Pay Raise Time

[LegendKiller]

Started working for my company on Oct 26 of 2003. I work in a highly visible, stressful (thats why I need to come on here, relieve stress), and important part of the company.

Company just releases its 10-k yesterday. Net income goes up by 38.5%. Revenues go up 22%. CEO pay goes from 14m to 22 million 40%.

Worker pay goes up 2.5%, I go up .84% because I was pro-rated due to not being here a full year.

Even better, CEO has over 280m worth of stock options, combined with his salary it would give every person who works for the company over $34,000 if he gave it to them.


Now, I am a pretty motivated person, but not even giving me a pay increase that equals inflation just pisses me off and makes me un-motivated.


LK

[ray]

Originally posted by LegendKiller
CEO pay goes from 14m to 22 million 40%.

Worker pay goes up 2.5%, I go up .84% because I was pro-rated due to not being here a full year.

Now, I am a pretty motivated person, but not even giving me a pay increase that equals inflation just pisses me off and makes me un-motivated.

LK

Wouldn't the CEO's pay increase be approximately 57%?

I have only been with my current employer since October as well, and like you, I received a pro-rated increase. However, I am expecting a raise that is well beyond the standard 3%-6% next year.

And if you're unmotivated, perhaps you should petition for a Union. Then you can get paid AND do no work :heh:

[LegendKiller]

Those are approx numbers, didn't bother figuring out down to the single percentage or million. The point is 40(+)>38>.84(or 2.5).


LK

[gear02]

i don't understand why companies keep paying ceos millions of $$. It's not like they were the ones who increased productivity.

Imagine if you take that $8 million and give it to the employees as a bonus. That'll keep people there and keep them happy, which is good for productivity. Give the CEO $8 million and everyone else 2.5% and you'll see all the talent start to leave...

btw quick question. if you're not happy with the raise, or think it doesn't even cover inflation, can you ask for a larger one?

[LegendKiller]

If this trend continues I wont be here for more than 3 years, after I get my CFA paid for, experience I need, I am gone.

I can, but it wont do any good. They capped it at 2.5% per person per department. For example, if a manager wanted to give something 5%, they'd have to give another person 0%. Nice way of making their employees feel like they are contributing to a good company and their work will be rewarded.

LK

[whitak24]

i know when i was at accenture this was a huge issue. part of it was that we were coming out of the tech boom (when everyone had been getting double-digit raises every year) and the company wasn't doing so hot.

but there's nothing like telling employees that they're going to get a $25 per week pay raise to get everyone feeling like the company hates them.

the fact that the company went public and made instant mega-millionaires out of the CEO and high execs, and multi-millionaires out of the partners didn't help anyone's morale.

it sucks man.....hope you can soak them for the educational benefits and then move on to something more rewarding soon.

[Kevster]

I believe my post regarding New Media Business Math 101 covers my feelings about CEO compensation to a T.

My company's CEO gets paid 4M a year right now and it pisses everyone off at my company. Considering the fact that a 15% cut in his salary (which grew over the last 3 years while ours remained stagnant) would have covered the layoffs we "had to have" last year. :angry:

[zenbooty]

And yet they still continue to believe in "trickle down" economic theory.

Trickle, trickle trickle...

[gear02]

Originally posted by zenbooty
And yet they still continue to believe in "trickle down" economic theory.

Trickle, trickle trickle...

of course...

trickle down to the valet parking dude...
trickle down to the maid...
trickle down to the sleazy bmw dealer...
trickle down to his coke supplier
trickle down to the intern under his desk...

[LPMiller]

Originally posted by LegendKiller
If this trend continues I wont be here for more than 3 years, after I get my CFA paid for, experience I need, I am gone.

I can, but it wont do any good. They capped it at 2.5% per person per department. For example, if a manager wanted to give something 5%, they'd have to give another person 0%. Nice way of making their employees feel like they are contributing to a good company and their work will be rewarded.

LK

This is very common, and something that used to piss me off to no end. I had 2 employees, both were great. But I had to take turns giving one of them a 5 percent raise, and the other a 2.5 percent raise, because of the cap. This in turn would affect my department, so if my boss wanted someone else not under me to get 5 percent, my people had to take a cut. It was bull****.

[faither]

I'm very conflicted about pay raises and the awarding of incentives. Aside from firing prople, which I've had to do, doling out raises and incentives are the most difficult tasks a manager does. I say conflicted because while it is gut-wrenching to make those tough decisions, I enjoy nothing more than rewarding those folks who've been doing the heavy lifting.

I have a staff of about 60 (about 50-50, unionized / non-union) and I believe my first priority is to take care of those folks who make my life easier. That doesn't mean shooting the poop with me or being a lunch buddy (I make it a rule outside of staff lucheons not to lunch with staff members as to avoid the whole playing favorites crap) but the men and women on whom I rely to keep my areas beating benchmarks and exceeding goals. A big part of minimizing the pain of this process is keeping proper documentation throughout the year and stack-ranking everybody -- from the managers that are my direct reports, through their direct reports and the bottom of their staffs.

I set the expectation up front by explaining that my top priority is rewarding the best performers. If I have to, someone will get 0% or 1% in order to properly reward those who are deserving. To me, one of the weakest traits of many managers is not being willing to make those tough decisions -- I think that hurts morale more than giving someone 0%.

[attgig]

wow...

my first year with my company i got a sizable raise.

i started working june 1st so it was a good 7 motnhs work. and I got a raise of about 13% cap is 20%


however, my second year raise wasn't as good as i hoped.... more like 4%. of course we didn't have as good of a financial year that year (first 2 quarters though it picked up by 4th quarter)....so, i guess understandable???

we'll see what happens this year.

[Johnnymac]

What is this ... pay ... raise? :shrug:

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by faither
I'm very conflicted about pay raises and the awarding of incentives. Aside from firing prople, which I've had to do, doling out raises and incentives are the most difficult tasks a manager does. I say conflicted because while it is gut-wrenching to make those tough decisions, I enjoy nothing more than rewarding those folks who've been doing the heavy lifting.

I have a staff of about 60 (about 50-50, unionized / non-union) and I believe my first priority is to take care of those folks who make my life easier. That doesn't mean shooting the poop with me or being a lunch buddy (I make it a rule outside of staff lucheons not to lunch with staff members as to avoid the whole playing favorites crap) but the men and women on whom I rely to keep my areas beating benchmarks and exceeding goals. A big part of minimizing the pain of this process is keeping proper documentation throughout the year and stack-ranking everybody -- from the managers that are my direct reports, through their direct reports and the bottom of their staffs.

I set the expectation up front by explaining that my top priority is rewarding the best performers. If I have to, someone will get 0% or 1% in order to properly reward those who are deserving. To me, one of the weakest traits of many managers is not being willing to make those tough decisions -- I think that hurts morale more than giving someone 0%.


I have no problem in rewarding people who do their work. My manager loves my work and I am sure he would like to be able to give me a higher raise, but he cannot.

The core issue here is that some of these fat cats give themselves massive raises at the expense of their workers.


LK

[eSDee]

That's pretty weak LK. Hopefully they wise up and give up some more money to those who actually do the work. Did you get any stock options atleast?

[brainsmile]

our pay raises are pretty much according to a scale so we don't really have any surprises.

[InfiniteNothing]

Originally posted by zenbooty
And yet they still continue to believe in "trickle down" economic theory.

Trickle, trickle trickle...

I've always liked trickle up. I mean poor people WILL spend it and soon right? Good way to get things moving right?

[verve247]

Actually isn't what LK's ceo doing against trickle down economics? He's hoarding the wealth instead of giving everyone a small fraction. I guess most people are too greedy to follow the theory.


What LK's ceo did is a common occurance. A year ago my ceo (in a multibillion dollar company) did it and no one saw a raise over 5%. Then we started seeing employees leaving our company due to uncompetitve pay. So they give them a pay increase, but where do they get that money? From our yearly bonus of course. There are so many unstatisfied employees at my company. I doubt these guys ever worked themselves from the bottom up.

[Joshua]

I feel your pain dude. I worked at a company that gave us a $20 xmas bonus. It's a smack in the face. "Here, thanks for all your hard work all year. Lunch is on us!" :rolleyes:

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by verve247
Actually isn't what LK's ceo doing against trickle down economics? He's hoarding the wealth instead of giving everyone a small fraction. I guess most people are too greedy to follow the theory.Its a matter or practice vs. theory. The theory is that by lightening the financial burden at the top, you promote growth which helps everyone down to the bottom. What in reality you are accomplishing is a hierarchical system where the few at the top feast and thne masses below fight for scraps.

[faither]

Originally posted by LegendKiller
The core issue here is that some of these fat cats give themselves massive raises at the expense of their workers.

LK

Agreed. The disparity between CEO total compensation and average employee salary as a multiple continues to grow at an alarming rate. This, in spite of the financial performance of many companies. I mean, sh!t, how much better of a job can a CEO do when compared against a top-notch middle manager. Not $22 million better.

This is an example of the kind of stuff that kills me. In 2000 or 2001, Chase Manhattan bank lost about 40% of its stock price, made no profit (lost about a billion give or take), laid of employees but its CEO William Harrison made more than $60 million in total compensation those years. You could have found a chimp to give you those results and they just get paid in bananas.

[cheapchinese]

i guess i'm probably lucky....
when the economy was bad ....our whole company including the high and mid management did a cut in salary to avoid lay offs... that really brought morale for us..

as for raises... it went with performance... I just got 7% raise because my department beat expectation, and did well. Our company pretty much like to keep us alot for what we do.. and those that don't perform well, just get fired.
Guess its because our CEO is actually the person that started this company, he really believes in employee benefits

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by LegendKiller



I have no problem in rewarding people who do their work. My manager loves my work and I am sure he would like to be able to give me a higher raise, but he cannot.

The core issue here is that some of these fat cats give themselves massive raises at the expense of their workers.


LK

Wow, you are starting to sound like me.

[Airencracken]

Originally posted by ray
And if you're unmotivated, perhaps you should petition for a Union. Then you can get paid AND do no work :heh:

Currently riding that wave. :cool:


Originally posted by zenbooty
What in reality you are accomplishing is a hierarchical system where the few at the top feast and thne masses below fight for scraps.

So true. COLA is so bloody high!

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


Wow, you are starting to sound like me.


Is that so hard to believe considering this issue?

I mean, hell, I produce damn good work for them. My work saves money, potentially millions. Yet, I get .84%? Thats complete BS.


LK

[Johnnymac]

I guess I don't get too disappointed with raises. The way I figure it, I got hired to bust my @ss and perform at a high level. If I do that, I have earned my keep and if I do it consistently, I will be promoted and earn more money. When it wasn't happening at my last company I took another job and got a 20% increase so I won't complain.

That being said, I think it's total crap for any management to get a raise at a company that is not doing well.

[Cantacuzene]

Oh I agree with you whole heartedly LK. Its high time that all companies implement a profit sharing with their employees.

[Johnnymac]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Oh I agree with you whole heartedly LK. Its high time that all companies implement a profit sharing with their employees.

Why exactly do you think that should be the case?

[ray]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Oh I agree with you whole heartedly LK. Its high time that all companies implement a profit sharing with their employees.

And see how shareholders react to that.

[Cantacuzene]

Well since you asked...

I think stockholder's potential profits should be capped to a fixed %. And not just dividends, but on the sale of the stock. Stock investments (especially IPOs) ought not to be a get rich quick scheme for investors.


Originally posted by ray


And see how shareholders react to that.

I know how anyone who feels their economic interests threatened would react in the face of just reform: selfishly.

[ray]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Well since you asked...

I think stockholder's potential profits should be capped to a fixed %. And not just dividends, but on the sale of the stock. Stock investments (especially IPOs) ought not to be a get rich quick scheme for investors.

So, you're proposing that somebody reinvents the entire stock market worldwide?

[LegendKiller]

I don't think that is the solution Canta.

Although I do agree to some sort of employee profit sharing, that or a cap on executive pay, set at a multiple of the lowest paid office worker (including janitors).

Janitor makes 30k per year? Then you should only make 10x that. Of course, some execs would get around that by paying the janitor more, which would mean you would need to average it, say, 5x office average. Average being 50k, max of 250k per year. Set the multiple lower for lower paid managers.

[gear02]

Originally posted by ray


And see how shareholders react to that.

Why would the shareholders look down upon that? Are they really comfortable with a CEO who gets $20 Million, with about a million shares of stock controlling the company?

With my company, we're nervous because the CEO is getting paid some millions of bucks, but he also has vest stock interests that would be worth a heck of a lot if he gutted our company and sold it all away. Basically, it would be mean more money for the CEO if he sold it away. How would stockholders be comfortable with that?

[Johnnymac]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Well since you asked...

I think stockholder's potential profits should be capped to a fixed %. And not just dividends, but on the sale of the stock. Stock investments (especially IPOs) ought not to be a get rich quick scheme for investors.



I may be confused, Is that a answer to my question?

[ray]

Originally posted by cracker
I may be confused, Is that a answer to my question?

It was an answer to my question.


Originally posted by gear02
Why would the shareholders look down upon that?

You are assuming that the profit sharing equals the same amount the top dogs would receive in salary increases. Let's be a little more realistic.

Let's say Company X does not have profit sharing. Company X makes $100M in profit in 2004. In a scenario where the top dogs give themselves more money and screw everybody else, let's say they take $20M for salary increases. That remaining $80M profit makes its way to shareholders blah blah blah.

Now, let's say we are in a scenario where there is profit sharing. Company X makes $100M in profit in 2004. The top dogs take their $20M for salary increases and then another $30M of that goes to profit sharing for the other workers. That leaves $50M for shareholders.

If I were a shareholder of Company X, I would prefer a situation where the top dogs are the only ones getting money.

[ray]

Originally posted by gear02
Are they really comfortable with a CEO who gets $20 Million, with about a million shares of stock controlling the company?


I was actually curious to see how many shares of a company some insiders held, so I took LegendKiller's employer to use as an example: Cendant Corp.

Just quickly looking at some stats, only 6% of Cendant stock is owned by insiders (Executive Mgmt, Board of Directors, In-House Trusts and Charities, etc)

With that said, I am pretty sure that the other 94% of the stockholders would be pissed if the bottom line dropped because profit sharing is implemented.

I, like everybody else, would like to see a company that incorporates profit sharing, but for a publicly traded company you'll have a lot of hurdles to clear before you can do it. Privately owned companies, however.....

[gear02]

Originally posted by ray


It was an answer to my question.



You are assuming that the profit sharing equals the same amount the top dogs would receive in salary increases. Let's be a little more realistic.

Let's say Company X does not have profit sharing. Company X makes $100M in profit in 2004. In a scenario where the top dogs give themselves more money and screw everybody else, let's say they take $20M for salary increases. That remaining $80M profit makes its way to shareholders blah blah blah.

Now, let's say we are in a scenario where there is profit sharing. Company X makes $100M in profit in 2004. The top dogs take their $20M for salary increases and then another $30M of that goes to profit sharing for the other workers. That leaves $50M for shareholders.

If I were a shareholder of Company X, I would prefer a situation where the top dogs are the only ones getting money.

Ah right. That makes more sense. I hope I learn this in MBA school :D

[Johnnymac]

Another thing is that the shareholders are the ones that own the company. If you are an employee you get paid to do your job, I don't think you should be entitled to share in the profits of the company just because you did your job well. You are supposed to do your job well and that's what you get paid for.

I'm not saying that profit-sharing shouldn't be done, but I don't understand why some people look at it as an entitlement and not as a bonus.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by ray


So, you're proposing that somebody reinvents the entire stock market worldwide?

I doubt it can be done, but if it could be done, I'd be for it.

[ray]

Originally posted by gear02
Ah right. That makes more sense. I hope I learn this in MBA school :D

I'm sure LK can provide a much more detailed look at how profit sharing would affect shareholder equity since i'm not up to par in scenarios like that. I am sure that my quickie example could be picked apart word by word, but we'll just assume it's correct for now :D

If you really want to learn more about the business world before you head off to MBA school, start reading the Wall Street Journal cover to cover. Great learning tool.


Originally posted by Cantacuzene


I doubt it can be done, but if it could be done, I'd be for it.

What kind of employee wouldn't want that? LOL :P

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by cracker
Another thing is that the shareholders are the ones that own the company. If you are an employee you get paid to do your job, I don't think you should be entitled to share in the profits of the company just because you did your job well. You are supposed to do your job well and that's what you get paid for.

I'm not saying that profit-sharing shouldn't be done, but I don't understand why some people look at it as an entitlement and not as a bonus.

What it comes down to is, a guy working on the BMW assembly line should make enough money to be able to afford the product he makes. Otherwise you become alienated from your work and it becomes a de-humanizing process which only creates social discontent.

[Johnnymac]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


What it comes down to is, a guy working on the BMW assembly line should make enough money to be able to afford the product he makes. Otherwise you become alienated from your work and it becomes a de-humanizing process which only creates social discontent.

So If I am an Iron worker, I should make enough to afford a skyscraper?

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by cracker


So If I am an Iron worker, I should make enough to afford a skyscraper?

Ofcourse! :rolleyes: :P

[Showtime]

Originally posted by LegendKiller
Started working for my company on Oct 26 of 2003. I work in a highly visible, stressful (thats why I need to come on here, relieve stress), and important part of the company.

Company just releases its 10-k yesterday. Net income goes up by 38.5%. Revenues go up 22%. CEO pay goes from 14m to 22 million 40%.

Worker pay goes up 2.5%, I go up .84% because I was pro-rated due to not being here a full year.

Even better, CEO has over 280m worth of stock options, combined with his salary it would give every person who works for the company over $34,000 if he gave it to them.


Now, I am a pretty motivated person, but not even giving me a pay increase that equals inflation just pisses me off and makes me un-motivated.


LK

Do you actually work? Seems like your always here. :shrug:

:P

-jel:halo:

[InfiniteNothing]

Originally posted by cracker
, I don't think you should be entitled to share in the profits of the company just because you did your job well. You are supposed to do your job well and that's what you get paid for.

Because "supposed to" doesn't motivate. It doesn't unify. It alienates. People who aren't motivated cost the CEO and the consumers money. You get cheaper, better products and more solidarity amongst the workers. Everyone wins.

[topane]

Originally posted by ray
I was actually curious to see how many shares of a company some insiders held, so I took LegendKiller's employer to use as an example: Cendant Corp.Hey! My company owns a bunch of Cendant stock! Does that mean I own LK?

[attgig]

Originally posted by SnotRocket
I feel your pain dude. I worked at a company that gave us a $20 xmas bonus. It's a smack in the face. "Here, thanks for all your hard work all year. Lunch is on us!" :rolleyes:

that's horrible.

seems like the paperwork/hrwork would've cost the company more than that~!

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by the jello is jigglin


Do you actually work? Seems like your always here. :shrug:

:P

-jel:halo:


ROFL, thats cuz it takes forever for excel/Brio/Business Objects to perform all of my calculations or queries. I get everything my boss wants done and then some. I woudlnk't have so much idle time if the IT morons actually got Brio implimented correctly.


LK

[attgig]

business objects...nice
we're just starting to use that for our new reporting system...

and don't call me an IT moron!!! :P

[Johnnymac]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing


Because "supposed to" doesn't motivate. It doesn't unify. It alienates. People who aren't motivated cost the CEO and the consumers money. You get cheaper, better products and more solidarity amongst the workers. Everyone wins.

Well then I guess thats a problem with the workforce at large. The very thought of keeping the job that someone agrees to when they signed an offer letter should be enough. I know I won't have people on my team who will only be motivated to excel if they get "extras".

[Cantacuzene]

Being paid fairly (ie sharing in the profits) for the work you do isn't an "extra," its what you SHOULD be getting paid in the first place. YOur sweat and blood makes the profits, the capitalist simply paid for the production costs. They should be EQUAL partners. Thus, its only fair that the profits should be divided equally between the shareholders and the worker.

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by attgig
business objects...nice
we're just starting to use that for our new reporting system...

and don't call me an IT moron!!! :P


BO is on the way out in our company. Since my parent company is a monster that swallows companies, they decided to merge 2 timeshare companies (trendwest and fairfield). Trendwest has the better IT systems, by far. However, Fairfield is the larger and more solid company that has neglected IT for more than 30 years. They operate on a pieced together mainframe that can hardly handle what it is tasked to do. But, instead of designing a new system, they decided to slap together the two by making Trendwest a subordinate system feeding to the FF mainframe.

To consoldate the two, they also decided to change to Brio or, "The Tool" as the Brio consultants are fond of saying. The only reason why they are getting rid of BO is because they failed to support it correctly, and Cendant muckity mucks were sold by the presentation.

Thus, they have rolled out a system that is far to slow, far to closed, and way behind schedule and way over budget. They hired PwC to create reports for my boss and I, spending a lot of dough, but they NEVER ASKED WHAT WE WANTED!!!

Now, we are making another securitization term deal. What we were supposed to have (dynamic time slice querying) hasn't appeared and is almost 3 months behind schedule.

So, what I do all day is sit around waiting for a 200,000 row, 60 column query to come back from a datawarehouse thats running on a small dual xeon box with a 4-drive raid-10 array (duh). I have to do this for every month for every year going forward from 1997, thus, I have to make 72 queries, then 60, then 48...etc. Every time I want to switch months I have to call the IT people, who go and do it in code.


Of course, I was half-assed trained on Brio and only my innate ability to learn computers allows me to work the magic I do. I have to laise with IT to get my bosses work done.


So, instead of the sh!tty .84% payraise I get, I should get paid a lot more since I am Finance, IT, business planning, and management rolled into one.


But, ending my rant with....Ya gotta do what ya gotta do.


LK