Did a performance review today. Gave the guy a 6% raise for solid performance. He had only been working with us for 9 months. He declined and said he felt like he deserved 13% and that was "the number that was sticking out in his head."
If 6% wasn't enough, why even take the job at all at your current salary?
I guess he will soon be on his way out. But when did people start demanding double digit annual raises? I hope the economy crashes soon to bring these kids back to reality.
So did you end up giving him a raise?
Truth Bomber wrote:
Did a performance review today. Gave the guy a 6% raise for solid performance. He had only been working with us for 9 months. He declined and said he felt like he deserved 13% and that was "the number that was sticking out in his head."
If 6% wasn't enough, why even take the job at all at your current salary?
I guess he will soon be on his way out. But when did people start demanding double digit annual raises? I hope the economy crashes soon to bring these kids back to reality.
Hey, you need to get off your high horse, man up and honor the number that sticks out in his head. Can't you see that what you thought was a workhorse is instead a beautiful unicorn?
If he was Gen X he would have asked for a 13% decrease. Only the strong survive mofo.
Don't let us hanging wrote:
So did you end up giving him a raise?
No.
Why isn't the raise just automatic? Why was there any discussion over it at all? It seems like a waste of your time and the employees to argue over raises or offer them instead of just apply them automatically to deserving employees. You will have people trying to sell their work as higher quality than it was to you, in fact to avoid dishonesty whoever does performance reviews should have no control over raises.
Truth Bomber wrote:
No. But I have a budget and other employees who also want 13% wages with our finite revenue.
So you stand your ground and if the employee wants to stick around at their current salary then good for you. Otherwise they move on and you find a level of staff suitable to your budget. Just because you can't afford them doesn't mean they aren't worth more and they obviously have the confidence to find more elsewhere. You don't owe them any favours and they don't owe you any favours.
Kvothe wrote:
Why isn't the raise just automatic? Why was there any discussion over it at all? It seems like a waste of your time and the employees to argue over raises or offer them instead of just apply them automatically to deserving employees. You will have people trying to sell their work as higher quality than it was to you, in fact to avoid dishonesty whoever does performance reviews should have no control over raises.
Not really a bad idea, but in our company we always rate employees on a 1-5 performance scale. Under 3, there is no raise as you are considered subperforming. 3-5 you receive a raise determined by management -- which typically involves looking at the employee's work, coaching, and checking prevailing salaries for that position. We have been doing it like this for at least a decade. This is the first time I've had this happen.
P.S. I was born in 87, so I'm a millennial also.
only one question:
Are they worth it?
If so, stop complaining and pay them
If not, then don't and let them leave. If they are worth that they will find a company that will pay it.
Why did you turn this into a moral issue?
just pointing out that your stance is stupid wrote:
only one question:
Are they worth it?
If so, stop complaining and pay them
If not, then don't and let them leave. If they are worth that they will find a company that will pay it.
Why did you turn this into a moral issue?
They aren't worth it and I won't be paying them. Why accept a job that you aren't satisfied with the offered wage and ask for a 13% bump immediately? Just don't accept the job that is clearly beneath your self-worth.
Hiring is expensive. Training is expensive. Had I known he thought he deserved 13% more coming in, I would never have hired him or wasted the time. It's not a moral issue, it's strictly a financial one.
Treadhead wrote:
Where do you live?
East Texas.
Truth Bomber wrote:
Treadhead wrote:
Where do you live?
East Texas.
Mind me asking where?
I know Texas well.
Truth Bomber wrote:
Hiring is expensive. Training is expensive. Had I known he thought he deserved 13% more coming in, I would never have hired him or wasted the time.
That's why he accepted. He knew you wouldn't accept what he wanted initially and thought he could get more later. Probably didn't believe he could get his salary +13% anywhere else.
dude is covering for your deficiencies. pony up op.
Van Island wrote:
dude is covering for your deficiencies. pony up op.
Isn't that the role of every employee?
Truth Bomber wrote:
just pointing out that your stance is stupid wrote:
only one question:
Are they worth it?
If so, stop complaining and pay them
If not, then don't and let them leave. If they are worth that they will find a company that will pay it.
Why did you turn this into a moral issue?
They aren't worth it and I won't be paying them. Why accept a job that you aren't satisfied with the offered wage and ask for a 13% bump immediately? Just don't accept the job that is clearly beneath your self-worth.
Hiring is expensive. Training is expensive. Had I known he thought he deserved 13% more coming in, I would never have hired him or wasted the time. It's not a moral issue, it's strictly a financial one.
So what you are saying is that they are now trained and proven and worth more than what you hired them at.
Arguing that replacing them costs money is an argument FOR giving them a raise, not against it. Your argument about the trouble of replacing them is exactly why they know they are worth more than when they were hired.
Deep down you are probably firing them out of principal that you probably don't fully understand rather than a true analysis of their current worth vs the cost and trouble of hiring a new employee who may or may not pan out.
The risk of failure should be priced into starting salaries. If 10% of hires fail, then those who don't fail are worth more than their starting salary. The smart ones realize this. As do the smart bosses.
Whoever said they thought their initial salary was 'beneath' them? They accepted it.
You paid them what you needed to get them to start the job. Now they are letting you know what you need to pay them to keep them. It seems like an honest negotiation. You seem to be taking it personally.
If you viewed the initial hiring and training process as an investment that needed to be repaid by loyalty, then you should have had that in the contract. How long were the terms of the contract? Why do you feel they are beholden to the company just because you trained them? Companies are rarely loyal to their workers, why should they expect loyalty in return?
just pointing out that your stance is stupid wrote:
Truth Bomber wrote:
They aren't worth it and I won't be paying them. Why accept a job that you aren't satisfied with the offered wage and ask for a 13% bump immediately? Just don't accept the job that is clearly beneath your self-worth.
Hiring is expensive. Training is expensive. Had I known he thought he deserved 13% more coming in, I would never have hired him or wasted the time. It's not a moral issue, it's strictly a financial one.
So what you are saying is that they are now trained and proven and worth more than what you hired them at.
Arguing that replacing them costs money is an argument FOR giving them a raise, not against it. Your argument about the trouble of replacing them is exactly why they know they are worth more than when they were hired.
Deep down you are probably firing them out of principal that you probably don't fully understand rather than a true analysis of their current worth vs the cost and trouble of hiring a new employee who may or may not pan out.
The risk of failure should be priced into starting salaries. If 10% of hires fail, then those who don't fail are worth more than their starting salary. The smart ones realize this. As do the smart bosses.
Whoever said they thought their initial salary was 'beneath' them? They accepted it.
You paid them what you needed to get them to start the job. Now they are letting you know what you need to pay them to keep them. It seems like an honest negotiation. You seem to be taking it personally.
If you viewed the initial hiring and training process as an investment that needed to be repaid by loyalty, then you should have had that in the contract. How long were the terms of the contract? Why do you feel they are beholden to the company just because you trained them? Companies are rarely loyal to their workers, why should they expect loyalty in return?
+1
The young employee deserves the additional 13%.
How much you get paid to pump traffic on this site?
You expect anyone to believe that a director of a company is going to post this kind of BS on a public messageboard? How stupid do you think we are? FWIW, i didn't read anything besides the first couple of posts to see if anyone called you on it. No raise for you, pinhead.
just pointing out that your stance is stupid wrote:
Truth Bomber wrote:
They aren't worth it and I won't be paying them. Why accept a job that you aren't satisfied with the offered wage and ask for a 13% bump immediately? Just don't accept the job that is clearly beneath your self-worth.
Hiring is expensive. Training is expensive. Had I known he thought he deserved 13% more coming in, I would never have hired him or wasted the time. It's not a moral issue, it's strictly a financial one.
So what you are saying is that they are now trained and proven and worth more than what you hired them at.
Arguing that replacing them costs money is an argument FOR giving them a raise, not against it. Your argument about the trouble of replacing them is exactly why they know they are worth more than when they were hired.
Deep down you are probably firing them out of principal that you probably don't fully understand rather than a true analysis of their current worth vs the cost and trouble of hiring a new employee who may or may not pan out.
The risk of failure should be priced into starting salaries. If 10% of hires fail, then those who don't fail are worth more than their starting salary. The smart ones realize this. As do the smart bosses.
Whoever said they thought their initial salary was 'beneath' them? They accepted it.
You paid them what you needed to get them to start the job. Now they are letting you know what you need to pay them to keep them. It seems like an honest negotiation. You seem to be taking it personally.
If you viewed the initial hiring and training process as an investment that needed to be repaid by loyalty, then you should have had that in the contract. How long were the terms of the contract? Why do you feel they are beholden to the company just because you trained them? Companies are rarely loyal to their workers, why should they expect loyalty in return?
I really appreciate your viewpoint. It is well-articulated.
However, I still have finite resources. I will not be "firing" anyone. I just know that my budget allows and it's not 13% annual raises.
I do not really consider training someone for the job they were hired for is worthy of a raise. They were trained to work at the wage we hired them at. Before they were fully trained, they were an expense producing no meaningful value. By saying that training is expensive I mean that it takes a toll on the company.
I guess I am taking it too personally but I do feel a bit slighted.
Truth Bomber wrote:
just pointing out that your stance is stupid wrote:
So what you are saying is that they are now trained and proven and worth more than what you hired them at.
Arguing that replacing them costs money is an argument FOR giving them a raise, not against it. Your argument about the trouble of replacing them is exactly why they know they are worth more than when they were hired.
Deep down you are probably firing them out of principal that you probably don't fully understand rather than a true analysis of their current worth vs the cost and trouble of hiring a new employee who may or may not pan out.
The risk of failure should be priced into starting salaries. If 10% of hires fail, then those who don't fail are worth more than their starting salary. The smart ones realize this. As do the smart bosses.
Whoever said they thought their initial salary was 'beneath' them? They accepted it.
You paid them what you needed to get them to start the job. Now they are letting you know what you need to pay them to keep them. It seems like an honest negotiation. You seem to be taking it personally.
If you viewed the initial hiring and training process as an investment that needed to be repaid by loyalty, then you should have had that in the contract. How long were the terms of the contract? Why do you feel they are beholden to the company just because you trained them? Companies are rarely loyal to their workers, why should they expect loyalty in return?
I really appreciate your viewpoint. It is well-articulated.
However, I still have finite resources. I will not be "firing" anyone. I just know that my budget allows and it's not 13% annual raises.
I do not really consider training someone for the job they were hired for is worthy of a raise. They were trained to work at the wage we hired them at. Before they were fully trained, they were an expense producing no meaningful value. By saying that training is expensive I mean that it takes a toll on the company.
I guess I am taking it too personally but I do feel a bit slighted.
Your resources are your concern. Not theirs. I once asked for a similar raise (~13%) when i was just starting out after a year at a company.
I was turned down, because, you know, that just seemed like a pretty big raise and I only had a year under my belt and that's not in their budget and not how things were done around there etc etc
I walked and doubled my salary within the week, and left that job after 6 months for another 30% jump.
Meanwhile, my original company struggled to hire someone at my former wage with an inferior skill set.
If a company can't afford me then that's their concern, not mine. That's how it works.