In my opinion, employers need to do more to significantly reward existing employees they want to retain. Right now, I can see how frustrating it could be for tenured employees when new hires come in with (quite a bit) higher comp packages than them, while they get a measly pay bump in accordance with inflation (sometimes even less).
Routinely see 100% increases in total compensation for switching jobs. But I’ve never seen a 100% increase made internally even for a great performer on a team. Hoping we'll start to see change here, and that we see better designed incentives to keep people around. If you don't reward your employees, you're creating the revolving door for them to keep hopping around.
>In my opinion, employers need to do more to significantly reward existing employees they want to retain. Right now, I can see how frustrating it could be for tenured employees when new hires come in with (quite a bit) higher comp packages than them, while they get a measly pay bump in accordance with inflation (sometimes even less).
This is literally what happened for me a few days ago
I've started as a student working for minimal wage, but I had some not small experience with C#, but I've still been around beginner level
After 3.5 years I've gained shitton of experience (that was smaller company, so you do everything from software, to deploy, to support, etc) and meanwhile I graduated and been arguing about software on the internet for years
but my compensation was around 130% of minimal wage <LOL>
I decided to quit and multiplied my salary by around 3.4 - 3.5 times
and meanwhile I told my friend who had like month or two experience with C# from college, that he should apply there, told him to learn about databases/sql and do some C# programming for like a month - so basically we have really newbie with little experience (let alone commercial) and he received like 140-150% of minimal wage
ridiculous, ain't it? but I'm happy with both outcomes :)
i agree, but let me play the devil's advocate and argue that revolving doors might also play out well for the business.
The biggest fear (or risk?) a business owner might have is to be held hostage by a employee whose function/knowledge/skill is essential for business continuity. This gives the employee undue leverage, which lowers the profits, and allows said employee to extract close to 100% of the value they produce.
Therefore, a business would actually prefer a set of replaceable cogs rather than irreplaceable (but higher performing) employees. The business process could be adjusted so that the downsides of replaceable cogs is mitigated - such as strict processes or procedures and docs, or rely on technology that is can be easily hired for, rather than niche tech that would require finding a particular engineer with such knowledge of the niche tech (even if such niche tech is more productive!).
And this leads to the situation where employees' pay are market rate, but only at the time of hiring. Old employees, even tho they are experienced in the business's particular domain, aren't valued higher than a new hire.
I have witnessed this mindset. The employer was glad to let people go after they were frustrated with low wages and no raises for a while. The result: very high turnover, all technical knowledge in the company was lost after a while (fixing old products was very hard as no one knew how they worked), all in all a very bad idea if you ask me. But the boss seemed happy with this.
Revolving doors mean your company secrets and competitive edge getting gifted to others. Treat your employees well and respectful is always best company policy to adopt. Whistleblower and IP thief can bring company down very swiftly.
I absolutely agree but there is this conceptual problem. I think it's the same as with retaining and finding new customers. There will always be great offers for new customers while the current ones can be happy with what they have.
There always is a barrier of changing things. Especially changing the job involves a lot of decisions and brings risk. The pay increase in the new job (and maybe a signing bonus) is trying to convince you to switch.
I guess what this means in the end is that you are seen as replaceable and are not valued enough. I heard similar statements from middle management once, when a bunch of junior colleagues left the team. They didn't realize that, although junior, they were doing a great job. It's funny because a good raise for them would still have been quite "cheap".
Routinely see 100% increases in total compensation for switching jobs. But I’ve never seen a 100% increase made internally even for a great performer on a team. Hoping we'll start to see change here, and that we see better designed incentives to keep people around. If you don't reward your employees, you're creating the revolving door for them to keep hopping around.