencies are found, people get better at their jobs, the client situation changes, and so on. There's also the potential cost incurred from finding a replacement, which should be factored into the employer's calculations.

QuoteFor a more extreme example, imagine that every time you go shopping, you have to negotiate the price of everything, like a carton of eggs, because you know that everything starts off being overpriced by approximately a factor of two or so, but you know that with effort the store has room to go down to meet you.  I think it would be a great waste in aggregate to have everyone haggling every single time, even if some savvy negotiators could really save on their food costs.

Some places are like that... some cultures, and some parts of the market. Where it has shifted, I don't think it has anything to do with efficiency and much more to do with the size of the market, convenience, competition, and cultural practices.

Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2022, 12:58:38 PM
Published pay scales with narrow bands for commoditized jobs.  Good negotiator or bad negotiator, you know what you're going to get, and you know that you're not taken advantage of because you're lacking information.

Who would publish these bands?

How would they account for regional differences? How would they account for efficiency differences making the value of similar jobs different at different companies? How would you account for individual preferences in terms of job role and required non-monetary compensation? How do you account for subtly different distribution of roles and responsibilities for similar job titles at different companies - or even within the same company? How do you respond to rapid - or subtle - or regional shifts in demand and supply? How do you account for valuable non-standard competences that are not captured in a role description, but are nonetheless is crucial for a given individual position?

How frequently would the bands be updated, and by whom? How would you prevent groups or organizations from unduly influencing the published bands?

I mean... there is a model. In Northern Europe (at least, they may do it elsewhere too) there are regular negotiations between Industry Groups and large unions to set the pay scales and other contract details across entire industries. It does seems sensible to me, actually, but I don't know how realistic it is to introduce that model elsewhere.

Quote from: The Brain on February 08, 2022, 01:08:11 PM

Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2022, 01:04:47 PM

Quote from: The Brain on February 08, 2022, 12:59:13 PM
You don't see the advantages of arriving at a price that both parties are OK with, for the parties and for society?

There is a range of prices where both parties are OK with it, economically speaking.

Yes?

Negotiation is generally not about finding yourself in the acceptable range, but rather about getting the best you can get within the range.  Getting into the range is not the tricky part; if you're not in it, then one of the parties has a no-brainer decision regardless of negotiating skill or power.

Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2022, 01:19:53 PM

Quote from: The Brain on February 08, 2022, 01:08:11 PM

Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2022, 01:04:47 PM

Quote from: The Brain on February 08, 2022, 12:59:13 PM
You don't see the advantages of arriving at a price that both parties are OK with, for the parties and for society?

There is a range of prices where both parties are OK with it, economically speaking.

Yes?

Negotiation is generally not about finding yourself in the acceptable range, but rather about getting the best you can get within the range.

Not my experience. YMMV

Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2022, 01:19:45 PM
Who would publish these bands?

Employers.  You put up a job description for a position you're trying to fill, you put the the pay scale in it with actual numbers, and a narrow enough band so you don't just get around it with $0-$10,000,000 nonsense.  The job candidates know what they're applying for, and people already working for the employer can check what the new employees are going to get.  You can except executive and professional jobs, or something like that, or require a certain percentage of your jobs to have published pay scales.  Some states in the US are actually moving in that direction, and I think that's a great thing.

Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2022, 01:24:53 PM

Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2022, 01:19:45 PM
Who would publish these bands?

Employers.  You put up a job description, you put the the pay scale in it with actual numbers, and a narrow enough band so you don't just get around it with $0-$10,000,000 nonsense.  The job candidates know what they're applying for, and people already working for the employer can check what the new employees are going to get.  You can except executive and professional jobs, or something like that, or require a certain percentage of your jobs to have published pay scales.  Some states in the US are actually moving in that direction, and I think that's a great thing.

This would at best be horribly inefficient, and there is no problem that it solves.

Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2022, 01:24:53 PM
Employers.  You put up a job description for a position you're trying to fill, you put the the pay scale in it with actual numbers, and a narrow enough band so you don't just get around it with $0-$10,000,000 nonsense.  The job candidates know what they're applying for, and people already working for the employer can check what the new employees are going to get.  You can except executive and professional jobs, or something like that, or require a certain percentage of your jobs to have published pay scales.  Some states in the US are actually moving in that direction, and I think that's a great thing.

Ah yeah, I think that's fine. Publish how much you're willing to pay seems like a reasonable idea.

But I don't think it changes the fact that there'll be negotiations? I mean, if they say the range of pay is $90,000 - $120,000 or whatever, then presumably there'll some negotiation within that band?

And it does have the downside, that someone truly excellent for the role who'd want $130,000 may not apply, even - on review of their qualifications - they might be a good hire for the company nonetheless.

Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2022, 01:24:53 PM

Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2022, 01:19:45 PM
Who would publish these bands?

Employers.  You put up a job description for a position you're trying to fill, you put the the pay scale in it with actual numbers, and a narrow enough band so you don't just get around it with $0-$10,000,000 nonsense.  The job candidates know what they're applying for, and people already working for the employer can check what the new employees are going to get.  You can except executive and professional jobs, or something like that, or require a certain percentage of your jobs to have published pay scales.  Some states in the US are actually moving in that direction, and I think that's a great thing.

I absolutely hate the "competitive salary" in job adverts. It wastes everyone's time - and really only helps recruitment consultants. I've seen it both ways. I've appled for a job that was just not going to pay enough and had I know at stage one I wouldn't have applied, similarly I've seen applications from people whose last employer is Tesla who are used to an extremely high salary band that doesn't really work in the industry I'm in.

If employers were transparent in job adverts I think it'd be very helpful.

The transparent bands thing is standard in the public sector here and I think in really big companies like the banks.

Quote from: The Brain on February 08, 2022, 01:27:21 PM
This would at best be horribly inefficient, and there is no problem that it solves.

At least in the US, I think employers capturing a greater share of employee productivity has been a big problem with big societal implications.

Glassdoor has been pretty ground breaking in publishing salary bands. I know the HR world has been shook a fair bit by this being public info - previously they all just worked like a cartel comparing salaries with each other behind the scenes. They still do I believe but its less critical now.
The salary in my current job I got from taking a look at what the average is in London and taking a punt on saying I want north of that.

Quebec Engineers under an organism they formed call Genium360 publish a Yearly Salary investigation.

https://www.genium360.ca/en-us/enquete-sur-la-remuneration/

(The member price is 100$)

The solution to the negotiation imbalance is collective bargaining by unions.

Quote from: Zanza on February 08, 2022, 02:30:15 PM
The solution to the negotiation imbalance is collective bargaining by unions.

Agreed. It's what's led to the most advances in worker's compensation.

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 08, 2022, 01:34:44 PM

Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2022, 01:24:53 PM

Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2022, 01:19:45 PM
Who would publish these bands?

Employers.  You put up a job description for a position you're trying to fill, you put the the pay scale in it with actual numbers, and a narrow enough band so you don't just get around it with $0-$10,000,000 nonsense.  The job candidates know what they're applying for, and people already working for the employer can check what the new employees are going to get.  You can except executive and professional jobs, or something like that, or require a certain percentage of your jobs to have published pay scales.  Some states in the US are actually moving in that direction, and I think that's a great thing.

I absolutely hate the "competitive salary" in job adverts. It wastes everyone's time - and really only helps recruitment consultants. I've seen it both ways. I've appled for a job that was just not going to pay enough and had I know at stage one I wouldn't have applied, similarly I've seen applications from people whose last employer is Tesla who are used to an extremely high salary band that doesn't really work in the industry I'm in.

If employers were transparent in job adverts I think it'd be very helpful.

The transparent bands thing is standard in the public sector here and I think in really big companies like the banks.

.

As a hiring manager I've often not been entirely aware of the exact amount we will consider going up to for the right person. :blush:

Quote from: Zoupa on February 08, 2022, 02:53:56 PM

Quote from: Zanza on February 08, 2022, 02:30:15 PM
The solution to the negotiation imbalance is collective bargaining by unions.

Agreed. It's what's led to the most advances in worker's compensation.

Tough to fit in the modern professional world of frequent job switches though.

The way I see it, like with any negotiation/haggling, you have to be ready to walk away, or to be more precise, be appear ready to walk away, otherwise you are just going to lose. I am not good at bluffing and do not enjoy it either, so that leaves me with situations where I am, indeed, ready to walk away. That seldom happens with a job, and I suspect a lot of people are the same.

Quote from: Tamas on February 08, 2022, 04:19:40 PM
The way I see it, like with any negotiation/haggling, you have to be ready to walk away, or to be more precise, be appear ready to walk away, otherwise you are just going to lose. I am not good at bluffing and do not enjoy it either, so that leaves me with situations where I am, indeed, ready to walk away. That seldom happens with a job, and I suspect a lot of people are the same.

I don't think that is true.  If the employer is motivated to keep you, they will pay you to accomplish that end.  If they are content to see you go you always have the option of staying.

To put it another way, I think the worst tactic is to say pay me X or I am gone.  Most would say, there is the door.

Quote from: Tamas on February 08, 2022, 04:19:40 PM
The way I see it, like with any negotiation/haggling, you have to be ready to walk away, or to be more precise, be appear ready to walk away, otherwise you are just going to lose. I am not good at bluffing and do not enjoy it either, so that leaves me with situations where I am, indeed, ready to walk away. That seldom happens with a job, and I suspect a lot of people are the same.

You don't need to be ready to walk away. I used to have the same thinking, and yeah it felt very confrontational - or alternately like you're bluffing with nothing, which is stressful.

What's worked for me is this. Find some sort of argument - about the role and responsibilities, about comparative compensation, about what your needs are due to changes in your circumstances, changes in cost of living, about being recognized for your contributions [I'm doing X, Y, Z really well], about changes in the market place. Then figure out a number that would make you happy, and that seems fair to you (but focus on what would make you happy).

At some point - book a call or whatever - say something like "I'm happy working here. I like the challenges, I like the culture, I enjoy my colleagues... but to be honest, I'm not really satisfied with my compensation."

Let them respond. Hopefully they'll respond with some sort of interest. In either case, at some point you should lay out your arguments and - if asked or if you feel strongly about it - be ready to state your desired number.

Then leave them to think - but perhaps ask for some indication of time before you can expect to hear from them again, and leave it at that.

Based on their response you're either happy, you resign yourself to stay with increased dissatisfaction, or you realize it's time for you to update your resume and maybe start looking.

Basically, you're not going in with "give me this or I'll quit" you go in with "look, this would make me happy" and an implicit "if I'm not happy, maybe I'll get off my ass and do something about not being happy."

If they give you a good explanation for why they can't make you happy - or if it seems too much work to get another job - then you don't have to act on anything.

Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2022, 12:05:58 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on February 08, 2022, 11:58:26 AM
Same as GF. I'm surprised at the 52% that have never asked, wtf.

A lot of people are bad negotiators, and for things like that they're also up against trained negotiators who often have a lot more power in the relationship.  Being a good negotiator requires some tolerance for conflict. 

It's particularly tricky in this situation, because the person you'll be negotiating with is not a salesman that you didn't know yesterday and won't interact with tomorrow, but a person you need to maintain a good relationship with.  I think on a societal level it's a bad policy to require workers to have good negotiating skills to get their fair share, and negotiating is in general a wasteful zero-sum game.

It also heavily depends on culture.

In Spain I've never been at a company were raises are even an option. And I'm talking highly qualified engineering jobs.
Even for the most deserving of workers the answer is always a "the door is right there if you want out". You have to negotiate your salary when getting hired, because after that you won't get any meaningful raise. You have to jump ship to get that (but my company also pays significantly more than their local competitors, so nobody does that).

One of the culture shocks my brother had upon arriving to Germany was when his boss told him he (the boss) was concerned that my brother hadn't asked for a raise yet. He was worried my brother was planning to leave the company.

No, I work for the US Govmit. They don't do that sort of thing.

People ask me for raises all the damn time. It's so annoying!

Jacob and CC, good points of course.

I didn't mean that one should always present an ultimatum. But, if your request is rejected - even if ever so politely - then why would you stay instead of starting a job hunt and bailing ASAP? Doesn't staying prove that you were wrong in your self valuation and they were right?

So, when I was perfectly happy to leave and in fact looking already I had no problem politely raising the matter of feeling like I had earned a promotion.

Quote from: Tamas on February 09, 2022, 05:07:29 AM
Jacob and CC, good points of course.

I didn't mean that one should always present an ultimatum. But, if your request is rejected - even if ever so politely - then why would you stay instead of starting a job hunt and bailing ASAP? Doesn't staying prove that you were wrong in your self valuation and they were right?

So, when I was perfectly happy to leave and in fact looking already I had no problem politely raising the matter of feeling like I had earned a promotion.

Oh yeah, definitely.  If a person does not think they are being paid enough they should definitely start looking - it is always easier to get a job when you already have a job.  Same goes for working conditions other than pay.  Those are the things that actually causes more turnover.  Most people are willing to take a bit less in pay if everything else is good.  The sweet spot is of course great working conditions and pay.  :) 

Quote from: Tamas on February 09, 2022, 05:07:29 AM
Jacob and CC, good points of course.

I didn't mean that one should always present an ultimatum. But, if your request is rejected - even if ever so politely - then why would you stay instead of starting a job hunt and bailing ASAP? Doesn't staying prove that you were wrong in your self valuation and they were right?

So, when I was perfectly happy to leave and in fact looking already I had no problem politely raising the matter of feeling like I had earned a promotion.

If your request is rejected - especially if it's rejected rudely - then you probably should start looking. Better find out now.

Of course, the dynamic changes a bit if you think it'll be very difficult to find another job. In reality, of course, the potential of you leaving is lurking in the distance - but there's no harm in bringing it up when it's still distant.

Speaking of salary increases... Amazon just more than doubled their max possible base pay from $160,000 to $350,000.

https://www.geekwire.com/2022/amazon-more-than-doubles-max-base-pay-to-350k-for-corporate-and-tech-workers-citing-labor-market/

Considering their turn around, even in Engineering jobs, it's not surprising.

Quote from: Grey Fox on February 09, 2022, 02:43:16 PM
Considering their turn around, even in Engineering jobs, it's not surprising.

Yeah. I mean, offer me a 50% raise would I go work at Amazon? Probably not. A 100% raise? Probably not even. And given I'd have to sit through a really painful interview process I'm not motivated to even try.

Sure. But usually just to point out that I did a great job/won an award/got a certification. So far I always have gotten a raise after that.

But I don't want to be a tempting target to get rid of when we have our next budget crunch so I will probably play it cooler in the future.

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 09, 2022, 11:00:38 AM

Quote from: Tamas on February 09, 2022, 05:07:29 AM
Jacob and CC, good points of course.

I didn't mean that one should always present an ultimatum. But, if your request is rejected - even if ever so politely - then why would you stay instead of starting a job hunt and bailing ASAP? Doesn't staying prove that you were wrong in your self valuation and they were right?

So, when I was perfectly happy to leave and in fact looking already I had no problem politely raising the matter of feeling like I had earned a promotion.

Oh yeah, definitely.  If a person does not think they are being paid enough they should definitely start looking - it is always easier to get a job when you already have a job.  Same goes for working conditions other than pay.  Those are the things that actually causes more turnover.  Most people are willing to take a bit less in pay if everything else is good.  The sweet spot is of course great working conditions and pay.  :) 

We are going through a re-evaluation of our pay and benefits in a tough market for developers.

The owner of the company has always felt that pay and PTO are the same thing. We don't have a defined PTO policy beyond the base 3 weeks everyone gets, and that include any time off for being sick.

He has always felt that:

1. Total PTO should be handled just like salary - it is part of the raise/negotiation process. We are quite generous with salary overall, and his feeling is that we should not have a defined PTO increase schedule,  but rather people should just ask for more PTO if they want that, or ask for more salary if they want that, and when we do regular salary reviews (at least once a year) people can and should ask for more PTO if that is important to them. His feeling is that some people care about PTO, and others care about salary, and we should let the employee decide what is important to them, rather then dictating one or the other. We are primarily a services company that bills hours worked, so there is a very direct relationship between PTO and our bottom line.

2. We should not have "sick" time. PTO should cover all non-holiday time off. I suggested over a year ago that we add some number of sick days each year that people can take, and his response was that if we wanted to add 3 sick days a year, we should just increase everyone's PTO three days, and they can take that time for whatever they want - isn't that clearly better for the employee, and less work for us to track and deal with?

Both of these are perfectly reasonable points from a logical standpoint, and he is coming from a place in good faith with his employees. This perspective makes perfect sense.

We recently did a company interview/survey where we talked to everyone about what we can do to make the job more attractive and their lives better, etc., etc.

Two things came out of that that is interesting/amusing give the above:

1. Over 75% of our employees cited being "well" or "fairly" compensated as one of the things they really liked about working with us.
2. Over 85% of our employees cited "not enough PTO" and "no sick days" as things they liked least about working with us.

Perception, perception, perception.