Why not pay the staff the market rate salary rather than losing them

DulchieLaois

I would like to hear people views on this

I currently work for a large bank and recently i've asked for a pay rise cause

1. - i know that a girl on my team at the same level is getting more money than me for less work, less experience and less responsibility (I may add she is leaving the job)
2 - the current industry salary for my skills set is higher than my current wage
3 - I am the only person on my team who can cover everyone else workload on a short term notice

My company decline my request the salary increase

So, I go out into the big bad world of recruitement agencies and nab myself a new job with an almost 18% pay rise.

Would it not be economical for companies to pay their staff the current industry wage and not risk losing them ??

what my company has done is exposed themselves

1 to train in new staff
2 Risk as the job i work in is very detailed orienated
3 Pay recruitement agency fees for replacing the departing staff

To me, the whole thing is a bit luduricous isnt it yet they still do it

Why ?

DulchieLaois

DulchieLaois wrote: »

I would like to hear people views on this

I currently work for a large bank and recently i've asked for a pay rise cause

1. - i know that a girl on my team at the same level is getting more money than me for less work, less experience and less responsibility (I may add she is leaving the job)
2 - the current industry salary for my skills set is higher than my current wage
3 - I am the only person on my team who can cover everyone else workload on a short term notice

My company decline my request the salary increase

So, I go out into the big bad world of recruitement agencies and nab myself a new job with an almost 18% pay rise.

Would it not be economical for companies to pay their staff the current industry wage and not risk losing them ??

what my company has done is exposed themselves

1 to train in new staff
2 Risk as the job i work in is very detailed orienated
3 Pay recruitement agency fees for replacing the departing staff

To me, the whole thing is a bit luduricous isnt it yet they still do it

Why ?

Maybe they don't mind losing you? Your spelling and punctuation leave a bit to be desired. Maybe they already have someone with a better grasp of the job in mind.

Zillah

People make short term decisions based on false economy.

Tigger

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe they don't mind losing you? Your spelling and punctuation leave a bit to be desired. Maybe they already have someone with a better grasp of the job in mind.

Words escape me /\

MrWalsh

If youve been there a while they can probably get someone else in at a lot less money and recoup the cost of having to train them etc.. by paying them less than you were paid. Obviously at some stage the new persons pay will go up due to annual increases etc... but for a few years they may save €€€ on what they were paying you versus what they will be paying the new person.

Youre just a number and a costly number the longer you work there.

ComfortKid

Well if they are paying someone more, even with less experience than you and they were happy to see you go, then maybe you are not as needed or as highly thought of as you seem to think you are?

Congratulations on the new job though, 18percent is a nice little increase.

seamus

Some companies have a policy of rejecting salary increase requests which are not based on any specific change in work circumstances.

The logic behind this is that someone who is looking for a pay increase is likely unhappy with their job rather than their salary level. But because they can't make their job any more fun, they think a bigger salary will make them happier.
Granting someone a pay increase only buys a stay on their departure, it doesn't lead to an increase in productivity or happiness for the individual - because they feel like they had to fight for the increase and therefore deserve it. Whereas an ad-hoc increase or bonus feels more like a favour to the employee and it keeps them happy for longer.

If an employer does grant a pay increase that you asked for, they're most likely doing it to try and hang onto you for another six months while they figure out how to replace you.

The time of the job for life is over, both for employees and employers. So employers are less inclined to buy employee loyalty as the employee is going to leave eventually anyway.

etymon

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe they don't mind losing you? Your spelling and punctuation leave a bit to be desired. Maybe they already have someone with a better grasp of the job in mind.

Not helpful.

ComfortKid

Tigger wrote:

Words escape me /\

Why? It is a possibility.

Tigger

Tigger wrote: »

Words escape me /\

OPs point 2 "Risk as the job i work in is very detailed orienated"
My point is that I would imagine that correct punctuation and spelling would be vital in such a position.

etymon

etymon wrote: »

Not helpful.

Why not? I would find it very hard to overlook incorrect spelling and punctuation with any business, let alone a bank. If I was the employer of that staff member, I would be less than impressed.

etymon

Deleted User wrote: »

Why not? I would find it very hard to overlook incorrect spelling and punctuation with any business, let alone a bank. If I was the employer of that staff member, I would be less than impressed.

The point itself may be relevant but the way you put it wasn't helpful. I might have said

'Well perhaps the job you work in has particular elements that aren't your strength. For example, do you need to write formal reports or letters frequently? I say this as I notice from your post that spelling and grammar aren't your strong point. In some jobs this is irrelevant but if it's central to your position, perhaps this is something you could improve on in your new role."

Or something.

DulchieLaois

ah ye are gas, still irrespective of how I write it, I can assure ye ladies and gentlemen that I am well capable of the work that I do

hairyslug

How someone represents themselves on and online forum may very well not be the way the represent themselves in a professional environment.

In the long term, the company will get a new staff member at a lower level of pay (normally due to lack of experience), the current staff can cover the shortfall while the new staff member is fully trained.

mahoganygas

MrWalsh wrote: »

If youve been there a while they can probably get someone else in at a lot less money and recoup the cost of having to train them etc.. by paying them less than you were paid.

In addition to this, OP could have 10 years of service for example.

Banks are going through a lot of rationalisation and downsizing at the moment. It's much cheaper to let somebody go with 1 years experience instead of somebody with 10 years experience.

Also, the labour market is bloated. They will have people lining up at the door to replace OP.

Natural wastage is vital for businesses during a recession.

ComfortKid

DulchieLaois wrote:

ah ye are gas, still irrespective of how I write it, I can assure ye ladies and gentlemen that I am well capable of the work that I do

Capable, maybe but you seem to think that you are the only person that can do everything in someones absence. This obviously isn't the case or they would have tried a bit harder to keep you there.

jaymcg91

mahoganygas wrote: »

Natural wastage is vital for businesses during a recession.

We haven't been in a recession for years.

percy212

Irish employers are just pure thick. You should tell your employer you have received an offer of X and you need them to offer more to keep you. Otherwise, just walk once you have signed contracts with the new employer, and remember you are not obliged to give notice. **** them.

ComfortKid

percy212 wrote:

Irish employers are just pure thick. You should tell your employer you have received an offer of X and you need them to offer more to keep you. Otherwise, just walk once you have signed contracts with the new employer, and remember you are not obliged to give notice. **** them.

No, you're not obliged to give notice but you'll never know when you might need a reference.

Never leave on bad terms if it's possible.

percy212

Two can play nasty. The OP owes that employer nothing except a kick in the hole for being shortsighted. OP - contact me for a reference any time you like!

OR offer to work your notice out at a large hourly rate if they need you. Up to them.

ComfortKid wrote: »

No, you're not obliged to give notice but you'll never know when you might need a reference.

Never leave on bad terms if it's possible.

eviltwin

Deleted User wrote: »

Why not? I would find it very hard to overlook incorrect spelling and punctuation with any business, let alone a bank. If I was the employer of that staff member, I would be less than impressed.

Its a message board for crying out loud, hardly an indication of the OP's competence in the job...

Anyway congrats on the new job OP, don't worry about the reasons why the last job were happy to let you go, concentrate on the future...good luck!

Eugene Norman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Maybe they don't mind losing you? Your spelling and punctuation leave a bit to be desired. Maybe they already have someone with a better grasp of the job in mind.

His spelling and grammar were fine for the forum he is writing for.

The problem companies have with non high managerial staff getting more pay is that it creates jealousy. That said they should pay the best performers more. Best thing is to leave.

ComfortKid

Eugene Norman wrote:

The problem companies have with non high managerial staff getting more pay is that it creates jealousy. That said they should pay the best performers more. Best thing is to leave.

Jealousy is exactly why he wanted the pay rise in the first place. His younger, inexperienced college was earning more.

Maybe the best performers are getting paid accordingly, and thats why they don't mind seeing OP move on?

Thats all I'm trying to say.

LuckyCharms

seamus wrote: »

Some companies have a policy of rejecting salary increase requests which are not based on any specific change in work circumstances.

The logic behind this is that someone who is looking for a pay increase is likely unhappy with their job rather than their salary level. But because they can't make their job any more fun, they think a bigger salary will make them happier.
Granting someone a pay increase only buys a stay on their departure, it doesn't lead to an increase in productivity or happiness for the individual - because they feel like they had to fight for the increase and therefore deserve it. Whereas an ad-hoc increase or bonus feels more like a favour to the employee and it keeps them happy for longer.

If an employer does grant a pay increase that you asked for, they're most likely doing it to try and hang onto you for another six months while they figure out how to replace you.

The time of the job for life is over, both for employees and employers. So employers are less inclined to buy employee loyalty as the employee is going to leave eventually anyway.

This hits the spot from my perspective. I was recently in the same position OP. Got an offer and last job wouldn't match so i left. I know for a fact that my last area is looking to heavily downsize so i wasn't expecting anything and just like seamus mentioned above, it would only have placated while i actively looked for something better anyway.

There can be a myriad of reasons why a company come back with an offer so i wouldn't fret too much over it. Treat it for what it is, a business decision.

If you feel that your valued more and you found somewhere to pay it then why would you stay in a place where you effectively had to put a gun to their head to get them to pay you the same.

Nody

//MOD

This thread is a getting very close to the thread wreck territory; stick to OPs topic and no more BSing around about being references, recession etc.

//MOD

percy212

I see it as negotiation. You want me to stay here? You pay me what I am worth. There is nothing negative there....

LuckyCharms wrote: »

If you feel that your valued more and you found somewhere to pay it then why would you stay in a place where you effectively had to put a gun to their head to get them to pay you the same.

Victor

DulchieLaois wrote: »

Would it not be economical for companies to pay their staff the current industry wage and not risk losing them ??

There is no one "industry wage". If they paid everyone the same as the last person hired, there would be a huge escalation in wages.

LuckyCharms

percy212 wrote: »

I see it as negotiation. You want me to stay here? You pay me what I am worth. There is nothing negative there....

True but i imagine that a discussion was already had around pay before they went looking for a new job.

This would be my perspective of it from my own dealings with my previous employer.

I don't see it as negative or positive. Its up to the op to look after their own interests, just like their manager does and just like the company does.

If the company or manager feels that you are valuable enough, they will counter, its as simply as that. If they don't, you find someone who will pay what you want.

Johnny Jukebox

In my experience, all corporates, big and small, ultimately don't really care about their employees. They pay lip service to culture, team building etc etc but its all focused at maximising productivity and minimising grief for themselves.

So do not stress too much about the company not caring if you stay or go; ultimately the only thing that matters is You Ltd. and anything else is a long way back in 2nd place.

I once asked a friend of mine what he had learned on completion of his MBA - he paused for a moment and replied - look after yourself, look after your mates and then look after the company. Sage advice I have found.

Jim2007

etymon wrote: »

Not helpful.

Perhaps not, but it may be closer to the mark than most people would like to admit! Management is human like everyone else and if they don't like your face it is an easy way to move you on...

Eugene Norman

ComfortKid wrote: »

Jealousy is exactly why he wanted the pay rise in the first place. His younger, inexperienced college was earning more.

Maybe the best performers are getting paid accordingly, and thats why they don't mind seeing OP move on?

Thats all I'm trying to say.

That jealousy is what I mean. Either way. This guy is worth 18% elsewhere so he should be worth it where he was.

I don't see why we wouldn't trust the OP's story. Even if you don't argue the general point. Why not pay somebody more rather than see then leave?

Eugene Norman

Victor wrote: »

There is no one "industry wage". If they paid everyone the same as the last person hired, there would be a huge escalation in wages.

By and large there is an industry wage in most professions.

bisounours

There is a "scale" and the difference between the bottom end and the higher end of each bracket can easily be €10,000. Education, experience, network, to name a few factors, will contribute to where one stands in that scale.

Nody

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Why not pay somebody more rather than see then leave?

Because they will leave within a year anyway in most cases so the company ends up paying more for nothing. Secondly because the company would open themselves up for blackmail; what when he comes back in 6 months and asks for a 2k EUR bonus for his good work? Or another 20% raise? Third and final; money does not motivate people in anything but a very short term time period; once again all this means is that it will simply not work.

Hollister11

Nody wrote: »

Because they will leave within a year anyway in most cases so the company ends up paying more for nothing. Secondly because the company would open themselves up for blackmail; what when he comes back in 6 months and asks for a 2k EUR bonus for his good work? Or another 20% raise? Third and final; money does not motivate people in anything but a very short term time period; once again all this means is that it will simply not work.

Money does motivate people. If you were offered an improved wage of 50K, from 35K, if you meet certain targets but that involved putting alot more effort into your work, you would do it for MONEY.

RomanKnows

I saw this in one of the semi-states. They were losing skilled engineering and IT staff because they were hamstrung by the unions. Give a guy with 8 years experience working in Enterprise IT no raise to market rates because the unions would want their members to get the same bump. Many of whom went from the average to the awful.

Nody

Hollister11 wrote: »

Money does motivate people. If you were offered an improved wage of 50K, from 35K, if you meet certain targets but that involved putting alot more effort into your work, you would do it for MONEY.

And when you got those 50k would you be willing to put in another huge effort next year to do it all over again? And again? And again? How about if you were earning 100k and got 115k? I'd suggest you read up on the subject. If money really was all to be why are people not selling their second kidney on the black market for 20k? Quick buck for your money etc.

jcd5971

Nody wrote: »

And when you got those 50k would you be willing to put in another huge effort next year to do it all over again? And again? And again? How about if you were earning 100k and got 115k? I'd suggest you read up on the subject. If money really was all to be why are people not selling their second kidney on the black market for 20k? Quick buck for your money etc.

Sounds like nonsense to me, My salary is 31,200
Bonus brings it to the region of 38-40k depending on how good we do.

I'll tell you right now I work my ass off for that bonus every year for past 7 years and will continue to do so. Remove the bonus and my efforts will drop back it's a simple fact.
Money is definitely my motivation tbh, and oh for clarification my bonus stays same every year as long as we meet the targets, it dosent get higher every year, if that helps explain a bit

Teyla Emmagan

I work with a bunch of contractors. Recently two didn't have their contracts renewed because they were looking for a payrise. These people have been in the job for years and know all about our really odd, tricky project. Now there are agencies advertising their jobs at 'an excellent daily rate'. Which will be about 100 a day above what these two guys were paid. It will take the new people months to figure out this mess (and lots of our time bringing them up to speed). From what I understand though the problem is more the agencies being dishonest with the company and wanting to protect their own cut. But still, sickening. If they had been given 50, or even 25 a day more they would have stayed and been happy.

percy212

If those contractors were clever they would say "no hard feelings", and let management know they are available for "quick" questions when they leave. That good attitude combined with eventual mgmt desperation will ensure they are hired back at the rate they wanted.

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

I work with a bunch of contractors. Recently two didn't have their contracts renewed because they were looking for a payrise. These people have been in the job for years and know all about our really odd, tricky project. Now there are agencies advertising their jobs at 'an excellent daily rate'. Which will be about 100 a day above what these two guys were paid. It will take the new people months to figure out this mess (and lots of our time bringing them up to speed). From what I understand though the problem is more the agencies being dishonest with the company and wanting to protect their own cut. But still, sickening. If they had been given 50, or even 25 a day more they would have stayed and been happy.

KomradeBishop

To remind the other workers that if they ask for a raise, they'll be gone too - the cost of retraining a new worker, and hiring them at a higher wage, is probably worth the deterrence.

Job insecurity is good for business.

percy212

Old hat. Those days are long gone. You just move on if your employer doesn't see your value. If necessary go to London or NY. Earn some real money.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

To remind the other workers that if they ask for a raise, they'll be gone too - the cost of retraining a new worker, and hiring them at a higher wage, is probably worth the deterrence.

Job insecurity is good for business.

Teyla Emmagan

percy212 wrote: »

If those contractors were clever they would say "no hard feelings", and let management know they are available for "quick" questions when they leave. That good attitude combined with eventual mgmt desperation will ensure they are hired back at the rate they wanted.

You can't come back within six months, clause in every contractor contract, ever. So what once they're gone, they already have jobs on a much better rate. It's a loss for us, not them!

QuinDixie

Because HR are a bunch of

Mrs OBumble

DulchieLaois wrote: »

I would like to hear people views on this

I currently work for a large bank and recently i've asked for a pay rise cause

1. - i know that a girl on my team at the same level is getting more money than me for less work, less experience and less responsibility (I may add she is leaving the job)
2 - the current industry salary for my skills set is higher than my current wage
3 - I am the only person on my team who can cover everyone else workload on a short term notice

My company decline my request the salary increase

So, I go out into the big bad world of recruitement agencies and nab myself a new job with an almost 18% pay rise.

Would it not be economical for companies to pay their staff the current industry wage and not risk losing them ??

Because if you've already been there for X years, the chance that you'll go out and find a job elsewhere is a lot lower than someone whose's been there for X-lots of years: inertia is a strong force and many people are happy to stay where they know, rather than risk the unknown.

So on average, the company gamble that you won't go, even though you're underpaid relative to the market.

Of course they lose the bet sometimes, but that's life. And as others have said, there can be good reasons for wanting turnover anyways.

jimmycrackcorm

To respond to the OPs question, the simple answer is that effectively the only way to measure the worth of a job is in hiring because it's only then you can determine pay rate by looking at what people are willing to work for.

Very frequently people also think they are irreplaceable or put too much value on the time for the ramp up of skills and knowledge .

Batgurl

Your first mistake was benchmarking yourself against what others in your company are earning-employers HATE that.

When negotiating a salary, you put forward points which show how YOU have generated profit for the company or created a tangible value for your role.

If you need to benchmark, you do it against similar roles OUTSIDE the company. This shows that you are aware what the market salary is AND that you have been looking elsewhere. You don't need to be interviewing, merely "researching". It's usual enough to scare them.

My favourite trick is to show them three job adverts for a similar role externally with the salary expectations written on them. If asked how you got those figures, say u called the recruiter to ask and got chatting. You are not issuing an ultimatum but showing you are not inert.

Eugene Norman

Nody wrote: »

And when you got those 50k would you be willing to put in another huge effort next year to do it all over again? And again? And again? How about if you were earning 100k and got 115k? I'd suggest you read up on the subject. If money really was all to be why are people not selling their second kidney on the black market for 20k? Quick buck for your money etc.

It's surprising that this ideology on money not motivating people apparently only applies to low level employees but not upper management. One argument for the goose...

beauf

Eugene Norman wrote: »

It's surprising that this ideology on money not motivating people apparently only applies to low level employees but not upper management. One argument for the goose...

I assume because it makes more of a difference to people on a lower salary.

Eugene Norman

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

I work with a bunch of contractors. Recently two didn't have their contracts renewed because they were looking for a payrise. These people have been in the job for years and know all about our really odd, tricky project. Now there are agencies advertising their jobs at 'an excellent daily rate'. Which will be about 100 a day above what these two guys were paid. It will take the new people months to figure out this mess (and lots of our time bringing them up to speed). From what I understand though the problem is more the agencies being dishonest with the company and wanting to protect their own cut. But still, sickening. If they had been given 50, or even 25 a day more they would have stayed and been happy.

I can't be specific but there are similar issues with permanent technical staff at our company. Part of it is morale, since a hostile enough takeover people have been over worked as positions not filled. Part of it was money. This has caused a possible loss of millions from clients as we are delayed in the next release. That's a clear loss to the company from "unreplacable" people.

beauf

percy212 wrote: »

Old hat. Those days are long gone. You just move on if your employer doesn't see your value. If necessary go to London or NY. Earn some real money.

This.

Unless of course there some other added value in where you are, no commute, good hours or something like. that.