From: aw3a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Anatole Wilson)
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc
Subject: Re: They really want SALARY
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:03:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.EeyHSra00iV4E1HGds
Organization: Masters student, English, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>> In article <BwwJvr.IMu.2@cs.cmu.edu> msm@mse.cmu.edu (Mark S
McWhinney) write
>s:
>> 
>> <   I believe that the rate of increase in salary is a better indicator
>> <   than final salary.  An applicant that has an annualized increase of 8%
>> <   is one that has been given merit increases.  An applicant that has an
>> <   annualized increase of 5% or less is one that was simply given the
>> <   minimal, cost of living adjustment.
>> <
>4) In an earlier reply to a message from Anatole Wilson, I stated "...
>   so give me a better way of measuring [employee worth as related to
>   starting salary] that is both objective and meaningful."  Not
>   surprisingly, I have received no answers.
> 
When you're dealing with a new employee, naturally you're dealing with
an unknown. How can you be objective about an unknown? 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, but it is
certainly one in which there are no unknowns for the salary negotiator.
(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.)  
    After that base starting salary is decided, there's room for
negotiation based on the employee's experience and what those who
interviewed 
the employee think of him or her. 
    Yes, that's totally subjective, and will also depend on the new
employee's negotiating skills. But I still think it's better to make
these decisions with known factors you can evaluate (since both parties
involved--the new employee and the company--are communicating with each
other), rather than the unknowns a rate of increase brings (since
previous employers are not there to explain the many factors they used
to determine raises).
    
>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? 
    Must this ten years be in the same industry? That's hardly realistic
when the average worker of today will switch not just jobs, but careers
at least three times before they retire. Even if someone does stay in
the same type of job, staying with a company for a long enough time to
meet your criteria is pretty tough in today's economic environment. 
    And you've totally neglected the human factor. Suppose someone has
taken lower pay raises because their former company made up for it in
other ways (benefits, friendships, enjoyable work, etc.) By your
approach, they're to be considered less valuable because they chose to
base their workplace on factors other than how fast they got a raise.  
   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.
(The corporate mentality is that if you're not trying to get into
management, you're not trying. They don't reward "unambitious"
employees.) 
    To judge my worth based on my interest in attaining management
status would be the most short-sighted of all analysis approaches. After
all, am I being hired for the job at hand, or where I want to be in ten
years?
    Again, I think the flaw in your logic is applying a generalized
system that can only work with large amounts of data (either spread out
among many, many people or many years of experience) and applying it to
individual cases. It's just too exclusive and assumes answers for too
many unknowns.
    

Anatole Wilson
------------------------
Business and 
Technical Communications
------------------------   
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc