From: msm@mse.cmu.edu (Mark S McWhinney)
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc
Subject: Re: they really want SALARY HISTORY
Date: 7 Nov 92 06:34:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BxC29y.FD5.2
Organization: CMU/SEI Master of Software Engineering Program


jmpierce@whale.st.usm.edu (Jimmy Malcolm Pierce):

>   Yes, Universities are very good at giving a group an increase. Such as
> 'all staff will get a 2% raise this year.' The staff here hasn't gotten a
> raise in three years as the University 'cannot afford it.' So, that
> creates havoc in my salary history. 

As I said before, universities are a black hole to meaningful salary
histories.  Salary histories before, during, and just after school
have little to do actual worth.  I know of no one who believes that
your salary last summer at McDonalds has any bearing on your worth as
an entry level mechanical engineer or what ever your chosen profession
is.

plutchak@pilsner.geo.brown.edu (Joel Plutchak):

>>3) best != always.  See points 1 and 2.  As soon as someone makes a
>>   generalization, others on the net invariably come up with one or
>>   two counter examples usually in the form of "oh yeah, well my
>>   friend Marvin..."  Generalizations are just that...GENERALIZATIONS.
>>   If you can site [sic] 1,000 counter examples, but I can site 100,000
>>   examples, the generization is still valid.
>
>   So your generalization is the correct one, and theirs isn't?  Could
> you please cite the 100,000 examples for us?

The point I was trying to make is that many people particularly in the
media assert a generalization then supply one or two cases to "prove"
it.  Likewise, opponents give one or two counter examples to show that
the generalization is not always true.  I think that you will agree
that one or two supporting cases are statistically insignificant.
They prove nothing.  If some one stated that something is always true,
then just one counter example would be sufficient to disprove the
statement.  However, if some one stated that something is *generally*
true, then one or two cases would not disprove it.  Of course the
definition of "generally" is subject to debate.

To answer your question, I can think of many people I know who are
over or underpaid.  I can also think of many more that are paid about
what they should be paid.  If I limit the group to only people I know
well enough to make an "accurate" assessment of their capabilities, I
could list about 100 people who are paid what they are worth and about
10 to 15 that are over or under paid.  (Again, I am eliminating
people from the group who are working in school or have just
graduated.)  Of course the definition of the salary range that
determines fair verses unfair pay is subject to debate.

>>   ...I am sure he is a
>>   bright mathematician, but he has a BS in Math which only qualifies
>>   him to flip burgers.  He is still a programmer after 21 years.  His
>>   reference to a medium-term job seems to indicate that he has not
>>   had a career.  This is way beyond 3 sigma.  His salary history is
>>   close to meaningless.  (BTW, don't bother me with flames about
>>   mathematicians and career programmers.  I only made the comments
>>   for effect.)
>
>   And it's having an effect you perhaps don't intend-- it's making
> us take all your rationalizations less seriously.

Point well taken.


paw@coos.dartmouth.edu (Pat Wilson):

> I could move 3 hours south and get a $20K raise instantly (I'm in
> academia, and hence paid on a lower scale)

Certainly

> Rather than salary history, I look for increasing responsibilities
> over time - that's *much* more an indicator than mere money.  

OK, so how do you measure responsibilities in a way that is objective
and fair?


sonic@bearpit.cray.com (Curtis Swanson):

> What if, as someone else has said, you are not someone who always
> fights for the highest salary?  I have always been given an average or
> above average (within the company) raise but, since I like what I'm
> doing and make enough to life nicely, I haven't pushed for maximum
> raises or advancements.  Should I be considered a lesser worker for
> that?  

You just stated that you have always been given average or above
average raises within your company, so I would say the you are
*probably* average to better than average.

Imagine you are a hiring manager.  You have two candidates who have
similar backgrounds.  Each candidate gave you a well written resume
with nice adjectives.  You have talked to both candidates in person.
They are both qualified for the position.  Who do you choose?  

Hint: You know from experience that bad resumes nearly always mean
poor workers, but good resumes do not necessarily mean that candidates
will be a good employees.  You also know that you cannot evaluate a
person in only a few hours.  You have to turn to the people who have
worked with the candidates day in and day out for many years.
However, you know that even the worst employees can usually find three
people who will say something nice about them.  

You end up choosing the candidate who's salary history shows some ups
and downs but is generally good with respect to the environment from
which he/she came.

> Would you rather have a person who's always jumping around looking for
> the biggest wage gain or someone who wants to be paid well for a job
> they like?

Stability is important.  It is expensive and time consuming to bring a
new employee up to speed.  Furthermore, a job hopper is more likely to
leave during the critical phases of a project.  (Invariably, these
clods are the ones who don't bother to comment their code.)  I have
not and will not hire someone who has jumped around, so salary history
is a moot point. 


clifto@indep1.UUCP (Cliff Sharp):

>   There are those of us who don't choose to release salary history because:
> 1) We feel it's highly personal.  If you can't offer us something in the
>    range we deserve, we'd like to know that off the bat.

If you are hired, your boss will have to know your salary for
budgeting reasons.  Personnel and accounting will also know.  If you
are not hired, you probably will never see those people again.

I will not tell my salary to my friends or coworkers, but in an
interview, I have no problem.  If you feel uncomfortable about it,
I'll respect your views, but if I am your hiring manager I will insist
on your salary history as will nearly everyone who is hiring for
non-entry level positions.

>2) We don't necessarily know whom we're talking to.  We don't need our salary
>    laughed at because our current employer tends to deal in cents rather 
>    than dollars.

I have never heard of anyone being laughed at in an interview because
of their salary history, but I am sure it has happened to some people.
Anyone have any good horror stories?

>3) In the Chicago area, many employment ads are to blind addresses.  

This is true all over.  It is usually done to protect the company's
strategic plans from its competitors.  Imagine if you were in the network
business and saw a lot of ads from Apple for TCP/IP network related
positions.  You could conclude that Apple will be coming out with a
new product line of TCP/IP networks in the next 6 to 12 months.

>    (Incidentally, by
>    reputation, Booz, Allen & Hamilton has a VERY bad name in this area;
>    most people who are laid off here get notice by meeting a large guard
>    who will not allow them access to the building, or so I'm told.)

Thanks for the tip.  Do you have more information on them?

>4) Salaries are ALWAYS negotiable.  If I tell you I left Zenith Data Systems
>    at a salary of just over $22,000/year (the absolute minimum for my
>    position), why does that make me less valuable than the lady there who
>    told me she was not only a better programmer (she couldn't even handle
>    examining incoming software from vendors, she asked for my help about once
>    per DAY), she was a better PERSON than I was because she had a degree in
>    Ancient European History?  (She was making $28,000/year; after she made
>    her statement, she lost the only helper she had, and so far as I know
>    she did nothing further except filing until she left the company.)

Well now the whole world knows your salary history.

>    JFYI, I left that $22,000/year job to become a $36,500/year consultant.
>    Mostly because I _refused_ to discuss my current income, only my
>    qualifications.

Huh?

>    If I read you right (and with appropriate apologies, perhaps I
> haven't), you're exactly the kind of person who's more impressed with
> Ph.D.s than with accomplishments.

The snide comments about academics in my early postings should
indicate that I am frustrated with Ph.D.s (and others) that have no
clue as to what goes on in industry.  The well meaning but ignorant
comments about salary histories from people who have never had a real
carrer in industry only serve to annoy even more.


Anatole Wilson <aw3a+@andrew.cmu.edu>:

> In my opinion, the starting salary should be based predominantly on
> the job's worth to the company. That's not exactly an objective
> measure...

Actual, the position's worth can the objectively analyzed from a
cost/benefit view, but that is not the question.  How you evaluate
a particular candidate is the question.

> One company I worked at based salaries on a scale that took into
> account the industry average for each position and the level of
> decision-making required in the position. Not 100% objective, but
> there were no unknowns.

This is typical of many companies, particularly for technical
positions.  The question just changes form; how do you evaluate an
employee's level of responsibility in a former company?
   
>>5) If people with a NON-TRIVIAL level of experience, say 10 years,
>>   have an average salary increase of 5% over the 10 years, they have
>>   just kept up with inflation.  If you argue that they could just be
>>   victims of their circumstances, then I would have to ask that if
>>   they are really better than the 5% rate, why did they not find a
>>   better job?  We all hit bumps and unexpected turns in our career
>>   paths, but after many years our true worth as employees shows
>>   through.  Stated another way, random noise obscures our true value
>>   as shown by our salary rates over the short term, but in the longer
>>   term the noise is less of a factor and the true value comes out.

> While I applaud your idealism and faith in the capitalist system, I
> can only approach this argument with skepticism. You've now limited
> the criteria on which your analysis tool so greatly that it excludes
> major segments of the working population.

> Is ten years experience the lowest "non-trivial" work experience for
> which the "Raise Rate" analysis will work? How do you make decisions
> about someone with less work experience?

The average person works for about 40 years.  People with ten or more
years of experience in one or more careers comprise nearly 75% of the
labor pool.  This hardly excludes a major segment of the working
population or greatly limits the utility of the analysis.  Besides, I
picked the ten year figure to illustrate a point.  Salary histories
can be used at any level of experience.  Obviously the greater the
level of experience, the more meaningful the salary histories are.
Below five years, the histories are pretty much useless as I have
stated many times.

> Finally, let's face it.  The fastest way to get pay increases is to
> move into management. I doubled my salary one year by moving up to a
> managerial position in a small company. I liked the money, but hated
> being a manager. So now, when I work in a corporation, I avoid and
> will even turn down the chance to move into management--I know what I
> like to do. But this will certainly limit the level of pay raises I
> receive.

If you are on a technical track at one company and move to a technical
position in another company, you will not have a problem.  If you try
to move to a management position at another company, you may have
trouble.  However, as you stated, this will not be the case.

> I'm a writer, and a very good writer.

If you are taking classes at CMU, you couldn't be that good. :-)


Mark McWhinney
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc,misc.rural