The Microsoft Salary and Review System 375
f1055man writes "If you can make it through the obvious bias, Washington Alliance of Technology Workers (WASHTECH) has put together a revealing article on Microsoft's salary and review system. 'Internal Microsoft documents obtained by WashTech News show that Microsoft salaries have been stagnant or nudged only slightly higher over the past two years. Comments from current and former employees about the company's compensation and performance review system suggest a growing level of frustration among rank-and-file workers.'"
Welcome to the rest of the jungle (Score:4, Insightful)
It may be for nerds, and it may at some level matter, but it's not news.
Microsoft Engineer and a Sweeper? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Microsoft Engineer and a Sweeper? (Score:5, Interesting)
When I didn't get the raise I wanted, I didn't get all pissed off; I didn't even go look somewhere else. I just started my own computer repair/networking/etc. business on the side. It's been over a year now, and it's been a huge blessing both monetarily and in other, less tangible ways. There's probably not a person reading this that couldn't do the same. There's always more money to be found out there. Before I had my current skill set, if we started having trouble making ends meet, I'd just take on another shitty dishwasher-type job for a while. Thankfully now I'm able to be a little more entrepreneurial about it. Just wish I had the balls to do it full time...
Re: Microsoft Engineer and a Sweeper? (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe he sells video card, memory, processor upgrades, but the bread and butter is fixing messed up PCs.
Re: Microsoft Engineer and a Sweeper? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not an economist, but my gut feeling is that it is getting harder and harder for people to move on. Of course, there's always jobs available as a cashier somewhere, but that isn't supposed to be rewarding for a four-year degree or years of experience. Or, is it?
I'm not an MBA, either, but it seems that MBA schools must not include "morale" anywhere in their curriculums. Time and time again,
Re: Microsoft Engineer and a Sweeper? (Score:4, Insightful)
Some people view outsourcing of tech support to India hurts their chances of getting a job but I see it as an opportunity. I do PC repair/network setup on the side and most of the clients agree that Indian tech support sucks royally. You can take this opportunity to set up a business for yourself or sit back and let overpriced Geek Squad (Best Buy) provide services that people need.
Former Microsoftie here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed, and this is what I *hated* about the review process. I spent a lot of time generating immense value for Microsoft. I helped bring success in a number of venues and yet any time I attempted to bring these up in review, I was *criticized* for helping out other divisions of the company. Something about me being an employee of my team rather than the company as a whole. My review scores were always 3.5.
I hated reviews. It was a process I generally barely tolerated because it turned the managers into backstabbing weasels. Interdepartmental politics always trumped the significant value of my contributions at a time when I was helping to write the strategy of competing against Linux (as a Level 54, no less). My managers would encourage me until review time and then cut me down in the review over it.
I personally will not consider going back to work at Microsoft. Even though I left largely due to personal issues that left me no choice but to quit, I would not willingly go back.
Re:Former Microsoftie here. (Score:4, Insightful)
I hated reviews. It was a process I generally barely tolerated because it turned the managers into backstabbing weasels. Interdepartmental politics always trumped the significant value of my contributions...
I think this is just a function of the way big corps work. I've seen it at two other companies (as a hardware engineer, not software). It seems the big corps always use some sort of relative ranking system, which taken to an extreme becomes just stupid.
In my experience we were subjected to a rigid bell curve system where 15% or 20% or somesuch -had- to be rated below average. It didn't matter if you had a group with 10 of the smartest people in history, 20% of them would be ranked as underachievers - it was just a retarded system, everyone hated it (and sure enough I heard it eventually got replaced, though I didn't hang around to find out the new system - I jumped to a better job at a smaller company with not as much of the big corp mentality)
I think HR at these big corps just degenerate over time into mindless collections of administratium [wikipedia.org]. They can't figure out why they always lose their best engineers, so they continue making lame attempts at employee satisfaction "surveys". Not useful surveys mind you, just the lame attempt to show that HR is trying their best to retain people. I actually asked an HR person once after doing one such survey why they didn't have any section for user comments, and she replied "well that would just take too long to read them all". (Yeah, I guess one wouldn't want to overburden HR with doing their job by getting useful information...)
Re:Former Microsoftie here. (Score:3, Informative)
My contributions, OTOH (in lieu of overly exceeding on the MCP exam requirement) included championing a number of product modifications (including the POP3 server in Server 2003), getting the team going to Linuxworld to take SFU (they were just going to ta
Re:Welcome to the rest of the jungle (Score:5, Funny)
Errrrrrrrr hang on a minute
Re:Welcome to the rest of the jungle (Score:3, Funny)
entitled? (Score:2)
Re:entitled? (Score:3, Insightful)
Raises used to be tied to performance, and I don't mean those nonsensical performance reviews, I mean how you actually did your job and did you add value to the company. Hard work was rewarded, slackers tended to slink away. Now, no amount of hard work seems to matter; you get a "good job" , a pat on the back, and they expect 20 hours of overtime next week instead of 15. The only way for me to keep my salary increasing has been to move from one job to the next as often as possible.
Re:entitled? (Score:2)
You do? Hey, is your company hiring? Because we never get it here.
Recently our CEO came to town to talk to the IT staff here. Where others vented, I gave concrete examples. He thanked me afterwards, and I told him, "You know, none of use find Dilbert funny anymore."
Our raises were capped at 3%, and earlier in the day we were told that our company had an EBITA of >30%. The rest of the division may have lost many
Re:Welcome to the rest of the jungle (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope, not the whole industry, just those who are struggling and/or short-sighted.
The "everyone else is doing it" attitude is a good way to lose your market leadership position. You have to pay more than lip service to your drive to stay competitive. If the review system doesn't reward people for performing, then they either won't perform or they'll move to where their work is better rewarded. It's like MS is saying "Google, you can poach our employees at a discount."
For a company like Microsoft to be losing good people due to poor compensation is bad management that borders on negligence. MS is sitting on billions of dollars. Are they doing anything with that money that's more worthwhile than retaining their talent?
Retaining the right talent (Score:2)
Re:Retaining the right talent (Score:2)
Of course, neither of these points have anything to do with the problem in the article- the disconnect between true performance and their review system. And its endemic in the indu
*Former* Microsoftie Here. (Score:3, Informative)
No. The problem is more complex than that and boils down to interdepartment politics. The problem is not just that the process needs to be redesigned but that the company as a whole is too big to come up with something better. The upper level management o
Re:*Former* Microsoftie Here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to the rest of the jungle (Score:5, Insightful)
This article, subtley, calls bullshit on them. And, as you say, it's the whole rest of the industry. There must be a great lie going on.
The Secrets of Salary Systems (Score:5, Insightful)
You will not advance over the 50% mark of your company's pay scale. Since the 1990s, personnel and payroll departments in companies have instituted a graduated pay structure often called "Banding" or "Leveled Pay" to save costs. The concept behind these systems is to organize employees into similar grades depending upon job category and responsibility. A secretary and a construction worker may be placed into the same grade, while their managers and engineers would be placed at a higher grade. These grades span a set amount of money, so for example the construction worker may earn anywhere between $30,000 and $50,000 per year.
However, this system was also structured to keep dangling a carrot in front of the eyes of the employee. The midpoint in these systems is designated as the "market average". Therefore, if you are near this midpoint, you are considered "paid competitively" compared to the rest of the people in that niche market. This makes the possibility for future raises smaller or nonexistent. For the sample construction worker, this would mean that he would not advance above $40,000 per year. While you may believe that you have the possibility of getting up to the top point in the grade, the system is intentionally designed to retard compensation.
I welcome any thoughts if this could be stated better.
Re:The Secrets of Salary Systems (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, you get what you pay for.
Re:The Secrets of Salary Systems (Score:3, Interesting)
The
Re:Welcome to the rest of the jungle (Score:2)
Re:Welcome to the rest of the jungle (Score:5, Interesting)
It could be significant because MSFT has been doing it while increasing their quarterly profits. When a company needs cash and stiffs their workers on salaries it's a lot more understandable than a company that still manages to increase their quarterly numbers. It would breed a lot of resentment among the rank and file.
It might really be significant if MSFT had to stiff their workers to increase quarterly numbers. Their sales are nearly pure profit, billions in cash every quarter. And they're telling their employees "No soup for you!"
Doesn't make sense. MSFT is not an airline or a smokestack industry. Their sunk costs are pretty insignificant compared to their cash profit margin. For a cash rich company this behavior is oddly out of synch with their earnings.
Re:Welcome to the rest of the jungle (Score:5, Insightful)
This is news because of the economic implications for Microsoft. Microsoft has historically been able to recruit the best and brightest to work for Microsoft, give them stock options, and essentially let investors pay the developers a ridiculous salary without the costs showing up on Microsoft's books. This, in turn, allowed Microsoft's books to look amazing which generated more interested in MSFT stock. Basically, while Microsoft was growing, it could print its own money. Now that this isn't the case Microsoft is a much less attractive place to work.
This wouldn't be a big deal if the coders at Microsoft couldn't find someplace else to work with higher pay, but that's not the case with the elite at Microsoft. That's why Google has been able to scoop up so many Microsoft employees, and it is also why we have seen a steady stream of Microsoft employees forming their own startups and such.
Re:Unionize the masses (Score:4, Insightful)
The big problem with unionizing is that what happened to the other industries will happen to high tech.... I'm not talking about layoffs, strikes, or anything like that. I'm talking about people that don't do their job.
It'll be a WHOLE lot harder to get someone fired for goofing around. For those of you in the automotive industry, you know what I'm talking about. Down on the floor, you look at someone the wrong way, they file a report. You catch someone not doing their job, no hope firing them on the spot, because the union steps in, and that's it. It's become part of the culture there. Not everyone is that way, of course, but the slackers are taking advantage of the system.
Can you imagine if that happened in high tech? I mean, we all work with some goofballs, but at least there's a chance they'll get canned, or move on after low performance reviews.
With a union, there would be almost no hope for that.
Another thing is that while you would probably get a raise every year, there's much much less of a chance that working really hard on a great new idea for the company will land you that promotion, big raise and big bonus. Nope....You're unionized now fella. Gotta do what's good for the union. No promotion, big raise or big bonus for you! The union's taken care of everything. You get the same as everyone else in your grade scale. It's like the old Dilbert comic "I get paid the same, no matter what I do".
If there's one sure why to drive the industry into the ground, that'd be it.
Re:Unionize the masses (Score:3, Interesting)
Who deserves a raise? Not everyone. (Score:4, Insightful)
The big problem in the States is the government's crazy dollar creation (what we call inflation is directly caused by the Fed's out of control printing of dollars). This inflation creates cost of living increases (including the housing bubble in my opinion). Because of this inflationary cycle, people demand cost of living increases.
For my businesses, I pay my employees the lowest salary possible, in some cases minimum wage. I myself only earn minimum wage. Yet my employees also get a much larger share of profits, up to 70% on a given project. They are directly tied to the performance of their work, as well as the performance of the market. I'm one of the lowest paid in my IT business (although I also do less work than most).
To get raises, your company has to be making more money in terms of net profits. Microsoft is a company that has to constantly find new ways to profit in order to grow. With the added competition in the marketplace, it surprises me that slashdot geeks constantly berate Microsoft for being a monopoly when they have one of the most volatile markets to sell to -- they're constantly having to find ways to keep customers happy.
I wouldn't work for (or invest in) Microsoft or any large tech company. The red tape and bureaucracy is enormous, and the management system is bound to fail at multiple places when their market turns.
If you are an employee of a company that isn't getting a raise this year, consider the realities of your market:
1. Is your company growing?
2. Is the growth reflected in real profits?
3. Does your company see a volatile near-future that they need to save for?
4. Are you personally more efficient or creating more income for your company?
5. Is your government printing more currency than the economy needs, causing inflation in consumer and housing prices? Does this inflationary cycle hurt your employer?
6. Is your employer's tax burden increasing even if they're paying you the same? Is this increased tax burden causing you to earn less?
When you're an employee, you put off the reward of a very high salary by hedging against the risk of running a business. Some people believe a business' only goal is to generate profits for the owners, but this in totally untrue. A business operates to generate profits in the long run, not the short run. The only way to profit in the long run is to make your customers happy and return for more. Also, the only way to profit is for your employees to be operating more efficiently (more work or less cost) than your competitors. Profitable years might be needed to cover unprofitable years, so you can not focus on only one year or 5 years -- you have to look at the overall picture. When you take a salaried job, you give up having to worry about these things in exchange for job security.
Sometimes you won't get raises, but the world will get more expensive around you. You can almost always blame across-the-board cost of living increases on the guys printing the money. Across-the-board prices don't go up unless the money supply goes up. Don't blame your boss for not being able to compensate for these mistakes made by the central banks.
Re:Who deserves a raise? Not everyone. (Score:5, Insightful)
For my businesses, I pay my employees the lowest salary possible, in some cases minimum wage. I myself only earn minimum wage. Yet my employees also get a much larger share of profits, up to 70% on a given project. They are directly tied to the performance of their work, as well as the performance of the market. I'm one of the lowest paid in my IT business (although I also do less work than most).
That may be great during good times, but what happens if your business falls on hard times? If you aren't compensating your employees appropriately, do you think they are going to stay? You see, salary is a form of compensation. If you don't pay your employees anything but or near minimum wage, you must not think very highly of your work. Just because an effort fails, does not mean that it was for lack of trying. Profit sharing should be an extra incentive to work even harder.
Re:Who deserves a raise? Not everyone. (Score:3, Informative)
The parent poster did address cost of living increases, but he said that cost of living increases are formed by inflation. Some businesses are unable to keep up with inflation and therefore are unable to raise their workers' salaries. Inflation r
Re:Who deserves a raise? Not everyone. (Score:3, Insightful)
And this is your employer's fault? It is your job to work at the rate you're paid. If you want more money, you have to find someone willing to pay for it.
Your employee compensates you for what you are worth to them. If you want more money, you have
Re:Who deserves a raise? Not everyone. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Who deserves a raise? Not everyone. (Score:2)
You could do your business a favor by reading some basic book on macroeconomics.
You could do your personal financial situation a favor by checking out everything the parent poster has to say on the subject, as well as this book which I know he is going to point you to: http://www.mises.org/money.asp [mises.org]
Re:Who deserves a raise? Not everyone. (Score:2)
Re:Who deserves a raise? Not everyone. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, I wish I understood how inflation rates are calculated. Heating costs have doubled for many people in the last several years--that's hundreds of dollars a year. My health insurance went up about 10% this year--again, potentially hundreds per year. My mortgage escrow also went up about 10% (taxes and insurance). Yet, the newscasts still say inflation is amost non-existent. I suspect that inflation is much much higher for some people, and the average must work out fairly low.
Re:Who deserves a raise? Not everyone. (Score:3, Informative)
There are a few links to Rothbard's book in this entire thread. It is a free and tiny e-book, I'd highly recommend reading it.
Re:Who deserves a raise? Not everyone. (Score:3, Insightful)
The BLS had nothing to do with the 2004 election and the article has nothing to prove those ridiculous claims. Is this supposed to be satire? Or some sort of analogy? The author should know that analogies are supposed to make things clearer, not more confusing. Elections aren't economics and trying to compare the two is simply disingenuous.
The article links to LaRouche material to prove the BLS manipulates the CPI. The LaRouche material relies on ONE example t
Re:Who deserves a raise? Not everyone. (Score:3, Insightful)
The something fishy would be your economics teacher. The CPI is not meant to be an end-all be-all number, and if that's what you were taught then I'm sorry. In fact the CPI is not technically an inflation number. You'll note in most news reports the CPI is introduced with "widely used as an inflation indicator" or some other
Re:Who deserves a raise? Not everyone. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Who deserves a raise? Not everyone. (Score:3, Funny)
(Incidentally, that is also why I'm mocking him; I work for the conspiracy and we're scared shitless he might convince you).
Re:Who deserves a raise? Not everyone. (Score:5, Insightful)
I strongly advise getting a passport and going to see how the rest of the world lives if you think 2-3% inflation is out of control.
Re:Who deserves a raise? Not everyone. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who deserves a raise? Not everyone. (Score:3, Interesting)
This is so true, and most people do not realize this. Our economy is _very_ fragile because of these foreign stores of our cash. I
Re:Who deserves a raise? Not everyone. (Score:2, Interesting)
and businesses have constraints on how generous they
can be.
But one large factor that affects salary costs is
that hiring for top quality, highly productive people
is very competitive. You may have to match or beat other
employer's offers to get them on board and retain them.
Run of the mill folks may not get raises, but you need
to make sure your top talent is not walking out the
door.
Re:Who deserves a raise? Not everyone. (Score:5, Insightful)
Typically, technical employees DO provide more service every year, based on constantly learning how to do what they do better, as well as commonly picking up other skills from surrounding employees. In addition to this, many times, when an employee quits, it is up to the existing employees to pick up the slack, because the company won't hire a replacement, or hires an entry level replacement which can only pick up a small amount of the work that was done by the outgoing person.
In addition, every year, the cost of living goes up. Many companies consider a Cost of Living Adjustment a raise, but it is absolutely not. It just allows you to maintain the same style of living you had last year. If you do not receive even a Cost of Living Adjustment, your style of living must diminish, and your company is saying to you that you are worth less to them this year than you were last year.
You mention several things that may be affecting the companies ability to pay raises. Well, that's life. We justify high CEO salaries by saying that they take all the risk in running the business. But in reality this is purest BS. The employees take all the risk because they will be fired, not the CEO. They will not receive raises if money is short. Even if the CEO gets canned, he will get a glorious severance package. Plus, the fact that he was a spectacular failure as a CEO is worth more on a resume than if hw was a spectacular success as a programmer.
You also mention that businesses have to look long term, over 5 years or more. In publically held companies, I observe that the "public" will not allow them to look more than one quarter in the future. Investors will not allow them to spend more money on research or developing new products. Everything is quarter to quarter financials until the old products you have become obsolete and your business fails.
Re:Who deserves a raise? Not everyone. (Score:2)
The employees take all the risk because they will be fired, not the CEO.
I work at a monstrously large company that fired its CEO a few years ago for screwing up big time. We are so much better off. I'm still here, and he's not. I've been here eight years.
Re:Who deserves a raise? Not everyone. (Score:2)
Re:Who deserves a raise? Not everyone. (Score:5, Insightful)
The big problem in the States is the government's crazy dollar creation (what we call inflation is directly caused by the Fed's out of control printing of dollars). This inflation creates cost of living increases (including the housing bubble in my opinion). Because of this inflationary cycle, people demand cost of living increases.
I agree that the reasoning behind cost of living increases is somewhat circular. But this tail wagging the dog notion of inflation applied during the 1970's when US government fiscal policy was inflationary. That is no longer the case. We have plenty of other problems instead. The housing bubble was encouraged by persistent, historically low interest rates. It enlarged the number of buyers. It allowed people to buy up in value. Those same people continue to flip properties in the virtuous (I say vicious) cycle. Low interest rates are due to the insatiable appetite of export economies (like China and Japan) for US treasuries and other investments. They make enormous profits, they don't consume, so they have nowhere to put their money. You can't 'invest' in over capacity forever. They also have their own real estate speculation problems. At the moment we in the US are partying on their cheap money. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Self made man wonders why everyone can't be him. (Score:2)
You can almost always blame across-the-board cost of living increases on the guys printing the money. Across-the-board prices don't go up unless the money supply goes up. Don't blame your boss for not being able to compensate for these mistakes made by the central banks.
Blame schmame. Who cares who's to blame? The central bank doesn't give anyone a raise, but your boss does. Inflation is here to stay, and your problem with a small inflation rate doesn't make it go away. Expenses will go up, and the vast
Re:Who deserves a raise? Not everyone. (Score:2)
I've pointed you before to Nick Corcodilos' Ask the Headhunter [asktheheadhunter.com], which is a great way for salaried employees to start building the important perspective you're talking about. He's got an article about how to handle performance reviews [asktheheadhunter.com] that talks about basing your review on the profit you actually make for the company.
Re:Who deserves a raise? Not everyone. (Score:4, Interesting)
The housing bubble was created by a complete lack of confidence in the stock market. The investors then put more money into land, tying up a greater percentage of it and causing the prices to go up. If they sell land to put the money back in the stock market, the market will jump 10% in a month, and the price of land will drop 10-30%. Hopefully they won't all go at once and make the big popping sound.
But, back to the topic at hand, if you recognize inflation as something that happens, and something that won't go away, I can't see how you complain about raises as a matter of course. The employee costs you the same this year as last if you give them the 2% raise. You say they should get the same, unless they distinguish themselves, so you should be giving them a raise by what you said. However, it seems that you hate the government and take it out on your employees. Like you are trying to convert them to gold-standard nuts or something by blaming their lower wagers each year on the government. But, since it is a factor you are aware of and can correct for, your conscious decision to lower their buying power is the act that hurts them, not inflation.
Maybe you'd be making more money... (Score:2)
Re:Who deserves a raise? Not everyone. (Score:3, Insightful)
Lets say I put in 110% for the company. Good for me, I get a bonus. The next year I put in that same 'above and beyond' level of effort - but now my effort only pays out bonus - cost of living. Do this for five years and I'm probably better off putting that extra energy into your competitor's company.
I'd argue
Re:Who deserves a raise? Not everyone. (Score:3, Interesting)
In a fixed money base (let us call it a 100% gold-backed reserve banking system), there will be more people and more products chasing the same quantity of money in the system. This means prices will fall as everyone tries to attract people to their goods and services. Over time, wages fall, but so do prices.
This is a GOOD thing. If you have $1 today, you want to spend it because you know in 1 year that $1 is worth less. In a free market, when you have $1 tod
Re:Who deserves a raise? Not everyone. (Score:3, Insightful)
step 2.5: gov't prints money to pay their debt
There fixed that for you
Clod (Score:5, Funny)
The point of this article buried way down (Score:2, Insightful)
This whole article is just another call for collective bargaining agreements and a union.
Unions (Score:2)
Some people argue that the union can't function that way, ignoring the fact that not only have unions worked that way, but they were started that way. Unions don't stay that way because they are so easily corrupti
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:FYI (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:FYI (Score:2)
Re:FYI (Score:3, Insightful)
*cough* (Score:3, Funny)
the starting base salary is $75,500 for entry-level positions
Ouch. That made my eyes water. At today's exchange rate, that's nearly 43,500 pounds sterling.
I earn a lot less than that, but at least I never have to touch Windows, and the Windows people in the office bow and scrape at my feet and address me as "Mr. Unix Genius."
That in itself is worth many thousands a year.
Time for my pills.
If the salary sucks, find a different job? (Score:5, Insightful)
So are we to deduce that this person at one point loved working in an environment where they were treated shabbily and could not defend themselves? Or they did not know this was the culture at Microsoft and later found out the hard way?
The whole quote about favouritism in reviews (unfortunately) rings true about many companies, not just Microsoft. My advice is if you are unhappy - leave, no one is forcing them to work for Microsoft. And it might just be the best move of your life.
Re:If the salary sucks, find a different job? (Score:3, Interesting)
When an employee knows they are overpaid, is unsatisfied with their job but has not vacated, it's usually indicitative that they know they will not be paid as much in another position. So next time you hear someone complaining about their employment but vacated for a lengthy peri
Well (Score:2)
Nothing new - That's the same story everywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
The value of my home just went up by $146,000 this year alone -- and before you start accusing me of being too greedy, know that I'm not interested in selling, just living here. All that extra value is pure fluff, the stuff that dot-com stocks were made of. The problem is, I'm being forced to pay property taxes that are going up at the rate of 25% a year just to keep my house. Fat chance trying to find a job where my income increases commensurately.
I've no idea what to do, and I'm seriously considering moving to India, and joining the growing contingent of foreign workers there.
Somebody explain to my why it seems that despite the dollar figure of my salary that's far above what my parents earned at my age, I still feel poorer.... and I'm a good saver!
Re:Nothing new - That's the same story everywhere (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Nothing new - That's the same story everywhere (Score:3, Interesting)
This is why property taxes applied to residential homes are simply a flawed concept. Unlike almost every single other asset I own, my
Property Taxes in California (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, real estate here is insanely expensive, so any new buyers are paying quite a bit. Some retired person who bought their house back in the 1950s, however, is probably only paying about $150 a year in property taxes. That's generally a good thing, in my opinion, beca
Re:Raises. (Score:3, Funny)
Its very simple... (Score:5, Insightful)
Its all very simple: if you are paid below your worth, look for an employer that will pay what you are worth. If you can't find one then adjust your concept of what you are worth.
There. One could even make a flowchart of that.
Re:Its very simple... (Score:2)
or increase your worth (education, training, lie)
Re:Its very simple... (Score:4, Insightful)
XXXXXXXXX Your Salary
XXXX Your Worth - Your Salary = Company Profit
-CGP [colingregorypalmer.net]
What's wrong with fixed pay? (Score:4, Interesting)
Company size. Microsoft is not a small business, nor medium, nor even a large one. It's humongous. Thus, it is not really practical to talk about giving raises to i.e. top 5% or 10% performance employees like so many other companies do. In fact, even giving raises to just top 1% of employees still would bump the salary budget significantly every year.
Benefits. From what Net has been saying for years now, Microsoft's benefits and policies really don't suck. From stock options to silly things like 'nap time' during work hours, being a med-level employee for Microsoft doesn't seem to be really all that bad. Just as you check 401K and other benefits when considering work for Sun, IBM or any other IT (or non-IT) company, so too you should consider Microsoft's benefits before you complain about your stagnant pay.
Regarding elements of the article I find interesting: According to employees, who said they would be fired if they spoke on the record, the annual review amounts to little more than a closed-door popularity contest in which managers "fight" for higher scores for their team, or defer to higher-level decision makers who mandate how many workers drop to the bottom of the review scale. - this is definitely nothing unusual. In fact, if my manager didn't fight tooth and nail to prove that me and my team are better than other teams and get us raises or bonuses, seriously, I wouldn't have too high an opinion of him. Likewise, I have to notice that article focuses on salary itself - there is nothing in it about bonuses and incentives that I could find. Having a spouse who works for a major IT industry, I have to say I'm regularly stunned by the sums on her 'chrismas checks', 'yearly performance bonuses' and other 'small' things like that - they certainly make a significant portion of her yearly income (and regularly mess up our taxes, too).
What's wrong with your head. (Score:2)
I'm glad you're honest.
When your company has a "best year ever" because you busted your ass and you don't get a raise, you might not work as hard the next year.
A company has obligations to it's customers, it's owners and it's employees. If it ever screws one, it will eventually get around to screwing them all. That's what happens when you think it's OK to screw people. Microsoft
Pardon my lack of surprise... (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, I worked for MS for 5 years. Yes the review system runs largely on Politics - those who play the game get the rewards. How is this different from 99% of the rest of corporate America?
MS takes pretty darn good care of it's employees (my salary at MS was anywhere from 150% to 200% of industry standard for my position depending on whose numbers you looked at, and that doesn't even count top notch health benefits). In return, they expect you to buy into the company culture that your job is your only priority. I knew guys who would set up their Outlook to send emails at 2 and 3 in the morning to give the impression they were working late. I had a manager who's only measure of an employee's worth was whether or not they were working at least 10 hours of "overtime". Our Society as a whole tends to reward appearance over substance 9 times our of 10. Why is it a shock when corporations follow suit. If you were willing to spend the time and effort to play the game, you too could get the rewards. Personally, I couldn't stand the Company Culture at MS and that's why I'm not working there anymore and will not be working there for a long, long time (if ever) if I can help it. But just because that culture doesn't jive with my own standards and priorities doesn't make it immoral or illegal.
Now, there's business practices of upper management that are a whole other story as far as immoral and illegal, but I'm not getting into that here.
Heh, reminds me of my favorite joke while I was working there "The day Microsoft sells something that doesn't suck is the day Microsoft starts selling Vacuum Cleaners".
Bah... no news here. (Score:4, Insightful)
My earnings have been flat since 2000, and significantly lower than what I made in 1997-8. The same (mostly) can be said for my staff. If I could pay them more, I would in a heartbeat, but we haven't been able to raise prices in 6 years, so revenues have grown, right along with costs which means profits remain... dismal. If I gathered up all the profit our company has made in the past 6 years, I MIGHT be able to purchase a small Korean sedan. Instead I've done what any smart employer can do, which is give rasies where I can (which means NOT to me sadly) and plowed the rest of it back into the company. We should all be earning 40% more than we are, but we're not. Deal with it.
But I hear the healthcare is good... (Score:4, Funny)
Start over. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd suggest anyone working for such a company to quit. [quityourjobday.com]
The company has no long term investment in you and would fire you in a minute if it meant their bottom line would increase their stock values. Half the time they aren't even looking to be more profitable... they just want to increase stock prices. The trend of not paying dividends has left public held companies in bad standing.
What you should be looking for is a small company that will value you and where replacing you would be painful and where making you a better and empowered worker wont threaten the employer with ideas that you'll run away with your new found skills.
Or better yet, start your own company. If you are working for a company (if a company pays you) you're obviously worth twice that. They can't make a profit on you if you aren't.
Re:Start over. (Score:5, Interesting)
"Companies that are owned by stock holders are only interested in profits"
As opposed to companies owned by whom? Most businesses, even small ones, are incorporated, which means they're owned by stockholders. Stockholder is just another word for "owner". Sole proprietorships and partnerships also have owners.
"That means companies with stock holders do stupid things like fire 30% of their staff to make a profit"
Sometimes, firing 30 percent of the staff is exactly what needs to be done. Somtimes the percentage should be higher. Sometimes making a profit does not require any firings. It's absurd to make a blanket statement that firing people to increase profits is stupid.
"The company has no long term investment in you"
Says who? Which company? A company might not have a long term investment in a particular employee. Or it might subsidize that employee's education like my company does, making me not only more valuable to them but more competitive in the jobs marketplace.
"Half the time they aren't even looking to be more profitable... they just want to increase stock prices."
And exactly how does a company increase its stock price without increasing profits? Both increased profits and increased stock prices represent increases in shareholder value, which is a company's primary fiduciary (i.e., legal and moral) responsibility to its shareholders.
"What you should be looking for is a small company"
I prefer working for small companies but working for big companies has distinct advantages. It's foolish to make a one-size-fits-all statement that small companies are always better.
"Or better yet, start your own company."
Great idea. But then you'd be one of those greedy shareholders.
"If you are working for a company (if a company pays you) you're obviously worth twice that. They can't make a profit on you if you aren't."
Karl Marx called and left a message for you re: the surplus value of wages. "Keep fighting the good fight comrade. Seventy five years of abject failure in the Soviet Union does nothing to disprove my theories."
Re:Start over. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think his points are addressed more accuratly by saying the people who control a corporation are only interested in short term profits as opposed to long term viability. Usually corporation where the people in charge are no longer the founders.
That is not good for the long term viability for any organization.
Yes, I do relize this is a generalization, but it happens a lot.
Blame Bill (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Blame [& Pay] Bill (Score:2)
With the obvious exclusion of Bill himself!
Another reason to start your own co. (Score:3, Informative)
If you want control of your own pay, start your own gig. Plain and simple. That's what I'm in the middle of doing. I think it's absurd that millions of people bust their asses from 40-60 hours per week only to get a measly 2-4% annual raise. Why put in the effort for an extra $30 or so a week?
Reward frequently comes with risk... (Score:3, Insightful)
You are absolutely correct, starting a "gig" that becomes successful does indeed have more reward than working for Microsoft (now that stock options are thin and Microsoft's stock price increase is tepid). But there is the little caveat above: "becomes successful". In the last few years consultants have either been out of work or struggling. Consulting pay is down. Doing a product oriented startup also has risk, since most startup companies fail. So the rewards that you foresee (and hopefully will ach
Re:Another reason to start your own co. (Score:2, Insightful)
You shouldn't be working hard to get a raise. You should be working hard to earn your current salary. Isn't that what you are being paid for?
Tell me why again, you feel you deserve a raise? You agreed to a certain wage - why, all of the sudden, do you feel you deserve more? To buy a new calendar? It doesn't make sense to me that you feel you deserve more money simply because
Re:Another reason to start your own co. (Score:3, Insightful)
THings are going up in price and everyone else makes more money per year and raises are used to cover the cost of inflation. Why should someone be expected to get a paycut annually while everyone else gets raises?
I really wonder if its worth it to get involved in IT anymore? Unless you have a quarter million in revenue hanging around to start your own
Re:Another reason to start your own co. (Score:3, Insightful)
Becuase our employers (generally speaking) would like to retain our services and ensure that we are productive. If I don't get a raise this year, or if I get a raise that is smaller than the cost of living increase in my area, then my effective salar
Upside down (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with US companies - perhaps all companies - is that culture is completely upside down. People who run and own companies (executives and shareholders) are interested in more profits today. Or at least this quarter. Short-term, in any event.
In order to get those short term gains, the company cuts every cost possible. Considering that payroll and benefits is usually the biggest expense to a company, employees (the people doing the work that generates the profit) get to take home only as much as will keep them coming to work tomorrow.
A longer term view would be of benefit to everyone, including the people at the top who are interested in profits. The first aim of management should be to keep its employees very happy. Those employees will, in turn, keep customers happy. The customers will continue to purchase what you're selling, and will tell their colleagues about how great you are.
End result? Employees are happy and well-compensated. (Side note: I know that I would be more productive at work if I didn't have to worry about making ends meet at home.) Customers are satisfied and deliver profits with their own purchases and referrals. Management gets big bonuses. Shareholders get a higher value for their stock.
If your goal is to increase profits, the fallout is having to clean up after a short term gain. If your goal is to increase share value, the fallout is to clean up after shareholders take their short term gains. If your goal is to take good care of your employees, the long term benefits are substantial. This is how Japan took over the US auto industry; with five and ten year plans.
Unfortunately, it's all too easy for executives in the US to jump from one company to another, squeezing the life out of each until it's time to jump again.
Re:Upside down (Score:3, Insightful)
The first aim of management is to keep their fat jobs. They do that by keeping their bosses happy. At the top of the pyramid is the CEO. He keeps his job by keeping the company owner happy. In a publically traded company that owner is the stockholders. Stockholders (or mutual fund managers) don't give a rat's ass about long term - they want return on investment in a 3-12 month time frame so they can keep their jobs.
And that is how capita
Virus (Score:5, Funny)
So in other words, this is MS SARS. Am I wrong in thinking that they claim that Windows Defender can cure it, or at least inoculate against it?
I've Said It Before (Score:2)
And paying other people more than they're getting now doesn't make him any money - in his opinion, at least.
The Microsoft employees should form a charitable foundation and let Bill "donate" his stock to it. Then he'd go for it since he could use it as a PR and stock laundering and corporate investment scheme like he does his own foundation. The employees could be paid out of the income of the foundation like the charities get their money.
nothing surprising to me. (Score:4, Funny)
This sounds like what someone that got a bad review would say.
Incentive Pay Considered Harmful (Score:5, Interesting)
wrote a very thought provoking article back in 2000. It is
called "Incentive Pay Considered Harmful [joelonsoftware.com]".
He discusses how *not* to manage smart, highly educated employees.
Since Joel is a programmer who used to work at MS, his case comes directly
from Redmond.
the way this works... (Score:4, Insightful)
Everybody is evaluated; the evaluation is political, it's painful, and managers don't want to do it, so the results are less than perfect. You should worry if you end up near the bottom, but that's all.
But, in the end, it doesn't matter that much: when times are good, those curves move up and everybody gets a raise.
When times are not so good, nobody gets a raise, except for people who manage to negotiate one. That's the situation Microsoft is in, because although they are still looking good financially, they know they're in trouble.
How do you negotiate a raise? You get a better offer from somewhere else and negotiate. If your company wants to keep you, they'll make a counteroffer. If you made yourself a nuisance or if they think you're not that useful, they'll wish you good luck in your new job.
Re:why? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Bias? (Score:4, Funny)
FELLOW MEMBERS OF THE RIGHT WING CONSPIRICY
How did we let this guy through? I thought the laser-pengiuns that Haliburton made were going to do their JOBS this time.
Instead, this Chomskyit is allowed to speek. WE NEED THOSE LASER-PENGIUNS UP AND RUNNING!
Let's move to PLAN XB21 - ACTIVATE GORILLA MAYHAM!
(signing off) - Illuminati #40202