this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
890 points (99.3% liked)

Funny: Home of the Haha

5832 readers
17 users here now

Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.

Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!

Our Rules:

  1. Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.

  2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.

  3. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.

Other Communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Anticorp
890
Sounds familiar? (lemmy.world)
submitted 9 months ago by CenturionKing to c/funny
55 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 141 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (11 children)

I don't get how corporate is so detached that they're making these policies. I left my last job about a year ago because a competitor offered 30% more. My manager said they could do 3% and, with regular raises, I'd be at that amount in 10 years. I know his hands were tied and he was just grasping at any reason he could come up with to keep me, but that just makes me even more incredulous that companies are crafting policies like this.

Edit: This job also requires about a year of training to be halfway decent, with multiple business trips overseas, so they didn't even save any money as far as I can tell.

[–] [email protected] 80 points 9 months ago (2 children)

They're not detached, they're playing a different game. The game of the greedy little piggies.

If I give you a raise, well, it just might get out that we give raises around here! Suddenly, I got all these, lazy, do nothing greedy little piggies asking for more money! That 5k becomes 20k, then 50k, etc.! My hard earned slop is drying up quick!

But if I hire someone new, I send the exact opposite message. We don't do raises here, and if you don't like it, we have no trouble replacing you, greedy little piggie!

[–] [email protected] 21 points 9 months ago

Yeah I just show up to work and try to do a good job, so I can see how I'm not like them I guess. It really sucks having to change from a job I really liked to another just to keep up with inflation or get to the pay range they're hiring ln

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

This is the real reason. A universally beaten-down workforce is how you keep people working hard for the minimum pay. One new employee being paid more than the others from the get-go isn't anywhere near as damaging to the bottom-line as one employee getting a nice raise and inspiring the rest of the office to demand one as well. With the taboo against asking people how much they get paid, nobody will ever know that the new guy gets paid more, and soon enough even they'll get paid well under what they're worth with inflation constantly rolling away.

[–] fidodo 42 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I think it's short sightedness. If you look at the costs over a decade it would be a no brainer to invest in retention, but if you're only looking at the change in this quarter's budget then it's not as clear.

[–] ours 5 points 9 months ago

And we're just looking at salary difference with the new hire here. Hiring and onboarding the right person costs.

[–] exhaust_fan 3 points 9 months ago

It also sadly risks undeserving employees getting raises and becoming much harder to dispose of, especially in jurisdictions where it's hard to fire people.

It's shit. Top talent and young people suffer for it.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 9 months ago

The is the world the MBAs have created, saving money in the short term seems to be the only thing that matters to many companies. Also, for every one person who leaves to get more money, there may be several who stay at the lower wage

[–] [email protected] 19 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I always assume they believe you are lying.

They are willing to risk the "ok cya here's my 2 weeks" to never suffer the "lol I made that shit up thanks for the big raise"

[–] Stoney_Logica1 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

In which case, who cares? If the person can do the job and is happy to do it for $5k less than a new hire and no training is required, you could be Pinocchio for all I care.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Yeah but I addressed that in my earlier comment. These are job positions that require training and skills and it's still easy come easy go for most of my industry as far as I can tell.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Agent641 19 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

If they can't really spring for higher salaries, but you're too lazy to change jobs just yet, get them to pay for credentials and training that make you a more desirable hire. Make them load the gun you'll shoot them with.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago

Doing that at my new company. They're paying for my master's :)

[–] CosmicTurtle 18 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Hiring budgets are often very different from operational budgets. The job you're moving to for a 30% raise has the same policies as your current job; you're just seeing the other side of it.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I've come to understand that but it's a foolish way of operating on their part

[–] ForgotAboutDre 9 points 9 months ago (2 children)

They only loss out on the ones that leave. They win big on the ones that stay.

I wonder if anyone's ever did the maths, I wouldn't be surprised in many instances if it works out. However, it would be hard to estimate the impact of the employee resentment and loss due to losing knowledge.

[–] CosmicTurtle 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

They have done the math.

Over the long term, it costs them almost 4-5 times as much to hire a new employee. It takes most new employees 6-12 months to become as productive as their counterparts. Add the cost of recruiting, interviewing, performance management, etc. Giving a raise by far is the cheapest option.

Long term.

But quarterly profits will always, ALWAYS, supercede any long term investments.

Why take the hit in your operating budget NOW when all you care about is making sure you're hitting next quarter's numbers? Hell, the employee leaving is going to lower your costs so it's better for you in time for the shareholders' meeting.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

Especially when the procedure are garbage written by people hired overseas at the bottom dollar that have never seen the machines. And on top of that there's a lot of tribal knowledge. But I'm at the bottom of the chain looking up. I'm sure the bean counters have thought this all through already

[–] SlopppyEngineer 8 points 9 months ago

Yes, middle management gets a bonus for keeping costs down, so it's in their personal interest to refuse raises.

The one in charge of hiring gets a bonus for bringing in people because work needs to be done and there aren't enough workers.

The incentives make the system as it is. And good long term incentives seem to be few and far between.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I had something similar happen. I lined up a second job that was offering almost double the pay. And my current company was just at a loss they couldn't even offer me online work it was just like a goodbye. Though now I've kind of hit a paid cap for my particular field so I doubt that golden moment will happen again

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I think that's the point where I'd start considering trying to find something else in the same company. If I can make lateral moves for pay raises, I'd prefer that to toeing the company line and hoping they're nice enough/like me enough to promote me

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

And that's exactly what I'm doing 👍. Going for that senior role. While trying to avoid management lol

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Me too. Trying to get to R&D or Integration and Testing but it's gonna be a while

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

I had that happen to a team member (me as a manager). She came to give me notice, the pay jump was huge. 45k to 70k. I loved her and I tried to swing it with my boss, but the ultimate answer was no and she left. I hope she is happy now. She really was awesome and I wish she stayed working for me, but I'm happy for her. She was a single mom to 2 teenagers so there's no way she couldn't accept that money

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

In my experience, a lot of management positions are filled by people that are meeting a need of feeling a sense of power and control over others. They don't care about the company anymore than they have to to meet this need.

Also, it's possible that they're worried that if they give you a raise, you'll tell others and they will demand one as well. They rather hire a new person without social ties to other workers that wont share what their salary is.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

The lower management people that I've worked with haven't been like that for the most part. I guess my frustration is mostly with the fact that the message of retaining people isn't getting to the people who make decisions on things like that

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 53 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The answer is you already have the 40k person, it’s not broken, there’s no urgency for HR to approve additional funding.

That person says they’re leaving, now HR can approve a counter offer, but also, can you trust they won’t leave later? Maybe we shouldn’t.

You’ve failed to give a raise and they’ve now left. Now there’s a gap and the team can’t pick up the slack. Oh shit, guess we better hire someone else. Oh, the market average rate we all pay the same company to provide says the rate is higher than 4 years ago, so they get hired with the higher rate.

Isn’t that unfair to the existing employees? We’ll see point 1. It ain’t broke, we can’t approve more funding.

[–] maniclucky 33 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This is why the idea of maintenance is something that should be better appreciated. If that person's pay kept up in the first place, an employee can expect to not need to find another job and the problem never appears in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Shitty companies will never care about things which can’t go on a spreadsheet or entry in their earnings report.

But I agree.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

It's because they know one dissatisfied person leaving is cheaper than either giving everyone a raise or creating 1 satisfied but many angry people after the others were 'unfairly' looked over for a raise.

That and for many people/managers it's just the default to do nothing until required.

Edit: this is part of why unions are so important.

[–] MotoAsh 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That is only true when employees are not skilled and do not gain inside knowledge.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Small business with one person leaving having a catastrophic impact, sure.

Giant corporation, one person can't tip the scales, regardless of skill and knowledge.

[–] krashmo 15 points 9 months ago

Then why do we pay CEOs millions of dollars?

This is a rhetorical question.

[–] SpaceNoodle 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Small businesses do the same shit.

As an embedded systems engineer, I left a small business to triple my pay. They eventually replaced me with someone at twice my old salary, but they couldn't hack it and the company folded not long after.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Definitely agreed. I'm just saying that example can crush a small company, but in a larger one the risk is spread out to be more of a "the house always wins" situation. Even if they lose some of the time they will come out ahead with the shitty exploitative strategy.

[–] maniclucky 6 points 9 months ago

You'd be surprised. I've worked for a fortune 500 and knew people that, if the left, would cause a multi million dollar facility to grind to a halt for at least a month. And management was only barely aware of how important they were

[–] glimse 5 points 9 months ago

I was at a small company for 7 years working 50-60 hours weeks. I left for a large company where I work 40...at most. Usually I get my stuff done and have a "free" day.

Even including the overtime pay at the first job, my checks here are over 50% bigger.

It took the threat of poaching for the boss to do anything but they wound up giving my coworker a raise. Clearly they had the money.

[–] fidodo 20 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Didn't forget paying 20% of their salary to a recruiter

[–] Landless2029 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Plus the lack of productivity for onboarding and training the new hire...

[–] fidodo 6 points 9 months ago

And the sapped productivity from existing employees training the new employee

[–] MilitantAtheist 11 points 9 months ago

Yes, the best way to increase your salary drastically is to change jobs.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago

clearly the creator of this is an inexperienced writer.

[–] grue 3 points 9 months ago

Almost maliciously stupid enough to justify the Drake template.

load more comments
view more: next ›